Global Research

The last Syrian ‘rebel’ unit on the US payroll is dissolving by desertions.  A former senior officer in the US-backed mercenary unit Maghaweir al-Thowra (MAT) deserted his unit in Syria on April 14.  Samir Ghannam al-Khidr deserted the Eastern Syrian desert along with his whole family and 26 armed men.  The convoy was subject to a video on social media, which showed 8 pickups, 1 truck, 11 small arms, including 5 M-16 rifles, 4 large-caliber machine guns, 5 grenade launchers and 6-7 thousand rounds of ammunition.  All of the vehicles and weaponry were US military property. Al-Khidr left the illegal US base at Tanf, which is home to about 200 US soldiers, and about 100 mercenaries of MAT. Previous desertions occurred in early April. 

The official Twitter account of MAT was busily posting scenarios in English.  Their ‘spin-doctor’ belittled the deserter and made it seem that MAT allowed him to leave peacefully as if they packed him a lunch for the road.

Textbook level English 

The MAT is made up of various Eastern Syrian tribes.  English as a second language is taught beginning in 4th grade in all Syrian public schools, which are free of cost and are compulsory through the 9^th grade.  However, the level of English would be very basic, and anyone writing English texts on Twitter, for example, would be easily recognized as a novice in the English language.

However, the level of English used to explain and defend the MAT on their official Twitter account is of the highest level, comparable to an American, for example.  Most likely, the account holder of the MAT Twitter account is not a member of the MAT, but rather a member of the US Special Forces.  A US soldier was likely tasked with being the official public relations representative for MAT and sits at a laptop every day fielding complaints, accusations and commenting on charges against MAT in the news and social media.

Syrians use Arabic as their first language.  When University educated Syrians, who have more than basic English language skills, were asked to review the Twitter account postings for MAT, they all could tell that was not written by any Eastern Syrian tribesman, carrying a machine gun, and looking like a ‘Hollywood-Double’ for ISIS.  The members of MAT work for the US military, but they are not US-educated.

The illegal US base at Tanf

The US Army Special Forces have trained MAT at Tanf since 2016 to fight against ISIS, which was defeated in 2017.  It would follow that MAT should have been disbanded several years ago, except the US could see a use for them as local guards of the small contingent of US soldiers.  The MAT also was guarding the Baghdad-Damascus highway, which is a strategic trade route. Tanf is a US military base in Syria which is illegal under international law. There is no purpose for the base at Tanf except to thwart the free movement of goods and people on the Iraq-Syria highway.

Drugs, smuggling, and exploiting refugees

The recent deserter, Samir Ghannam al-Khidr, has been accused of being a drug dealer and smuggler between Jordan and the illegal US base at Tanf. He was accused last year of drug dealing and was detained but allowed to return to the US base at Tanf.  This is not the first time drugs have made headlines in connection with the US Special Forces at Tanf. In June 2018, MAT was involved in a large drug bust at Tanf.  The drugs were estimated to be valued at about $1.4 million.  The unit captured more than 300,000 Captagon tablets.  Captagon is classified as an “amphetamine-type stimulant” and has been used by ISIS as it keeps the fighters awake and has a mental effect of diminishing the conscience, allowing them to be vicious killers.  Captagon is also the popular illicit drug throughout the Arab Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

MAT may have been introduced to the value of drug dealing in an area in Syria which has no government, or police supervision.  The US base at Tanf is in a ‘no-man’s-land’ without any police, courts or judges. The Syrian government is not present there, and the US military likely turned a blind eye to the crimes being carried out by their mercenaries MAT.

The Rukban Refugee Camp is near the base at Tanf, and MAT has been used to provide security for the camp.  Thousands of refugees have been living in squalor and suffering there; however, many have left the camp by paying bribes to MAT, to leave for the Syrian government-controlled city of Palmyra.  Abu Muhammed recalled his ordeal at Rukban after leaving and told of how MAT would sell aid items that had been donated by international relief organizations.

“Sometimes, we received aid from the Red Crescent, but we only saw a small portion of it, most often sold to us, not given for free. The militants take the free aid and resell it to the refugees — that’s their business. To get money, we had to work at the camp. They set up a brick factory and we had to work like dogs there,” he said, and added, “They are all armed, they walk the camp with rifles, they have semi-military equipment and they own the place.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

Who is at fault?

The Covid-19 pandemic has been a real roller-coaster ride as far as geo-politics is concerned.

Through the chaos and the barrage of information and updates on the on-going pandemic, there are still those, especially among the political elite who have moved ahead of the pandemic management curve and have begun investing time and energy into calling for accountability and reparations from those they claim were the chief cause of many catastrophic global, social infrastructure failures.

As of 20^th April 2020, the United States has over 764,000 cases of Covid-19 with a staggering number of lives lost at over 40,000.

The question that is on everyone’s mind is how did a supposedly first world country like the United States, which has spent trillions of dollars in its overly inflated military budget, continue to send aid worth USD$3.8 billion to Israel, and touts itself as the global superpower unrivalled by any other, do so poorly in mitigating this crisis, but has allowed it to cripple its societal and economic balance at such an unprecedented scale?

Many are familiar with the rhetoric now that the United States (US) have directly blamed the World Health Organization (WHO), especially its chief Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, of not only failing to characterize the appropriate level of severity of the virus, but also for being too China-centric, depicting both of these as failings that have led to the present level of the pandemic.

As a result, Trump has decided to cut funding for the WHO, a crude retaliation for the perceived failing of the WHO to effectively inform about the severity of the virus.

The Trump Administration has also levelled criticism towards China’s reported cases of the Covid-19, accusing it of inaccuracies and false reporting, which is what was claimed tohavemisled many on the severity of the virus.

The varying and predictable responses were given, and blame was laid first and foremost at the WHO and China’s feet.

But is this truly a fair assessment?

Authority, responsibility and reality

It has to be acknowledged that during the initial phase of the virus pandemic, there was lacking a sense of urgency when it came to understanding the severity of the virus. The hardest affected country then was China, beginning in January, with over 80,000 cases.

The WHO, in the early stages of the pandemic, did mention that there was no evidence of human to human transmissions, that there was no need to impose any travel restrictions or bans to affected countries, and it did mention, too, that there was no need to wear face-masks.

Obviously, these previous statements did inform in some way on how seriously people took the disease, and perhaps contributed to the perception and misinformation that the virus was no worse than the flu.

So, is the WHO at fault for not considering the issue as severe from the very beginning?

Partly.

As an authoritative and trusted world body, its advice on matters pertaining to public health is crucial for policymakers and world leaders to ensure appropriate action and decision-making.

But with China reporting a downward trend of infections and local Covid-19 casesby February 2020, the worst was thought to be over. It was assumed that as the totalitarian measures taken by China to contain the virus had worked.

China’s virus looked like it was mainly China’s problem and there was no need to worry.

However, the pandemic, had begun to ramp up around the globe only in March 2020 with South East Asia and much of Europe suddenly begun turning into the new epicentres of the virus, with many falling to the virus at unexpected levels.

With this in mind, the situation that the WHO found itself in was one of shock, to the core, as within the span of a couple of months, the virus had attacked more viciously than ever and had outpaced our ability to respond.

The Chinese trust deficit: The China COVID-19 numbers

The first case of Covid-19 was reported by Beijing on December 31, 2019.

Was there an attempt at concealment, of the epidemic initially?

Strong evidence suggeststhat there was censuring. Those who spoke out about the virus, most notably Dr. Li Wenliang, who was the first to whistle blow on the virus was censured.

However, such secrets as the scale of the infection, cannot be kept hidden long and by January the whole world knew about the virus.

One may also recall that when the virus had hit its peak in China, on February 13^th, Xi Jinping had moved to remove Communist Party officials who were in charge of the Hubei Province and Wuhan city. They were thoroughly replaced with Beijing’s hardliners.

Soon after, the city was in full lockdown, and the number of cases started pouring in.

But are these numbers trustworthy? After all the Chinese government has had a long-standing reputation for secrecy and censuring,

It is wholly understandable why people would mistrust their internal reports.

This move was made after the previous local government had reportedly attempted to subdue to the severity of the virus. Drawing from the country’s previous experience with the SARS pandemic, the Chinese government most likely knew that the secretive approach it had previously taken would not work.

As Yanzhong Huang, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations had noted, the truthfulness in China’s reporting may be trustworthy, mainly because it is in its best interest to report the accurate numbers. After Xi Jinping’s firm reshuffling of the Hubei Province leadership, the Chinese President ordered more resolute efforts to bring the outbreak under control.

A comparison of China’s fatality rate by the virus with those outside of the Hubei province, and its regional neighbor, South Korea, closely matched. Data corroboration such as these confirm the validity of the numbers there. Hubei Province began reporting consistent updates ofcases and fatalities as well and their numbers were higher because the number of cases overwhelmed the local healthcare system and given the early stages of the virus’s discovery, many didn’t know how to best treat the virus.

The biggest spike in the number of cases on February 13^th, 2020, was when it had begun to use CT scans on patients’ lungs rather than just traditional lab-test confirmation, allowing people to be isolated faster. China had changed the way it had detected cases several times but given that the pandemic was in its infancy, it is understandable.

Many of the numbers had been listed out in a comprehensive report on February 28^th by the Chinese CDC and the WHO, which highly detailed the age brackets, methods on how the virus was contracted and the affected areas.

And finally, unlike the SARS outbreak which was only reported four months after the first case, the Covid-19 cases were reported within days of the first cluster which had appeared in Wuhan.

Between January 30^th to February 16^th, China had conducted 320,000 tests in the Guangdong province alone, which were all reported on a fairly regular basis.

China has been fairly transparent with its reporting and documentation, during the initial stages of the Covid-19 Pandemic and throughout, even sharing the mapped-out genetic sequence of the viruswas revealedwithin weeks of the first case.

It is to China’s credit that it had managed to contain the virus as well as it did, especially in a country of 1.39 billion people.

As Matteo Chinazzi from the Laboratory for the Modelling of Biological and Socio-Technical Systems at the Northeastern University in Boston had noted in his publication to Science, China’s efforts had cut the number of Covid-19 cases by 77 percent.

This understanding of the differences in governance and cultural make-up between Western and East-Asian societies explains why the Chinese experience cannot be replicated elsewhere.

Such factors which many have pointed out, is due to the highly-controlled governance of the Chinese state, its technologically sophisticated surveillance infrastructure, and highly coordinated social-mobilization; no other country can tout the same level of social mobilization as China does.

Its hard-handed approach towards maintaining social cohesion and control, may be seen by others as a human rights travesty, but it has allowed China to mitigate the spread of the virus domestically.

Decisive crisis management and the lessons learned

With all that has been mentioned so far, does it still stand to reason that the WHO and China are to be blamed for the current crisis shaking much of the world?

Did countries like the U.S and many others in Europe not have enough time to adequately prepare, and if they had more heads-up and more trustworthy numbers would the impact have been mitigated?

Despite having news of the virus in early January, there was no caution taken to successfully mitigate its spread in the West.

There have even been reports that indicated the U.S’ own military intelligence agencies had tried to raise alarms about the epidemic in China as early as November 2019, well before even China had first reported it to the WHO.

Reportedly, many analysts at the National Center for Medical Intelligence, a subsidiary of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, had alerted Donald Trump’s administration officials months before. When the report had finally reached the President’s attention it would then purportedly undergo weeks of vetting and analysis.

So, if the U.S knew that the virus was already a severe issue then, how can it stay on its claim that the WHO and China were responsible for the severity of the US and European cases?

The WHO funding cut, and the accusations laid towards China are more indicative of an internal political dispute that is being played out in the U.S. with geopolitics involved.

With China having recently lifted the lockdowns on Wuhan, it has begun to re-ignite the engines of its economy. Depending on how the crisis plays out, some speculate that China may have the economic advantage to get ahead of the curve while its rivals are still in quarantine and lockdown, with their economies at a standstill.

To the elites of the hegemon, this is unacceptable.

This perhaps also explains why President Donald Trump had expressed intentions to re-open the U.S economy in May, a prospect which many of his health advisors have deemed as overly optimistic.

So perhaps the desperation of restarting the U.S economy, to rectify the surging joblessness crisis, the need to counter-balance China’s own reboot, is the main driving factor in this case.

It is no secret that much of the perceived success of U.S President Donald Trump, relies heavily on the alleged economic boom that he engineered bringing the US to new heights.

The Make America Great Again dream is quickly being undone by Covid-19.

If the U.S were to slump even further because of the Covid-19 pandemic, this will provide more proverbial ammunition for the President’s political rivals to tear him down and threaten the future of his presidency.

To hope for a well-guided future

With all that has been mentioned, laying blame for the Covid-19 on China and the WHO doesn’t hold much water, and perhaps doesn’t hold much relevance in the present situation.

The crisis that has been unfolding, had begun back in January 2020, but given the spread of the virus and the impact beginning to take shape in March 2020 around the world, there was perhaps little to no time to adequately prepare.

A lot of the blaming and finger pointing are exercises in political disaster control that is frankly not needed at this time.

It only serves to confuse andanger, which does not benefit anyone.

What is needed is strong decisive leadership and management from not just the political elites, but from local governments and community leaders. In the U.S much praise has been lauded towards Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has been regularly updating on the virus and its impact towards the citizens of New York. In Malaysia, the Health Director General Dr. Noor Hisham Abdullah has received much praise in his handling and management of the pandemic with many Malaysians looking to him for guidance.

Praise needs to also be given to the local groups and front-liners whose initiatives are helping to us all ease through the crisis, as none are playing a small part in these trying times.

But if the Chinese experience is to be examined and contrasted with what is going on elsewhere, the lesson to be drawn here is that perhaps it is not just the preparation of a crisis that helps mitigate its impact, but, more importantly, the management of it which determines the outcome.

Rarely are we actually able to fully prepare adequately, but at this time, strong leadership, coordination and cooperation are the essential to succeeding against the virus.

In times of peace there are politicians, but in times of crisis, the true leaders emerge.

 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Hassanal Noor Rashid is a Programme Coordinator for the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

From California to New Jersey, Americans are protesting in the streets. They are demanding an end to house arrest orders given by government officials over a virus outbreak that even according to the latest US government numbers will claim fewer lives than the seasonal flu outbreak of 2017-2018.

Across the US, millions of businesses have been shut down by “executive order” and the unemployment rate has skyrocketed to levels not seen since the Great Depression. Americans, who have seen their real wages decline thanks to Federal Reserve monetary malpractice, are finding themselves thrust into poverty and standing in breadlines. It is like a horror movie, but it’s real.

Last week the UN Secretary General warned that a global recession resulting from the worldwide coronavirus lockdown could cause “hundreds of thousands of additional child deaths per year.” As of this writing, less than 170,000 have been reported to have died from the coronavirus worldwide.

Many Americans have also died this past month because they were not able to get the medical care they needed. Cancer treatments have been indefinitely postponed. Life-saving surgeries have been put off to make room for coronavirus cases. Meanwhile hospitals are laying off thousands because the expected coronavirus cases have not come and the hospitals are partially empty.

What if the “cure” is worse than the disease?

Countries like Sweden that did not lock down their economy and place the population under house arrest are faring no worse than countries that did. Sweden’s deaths-per-million from coronavirus is lower than in many lockdown countries.

Likewise, US states that did not arrest citizens for merely walking on the beach are not doing worse than those that did. South Dakota governor Kristi Noem said last week, “we’ve been able to keep our businesses open and allow people to take on some personal responsibility.” South Dakota has recorded a total of seven coronavirus deaths.

Kentucky, a strict lockdown state, is five times more populated than South Dakota, yet it has some 20 times more coronavirus deaths. If lockdown and house arrest are the answer, shouldn’t those numbers be reversed, with South Dakota seeing mass death while Kentucky dodges the coronavirus bullet?

When Anthony Fauci first warned that two million would die, there was a race among federal, state, and local officials to see who could rip up the Constitution fastest. Then Fauci told us if we do what he says only a quarter of a million would die. They locked America down even harder. Then, with little more than a shrug of the shoulders, they announced that a maximum of 60,000 would die, but maybe less. That is certainly terrible, but it’s just a high-average flu season.

Imagine if we had used even a fraction of the resources spent to lock down the entire population and focused on providing assistance and protection to the most vulnerable – the elderly and those with serious medical conditions. We could have protected these people and still had an economy to go back to when the virus had run its course. And it wouldn’t have cost us six trillion dollars either.

Governments have no right or authority to tell us what business or other activity is “essential.” Only in totalitarian states does the government claim this authority. We should encourage all those who are standing up peacefully and demanding an accounting from their elected leaders. They should not be able to get away with this.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

There is surprisingly a certain degree of optimism around at the moment, despite virtually entire populations and economies on lockdown. Although things are really bad for millions right now due to the effects of lockdown, economist Mariana Mazzucato believes that the Covid-19 crisis will shine light on societal and economic systems all across the world, exposing some of the deep-rooted flaws of capitalism.  

After lockdown ends, Mazzucato believes societies can be reshaped to become more inclusive. She says an overly financialised business sector has been siphoning value out of the economy by rewarding shareholders through stock-buyback schemes, rather than shoring up long-run growth by investing in research and development, wages and worker training. Mazzacuto thinks we can use the current state of emergency to start building a fairer and more sustainable economy with the state playing a leading role to serve the public interest over the long term.

Her optimism is also shared by others who think that out the wreckage of the current crisis, the state and citizens can work together to shift towards more stakeholder capitalist or even more socialist oriented societies. 

The reality, however, may merely mean the entrenchment of the prevailing system. For example, does anyone really believe that the ruling Conservative administration in the UK genuinely cares about the well-being of ordinary people or has any kind of commitment to publicly funded institutions? The Conservative Party has devastated millions of lives courtesy of an ideologically driven austerity agenda for over a decade. And for over three decades, it has been waging war on workers, unions and the public sector on behalf of global capital.

The situation is not unique to the UK. In India, successive administrations have been facilitating neoliberal policies that have led to a wholly avoidable agrarian crisis, marked by farmer suicides, child malnourishment, growing unemployment, increased informalisation, indebtedness and an overall collapse of agriculture. If anything, the current Modi administration has been keen to further open up the sector to the demands of Western agrocapital. 

Things in the US hardly merit optimism for radical change either. The Federal Reserve estimates over 47 million will lose their jobs in the US, taking unemployment to almost a third of the labour force. This is more than during the Great Depression of the 1930s. However, in a series of short explanatory films for the layperson, analyst John Titus shows that US capitalism and the privately owned Fed are not going to change their spots: Wall Street and its top executives will continue to enrich themselves, while the public will suffer throughout the duration of lockdown, which could persist in various forms for 18 months.

Even if we take a brief, more general look at what is happening, we can see that, for instance, factory farms in the US are expected to receive $23.5 billion in stimulus money. The Center for Biological Diversity and allies have urged congress to direct these funds to small and mid-size farmers instead of big agri-food concerns. With the threat of environmental regulation rollbacks also on the cards, it is clear the current crisis is being used to consolidate the position of major players in the sector.

Consider too that, according to a recent piece in the New York Times, the $2 trillion-plus coronavirus relief package making its way through US congress will give bailouts to a number of key industries and companies that have indulged in the types of shameful activities that Mazzucato outlines. The airline industry is expected to get some $50 billion in cash and loans and Boeing, which asked for $60 billion, is widely expected to receive some part of a $17 billion fund.  

During the past decade, most of the companies in line to get taxpayer money did not prepare for a downturn. For example, the airline industry, which is prone to booms and busts, collectively spent more than $45 billion on stock buybacks over the past eight years. Viewed in context, The New York Times says the relief package still amounts to a bailout of private capital and the endorsement of self-enriching practices.

Further Neoliberal reforms

The current crisis is hitting workers hard across the world, possibly more so in India than elsewhere. Consider that nearly half of India’s workforce of 467 million is self-employed, 36 percent are casual wage workers, while only 17 percent are regular wage workers. Two-thirds of them work without contracts and more than 90 percent lack any social security or health benefits in the workplace. The six-week coronavirus lockdown has made survival extremely difficult for them.

But is there hope on the horizon? World Bank Group President David Malpass recently stated that poorer countries will be ‘helped’ to get back on their feet after the various lockdowns that have been implemented in response to the Covid-19 crisis. However, before getting anyone’s hopes up too much, this ‘help’ will be on condition that neoliberal reforms and the undermining of public services are implemented and become further embedded.

Malpass says:

“Countries will need to implement structural reforms to help shorten the time to recovery and create confidence that the recovery can be strong.  For those countries that have excessive regulations, subsidies, licensing regimes, trade protection or litigiousness as obstacles, we will work with them to foster markets, choice and faster growth prospects during the recovery.”

Ranil Salgado, mission chief for India at the IMF, echoes the views of Malpass by saying that when the economic shock passes, it’s important that India returns to its path of undertaking long-term reforms. 

In the face of economic crisis and stagnation at home, this would seem like an ideal opportunity for Western capital to further open up and loot economies abroad. On 20 April, the Wall Street Journal ran the headline ‘IMF, World Bank Face Deluge of Aid Requests From Developing World. Scores of countries are asking for bailouts and loans from financial institutions with $1.2 trillion to lend. An ideal recipe for fuelling dependency.

Global conglomerates will be able to hollow out the remnants of nation state sovereignty, while ordinary people’s rights and ability to organise and challenge the corporate hijack of economies and livelihoods will be undermined by the intensified, globalised system of surveillance that beckons.

This is a sentiment shared by economics professor Michel Chossudovsky, who implies Covid-19 provides ideal cover for rebooting the global economy via a global debt crisis and the subsequent privatization of national states. The current crisis will certainly have the effect of impoverishing hundreds of millions of workers and increasing the national debt of nations. It could prove so devastating to economies that bailout packages from global financial institutions might saddle nation states with debts that prove almost impossible to pay back.

Dollar denominated loans will help secure the global hegemony of the dollar, which has been looking increasingly fragile in recent years.

At the same time, with mass unemployment and workers’ pay decimated, ordinary people in both rich and poor countries will have finally reached the finishing line in the race towards the bottom. Workers’ rights and well-paid jobs will be at a premium, with a global reserve army of labour waiting in the wings to snap up any work that is available.

In India, neoliberal reforms have already devastated many livelihoods and the US – via the WTO and World Bank – has since the 1990s been pushing India to further open up to Western goods and corporations. Pressure has been applied to further reduce subsidies to the farm sector and to dismantle mechanisms which have ensured some degree of food security for the hundreds of millions who rely on state support.

As the lockdown plays out in India, we see stories of fractured supply chains and of farmers who cannot sell their produce. In rural areas, millions of migrant workers have returned to the countryside. Rural affairs commentator P Sainath paints a dreary picture of the impacts of India’s lockdown. He discusses the desperate plight of migrant workers, a shortage of cash to buy food and a potential shortage of food as farmers are unable to complete their harvests.

He notes that Dr. Sundararaman, a former executive director of the National Health Systems Resources Centre, asserts that there is a desperate need to “identify and act on the reverse migrations problem and the loss of livelihoods. Failing that, deaths from diseases that have long tormented mostly poor Indians could outstrip those brought about by the corona virus.”

But no doubt cash-rich Western capital which will gain from the trillions being pumped into the system will see many strategic opportunities to benefit. It has been pushing via the World Bank to bring Indian agriculture under corporate control for a long time. This would involve forcing GMO food crops into the country, the displacement of peasant farmers, corporate consolidation and commercialisation based on industrial-scale monocrop farms incorporated into global supply chains dominated by transnational agribusiness and retail giants.

This would amount to the wholesale restructuring of Indian society. What we could see is the acceleration of existing processes which have already led to what Sainath describes as a crisis of civilisation proportions.

Across the world, people need to question the narrative, the data and the data collection methods surrounding Covid-19 and assess whether lockdowns and their devastating effects are in line with the risks involved. Because, five years from now, given what is at stake and the massive hardships being endured, it will then be too late to look back and say it was all based on flawed data and wrongheaded responses and was driven by vested interests who were set to benefit financially.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

President Trump recently praised a deal reached largely by Saudi Arabia and Russia, two of the top oil producers in the world who together dominate the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), saying that the agreed upon production cuts would “save hundreds of thousands of energy jobs in the United States.”

Despite the president’s rosy tone, most analysts have called the agreement – which presumably will freeze the Saudi-Russian oil price war that broke out last month – “too little too late” and have noted that a slew of bankruptcies from the U.S. shale oil industry are inevitable, despite the actions that have been taken. Even the Federal Reserve has stated that around 40% of domestic shale companies now face bankruptcy in just a few months if the price of oil remains under $30, a figure it is unlikely to pass for some time due to slumping demand caused by global lockdowns, among other factors that have emerged as the current coronavirus (Covid-19) crisis has played out. Trump has since fielded the possibility of imposing tariffs on oil imports to drive up oil prices and favor the domestic consumption of U.S. shale oil, but it remains to be seen if that policy will materialize.

Michael Hudson, President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET), a former Wall Street financial analyst and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, told The Last American Vagabond that, not only are numerous shale oil companies set to go out of business, but the entire shale oil industry in the U.S. “can’t be saved.”

“We have peak shale oil,” Hudson stated, “It was always an awful idea … It’s an over indebted sector and is one of the first to go.”

Hudson further asserted that the U.S. government’s “nurturing” of the shale oil sector in recent years was chiefly aimed at targeting Russia’s oil industry by driving down global oil prices, calling it an unsuccessful “anti-Russian cold war campaign” that has since backfired. He added that Trump’s recent overtures with respect to the shale oil industry are likely aimed at “making an excuse to give huge loans to the shale oil producers, as if it’s to keep them in business, and then they [the oil companies] are just going to pay the loans to themselves and go out of business. It’s a cover story for a huge corporate giveaway before this sector falls and goes bankrupt.”

Thus, the imminent reckoning for shale oil in the U.S. is unlikely to be stopped, despite the new production cuts and Trump’s efforts last month to set aside billions for the purchase of shale oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), a move critics labeled as a bail-out for domestic “Big Oil” producers. In addition, the fate of U.S. shale oil is compounded by the possibility that the production cuts will not hold and that the oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia could flare up again at any time. Previous yet recent OPEC-brokered deals of a similar nature have ended in this way, and it is very possible – if not likely – that it will happen again.

With oil extremely cheap at the moment, some of the issues raised by shale oil bankruptcies are not necessarily of immediate concern while demand remains low. Yet, if enough U.S. domestic oil producers go bankrupt, once current lockdowns are relaxed and oil demand creeps back up to relatively normal levels, there will be less domestic oil available, despite the SPR. As a result, the U.S. will again have to look more to other countries in order to make up the difference. Though the media thus far has explored the economic effects of this eventuality, less attention – if any – has been given to how it will impact U.S. foreign policy.

For years, President Trump has publicly claimed on several occasions that U.S. foreign policy objectives in the Middle East were no longer guided by oil due to the U.S. having obtained “energy independence,” “independence” that relies heavily on U.S. shale oil production. However, critics – including Michael Hudson – have long charged that this claim of energy independence is a “deliberate falsification.” Such claims are also supported by the fact that U.S. foreign policy in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere has remained linked to oil in key ways during this period of so-called “domestic energy independence” under Trump. Yet, the bankruptcies of 40% (or perhaps more) of U.S. shale oil producers would likely greatly increase the role oil plays in guiding U.S. foreign policy.

While there are many reasons as to why oil has long been a key factor in U.S. foreign policy (with the petrodollar ranking chief among them), another often overlooked reason is the U.S. military’s heavy reliance on oil. Indeed, the U.S. military is the largest institutional purchaser and consumer of oil in the world and, therefore, securing a reliable, stable and –ideally – geographically nearby source of oil has long been deemed a critical, strategic objective by the Pentagon.

The Pentagon has said as much on numerous occasions, stating recently that

 “… longer operating distances, remote and austere geography, and anti-access/area denial threats [areas or nations unfriendly to the U.S.] are challenging the Department’s ability to assure the delivery of fuel. As the ability to deliver energy is placed at risk, so too is the Department’s ability to deploy and sustain forces around the globe.”

In other words, long distances from fuel sources as well as fuel sources located in or near areas/nations that are hostile to the U.S. directly threaten U.S. empire and its global military presence. In addition, control and influence over global oil flows has long been a key component of military strategy, as noted in the “Wolfowitz Doctrine.”

It is also worth noting that the economic calamity that threatens the domestic oil industry is not the only reliable, stable and geographically close oil supply to be hit by the crisis. For instance, Argentina’s shale oil industry in the “Vaca Muerta” area also faces ruin, an endeavor that had largely been “kick-started” by Exxon Mobil after that company had been ejected from Venezuela and also includes considerable investments from another U.S. oil giant, Chevron – a company ordered by the Trump administration to stop doing business in Venezuela by April 22.

US returns attention to Venezuela amid domestic oil collapse

Venezuela, the country with the world’s largest proven oil reserves, has also made a seemingly odd reappearance on the Trump administration’s list of priorities during the current coronavirus crisis. On March 26, the Department of Justice, led by Attorney General William Barr, announced narco-terrorism and other criminal charges against top Venezuelan officials, including the country’s president Nicolás Maduro, alleging that these officials are involved in the trafficking of cocaine to the United States. The charges were odd for a few reasons, one of the main ones being that the U.S. government’s own data shows that Colombia, not Venezuela, is the source of the vast majority of cocaine that ends up in the U.S.

Then, on March 31, former CIA director and current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo released a plan entitled “Democratic Framework for Venezuela,” where he demanded that Maduro resign and the “opposition” figure Juan Guaidó also relinquish his claim to the Venezuelan presidency, a claim to power that the U.S. had previously backed. Pompeo’s plan calls for the formation of a council that would be led by an “interim president” (a title the U.S. had previously reserved for Guaidó) and that the council would be formed by members of Venezuela’s largest four political parties, including that led by Maduro. Unsurprisingly, Maduro’s government rejected the plan.

The criminal charges against Maduro and Pompeo’s “democratic” plan were quickly followed with much more troubling news. Announced at a press conference on April 1, President Trump, alongside top government officials, announced that U.S. Southern Command would begin a new “counter-narcotics effort” targeting Venezuela that would include the deployment of Navy destroyers, combat ships, aircraft, helicopters and more. The official justification of this large deployment is to surveil, disrupt and seize shipments allegedly containing “drugs” that are leaving Venezuela.

“We must not let narco-terrorists exploit the pandemic to threaten American lives,” Trump said at the time.

It was also announced that other countries would be joining the U.S. in what amounts to both a military build-up and a de facto blockade of Venezuelan exports, including its oil.

Soon after the announcement regarding this new build-up and de facto naval blockade of Venezuela, U.S. media accused President Trump of using these announcements to deflect criticism about his administration’s handling of the federal response to the coronavirus crisis. One report in Newsweek revealed that these initiatives with respect to Venezuela had been planned several months ago and were set to be announced this May. That report also alleged, citing senior Pentagon officials, that the administration had decided to announce the planned crackdowns on Venezuela sooner in order to “redirect attention.”

However, there may be another reason that these initiatives targeting Venezuela were sped up: the carnage in shale oil markets in the U.S. as well as Argentina and the implications of that for U.S. access – particularly the military’s access – to oil supplies once lockdowns and their associated economic effects begin to lessen.

Michael Hudson told The Last American Vagabond that the U.S. pivot towards Venezuela was “absolutely” related to the carnage in global oil markets and particularly the U.S. oil industry. He further argued that the U.S. was seeking to reimpose a debt-for-oil system that it had enjoyed under pre-Chavista governments in Venezuela:

“Under U.S.-backed dictators, Venezuela provided the collateral [for its debt] with all of its oil reserves… [Now,] America wants to give IMF [International Monetary Fund] loans to Venezuela and [oversee] the collateralization of Venezuela’s foreign debt with its oil reserves and then foreclose. [They want to] find an excuse to do to Venezuela what it did to Argentina, to grab Venezuela’s oil reserves as collateral by … preventing Venezuela from paying its foreign debt, [thus] forcing it to default on its foreign debt.”

This certainly seems to be a big part of the equation, as the U.S.-backed Juan Guaidó has long promoted IMF loans and personally sought sizable loans from that organization to finance his “interim government,” which controls essentially nothing in Venezuela. More recently, the IMF rejected Venezuela’s request for a loan to help it combat the coronavirus crisis, but the IMF has reportedly offered to give the country such a loan were Venezuela’s President, Nicolas Maduro, to step down and cede authority to a U.S.-backed “emergency government.”

Yet, there is much more to be concerned about than the IMF and the U.S.’ interest in imposing a debt-for-oil scheme on Venezuela. As Hudson told The Last American Vagabond, one very notable “great threat” is the parallel between the recent U.S. policy and military moves towards Venezuela and the moves that were made by the George H.W. Bush administration just prior to the 1989 invasion of Panama. “America would like to grab Venezuela’s oil and it wouldn’t be the first time,” said Hudson.

Regime change in the time of coronavirus

Though recent mainstream media reports claimed that the sudden reappearance of Venezuela on the White House’s agenda was merely political theater, subsequent events suggest something else. This past Saturday, U.S. envoy for Venezuela – war criminal and Project for a New American Century neo-con Elliott Abrams – stated that, if Venezuela’s Maduro did not agree to the Pompeo plan for a new “transition government,” a transition in Venezuelan governance would still occur, but would be more “dangerous and abrupt.” Abrams’ comments failed to generate much buzz in the media, as the April 1 press conference and announcement had done, despite the fact that Abrams was essentially starting that “dangerous and abrupt” action would be taken to force Maduro from power.

There is also the added mystery of an incident that took place right before the announcement of the large deployment of U.S. military assets to target “narco-terrorism.” On the last day of March, a Venezuelan coast guard ship asked a Portuguese cruise ship, the “RCGS Resolute,” that was in Venezuelan territorial waters to accompany it to port. Instead, the cruise ship rammed the Venezuelan vessel, sinking it. Maduro subsequently claimed that the cruise ship “was being used to transport mercenaries,” noting that Dutch authorities in Curacao, where the “RCGS Resolute” is currently docked, had been instructed to not inspect the ship. The company that owns the cruise ship, however, asserts that it is carrying no passengers and disputes Venezuela’s account of why the coast guard vessel was sunk.

In addition to this disconcerting event, there is the fact that the U.S.’ recently announced military build-up is the largest in the region since the U.S. invasion of Panama, which took place in 1989 during the George H.W. Bush administration. Disturbingly, the same Attorney General that greenlit the invasion of Panama once again serves in that same role in today’s administration, William Barr. At the time of the Panama invasion, it was Barr who created the legal justification for the war, arguing that the U.S. had the “legal authority” to arrest Panama’s then-dictator Manuel Noriega on drug charges, despite him not residing in the U.S. To think that Barr would not do so again is naive, especially considering that Trump had previously pushed to invade Venezuela, citing the invasion of Panama as an example of successful “gunboat diplomacy,” and has long talked about “taking the oil” of foreign countries and, in places like Syria, has used military force to do just that.

Though the 1989 invasion of Panama was dressed up in the typical rhetoric of restoring “democracy” and promoting “human rights,” it was actually waged with the intention to utterly destroy Panama’s military. Why would the U.S. want to destroy Panama’s capacity for self-defense? The answer lies in the treaty that then existed between Panama and the U.S. over the Panama canal, whereby control over the canal would eventually be returned to the Panamanians.

The only “loophole” for the U.S. to retain control of the canal, per that treaty, was if Panama became incapable of defending it. Notably, the gradual turnover of control of the canal was set to begin just ten days after the Bush administration’s invasion of Panama ended. Not long after the invasion, in 1991, the U.S. passed a law that ensured an indefinite U.S. military presence in the canal zone due to the fact that Panama (thanks to the U.S. invasion) could no longer defend that territory.

There are other notable points regarding the invasion of Panama that are seemingly relevant today as well. For instance, media’s effort to manufacture public consent for the invasion was largely centered around pointing out Manuel Noriega’s involvement in narco-trafficking and Panama’s lack of democracy under his rule. Of course, this rhetoric has obvious similarities to current rhetoric involving Venezuela.

However, this media campaign, in Noriega’s case, failed to note that the Noriega’s role in drug smuggling was largely on the behalf of U.S. interests and that Noriega had closely collaborated with then-President, George H.W. Bush, when he had served as CIA director. In addition, Noriega was well known at the time to have been on the CIA payroll for years. Such reports also overlooked the fact that the CIA had recently been caught driving the trafficking of drugs and weapons between Central America and the U.S. as part of the Iran Contra scandal. If these reports had pointed this out, it would have made Noriega’s involvement in these matters, including his supporting role in Iran Contra, appear negligible by comparison.

Similarly, today, efforts to link Venezuelan leadership to the drug trade fail to note that the U.S.-backed Juan Guaidó took selfies with a narco-paramilitary organization just a few months ago and that Colombian leadership and its military, the U.S.’ biggest regional supporter of its Venezuela regime change agenda, both share direct ties to drug cartels.

It is also worth pointing out that, not only did the U.S. military hide the actual civilian death toll and cover up the war crimes committed during the invasion, they tested out new experimental weapons on the Panamanian people, which CounterPunch noted was “a kind of dress rehearsal for the Persian Gulf War the following year.” As many readers of this article are likely aware, the Trump administration has been making strong overtures about regime change, and potentially war, in Iran alongside their push for regime change in Venezuela. Were a similar invasion to occur in Venezuela, it seems likely that this pattern would repeat and would be treated as an experimental battlefield for a subsequent war in Iran.

The current confluence of factors suggests that such a Panama-style invasion of Venezuela is not only a possibility, but increasingly likely. Indeed, as previously mentioned, the U.S. has ordered the few U.S. companies that have been given waivers to avoid sanctions for their operations in Venezuela (namely Chevron) to terminate their dealings in the country by April 22 – next Wednesday. In addition, soon after that date, Venezuela’s oil sector is set to resume two joint oil ventures, one of which involves two European oil companies and another that involves Russia’ Rosneft, which the U.S. sanctioned in February for doing business with Venezuela’s state oil company. Those projects are due to re-initiate in May and July, respectively. The U.S. is openly opposed to these projects going forward and has threatened sanctions (and further sanctions in Rosneft’s case) against the companies involved.

Taken in combination with Elliott Abrams’ recent statements, the massive U.S. military build-up and the collapse of U.S. oil markets, such events seem to be pointing in the direction of an invasion being more likely than not. There is also the added layer of the U.S. facing a new “Great Depression” and these major economic downturns are often followed by the U.S. entering a major war. On the other hand, there is also the fact that most of the U.S. population is on lockdown due to the coronavirus crisis, making domestic resistance against such an invasion unlikely to manifest in any significant way. If Americans aren’t careful and don’t quickly begin to pay attention, the country could soon sleepwalk into another devastating and deadly “war for oil.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Whitney Webb is a MintPress News contributing journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.

Featured image is from Alliance for Global Justice

The current pandemic has brought to the fore, and with exceptional clarity, the fundamental contradiction underlying contemporary globalisation, namely, the contradiction between the interests of finance and thoseof the people. Indeed this contradiction, which characterizes the era of globalisation as a whole, has now come to a head.

It is becoming clearly visible in country after country. Take the case of India. Millions have been suddenly rendered jobless, and lakhs of migrant workers trekking home from far away places, where they had been employed but no longer are, find themselves quarantined with little or no money. The paramount need of the hour is for the government to provide succour to these working people; and the government can do so immediately by enlarging the fiscal deficit.

But it refrains from doing so because a large fiscal deficit is not to the liking of globally mobile finance capital. The finance minister comes up therefore with a package of measures that is paltry beyond belief, where the total expenditure promised as help to the distressed households, ignoring re-packaged measures, comes to a mere Rs 92,000 crores (consisting of Rs 34,000 crore of cash transfers, Rs 45,000 crore of transfers through the public distribution system, and Rs13,000 crore of transfers in the form of gas cylinders). This comes to about 0.5 per cent of the country’s GDP, which is a trivial sum in the context of what is generally considered the worst tragedy to hit the country after independence!

But consider the state of the economy. The government is sitting on a whopping 58 million tonnes of foodgrain stocks (77 million tonnes if we include grains available but not yet ready for immediate distribution); the rabi crop promises to be good; industry has for long been demand-constrained with lots of unutilised capacity (in fact the country was sliding into an industrial recession before being hit by the pandemic); and foreign exchange reserves are at a record half a trillion dollars. A larger fiscal deficit under these circumstances cannot possibly have any harmful effects for the economy; but people are suffering because finance capital would not like it.

The official fear is that, if the fiscal deficit increases further, then the credit-rating agencies would downgrade India’s status, which would undermine the “confidence of the investors” and trigger a capital flight. This would cause a further fall in the value of the rupee which may become cumulative.

In all this however a simple point is lost: if this denouement actually comes about then there should be no hesitation in putting restrictions on capital outflows. Even a Hindutva government should not demur at putting such restrictions, if necessary, at a time like this.

But such is the stranglehold of finance capital that the very thought of capital controls, even in a pandemic, does not enter the government’s head. Hence any possibility of capital controls is simply ruled out from the very outset, so that even before any dire consequences of enlarging the fiscal deficit have actually materialised, the sheer thought of this happening frightens the government into sacrificing the interests of the people to satisfy the whims of finance.

The union government’s pusillanimity vis-à-vis global finance is also tying the hands of state governments. They have to bear a sizeable burden of the expenditure necessitated by the pandemic; and given the enormous centralisation of resources that has occurred of late, where they cannot even alter commodity taxation rates without the permission of the GST Council at which the centre is represented and has a dominant voice, they basically have to depend upon transfers from the centre.

Even their borrowing limits are controlled by the centre. Hence if the centre is strapped for funds, then so are the states; if the centre is hamstrung by the dictates of finance, then so are the states. The centre’s pusillanimity, in other words, restricts public expenditure down the line, for ameliorating the people’s distress during the pandemic.

Exactly the same conflict, between the people’s interest and that of finance, is clearly visible in Europe too. Many countries in southern Europe, notably Spain and Italy, have been hit very hard by the pandemic. Raising resources for public expenditure to meet the crisis at the level of each country would be extremely expensive as the yields on individual country bonds would be high; so a proposal has been made to float Eurobonds which would be the liability of a pan-European body and therefore entail lower yields. It is as if the whole of Europe would be borrowing on behalf of Italy, Spain and other needy countries instead of these countries themselves doing so.

This suggestion, made in particular by Italy, has however been opposed by Germany and the Netherlands, because German finance capital which dominates the Eurozone is opposed to a socialisation of the risks of borrowing by individual countries; the argument is that if at all a country needs to enlarge its fiscal deficit then it must be willing to pay the price for it. Angela Merkel as the head of the German government is articulating the position of German finance capital, exactly as she had done during the Greek crisis when Greece’s request to re-schedule debt had been stoutly opposed by German finance capital.

There have been international appeals by economists, and intellectuals generally, to Angela Merkel to relent on this. Even the example of a century ago, when the harsh terms for Germany in the Treaty of Versailles after the first world war, had increased the depth of the recession in that country, giving rise to the growth of Nazism, has been hinted at in the appeal. (Lenin, it may be recalled, had highlighted these harsh terms in his speech to the Second Congress of the Communist International as evidence of the maturing of the conditions for a world revolution). But finance capital has remained unmoved by such appeals.

A large number of third world countries, which have to meet their debt repayment obligations in the midst of the pandemic, have approached the International Monetary Fund for loans and also for arranging a rescheduling of their debt. The IMF’s own resources being meagre, it is in no position to provide sufficient loans to accommodate the interests of both financial creditors and the pandemic-hit people. And the debt-rescheduling that the IMF can arrange is unlikely to be enough to leave adequate resources for succour to the working poor in these countries.

Thus all over the world the conflict between finance capital and the interests of the pandemic-hit people is becoming acute and moving centre-stage. This conflict had always been camouflaged in verbiage about “high growth rates” (supposedly of benefit to all), and “wealth creation” (supposedly for the “nation” as a whole, of which all its citizens were legatees). The idea sought to be presented was that the interests of finance coincided with the interests of the country and its people, that serving the former ipso facto served the latter.

This idea was wearing thin anyway because of the world economic crisis. It was clear that no amount of interest rate reduction was going to get the world economy out of the crisis; what was needed was a fiscal stimulus. Given the objections of finance capital to any such fiscal stimulus (for which fiscal deficits would have to be expanded), no single State was in a position to engage upon such a fiscal stimulus while remaining within the framework of financial globalisation. For if it did so, then there would be an outflow of finance from its shores creating severe problems for it.

But now the vacuity of this idea of coincidence between the people’s interest and that of finance stands fully revealed by the pandemic; it can no longer be camouflaged by verbiage. There is a stark urgency about reaching help to the people, but the hurdle against doing so is the one imposed by the dictates of finance.The intensification of this conflict in the days to come will sound the death-knell of financial globalisation.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

In this long-awaited follow-up to his interview in late March, Dr. John Ioannidis discusses the results of three preliminary studies, (including his latest, which shows a drastically reduced infection fatality rate), the worrisome effects of the lockdown, the Swedish approach, the Italian data, the ups and downs of testing, the feasibility of “contact tracing”, and much more.

Watch the interview below.

.

.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This brave and intelligent respiratory therapist has blown the whistle on the fake pandemic that is COVID-19. He joins the ranks of a growing number of doctors on the frontlines who are reporting that this so-called pandemic simply doesn’t add up, due to various reasons that have been reported by independent and citizen journalists: empty hospitals, inflated figures and people being falsely counted as COVID-19 cases.

This respiratory doctor also exposes the COVID-19 test itself as useless. It is not testing for the virus but rather the reaction to the virus. Since it is a PCR test and not the gold standard of isolation and purification etc. (Koch’s postulates discussed here), it is merely testing for RNA sequences that could be caused by many other things, not a dreaded new coronavirus strain.

The PCR test is limited in function and flawed if used for broad diagnosis; it uses cycles to amplify the RNA sequence, which leads to many people getting a “positive” that in reality could be from cancer, radiation or many other things. He also had some scathing things to say about his fellow doctors just going along with the program and not asking the tough questions, a sad reflection on the profession, since it is well-known people look up to doctors and give away their power to perceived authority.

 

Full transcript is below:

“Good evening YouTube. This is our future and the power’s with the people. Just wanted to let you know I am a respiratory therapist and I’ve been doing this for 21 years. I’ve been kind of all over the place doing this. I wanted to show you our equipment room here. So we want to talk about COVID-19 for a few minutes and the first thing I want to say is: does it look like there’s a ventilator shortage? There’s not, okay! As a matter of fact, we’re running less ventilators right now than we would normally run and that’s cause people are just staying home. They’re not having elective surgeries. I want to talk about the numbers and the criteria that goes into what a COVID patient is or a patient under investigation (what’s also called a PUI). Basically right now, and the way it has been last couple of months when they locked us down, is that any patient that came in with a respiratory problem was labeled COVID. Now that doesn’t matter if it’s you got stage 4 lung cancer, pancreatitis, heart disease, liver failure and everything else – you’re still, because you come in with breathing problems, you’re labeled a COVID patient.

Now we have one lady that could do the testing at first that would go … those tests went to the CDC. Only one person was qualified to to test that for the whole place. So several of these patients under investigations were never tested and maybe they died or whatever. Then they would die of COVID and not of stage 4 lung cancer or these things. This is clear that this is what’s come out every single patient that needs one of our pieces of equipment here … any of this if they need any of this stuff, okay, then they are a rule-out COVID. And these tests have taken as long as 2 or 3 weeks to get back. We’re finally getting what they claim; they’ve been claiming this for a month but we’re finally getting in-house testing that’s going to change the game. I think that’s that’s what’s going on in most places and what that also means is isn’t it now you’re going see the numbers either go up or go down, and I would suspect we’re gonna see them spike up, and then spike down real quick, and this is the reason for the number of deaths. So you have to recognize that if every single patient is under COVID investigation and dies, then that goes into a COVID death, and they’re showing the numbers like a football game to scare you. They’re showing you loading bodies into a tractor trailer to scare you. I’ve never in my career ever seen bodies loaded into a tractor trailer. It just doesn’t happen. I wonder if those were even bodies. I really don’t believe it! All of this stuff is fake, okay?

Look at our ventilators. Let’s talk about ventilators and why there would be a shortage of ventilators. Well this is non-invasive ventilation here. CPAP or BiPAP: this is a mask that gets strapped on in we can help you breathe with that. We’re not allowed to use those okay? We’re finally opening up to where we can use them a little bit but for the most part since COVID came out they said absolutely not; that’s going to cause the virus to spread all over the place by spraying air slaws everywhere and so we can’t use it you have to let the patient crash and go straight to a ventilator, okay? Traditionally that’s not the way we would treat a patient. We also have air slides medications (bronchodilators) – we’re not allowed to use those either. So everything that we would traditionally do we’re not allowed to do. Every patient that comes in no matter what their history is labeled a COVID under investigation, so if that patient dies that becomes a COVID death, okay?

So, there’s a lot of weird things going on when it comes to the testing itself. I’ve been looking at this for about a month now but you can also look for yourself. They were open about it on CBS News the other night. They’re not testing for a virus, like if you go to you get sick you go to the hospital; traditionally you get tested for flu A and B.  Flu A by the way is H1N1 (the one that killed everybody in 2008). They’ll test you for RSV. Those are actual viruses that, you know, they will test you for. This COVID test is different. They’re testing for an RNA sequence from a reaction to the virus. Look this up! Please look it up! They’re not testing for a virus! There’s not one test to test for a virus okay? Then they put it in a PCR. It’s a PCR test which means it amplifies it so if there’s any little one little shred of that RNA sequence from a damaged cell in your lungs or in your nasal passage, you’re going to test positive. Now that can come from cancer, that can come from radiation, that can come from several things, so … and then you hear all this talk on the news about antibody therapy and all of us are kind of stuff people want to donate plasma everything else, but they’re not talking about the virus itself. They’re not testing for the virus itself, and that’s a big big issue, because that makes you say: “Well, is this as infectious as they’re telling us it is?” because if it was as infectious as they’re telling us that it is, these would all be in use and everybody would be dying and we’re not seeing that, okay? This is unbelievable – every bit of this has been created, okay?

If you cannot use the non-invasive ventilation and have to go straight to this the ventilator that creates a ventilator shortage but you also want to ask why it’s Ford and GM in the business of making ventilators when we have plenty of companies that already make ventilator you know what kind of ventilator is it? What does it do who’s going to train us on those ventilators and you know how is it going to be tested and then what is the cost per ventilator that the United States is paying for it in GM for these these products that really aren’t obviously needed so all this talk you hear on the news by the governors and everybody else we’re having shortages of ventilators it’s not true it’s not true, okay? So how about health care workers. Yeah we’re getting one or two healthcare workers or coming up positive and you know that would be expected but I would actually expect a lot more healthcare workers to get sick and come up positive and we’ve had some extreme contamination issues from patients that didn’t show any symptoms what and a patient under investigation and then all of a sudden came up positive and none of those health care workers came up positive got sick carried a fever or anything else just to show you real quick here’s my PPE that I have to wear sorry here’s my PPE that I have to wear. This an N95 mask in here and a face shield and of course we got some gowns and stuff but we’re going wearing this or 5 shifts minimum before we can get a new one all right so I’m contaminating myself every time I put this N95 masking the shield in this bag it’s contaminated. it’s contaminating over and over and over again and then I’m putting the mask on, okay? I’m still here I’m not sick and nobody else is either except with the exception of one or two.

If you look at the areas that these people are in where the hot spots are like such in Georgia, Albany and Atlanta you really have to say well why are all these places happening in these condensed areas? Well I truly believe this is something else that’s causing this all these patients have comorbidities they’re all older the ones that are you know in life-threatening situations and and the mortality rate is really not that low so if you actually look at what’s going on compared to H1N1 … H1N1 was a million times more scary than the COVID 19 hen it comes to a vaccination you cannot vaccinate yourself really for a sinus infection it’s just not going to work. You can’t vaccinate yourself for every little human ailment that there is you know people are going to get sick. What traditionally happens with viruses such as this if this is a virus and I’m not so sure it is but you’re going to have a real spike such as in SARS Zika H1N1. You gotta have a spike and then it’s going to lose its its efficacy and it’s going to drop and and the mortality rates going to drop I mean the people that get really sick is going to drop you know so you have this initial little bang and then it drops off that’s what a fire wrist normally does I’m not completely convinced this is a virus. I’ve been doing this a long time. Do your own homework do your research but the equipment should speak for itself – does this warrant shutting down the country? Does this warrant $6 to $10 trillion in economic stimulus just for this country? Does this warrant all these things that are being put in place? I mean does this warrant the trillions lost? Does this warrant locking everything up? Beaches, you know, hiking trails, tennis courts, bars, restaurants, pool halls, arm, schools … Does this warrant this? yeah I really don’t think it does – not even close.

So y’all need to be asking some some really hard questions here and questioning your government and questioning and people in charge and also questioning your doctors because the doctors believe this stuff just as much as everybody else does but they’re not looking at the real information all they’re doing is they’re told something and hey guess what they got lives they got jobs they got everything else you got. Plus on they don’t care I mean they do care but they’re not gonna go look it up they’re not gonna look up exactly what this test is they’re not gonna look up that hey why aren’t we getting these in fact you know they look up the little things that they’re told look up and that’s it just like anybody else would okay so you know these questions really have to be asked and then for the Trump supporters out there I’m gonna ask you something think about this for a minute we’re doing the same thing they’re doing in France we’re doing the same thing they’re doing in Italy we’re doing the same thing they’re doing any UK so does that mean Trump’s really in charge of this whole thing because I really don’t think he is I think he’s being told to do what he’s doing and and and that’s the way it is I mean this is a deep state Illuminati stuff and this is the real deal and they’re shutting the world down okay y’all people really need to understand this the world okay and they’re putting our kids and grandkids and severe debt – that will never be paid off and if you think of how many taxes you’re paying now can you imagine what our children and our grandchildren are gonna have to pay for this scam so please look up do your homework ask questions look at our equipment room ask why can’t we use this if we’re not seeing the infections yeah you know why can’t we use this non-invasive equipment why are we having auto manufacturers make ventilators. Who’s testing the ventilators? What kind of ventilator price per ventilator all these things the economic stimulus package you know is this gonna be another corporate bailout where they you know give themselves million-dollar bonuses while we starve I bet you it will be so this is real dangerous time we’re coming in – when it comes to the vaccinations I promise you.”

Fake Tests, Fake Bodies, Fake Pandemic: All to Keep People in Fear

As this respiratory therapist reveals, there are so many levels of fakery going on with this scamdemic. We have now entered the Brave New World of COVID-1984. We are in a new War on Bioterror, where everyone is a suspected or asymptomatic carrier, and the PCR test can replace the judge to prove your innocence or guilt. There are truly dangerous and unprecedented times. It is vitally important for everyone to not only question government but also to question their doctors so enough people.

Share this information. Knowledge dispels fear. Once enough people climb out of fear, naturally they will begin to unite and rise up in anger to demand freedom. Self-respect will kick in. The NWO manipulators who orchestrated this entire event will have a much harder time rolling out their plans when a united and aware citizenry protest en masse and refuse to buy into the fear and refuse to tolerate any more lockdown, house arrest or quarantine.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Freedom Articles.

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and FB.

Sources

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHhyLvH7FQg

https://thefreedomarticles.com/covid-19-umbrella-term-fake-pandemic-not-1-disease-cause/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/new-war-on-bioterror-everyone-suspected-carrier/

Amid a health crisis that has made Brazil the country with the largest number of COVID-19 cases in Latin America, President Jair Bolsonaro’s administration closed its embassy and consulates in Venezuela on Friday.

At least 38 people boarded in a Brazilian Air Force plane bound for Brasilia. Among the returnees were diplomats, officials, and their families.

On March 5, Brazil’s president ordered the withdrawal of all his officials in Venezuela, an action framed in the U.S. strategy against Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro and his fellow citizens.

Bolsonaro administration also notified its neighboring country to withdraw its diplomatic representatives from Brazilian territory.​​​​​​​

Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, the world’s most powerful coronavirus denier, just fired the health minister who disagreed with him. What;s really going on in Venezuela is the US wants to install a ruler just like Bolsonaro.https://t.co/rOkLHUEj17 by @AndrewDFish

— James Hollomon (@Luminate_Design) April 18, 2020

In this way, Brazil endorsed its alignment with the U.S. geopolitical proposal, which seeks to establish a transitional government in the Bolivarian nation.

“Since Bolsonaro came to power in January 2019, Brazil has become a close ally of the Donald Trump administration and shares its vision on Venezuela,” outlet Infobae recalled.

On March 17, the Brazilian regime ordered the “partial” closure of the borders with Venezuela, arguing that this measure would prevent a further spread of COVID-19.​​​​​​​

As of Saturday morning, Brazil had reported 34,485 COVID-19 cases and 2,181 deaths.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: President Jair Bolsonaro leaves the Palacio do Alvorada, Brasilia, Brazil, March, 27, 2020. | Photo: EFE

Understandingly, it has become important to analyze the spread of coronavirus and its impact on the economy of small islands especially Cape Verde, Mauritius, Maldives, Seychelles, Vanuatu and the Union of Comoros. These islands, which are favorite tourist posts and foreign investors, have also closely diverse geopolitical relationship with the world.

It comes into spectacular focus for this research study, although in general, the islands seem to have the lowest cases of the pandemic, and efforts taken in preparedness against the disease, and the possible effects on their economies and sociocultural lives of the population. Part of the research and monitoring is presented here in three headings as follows: (i) The Islands and Coronavirus: An Overview, (ii) Economic Impact of Coronavirus on these Islands and (iii) Current Scenarios and Lessons for the Future.

The Islands and Coronavirus: An Overview

The coronavirus disease appeared first in 2019 in Wuhan city in China. The disease was, first identified in Wuhan and Hubei, both in China early December 2019. The original cause still unknown but its symptoms include high body temperature with persistent dry cough and acute respiratory syndrome. Some medical researchers say it is a pneumonia-related disease.

Late December 2019, Chinese officials notified the World Health Organization (WHO) about the outbreak of the disease in the city of Wuhan in China. Since then, cases of the novel coronavirus – named COVID-19 by the WHO – have spread around the world. WHO declared the outbreak to be an international health concern only on 30 January, and then recognized it as a “pandemic”on 11 March 2020.

The basic transmission mechanisms of the coronavirus are the same worldwide. But the speed and pattern of spread definitely varies from country to country, urban to rural and place to place. It depends on cultural practices, traditional customs and social lifestyles. A densely populated township can have a different trajectory to a middle-class suburb or a village. The epidemic can spread differently and among nomadic peoples.

There have been claims that this coronavirus may not likely survive in hot countries due to the tropical climate in these regions, yet cases of this virus confirmed in these tropical countries. There are officially confirmed coronavirus cases on the islands of Cape Verde, Mauritius, Maldives, Seychelles, Vanuatu and the Union of Comoros.

On the Cape Verde, about 300 miles (483 kilometers) off the west coast of Senegal, consists of 10 islands and five islets, all but three of which are mountainous. The island has a total of 55 reported cases among its half a million population, according to the Cape Verde’s Public Health National Institute.

Mauritius is a very small island far away from China – and yet greatly affected by the coronavirus. Mauritius is a country reliant on tourism. The sector accounts for roughly a quarter of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Since the first three case investigated and confirmed on 18 March, Mauritius now has 324, including 65 recoveries and 9 death, according to the Health Ministry.

On 15 April 2020, no new cases were reported, three patients who recovered from the coronavirus agreed to donate their blood through Plasmapheresis, according to the official coronavirus website of the Health Ministry.

Maldives, officially referred to as the Republic of Maldives, is a small island in South Asia, located in the Arabian Sea of the Indian Ocean. Its population, one of the most geographically dispersed, is nearly 400,000 and the island attracts many foreign tourists throughout the year.

The disease got to Maldives on 7 March 2020 from an Italian tourist who had returned to Italy after spending holidays in Kuredu Resort & Spa. Thereafter, the Health Protection Agency of the Maldives confirmed two more cases in the Maldives, both employees of the resort. Following this, the hotel was closed down, several tourists stranded on the island.

On 27 March, the government announced the first confirmed case of a Maldivian citizen with COVID-19, a passenger who had returned from the United Kingdom. And that brought the total number of confirmed cases in the country to 16; there are other 15 foreign citizens. Thus, in April the figured climbed to 28 cases.

Seychelles, located in the Indian Ocean, reported its first two cases on 14 March. The two cases were people who were in contact with someone in Italy who tested positive. On 15 March, a third case arriving from The Netherlands was confirmed, and the next day, there were four confirmed cases, visitors from The Netherlands. As at 20 April, there are only 11 confirmed cases and two patients quickly recovered and have been released.

Vanuatu is a Pacific island country located in the South Pacific Ocean. It is east of northern Australia, nearer to New Guinea, Solomon and Fiji islands. Vanuatu has a population of approximately 250,000. All these islands’ mainstays of the economy are agriculture and tourism. They attract tourists throughout the year. As of 3 April 2020, it has no coronavirus but still vulnerable, if strict measures are not adopted. It, however, continues its surveillance.

There are five public hospitals, and one private hospital with 27 health centers located across the islands and more than 200 aid posts in more remote areas. The two major referral hospitals are located in Port Vila and Luganville in the country.

The Union of Comoros, an island nation to the east is Mozambique and northwest is Madagascar in the Indian Ocean, gained independence from France on 6 July 1975. In mid-2017, Comoros joined the Southern African Development Community (SADC) with 15 other regional member states. The Comoros share mostly African-Arab origins. It economic activities are the same as other ocean islands.

On 17 April, Chief Epidemiologist, Dr. Izzy Gerstenbluth, indicated that 269 people have been tested so far, 106 men and 163 women. The number of confirmed cases is still at 14 as the official counted figure. One has died, one is still in the hospital, 10 are safe and three are active. 18 are being actively monitored and 12 are still in quarantine because they returned to the island after the measures were announced.

The Medical & Health Affairs Department (G & Gz) of the Ministry of Health, Environment and Nature (GMN) keeps a close eye on how the new coronavirus spreads and behaves worldwide. The G & Gz team is in direct contact with Curaçao Airport Partners (CAP), Curaçao Tourist Board (CTB), Curaçao Hospitality and Tourism Association (CHATA), the Analytical Diagnostic Center (ADC), Curaçao Medical Center (CMC) and Department of Immigration.

Here are the aforementioned coronavirus figures: Cape Verde (55), Mauritius (324), Maldives (28), Seychelles (11), Vanuatu (0) and the Union of Comoros (14), it would be erroneous to attribute tourism as the key reason for comparatively high numbers of cases in Mauritius. Of course, more Chinese are attracted there so as South Africans. There is propensity that the figures may not rise as the island governments have also taken strict control measures.

Economic Impact of Coronavirus on these Islands

The already weak capacity of health care system on these four islands – Cape Verde, Mauritius, Maldives, Seychelles, Vanuatu and the Union of Comoros – is likely to exacerbate the pandemic and its impact on their economies. These islands’ coronavirus disease burden is not so different from each other. But in each case, the key factor is the economic models and what these mean for this circumstance.

As an example, Maldives took an admirable step in the health sector. The Maldivian government turned the resort island of Villivaru in the Kaafu Atoll into a quarantine facility, described as “the world’s first coronavirus resort”, where patients would enjoy a luxurious stay and free medical care. According to Minister of Tourism, Ali Waheed, the Maldives had 2,288 beds available for quarantine as of late March 2020.

Obviously, other economic implications of the coronavirus are detrimental not only to public health systems but to trade and travel industry. On all the islands, small-scale agriculture that includes fishing, local industries as well as retail markets are largely affected. More than 80% of people in rural areas depend on subsistence farming for survival; however, restrictions on market activities would limit market access.

It is worth to say that both agriculture and fishing in these islands are conducted at subsistence level and for small-scale exports. Seafood is very popular and resultantly export of seafood is curtailed. The Maldives’ economy is dependent on tourism, which dropped severely due to travel restrictions amid the pandemic. Experts warned of an economic contraction and possible difficulties paying back foreign debt, especially to China.

Specifically, it is estimated that the shutdown implemented to control the pandemic costs the Mauritian economy about 5% of the country’s GDP for the full 15-day lockdown announced by government on 20 March. Later, there was sanitary curfew started on 23 March and was extended up to 15 April 2020. Now, the lockdown was again extended till 4 May to further contain the spread of the COVID-19 in Mauritius.

As already known, Cape Verde, Mauritius, Maldives, Seychelles, Vanuatu and the Union of Comoros depend mostly on the travel industry. Due to the outbreak of this coronavirus, all these governments have imposed restrictions on travel to the islands that have the best climate and attractive beaches. Travel restriction imposed, thus paralyzing tourism industry in all the four islands.

The Government of Maldives and the Tourism Ministry of the Maldives with the guidance of the Health Protection Agency of the Maldives (HPA) placed a temporary travel restriction for the following countries to control new cases. Since then, there are no passengers (traffic) originating from, transiting to or with a travel history of said country/province is to be permitted into the Maldives. Maldivians and spouses of Maldivians who are foreign nationals are allowed in, but subject to observe quarantine measures.

The Cape Verdean authorities have closed all sea borders and stopped internal flights between the islands. Travelers are required to comply with any additional screening measures put in place by the authorities. As a further step, the government has declared a state of emergency for the whole country until 17 April, the details of which can be found here (in Portuguese). This has activated a series of measures including significant restrictions on movement nationally and internationally.

However, all citizens have been instructed to remain at home unless they needed to carry out the following activities. These are: (i) to buy food or other essential items, (ii) to go to work if unable to work from home, (iii) to go to hospital or health centers, (iv) to carry out caring or similar duties or in case of real need, and (v) to walk pets. Cape Verde’s Public Health National Institute pledged to help in cases of emergency.

Since the beginning of March, the Mauritian authorities have been conducting ‘Contact Tracing’: people who have been in contact with infected patients have been placed under quarantine, including doctors, nurses and police officers.

Seychelles banned any person from Seychelles from travelling to China, South Korea, Italy and Iran. These countries have high cases. An exception is made for returning residents, under similar rules taken by Cape Verde, Mauritius and Vanuatu.

The most significant remittances to Cape Verde, Mauritius, Maldives, Seychelles,Vanuatuand the Union of Comorosas a source of financial stability come from the islanders who work as temporary laborers around the world, disappeared. The Union of Comoros depends heavily on remittances. For instance, there are between 200,000 and 350,000 Comorians in France. Official statistics are hard to find especially most of the government sources and international organizations become inaccessible for required information.

There have been a steady development or facelift in the cities over the past years. A substantial process of urbanization is still unfolding in Cape Verde, especially to the cities of Praia and Mindelo. The same trend city’s development and expansion in Mauritius, Maldives, Seychelles, Vanuatuand the Union of Comoros.

Beyond all the points raised above, Dr Antipas Massawe, a former lecturer from the Department of Chemical and Mining Engineering, University of Dar-es-Salaam in Tanzania, East Africa, strongly insisted that “the scale of the challenges facing the health sector is tremendous, it requires extensive investment of resources and governments have to direct focus on the sustainable solutions.”

Charles Prempeh, a lecturer in Africana Studies at the African University College of Communications (AUCC), and a doctoral candidate at University of Cambridge, also explains in an email thatthere are deficiencies – ranging from poor health policies through inadequate funding of health infrastructure to training and research – that have characterized the health sector in Africa. Ocean islands have similar pitfalls or problems.

Amid the fast spreading coronavirus in some regions, it is simply providential that the African continent has not recorded high numbers, compared to the so-called western countries. But it is also true that even with the relatively smaller number of cases that most countries in Africa have recorded,there are deep-seated doubts that the health system can match squarely with the debilitating effect of the virus, as they have come under disproportionate strain, according to him.

“The current situation is serious setback,” both academics acknowledged. But further suggested that small island governments draw a long term development plan, make consistent efforts at mobilizing resources for realizing – support for education, health and employment generating sectors, – the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Current Scenarios and Lessons for the Future

It is time for solidarity, to fight the end the global health mess. The key lessons for epidemic response are to act fast but act locally. That is exactly what Cape Verde, Mauritius, Maldives, Seychelles, Vanuatu and the Union of Comoros are focusing on now.

But as the international response gains momentum, some financial assistance may be extended to these islands. The islands hospitals need testing kits, basic materials for hygiene, personal protective equipment for the professional health workers, and equipment for assisted breathing. There is a global shortage of all of these and a shameful scramble among developed countries to get their own supplies – relegating Cape Verde, Mauritius, Maldives, Seychelles,Vanuatu and the Union of Comoros to the backyard.

The islands absolutely have no pharmaceutical companies to produce the needed medicaments. The medical supplies, equipment and whatever have to be imported from the United States and Canada, Europe, Asian countries such China and India.

Media reports said Mauritius and Seychelles had received a few tons of medicine including thousands of hydroxychloroquine tablets from India to help in their fight against COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine is an anti-malarial drug used by some doctors to treat COVID-19 patients, though its efficacy is still being tested. Mauritius and Seychelles are favorite tourist posts, and have long-time close geopolitical relationship with India.

The COVID-19 epidemic is currently forcing governments to cut agricultural expenses and prioritize health-related expenditures. This will heavily affect the economy in the future if the restrictions continue, and further expected to bring additional economic hardship in the nearest future to these poor ocean islands. More than 80% of people in rural areas depend on subsistence farming for survival, restrictions on market activities would limit market access.

Repeat: Most of these people derive their livelihoods from the informal economy, small-scale farming, open market trading, livestock keeping and fishing. Workers in the formal sector have low incomes. Only a few of them have social security, and some may not even have saving accounts. This means with the lockdown, these islands are likely and adversely affected.

The above scenarios complicate the situation for poor people, who have little resources or insurance to cushion the social and economic impact of the pandemic. These small islands are, indeed, in a quagmire both, at the state level and the individual. While much depends on post-pandemic internal policies directed at transforming the economy, strategies to expand practical collaboration with foreign partners, the islands still have to keep good diplomatic relationship with the world. Nevertheless, global leaders have called for a comprehensive approach to mobilizing support for least developed countries, and so it is time to show absolute solidarity with Cape Verde, Mauritius, Maldives, Seychelles, Vanuatuand the Union of Comoros.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Kester Kenn Klomegah is a Special Representative of the Russian Trade and Economic Development Council on interaction with Africa. He is also an independent research writer on African affairs in the EurAsian region and former Soviet republics.

Featured image is from Avas.mv

“It is easier to rob by setting up a bank than by holding up a bank clerk.” – Bertolt Brecht

Daily, a thus distracted public is told that the financial patsy for the growing worldwide economic disaster is simply a virus. As Americans fearfully watch passively as the US Congress throws the ever-mounting trillions in Bail-out funds so quickly at the feet of their puppet masters, the paltry cash reserves of all American bank depositors have never been more at risk.

“I’m sorry, Sir. We are unable to cash this check,” were the rather ominous words delivered to me by a fresh-faced, none-too-friendly, Wells Fargo Bank assistant manager. He had just kept me waiting ten minutes while in consultation with others about my pending transaction. Returning to his Wells’ colored cubicle he sat down quickly, straightened in his chair and then looked at me intently through narrowed eyes before delivering the bad news.

Four feet away, between us and in front of him, were three forms of my personal identification face up. Looking down, this budding banker particularly glowered at two personal checks, also laying on the desk before him, written to me as payment by a client and drawn on his bank. Not being a “Wells” customer I had expected a shake-down, hence I had brought with me multiple forms of ID including passport.

These two checks totalled the small sum of almost US$8,000.00. Not expecting this much difficulty I insisted on a reason, to which he now looked up from once again carefully considering the two checks and replied, “I’m sorry, but the bank does not have sufficient funds on-hand to cash these checks.”

Oh, dear.

*

For those fortunate Americans who have personal cash savings available and would prefer to keep them, the unspoken reality is: that in 2010  your Congress legalized any bank’s total control over your savings deposits should, by financial urgency, the banks say that they need them.

Ten years ago, in the aftermath of the 2008-9 Great Recession the US Congress, then, approved a 30,000-page bill that you were told would fix, once and for all, the ills of the evil banks and the need for them to ever be “Bailed-Out” again. The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in part provided the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) with new powers and methods to guarantee depositor’s savings. Incredibly, congress failed via Dodd-Frank to regulate the derivatives trade despite this type of fiscal Russian roulette applied to worthless mortgage-backed securities being the root cause of the original 2008 recession for which everyone-except Wall St. – suffered dearly.

The resultant lack of regulation has seen  OTC derivatives increase to$640 trillion at end-June 2019.

Considering that banks currently reward depositors for this unreported risk with virtually zero- or negative– interest rates, the made-wary depositor would do well to reassess the long-held fallacy that banks have sufficient cash reserves to meet their obligations to a depositor’s cash deposits. Or, that your cash is safe. Neither is true. With the crashing financials of the nation’s largest banks flash in crimson red, your cash has never been more at risk.

Naturally, like the majority of incorrectly informed US bank depositors, I had assumed that this here bank, today, would have lots and lots of cash on hand.

Au contraire.

Unapologetically the Wells manager informed me that he was “sorry” but he could only cash one of the checks at this time. Both checks were for about the same amount. I inquired if this was new bank policy and was told that the bank simply did not have enough cash on hand, and, “no,” I could not come back at the end of the day after the bank had received the day’s cash deposits. However, he informed me that, if I ventured to a larger Wells Fargo branch they might be able to handle both checks at once.

This rather unique news seemed worthy of delving into further, so I declined his kind offer and left with both my onerous financial instruments in hand. Being away on business, I decided to wait and stop by my home town’s main Wells Fargo branch office and investigate this further.

Thus began my quest to pick-up a paltry eight large in cold, hard cash.

Turned out, since Dodd-Frank, I no longer had a primary right to my hard-earned deposited cash, anyway. Nor, even, a secondary right. In fact, when it came to my cash, I, as the bank’s cash depositor, and my money was these days legally a tertiary banking financial obligation at best.

Oh, dear!

*

“… people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”  –Henry Ford

The banks have known this new economic crash was coming for years. Post-2009, US banks also knew well that most American people, thanks to the omissions and distortions by media mythologists, are still woefully ignorant regarding the nuances of the genius of their bank’s financial alchemy that magically creates money out of thin air. Most live daily in the illusion that their financial institutions will protect their deposited savings. This is because they missed their bank’s greedy preparations for the next stock market crash to come.

In the aftermath of 2009, a year later the banks understood that Americans, Europeans and UK citizens had lost all enthusiasm for any future government Bail-Out, most people preferring instead that any institution suffering self-inflicted financial distress should –next time– enjoy the fruits of their crimes via formal bankruptcy proceedings.

After the Obama era Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) chucked its own $trillions into the 2009 trough back then, the “Too Big to Fail,” (TBTF) banks developed a very fraudulent and elitist connotation as did the applicable term, “Bail-Out.” To millions across the world who had lost their homes, pension funds, retirement plans- and dreams– these were both now very tired monikers for financial oppression and fraud. In 2010, the previously bailed-out TBTF banks were provided with a far more magnificent definition: “Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions” (G-SIFI).

As for the much-maligned and properly vilified “Bail-Out”? No… No. That, too, recalled those days of congressionally imposed privation. Would not a “Bail-In” sound much more welcoming? More acceptable? “Bail-Outs,” may have lost their popular flavour but in the new world of the G-SIFI, the next bank bail-out is actually just a “Bail-In,” away.

Yes, Bail-Ins are now the new “systemically” correct term for publicly guaranteed banking fraud. With the Bail-out thus discredited, this new politically correct renaming has now been incorporated in newly crafted national policies and laws appearing in multiple other countries as well. These finance laws, such as Dodd-Frank and its similar UK and European Union versions, turn the intent of Dodd-Frank on its head and make future Bail-Ins legal. The difference in the definition should shock any bank depositor.

These Bail-Ins allow failing G-SIFI banks, should they need to avoid insolvency, to legally convert the cash funds of “unsecured creditors” (the bank’s depositors) into bank capital. This also includes “secured” creditors, like state and local government funds. Like pensions.

The 2008-9 reaction to the financial damage of the recession was a massive effort to avoid that systemic financial bankruptcy. The increased and unregulated use of derivatives was a primary cause of the fiscal damage then. In the aftermath, rather than regulation, thanks to Dodd-Frank, derivatives suddenly were amazingly provided “super-priority” status in any future bank bankruptcy.

Worse, at the same stroke of Obama’s pen, formerly secure cash depositors were suddenly demoted to “un-secured” status.

As America once again impotently watches a new orgy of massive “Bail-Outs” being thrown just as quickly at Wall Street as during  2008-9, one might also recall how their corporately controlled Federal Reserve Bank and US Congress threw, then, several trillions of US taxpayer dollars just as quickly at US corporations and banks. Massive public funding under TARP also went then to any corporation with enough political pull to be defined as “Too Big To Fail” (TBTF). These were the Bail-outs of yore.

The financial law firm Davis Polk estimates the final length of Dodd-Frank, the single longest bill ever passed by the US government, is over 30,000 pages. Before passage, the six largest banks in the US spent $29.4 million lobbying Congress in 2010 and flooded Capitol Hill with about 3,000 lobbyists prior to Obama predictably signing its final unreadversion. Reportedly, no US congressperson, senator, or staffer had bothered to read it.

However, the bank’s congressional minions were told to vote for it. And dutifully they did.

But, the authors of Dodd-Frank did little about derivatives. Banks almost exclusively hold this risk exposure. Today, that estimate is pushing three-quarters of a quadrillion dollars. What this means today for cash depositors is that applied to Dodd-Frank and these same again failing banks, all these upcoming bad bank bets will be paid-off first-not last- using the savings of depositors who are now legally last on the minds of the banks.

Normally in any managed court-ordered capital liquidation via corporate bankruptcy proceedings, secured creditors- such as a bank’s depositors- are paid off first because theirs were hard assets when first deposited, not investments. In the past, secured creditors normally had a mandated and legal priority during any liquidation. However, under the new “Bail-In” of the Dodd-Frank mandates, your government has re-prioritized your bank’s exposure and your cash deposit. Derivatives and other similar banking high-risk ventures are now more highly protected than any bank depositor’s savings which are now treated as un-secured instead.

Similarly, in the 2013 example of Cyprus, Germany and the ECB also made depositors inferior to other bank holdings and investments leaving depositors with, after many months, a small remaining fraction of their deposits.

And then came Greece.

“It’s [FDIC] already indicated that they will confiscate [savings] funds…”. -US congressman Ron Paul

With this recent history in mind, I entered my town’s main branch of Wells Fargo. The two checks in hand. On the way in I was greeted warmly, one after the other, by three more fresh-faced and eager proteges, all smartly uniformed to match the Wells décor, and who proffered in turn, “Good morning, Sir!,” again, and again… and again. Certainly, these little fish were not in possession of authority sufficient to cash my two mammoth checks, so I asked for bigger game: the Branch Manager.

Thus, I explained my plight to a very lovely lass who predicted she, “would be glad to help me.”

“Cheryl,” patiently explained that I had come to the right place and she would be glad to cash both checks. Regarding my previous polite banking experience, she admitted that it was indeed bank policy to have limits on the availability of cash for withdrawals and that different branches had different limits. This was the main branch so my request here was meritorious. Further, she admitted that whatever daily cash coming into the branches in the form of deposits was not available for withdrawal, but was sent from the branch for daily accounting at a central point common to all area Wells bank branches. Only a prescribed amount of cash was provided to each bank for daily customer cash withdrawals. The amount was kept at par to begin each day.

“A couple of times your current request,” was Cheryl’s cautious response to my question about her branch’s limits on check cashing. Not to be put-off, I asked about a hypothetical US$25,000 check. She admitted this would be beyond her branches authority. “But,” she smiled, “Today, you’ve come to the right place.”

We are told that the near-certain global economic collapse was caused most decidedly by a pernicious virus branded as COVID-19. True, but that virus would much better titled, “Unregulated Capitalism.” This week, depositors were repeatedly told by media whores that the banks are safe and not to withdraw cash. This lie was obviously reverse psychology since the lines for ATMs were long and many ran out of cash within hours. CNBC and others assured worried savers that banks will not be given taxpayer bailouts next time. True.

The preamble to the Dodd-Frank Act claims, “…to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts.”

But then, how does a failing bank get a Bail-In as a designated G-SIFI without receiving another taxpayer Bail-Out?

No problem. Enter the FDIC and another new banking term, “cross-border bank resolution.”

As the US agency required to pay back depositors who lose savings up to $250,000, FDIC is insufficiently armed with a paltry US$25 billion war chest. Under Dodd-Frank, the FDIC is the mechanism to replace deposits lost or squandered by banking largesse. Sadly for the public, the bank’s US depositors have claims to an estimated US$7.36 trillion in cash. Once the banks steal your savings to pay-off their superior obligations, the FDIC will be more than a tad short of the funds needed.  How to fix this mathematical shortfall?

On December 10, 2012, a joint strategy paper was drafted by the Bank of England (BOE) in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) titled, “Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions.” Here the plot to steal depositor’s savings is laid out.

The report’s “Executive Summary” states,

“… the authorities in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) have been working together to develop resolution strategies…These strategies have been designed to enable [financial institutions] to be resolved without threatening financial stability and without putting public funds at risk.”

Sounds good until you read the fine print.

Despite the movement of the Congress to rescind the provision, Title II of Dodd-Frank gives the FDIC a new enforcement arm, the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA) which is similar to its British counterpart the Prudent Regulation Authority (PRA). Both now have the authority to punish the depositors of failing banking institutions by arbitrarily making their savings deposits subordinate- actually tertiary- to bank claims for the replacement value their derivatives, junk mortgage exposure, and propagation of economic sector bubbles of historic proportions.

Further, with US banks holding $7 trillion in personal cash savings deposits compared to approx. $230 trillion in US derivative obligations, the FDIC’s $25 billion will still not be quite enough. The creators of Dodd-Frank knew this before it was signed. As John Butler points out in an April 4, 2012 review in Financial Sense,

“Do you see the sleight-of-hand at work here? Under the guise of protecting taxpayers, depositors… are to be arbitrary, subordinated… when in fact they are legally senior to those claims…”

Oh, but bank depositors can rest easy in the knowledge that replacing their savings via FDIC will not come out of their yearly taxes via a Bail-Out. Thanks to Dodd-Frank, the first line of defence for depositors will allow Congress to instead replace personal savings via the FDIC with a government paid for $7 trillion bail-in…of your cash savings.

But, what’s another $7 trillion after $6 Trillion last month on top of $23Trillion in accrued national debt after yet another $1trillion yearly US budget deficit?

Fiscal insanity.

Worse than this monetary conjuring act, Dodd-Frank gives new powers to the FDIC and its OLA that allows for an even more powerful and draconian resolution: any deposited funds in a bank, from $1 to $250,000 (the FDIC limit), and everything above, can instead be converted to bank stock!

Since this will eliminate their responsibility, FDIC has provisions within Dodd-Frank so that this can be done, via OLA, quite literally overnight.

An FDIC report released in 2012 reads:

“An efficient path for returning the sound operations of the G-SIFI to the private sector would be provided by exchanging or converting a sufficient amount of the unsecured debt from the original creditors [depositors] of the failed company [Bank] into equity [stock].”

Additionally, per an April 24, 2012, IMF report, conversion of bank debt to stock is an essential element of Bail-Ins included in Dodd-Frank.

“The contribution of new capital will come from debt conversion and/or issuance of new equity, with an elimination or significant dilution of the pre-bail in shareholders. …Some measures might be necessary to reduce the risk of a ‘death spiral’ in share prices.”

As was the case post-2009, in order for affected depositors to retrieve the cash value of what was formerly their cash account balance, the stock provided to them in lieu of their cash must next be sold.

When Lehman Brothers failed, unsecured creditors (depositors are now unsecured creditors) eventually got eight cents on the dollar.

This type of conversion of deposits into equity already had another test-run during the bankruptcy reorganization of Bankia and four other Spanish banks in 2013. The conditions of a July 2012 Memorandum of Understanding resulted in over 1 million small depositors becoming stockholders in Bankia when they were ordered to be sold- for their cash and without their permission- “preferences” (preferred stock) in exchange for their missing deposits. Following the conversion to common stock, these preferenceswere originally valued at EU 2.0 per share. Of course this stock in a bankrupt Bankia continued to tumble in value and like Lehman Bros. ended up being further devalued to EU 0.1 after the March restructuring.

Canada has also stated they were planning a similar “Bail-In” program. The Canadian government released a document titled the Economic Action Plan 2013 which says, “the Government proposes to implement a “Bail-In” regime for systemically important banks.”

However, don’t be getting cute by hiding your cash, precious metals, or passport in a US bank safe deposit box. This illusion of financial security is no longer safe either. Dodd-Frank took care of that, too.

Under Dodd-Frank the FDIC, using the auspices of Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) can legally, without a warrant, enter any bank vault, have the manager secretly open any and/or all safe deposit boxes and inventory, or seize the contents. Further, if a manager is honest enough to inform the depositor of the illegal incursion they are subject to criminal charges and termination from bank employ. Independent reports reveal that at this point all of America’s safe deposit boxes have already been invaded and inventoried for future consideration.

This situation happened in Greece. Depositors who visited their bank to remove their jewellery or precious metals or cash were met at the bank’s door by security, a metal detector and confiscation.

The power of the now remaining G-SIFI banks and FDIC was further evident when, cash finally in hand, I headed to my own evil bank, JP Morgan Chase, right next door to Wells Fargo. The manager confirmed that the cash withdrawal policy at Chase (which was called Great Western before Chase gobbled them up in 2009)  was in keeping with that at Wells; very little cash available on demand. I posed a slight untruth and inquired as to what I should do about my upcoming need for $50,000 in hard cash. No, his bank would not do that on demand, but arrangements could be made to have the cash transferred to his bank. That would only take “about two days.”

Of course, I would need to fill out a few forms. For approval.

“Bank failures are caused by depositors who don’t deposit enough money to cover losses due to mismanagement.” – Dan Quayle

With the American public again on the hook-by law– for the anticipated losses of the banks a distressed depositor might think this plot thus complete. Of course, the realities of Dodd-Frank were, so far in this story, the exclusive purview of the Obama administration.

It should be noted that the only voice of economic reason at the White House at the time, former Fed Chairman, Paul Volker, divorced himself very publicly from this renewed banking scandal of  novel economic acumen. As head of Obama’s recession inspired, President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, Volker ran into the challenge of renewed fiscal insanity for a year, resigning in January of 2011 in disgust. His departure thus coincided with the beginning of the next ten year orgy of financial criminality flaunted by the banks in the faces of the public as the DoJ let them off every time for pennies-on-the-crime.

The advent of the Trump regime went further to gut the supposed intentions of Dodd-Frank. Right away, the new president issued a memorandum that set in motion his plan to scale back the provisions of Dodd-Frank and repeal the Fiduciary Rule. As example, the House approved legislation on Feb. 2, 2017, to erase a number of core financial regulations put in place by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, as Republicans moved a step closer to delivering on their promises to eliminate rules that they claim have strangled small businesses and stagnated the economy. Said Trump,

 “I have so many people, friends of mine, with nice businesses, they can’t borrow money, because the banks just won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations and Dodd-Frank.”

That’s funny on so many levels.

Never mind, at least, that these poor banks are holding derivative exposure grotesquely larger than the total cash deposits of US savers…nor that their ill-gotten riches- such as the UBS, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, RBS multi-billion dollar criminal prosecutions – were taken off-calendar in Federal court for approx. 15% of the total crime every time. The banks kept the rest. That’s banking.

Banks are worried, but have one big problem: They are still very profitable. So far.

Last week, JPMorgan reported Q1 adjusted revenue of $29.07 billion plunging from a year ago, with dividends down 70% to $0.78 per share. Despite their strong profitability, Wells, Citi and BofA all posted similar declines. However, in reaction to the looming disaster the Big 7 US banks this week set aside some $27 billion in credit loss provisions, a number which is 4x greater than the total provisions set aside a year ago, and the most since the financial crisis. Beyond derivatives, bank’s are already bracing for a surge in defaults and delinquencies on its loans amid the complete US economic shutdown.

On the derivatives front Capital One, the nation’s #11 bank by assets, is already in deep trouble on their derivative exposures. Reportedly, Capital One made highly speculative trades, betting via derivatives that oil would not plunge to where it is now at 17-year lows. With the recession just getting started the price of oil isn’t going anywhere. But Capital One likely is: Bankruptcy

German Deutsche Bank has for years been the face of worldwide banking fraud and risk personified and the working model for US banks. The German bank is again, thanks to derivative exposure, in really deep trouble this time. As Alasdair Macleod writes in an excellent article this week,

“…Deutsche provides us with a laboratory experiment for how a derivative virus can kill a bank.”The looming derivative crisis

Macleod uses Deutsche as the working model for the derivative disaster heading directly at the US and other world banks and their trickery in hiding this massive risk on their books. Using Deutsche Bank’s own accounting Macleod assesses:

“It [Deutsche] conceals derivative exposure under the headings “Trading assets” and “Trading liabilities” on the balance sheet. You have to… discover that under Trading assets… and under Trading liabilities, [there is] a difference of €1.062bn. This is relatively trivial. But wait, there is another table that breaks derivative exposure down even further into categories… The true total of OTC derivatives and exchange-traded derivatives to which the bank is exposed is €37.121 trillion. That is nearly thirty-five thousand times the €1.062bn netted difference in the balance sheet.”

The same equation of GAAP accounting fraud thus hiding a bank’s massive total derivatives risk is being used by all of America’s Big 7 banks right now. And, apparently, Capital One.

The non-banks, US financial institutions and corporations of any and all brands, have this past month shouldered-up together to the congressional piggy bank for a historic $6trillion give away. For any collapsing multinational already running out of tricks to game their stock price with phoney earnings statements, the rush to a global pan-panic could not have come at a better time.

Predictably, the media addled American public-the true Covidiots-have nicely ignored this massive scam in lieu of a, so far, mythical $1200 carrot. Wall Street got theirs, post haste, as congress quickly huddled close together… and America shuddered in lockdown.

Of course, at this point in American economic history the subject of cash to any dollar, Euro, or UK pound sterling only matters, by example, to 40% of the US public because reportedly 60% of American families have less than a grand total of $500 in savings in total. 23 million of them just entered unemployment in the past four weeks as well.

The 2020 stock market fire sparked to life upon a pyre of 2019 economic metrics already sufficient to burn the US national economy to a crisp like a wheelbarrow full of Reichsmarks. This was predicted yearly since 2014 by the champion of laissez-faire banking, JP Morgan/ Chase itself.

Unless one believes in a sudden dramatic resurgence of the US economy in the face of absolutely biblical economic metrics to the contrary- or that Keynesian economic witchcraft will actually prevail- a wise cash depositor might, at this juncture consider the actual safety of one’s life’s savings. The language of Dodd-Frank is the language of banking theft…personified.

*

As shown, daily the banking sector is in far worse shape than before 2010 and, just like the scores of other greedy corporations, banks will also need a Bail-out to avoid catastrophe.

But, since Dodd-Frank passed, the banking sector is restricted from receiving any federal Bail-outs this time? And, banks can legally only get a Bail-in? But, a Bail-in means that my savings deposits… will… be …?

Oh, dear!

With all this in mind, I stepped into the bright sunshine outside of the dim confines of Chase, having apparently cleaned out Wells Fargo of their cash just minutes before. Safely in my coat pocket rested all but $100.00 of my day’s take tucked deep down- and securely; Its final outcome, no one’s god damn business but my own.

So… if you’ve got cash, maybe you ought to get a hold of it soon. Or, when YOUR bank fails, don’t walk…. Run!

YOU do not want to be second in line.

Oh, dear!

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 180 in-depth articles over the past ten years for news agencies worldwide. Many have been translated and republished. On-scene reporting from important current events has led to his many multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, Keystone XL Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Erdogan’s Turkey and many more. He can be reached at: live-on-scene ((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at his archive: www.watchingromeburn.uk

Featured image is from Wall Street on Parade

Three back-to-back developments over the past week prove that the Gulf Kingdoms are finally waking up to Hindu extremists’ inherent Islamophobia, the threat of which Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has been warning about for a while now, suggesting that the rest of the world might eventually follow suit as more people become aware of the danger that this rapidly spreading ideological virus poses to the fifth of humanity living in South Asia.

Over the past decades the organization of the entire world food supply from farm to consumers has been reorganized into a globalized distribution known as agribusiness. With most of the world in lockdown over the fears of spread of the coronavirus disease, COVID-19, that global food supply chain is in danger of catastrophic breakdown. The consequences of that would dwarf deaths by coronavirus by orders of magnitude. Yet governments seem oblivious.

The imposition of unprecedented mass quarantine, school and restaurant closings, factory closings across most of the world is putting the focus on the alarming vulnerability of what is a global food supply chain to severe breakdown. Before the lockdown an estimated 60% of all food consumed in the United States today was consumed outside the home. That includes in restaurants, fast food places, schools, in university cafeterias, company cafeterias and the like. That has now been all but shut since March, creating huge disruptions to what had been a well-organized supply chain delivery. Large restaurants or company cafeterias receive supplies of everything from butter to meat in entirely different volumes and packing than a retail supermarket. A major vulnerability exists in the mammoth agribusiness concentrations known as CAFOs or Concentrated Agriculture Feeding Organizations.

CAFOs At Risk

On April 12, one of the largest pork processing plants in the USA, Smithfield Foods, in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, announced it would close indefinitely after several hundred of its 3,700 employees tested positive for coronavirus, COVID-19. The closing of that one plant will impact some 5% of US pork supply. Smithfields Foods is one of the world’s largest agribusiness concentrations.

In 2018, Smithfields, the world’s largest pork producer, was forced to pay almost half a billion dollars in its Tar Heel, North Carolina plant for massive and unreasonable pollution. That one plant, the world’s largest processing plant, slaughters some 32,000 pigs daily. The animal fecal waste, mixed with massive doses of antibiotics to control infections, was cause of the lawsuit.

Smithfields Foods has facilities in Mexico, Poland, Romania, Germany, and the United Kingdom, mostly countries where regulations are lax. And the Virginia-based group today is owned by China. In 2013 the largest meat producer in China, WH Group of Luohe, Henan, purchased Smithfield Foods for $4.72 billion. That made the Chinese company one of the largest foreign landowners in the United States and owner of the largest pork supplier in the USA. Given that China suffered a devastating loss of its pig population in 2019 from African Swine Fever by as much as 50%, today there are huge competing demands on the pork production from Smithfields.

The COVID testing at the South Dakota plant is just the tip of a very precarious iceberg of infections and sickness, not only coronavirus strains, that is endemic to the huge concentration of agribusiness in North America and globally.

Another giant meat processing conglomerate, Tyson Foods, on April 6 was forced to shut its plant in Waterloo Iowa after death of two workers tested positive for coronavirus. On April 17 after four workers at a Tysons plant in Camilla, Georgia, died after being tested positive for COVID-19, pressure has been building for the company to close that plant as well. To date the company says it will do temperature testing and require face masks in the densely-crowded, low pay plant. The trade union is asking 14-day quarantine paid sick leave for workers tested positive, so far without success. There is no evidence of detailed examination into whether these workers died of co-morbitity from other infections and happened also to test coronavirus positive.

Tyson Foods, an Arkansas company, whose then head, Don Tyson, was instrumental in Clinton’s 1992 presidential victory, is the world’s second largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork, with sales of $46 billion in 2019. Tyson Foods is a major meat supplier to Wal-Mart, the huge Arkansas retail giant. It also supplies fast food chains such as KFC. Since an agreement in December, 2019, Tysons also exports significant volumes of chicken parts and pork to China to help fill the lack of pigmeat protein there, in addition to owning major poultry facilities in China. Reportedly, workers, typically low-paid, work elbow to elbow with no access to masks.

Even without coronavirus fears, the CAFO plants are rife with sickness and toxins. The size of the company’s facilities is staggering. One Tyson Foods facility in Nebraska produces enough meat products every day to feed 18 million people. Tyson, one corporation, controls roughly 26 percent of US beef production.

On April 13 JBS USA Holdings was also forced to close its main US facility in Greeley, Colo., for a deep cleaning, and all of its workers will be tested before they can return for their jobs after major numbers of coronavirus positive cases were tested there after two workers, one 78 years old, died. JBS USA is a subsidiary of JBS S.A., a Brazilian company that is the world’s largest processor of fresh beef, with more than US$50 billion in annual sales. The subsidiary was created when JBS entered the U.S. market in 2007 with its purchase of Swift & Company. JBS USA controls some 20 percent of US beef production.

The third largest US meat processor, Cargill, has cut half its workers at their Fort Morgan Colorado meatpacking plant as multiple positive coronavirus tests emerged. In Canada, Cargill, has tested 358 coronavirus positives at its major Alberta meat-packing plant. The food-workers’ union there is calling for the plant to be closed for two weeks to develop a better health strategy, a plea so far ignored by Cargill. At the same time the company laid off 1,000 of its 2,000 workers at that plant, refusing to give details. The plant, one of two beef suppliers to McDonalds Canada, processes thousands of cattle daily. Cargill today controls about 22 percent of the US domestic meat market.

These three giant corporate conglomerates, then, control more than two thirds of the total meat and poultry protein supply of the United States and additionally supply major exports to the rest of the world. That is a concentration which is alarmingly dangerous as we are beginning to see. Whatever coronavirus test results, they are huge cesspools of toxins that workers are exposed to. Covid-19 tests would indicate positive for such toxic infections as well as they do not directly test presence of any virus, merely of antibodies claimed to indicate COVID-19.

The Agribusiness Model

This unhealthy degree of concentration was not always so. It began as a strategic project of Nelson Rockefeller and the Rockefeller Foundation after World War II. The idea was to create a corporate strictly-for-profit vertical integration and cartelization of the food chain as John D. Rockefeller had done with Standard Oil and petroleum. Rockefeller money funded two Harvard Business School professors. John H. Davis, former Assistant Agriculture Secretary under Eisenhower, and Ray Goldberg, both at Harvard Business School got financing from Rockefellers to develop what they named “agribusiness.” In a 1956 Harvard Business Review article, Davis wrote that “the only way to solve the so-called farm problem once and for all, and avoid cumbersome government programs, is to progress from agriculture to agribusiness.”

The Harvard group was part of a Rockefeller Foundation four-year project in cooperation with economist Wassily Leontieff called “Economic Research Project on the Structure of the American Economy.” Ray Goldberg, an ardent proponent of GMO crops, later referred to their Harvard agribusiness project as, “changing our global economy and society more dramatically than any other single event in the history of mankind.” Unfortunately, he may have been not all wrong.

In fact what it has done is to put control of our food into a tiny handful of global private conglomerates in which the traditional family farmer has all but become a contract wage employee or bankrupted entirely. In the USA today some industrial cattle feedlots hold up to 200,000 cattle at a time driven by one thing, and one thing only, and that is economic efficiency. According to USDA statistics, the number of cow/calf ranch operations in the US has dropped from 1.6 million in 1980 to less than 950,000 today. Similarly, the number of small farmer/feeders – those who fatten the cattle in preparation for eventual slaughter – has declined by 38,000. Today fewer than 2,000 commercial feeders finish 87 percent of the cattle grown in the United States.

Food production, like electronics, has become global, as cheap foods are mass packaged and shipped worldwide. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, Russian shops were flooded with Western agribusiness brand products from Nestle, Kelloggs, Kraft and the like. Domestic farm production collapsed. Much the same has taken place from India to Africa to South America as cheaper multinational products drive out local farmers. China before the current crisis imported 60% of its soybeans from US-controlled grain companies such as Cargill or ADM.

The system is essentially one in which farming has transformed to become factories to produce protein. It takes GMO corn and GMO soybeans to feed the animal, add vitamins and antibiotics in massive amounts to maximize weight gain before slaughter. The vertical integration of our food supply chain under globalization of the past decades has created an alarming vulnerability to precisely the kind of crisis we now have. During all past food emergencies production was local and regional and decentralized such that a breakdown in one or several centers did not threaten the global supply chain. Not today. The fact that today the United States is far the world’s largest food exporter reveals how vulnerable the world food supply has become. Coronavirus may have only put the spotlight on this dangerous problem. To correct it will take years and the will to take such measures as countries like Russia have been forced to do in response to economic sanctions.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from NEO

---

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

The 2010s were the end of ‘the end of history.’ Beginning in the shadow of the largest financial crash since the Great Depression, it was a decade in which the injustice of austerity tore away at the social fabric and consigned third-way politics to the rearview mirror.

In Britain, the decade began with the iconic student protest movement, the rise of UK Uncut and the TUC’s “March for the Alternative.” Soon, these protests against the political and economic order reached global significance with the rise of Occupy Wall Street in New York alongside the movements of the squares in Spain and Greece.

Before long, those countries would be at the forefront of attempts to elect left-wing governments in opposition to the European Union’s austerity measures, attempts which themselves prefigured the rise of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders.

It has been a tumultuous period for the Left, one in which it suffered seismic defeats but also gained audiences far in excess of any it had seen since the early 1990s. To assess its ramifications Tribune sat down with Leo Panitch, co-editor of the Socialist Register.

***

Ronan Burtenshaw (RB): Looking back over the last decade on the Left, you can identify three phases. It begins with the Occupy moment, a horizontalist response to the Financial Crisis which eschewed party politics. Then you have the development from the ‘movements of the squares’ across Europe to new left-wing parties of various kinds, such as SYRIZA in Greece and Podemos in Spain. At the end of the decade, you have this attempt by longstanding left-wingers to win power within the traditional left-of-centre parties in their respective countries, such as in Britain and the United States. How would you characterize these experiences? To what degree do you think progress has been made?

Leo Panitch (LP): I think enormous progress has been made. We saw a movement from protest to politics. It was a short bridge from the police riot against the G20 demonstration here in Toronto in 2010 to Occupy Wall Street and the Spanish indignados a year later. There is a path you can follow from this to Jeremy Corbyn’s election as leader of the Labour Party in 2015 and the Bernie Sanders candidacy in 2016 in the United States.

These were remarkable political developments. People began to realise a decade before, when parties like SYRIZA and Die Linke were formed, that you can protest forever – even with large and impactful protests – without changing the world. The anti-WTO protests began in 1995, then reached their height in Seattle in 1999, these were followed by the mass anti-war protests of the early 2000s. These were evidence that neoliberalism was actually far less popular than people imagined. But as the protests lingered on, people figured out that more was needed. No one sat down and figured it out, or gave instructions to the protestors.

It took some creative leadership, like when Alexis Tsipras said in 2012 ‘we will join with anyone to form a government and stop the torture’ or when Pablo Iglesias said ‘we need to move from the squares to some relationship with the state.’ In the UK it took Corbyn to say, when no other Socialist Campaign Group MP would say it, ‘I’ll run for leadership.’ His campaign in many ways built on years of anti-austerity movements and campaigning, but that moment was able to galvanise something that reached far beyond them. It tapped into a deep enthusiasm for change which those protests represented but which wasn’t capable of changing things fundamentally. Sanders has been much the same in recent years.

Today, even after the defeat in the general election, there are 40,000 members of Momentum. In the United States, similarly, there are 60,000 members of the Democratic Socialists of America. These are things to build on. That is not to say these organizations are always clear politically or know where they are going – they often do not. It is not to say they have done enough to sink deep roots in working-class communities, though many involved want to. But it is an important historical development and it is crucial that Corbyn’s defeat doesn’t lead to their demoralization.

RB: Where does the question of the party stand after this decade? Clearly, one part of what you have just laid out is the movement from the streets into the parties. Yet it has happened in different forms: SYRIZA brought together existing radical left groups, Podemos was a populist party based on digital organizing and a communications strategy, and in Britain it was an attempt to take the historic party of the labour movement back to left-wing politics. What do you make of these different models?

LP: In the 1960s there was this kind of creativity in the streets that led to the creation of historic social movements for liberation and against war. My generation back then already felt that the historic working-class parties had run their course as agents of transformative social change. That wasn’t to say we thought the party apparatuses, the MPs, the councillors, the institutions, didn’t have a long shelf life. We saw that they did. But we recognized that they weren’t going to be transformative any longer.

So we set off on the course of founding new mass parties. Some, not myself, set themselves the task of finding a better Leninism. Others, far fewer in number, tried to find a better Maoism. Some of us tried to found new mass democratic socialist parties, ones that would use the pre-First World War Second International as a model but try not to become so co-opted and oligarchic. My generation, in each of those efforts, failed. The younger generation has embarked on this path again.

It was surprising in some ways – certainly to people like me who had followed previous attempts to transform the Labour Party in the 1970s and ’80s – to see a socialist win the leadership. But he galvanized the same energy that was mobilizing those new parties in other countries in Europe at the time, which was clearly powerful. It is worth pointing out that many of those newer parties are now in deals of various kinds with the old social-democratic parties. In fact, in Spain, they are in coalition government. So there is a kind of coming together of these experiences.

Whichever path was pursued – building new parties or trying to bring the old ones back left – it was never going to be easy. There is a danger that even the new parties in countries with proportional representation voting systems will become ‘social-democratised’ in the bad sense of that word. We can see that now happening with SYRIZA under Tsipras. In some ways, the forces at work inside the Labour Party now and inside the Democratic Party in the United States are more on guard against these tendencies, they are more aware of the old problems of hollowed-out, top-down, centralized parties.

Every time there has been this attempt to transform the Labour Party – and it has happened many times – it has been the result of a great crisis of capitalism. In the early decades of the last century, there was the Great Depression and Ramsay MacDonald taking the party into national government, imposing harsh cuts on unemployment insurance and trying to resolve things from the right. The MacDonald faction became National Labour and the Labour Party itself won only won fifty seats in the 1931 election. Labour then moved left and elected a radical pacifist and socialist, George Lansbury, as its leader.

It was a time of huge unemployment marches and a great desire for change, but Lansbury and the Labour Party in parliament more generally struggled to resonate with the mood outside. Then, just before the 1935 election, Labour conference rejected his line on rearmament – Lansbury was opposed as a pacifist – and he resigned the leadership. Shortly afterwards, Labour regained about 100 seats in the general election under Clement Attlee. Attlee, of course, won the 1945 general election, and led the great post-war Labour government. But, with the exception of Bevan, who of course built the NHS, that was a government in which the Left was largely marginalized.

In that period, even a lot of previously left-wing MPs rapidly accepted the settlement with capital that government oversaw. They accepted that nationalization would be limited and wouldn’t have anything to do with industrial democracy, even though in the early stages the trade unions were voting for workers’ control at Labour conferences. Stafford Cripps, who was one of the founders of Tribune who was seen as a Marxist in the 1930s, became a very conventional chancellor of the exchequer by the end of the 1940s and introduced wage restraint. Bevan, of course, was the exception – he truly managed to carry out a radical reform in building the National Health Service on left-wing lines, although he admitted he had to ‘stuff the doctors’ mouths with gold’ to do it.

The Bevanites, who were then leading Tribune, like Michael Foot, were on the outside of that 1945 government and critical of its limitations. In fact, they stayed on the margins until the 1960s when a former Tribunite in Harold Wilson became prime minister. Some of them joined his cabinet – but it was an extremely disappointing government. It was under Wilson that the contradictions of post-war social democracy first began to show, and the settlement come apart, particularly as finance capital began flooding into London by the end of the 1960s. Under Wilson, wage restraint became almost the main aim of the Labour government, disciplining the trade unions to ensure that the economic crisis didn’t deepen. This got even worse in the 1970s. But by that time the great 1960s protest and social movements had begun to change the political landscape, and galvanize the New Left.

Image on the right: Michael Foot (1913 – 2010) was British Labour Party Leader from 1980 to 1983. Tony Benn (1925 – 2014).

The Bennites, of course, were those who attempted to take these energies into the Labour Party and transform it in a more democratic direction. People like Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell were produced by that effort to move the party to the left, learning from and developing on the work of social movements in previous years. That was the most impressive attempt in any social-democratic party anywhere in history, in my view, to take a party that had become ossified and bureaucratized and co-opted by capital and make it a force for change again with democratic socialist politics. Tony Benn had been laying the ground for it since 1969 when he said ‘we need to go beyond the post-war reforms’, that unless we challenged capital and took control over the investment process, we would lose those reforms. He saw neoliberalism before it happened.

Together with the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) Benn fought a decade-long struggle for democracy and socialism inside the party. The CLPD used to say ‘if you can’t democratise the Labour Party, you can’t democratize the British state.’ The Bennites’ attempts to reform the party remain relevant today – making MPs accountable to members with reselection, giving them the right to elect the leader and making the cabinet responsible to Labour conference for its policies. Foot was, in a responsible way, I think, taking the need for party unity on his own shoulders – but we know what happened then.

After Foot, Neil Kinnock came in – another figure who had been on the left, and used his leadership to discipline the Bennites as well as drive others like the Militant Tendency out of the party. This, in turn, laid the foundations for New Labour to emerge in the 1990s. That project ended any idea that Labour would break fundamentally from neoliberalism. The lesson is that it’s very difficult to transform these parties. But there are encouraging signs – the size of Momentum, the role of left-wing unions in supporting Corbynism. There is a lot to be said for fighting to continue the effort in the coming years. But it won’t be done under an effort that puts uniting the party front and centre. That has been the calling card for all previous projects to defeat and marginalize the Left.

RB: I want to ask as well about the working class itself. At the beginning of this decade, in the years after the crash, you had severe austerity programmes across many countries and what remained of the welfare state came under attack. At the same time there was a rise of job casualization and insecure employment, and attacks in many countries – like in Greece, Spain, Britain, France – on the unions themselves. But looking at statistics about the days lost to strike action and union density, there hasn’t been a marked growth in trade union membership or in class struggle. What does that tell us about these left-wing projects of the past decade?

LP: Ultimately, it comes down to the success of the neoliberals in breaking the backs of the trade union militancy that was the response to the economic crisis of the 1970s. That was one big difference between Bennism and Corbynism. In Tony Benn’s case you had a real movement across the country of workplace organizing and struggle, then obviously through the 1980s you also had events like the miners’ strike. But that resulted, as we know, in a great defeat for the trade union movement.

The Thatcher government waged war on the union movement and the question has to be asked: why couldn’t the unions stop it? The answer to that is to be found in how the unions themselves developed over the course of the century, particularly in the post-war period, how they were pulled into corporatist relations with the state and were demobilized in the process. Beyond that, they never became the ‘schools of socialism’ that Marx and Engels had hoped for. Even when they were strong and winning things, they were increasingly winning things for their members so they could fill modern capitalism’s allotted role for them as individual consumers. Members knew, in those days, that the only way to improve terms and conditions was to gather together collectively in your workplace and demand it. But the improvements they demanded were increasingly so that they could participate more actively in the market as individual consumers.

The vision of taking power in the workplace, changing who owned things, solving social needs got progressively lost. The main example of this is, of course, the United States, where unions in some ways were involved in the privatization of the welfare state through healthcare. Workers in unions were given guaranteed insurance coverage through private systems while the public systems were dismantled and workers not in unions got thrown to the wolves. But it isn’t just an American question. When the great class struggles of the 1960s and ’70s happened in Europe, they were largely oriented toward being able to own a refrigerator or buy a car. They were about giving more layers access to this kind of society, rather than changing it. There was an anti-authoritarianism to it as well – I won’t be bossed around, or if you were a woman, I won’t be harassed – but it wasn’t really a political class struggle, aimed at changing which class was in power in society.

During the 1970s, Tony Benn would go to party and trade union conferences and sometimes criticise officials for not educating members about politics and the need for industrial democracy. He would talk more broadly too, he would say ‘do your neighbours know what you do as a trade unionist? Do they know why you do it?’ He was asking the question of whether union members would stick with the union through hard times, whether there was a deeper commitment. If you don’t have trade unions that are involved in class formation, in overcoming the differences between a nurse and a miner, inside the class itself, and building a class for itself, then you’re going to be left with a working-class that can be picked off industry by industry.

When you see this as the backdrop, it’s not hard to understand how precaritization developed in recent years. The demise of the unions and their changing character, too, where a young teacher, no matter how proletarianized, doesn’t have the same class-forming experiences as an industrial worker, creates a very different environment today.

RB: Would it be fair to say we have, in this era, attempted to overcome a relatively low level of class struggle with a political substitute? That’s not to say it was the wrong course of action, but that we elected a socialist leader of the Labour Party without any growth in workplace militancy or the development of a real working-class movement. It’s hard to win on those terms. What can we do in the next ten years to ensure we are not trying to do it all from above again, but that our left-wing projects can be backed by renewed workplace militancy?

LP: We don’t write history on our own terms. I think a lot of people would have hoped that the rise of Corbyn – who consistently backed unions and workers’ issues – would go alongside an increase in workplace activity. Certainly, that was one of the reasons that Corbyn got such strong support from left-wing trade unionists; and many unions in Britain had been coming around to the idea that there was a connection between broader movements and what happens in the workplace, you can see this by the role they played in things like Stop the War and the People’s Assembly.

It is certainly true that huge numbers of young people were galvanized into politics by Corbyn. You have to hope that the capacity is there for them to become active in their workplaces, that they undertake struggles in their own lives and take part in that class formation. Similarly, I was speaking recently to younger members of the DSA in the United States. One of them, Meagan Day, was describing a recent campaign of theirs in California, where they backed a black working-class activist [Jovanka Beckles] for state assembly. They didn’t win, but she said the real value of the campaign was the roots they built in black working-class communities. This meant that, when the teachers’ strike happened in January and February of last year, it was the Oakland DSA that was running the school luncheons outside the picket line, so that the local families didn’t have to cross the picket line to get a meal for their kids.

People are changed through their involvement in projects like the ones around Corbyn and Sanders. The process of trying to build a party that can transform a state itself creates a broader capacity in people to look at the world differently. When you’ve won people over to a project like that, they are prepared to sacrifice – and everyone knows you don’t win a strike without sacrifice. You don’t win a strike without collectivizing a part of your life, either, and that’s what being in a movement means. Strikes are rarely won without collective institutions at a local level, which help people see through a struggle. This is a long and slow process, it involves people dedicating themselves to become organizers.

RB: Arguably, the defining characteristic of Corbynism was its generational politics – that is the sharpest division and most pronounced shift we have seen in the past two elections. Corbyn’s base in the end was young people dealing with real class questions: low wages, high rents, student debt. Many of them saw in Corbyn’s Labour Party a possibility of improving their lives. As someone who has been around decades on the left, what would your advice be to this emerging generation of socialists?

LP: It’s easy to give advice, it’s much harder to follow it. I think this generation really threw itself creatively into electoral politics – not just in 2017 but in 2019 as well – and produced some of the most vibrant campaigns we have seen in a long time. They showed enormous dedication and selflessness. The hard answer to your question is, real change involves doing that on a more permanent basis. That’s difficult to do, especially if you’re in a precarious situation.

But there is a tradition of this on the left. Many of the old organizers were precarious. They went into places they didn’t know, places that needed organizing. They slept on people’s floors and in their attics, they shared food. They were an integral part of building up the collective capacity of workers to engage in class struggle. This can’t be done in isolation – it should be done alongside the trade union movement. I remember one leading figure in Unite once spoke to me about needing to have a Momentum in Unite. Well, when you have all these young people with such enthusiasm, many of whom have difficult working conditions, many of whom are already socialist, trade union leaders should be thinking about how to bring them on board to revitalize their own organizations.

As for Momentum, we need an organization that goes beyond just supporting Corbyn in elections. Or winning reselection and other democratic reforms inside the party. It needs to be permanently engaged in teaching people how to be organizers and in developing its members’ own political education, so they can work at the base to engage in what needs to be seen as class re-formation today. Organizers need to facilitate the process whereby the rider for Uber Eats, the call centre worker, the worker in a warehouse, and erstwhile professionals like teachers, who are being proletarianized, all recognize themselves as part of the new working-class.

I think my greatest piece of advice would be to commit for the long haul. The tenor of the moment is to say ‘we’ve only got five or ten years left’ because of the depth of the climate emergency. That kind of slogan was designed to get people to see how serious things are. But as a political strategy it is a dead end. We can’t think in those terms, no matter how desperate the climate situation. We have to be able to think in terms of ten, fifteen or twenty years. There is fundamental class and organizational rebuilding to be done. It takes time.

Even if Corbyn had won a plurality in December’s election, he would still have been forced to govern not only with the Scottish National Party (SNP) or the Liberals, but with many MPs in his own party who aren’t committed to socialism. How much would he really have been able to do without longer-term organizing happening outside the government? Without rebuilding class institutions? Without political education? We have to be sober about this, it’s a long fight.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All images in this article are from The Bullet

Millions of people have lost their jobs, and their lifelong savings. In developing countries, poverty and despair prevail. 

While the lockdown is presented to public opinion as  the sole means to resolving a global public health crisis,  its devastating economic and social impacts are casually ignored.  

The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire World into a spiral of  mass unemployment, bankruptcy and extreme poverty. 

This is the true picture of what is happening.

How is it implemented? The fear campaign plays a key role. The lockdown is presented to national governments as the sole solution.

The economy is the basis for the reproduction of real life.

It is also the basis for upholding public health endeavors.

This closing down operation affects production and supply lines of goods and services, investment activities, exports and imports, wholesale and retail trade, consumer spending, the closing down of schools, colleges and universities, research institutions, etc.

In turn it leads almost immediately to mass unemployment, bankruptcies of small and medium sized enterprises, a collapse in purchasing power, widespread poverty and famine.

VIDEO: COVID: Closing Down the Economy is not the Solution

“O distanciamento social chegou para ficar muito mais do que algumas semanas. Num certo sentido, irá perturbar o nosso modo de vida para sempre”: anunciaram os pesquisadores do Instituto de Tecnologia de Massachusetts, uma das universidades de maior prestígio dos Estados Unidos (MIT Technology Review, We’re not goingback to normal, 17 March 2020).

Citam o relatório apresentado pelos pesquisadores do Imperial College London, segundo o qual o distanciamento social deve tornar-se uma norma constante e ser reduzido ou intensificado, de acordo com o número de pacientes hospitalizados pelo vírus, nas unidades de terapia intensiva. O modelo elaborado por estes e por outros pesquisadores não diz respeito só às medidas a ser tomadas contra o coronavírus. Torna-se num modelo social, real e preciso, do qual já se preparam os procedimentos e os instrumentos que os governos deverão impor como lei.

Os dois gigantes da Informática, Apple e Google, até agora rivais, associaram-se para inserir biliões de sistemas móveis para iPhone e Android, em todo o mundo, num programa de “seguimento de contactos” que avisa os clientes se alguém infectado com o vírus se  está a  aproximar deles. As duas empresas garantem que o programa “respeitará a transparência e a privacidade dos utentes”.

Um sistema de rastreio ainda mais eficaz é o dos “certificados digitais”, nos quais estão a trabalhar duas universidades americanas, a Rice University e o MIT, apoiadas pela Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a fundação americana criada por Bill Gates, fundador da Microsoft, a segunda pessoa mais rica do mundo na classificação da revista Forbes. Ele anunciou-o publicamente, respondendo a um empresário que lhe perguntou como retomar as actividades de produção, mantendo o distanciamento social:

“No final, teremos certificados digitais para mostrar quem se recuperou ou foi testado recentemente, ou quando tivermos uma vacina, se esse indivíduo a tomou. (The Blog of Bill Gates, 31 questions and answers about COVID-19, 19 March 2020).

O certificado digital de que Gates fala, não é o actual cartão de saúde electrónico. A Rice University anunciou, em Dezembro de 2019, a invenção de pontos quânticos à base de cobre que, injectados no corpo juntamente com a vacina, “se tornam em algo semelhante a uma tatuagem de código de barras, que pode ser lida através de um smartphone personalizado”.(Rice University, Quantum-dot tattoos holdvaccination record, 18 Dicember 2019). A mesma tecnologia foi desenvolvida pelo Instituto de Tecnologia Massachusetts (Scientific American, Invisible Ink CouldReveal whether Kids Have Been Vaccinated, 19 Dicember 2019).

A invenção desta tecnologia foi encomendada e financiada pela Fundação Gates, que declara querer usá-la nas vacinas para crianças,principalmente nos países em desenvolvimento. Também poderia ser usada numa vacinação à escala global contra o coronavírus.

Bill Gates

Este é o futuro “modo de vida” que nos é anunciado: o distanciamento social com estrutura variável sempre em vigor, o medo constante de ser abordado por um infectado pelo vírus sinalizado por um toque do nosso telemóvel, o controlo permanente pelo “código de barras” implantado no nosso corpo. Seria, essencialmente, uma extensão dos sistemas militares com os quais se podem seguir e acertar nos “alvos” humanos.

Sem subestimar o perigo do coronavírus – seja qual for a sua origem – e a necessidade de medidas para impedir a sua propagação, não podemos deixar nas mãos dos cientistas do MIT e da Fundação Gates a decisão de qual deve ser o nosso modo de vida. Também não podemos parar de pensar e fazer perguntas. Por exemplo:

É muito grave que o número de mortes devido ao coronavírus, na Europa, seja actualmente, quase 97.000, mas que medidas devem ser tomadas em proporção, contra as partículas finas, as PM2,5,  que – segundo os dados oficiais da European Environment Agency(Airquality in Europe – 2019 report)  – provocam, a cada ano, na Europa, a morte prematura de mais de 400.000 pessoas?

Manlio Dinucci

 

Artigo original em italiano :

Distanziamento sociale dalla democrazia

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

«Il distanziamento sociale è qui per rimanere molto più di qualche settimana. Stravolgerà il nostro modo di vivere, in un certo senso per sempre»: lo hanno annunciato i ricercatori del Massachusetts Institute of Technology, una delle più prestigiose università statunitensi (MIT Technology Review,We’re not going back to normal, 17 marzo 2020).

Essi citano il rapporto presentato dai ricercatori dell’Imperial College London, secondo cui il distanziamento sociale dovrebbe divenire una norma costante ed essere allentato o intensificato  a seconda del numero di ricoverati per il virus nei reparti di terapia intensiva. Il modello elaborato da questi e altri ricercatori non riguarda solo le misure da prendere contro il coronavirus. Esso diviene un vero e proprio modello sociale, di cui già si preparano le procedure e gli strumenti che i governi dovrebbero imporre per legge.

I due giganti statunitensi dell’informatica Apple e Google, finora rivali, si sono associati per inserire nei sistemi operativi di miliardi di cellulari iPhone e Android, in tutto il mondo, un programma di «tracciamento dei contatti» che avverte gli utenti se qualche infettato dal virus si sta avvicinando a loro. Le due società garantiscono che il programma «rispetterà la trasparenza e la privacy degli utenti».

Un sistema di tracciamento ancora più efficace è quello dei «certificati digitali», a cui stanno lavorando due università statunitensi, la Rice University e il MIT, sostenute dalla Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, la fondazione statunitense creata da Bill Gates, fondatore della Microsoft, la seconda persona più ricca del mondo nella classifica della rivista Forbes. Lo ha annunciato lui stesso pubblicamente, rispondendo a un imprenditore che gli chiedeva  come poter riprendere le attività produttive mantenendo il distanziamento sociale:

«Alla fine avremo dei certificati digitali per mostrare chi è guarito o è stato testato di recente, o quando avremo un vaccino chi lo ha ricevuto» (The Blog of Bill Gates, 31 questions and answers about COVID-19, 19 marzo 2020).

Bill Gates

Il certificato digitale di cui parla Gates non è l’attuale tessera sanitaria elettronica. La Rice University ha annunciato nel dicembre 2019 l’invenzione di punti quantici a base di rame che, iniettati nel corpo insieme al vaccino, «divengono qualcosa come un tatuaggio con codice a barre, che può essere letto con uno smartphome personalizzato» (Rice University, Quantum-dot tattoos hold vaccination record, 18 dicembre 2019).

La stessa tecnologia è stata sviluppata dal Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Scientific American, Invisible Ink Could Reveal whether Kids Have Been Vaccinated, 19 dicembre 2019).

L’invenzione di questa tecnologia è stata commissionata e finanziata dalla Fondazione Gates, che dichiara di volerla usare nelle vaccinazioni dei bambini principalmente nei paesi in via di sviluppo. Essa potrebbe essere usata anche in una vaccinazione su scala globale contro il coronavirus.

Questo è il futuro «modo di vivere» che ci viene preannunciato: il distanziamento sociale ad assetto variabile sempre in vigore, la costante paura di essere avvicinati da un infettato dal virus segnalato da uno squillo del nostro cellulare, il controllo permanente attraverso il «codice a barre» impiantato nel nostro corpo. Sarebbe in sostanza una estensione dei sistemi militari con cui si possono seguire e colpire i «bersagli» umani.

Senza sottovalutare la pericolosità del coronavirus, qualunque sia la sua origine, e la necessità di misure per impedirne la diffusione, non possiamo lasciare in mano agli scienziati del MIT e alla Fondazione Gates la decisione di quale deve essere il nostro modo di vivere. Né possiamo smettere di pensare, ponendo delle domande. Ad esempio:

È molto grave che le morti da coronavirus in Europa siano attualmente quasi 97.000, ma quali misure si dovrebbero in proporzione prendere contro le polveri sottili, le PM2,5, che – secondo i dati ufficiali  della European Environment Agency (Air quality in Europe – 2019 report) – ogni anno provocano in Europa la morte prematura di oltre 400.000 persone?

Manlio Dinucci

 

Concerns about the virus SARS-COV-2 that causes the disease called COVID-19 have centered around reported mortality rates. However, errors in reporting those rates have led to confusion regarding the true health impacts. Because estimated rates are dependent on the test used to identify infected patients, understanding that test and its history could lead to much needed clarity.

Errors in reported mortality rates have come from mistakes in calculation. An example has been equating the measured case fatality rate (deaths divided by patients actively infected) with the actual mortality rate (deaths divided by patients who were ever infected). The latter number is unknown and will not be known until antibody titers can be performed to see who has previously been infected. But that actual mortality rate is expected to be much lower, perhaps around 0.3% as estimated by an epidemiologist from Stanford University.

Another common error has been attributing the deaths of all infected people to COVID-19, regardless of other pre-existing illnesses. This error has been magnified by governments mandating that all deaths of presumptive patients be listed as death from COVID-19, even if the patient was never tested for SARS-COV-2 at all.

The mortality rate errors would be further worsened if there were errors in testing for presence of the virus. What is becoming increasingly clear is that there have been serious questions regarding the reliability of that testing.

The test in question uses a technique called reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) to identify the presence of RNA from SARS-COV-2. Testing follows different protocols in different countries and the first problem was seen in China, the reported origin of the virus.

The Chinese Mystery

A scientific study was performed in China that targeted subjects who had been in close contact with SARS-COV-2 infected patients. The results were peer-reviewed and published in the Chinese Journal of Epidemiology on March 5^th, 2020. The data-driven conclusion of the study was that “nearly half or even more” of patients testing positive for SARS-COV-2 did not actually have the virus. In other words, half of the results were false positives.

For perspective, this study was peer-reviewed and published in a Chinese state journal a month after COVID-19 was said to have surpassed the 2003 SARS epidemic and just as the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak to be a pandemic. This was a full month after China had ordered a lockdown affecting over 36 million people.

Mysteriously, this peer-reviewed study was withdrawn a few days after publication and is no longer available for review. In response, one investigative team asked a Chinese graduate student to contact the lead author of the study, Dr. GH Zhuang, for explanation. Dr. Zhuang responded by email but did not cite a reason for withdrawal of the paper, only saying that it was “a sensitive matter.” Others then made the false assumption that the author had identified a mistake in the science despite the fact that no such mistake was ever identified.

As reported by the investigative team that contacted Dr, Zhuang,

 “Without access to the paper, nobody can assess the value of the work or determine whether it suffers from a scientific flaw. It’s also unknown if the paper was retracted for political reasons.”

To understand the concept of a false positive one should realize that analytical test methods need to be balanced with respect to quality considerations like sensitivity and specificity. If a test is not sensitive enough, the analyte of interest will not be found when it is there, giving a false negative. If a test is not specific enough, something else in the test sample will be identified as being the target analyte when it is not, giving a false positive.

In this case, a false positive could mean that the test is reacting to another virus or genetic source. Alternatively, the test could be detecting the presence of SARS-COV-2 residues after a previously infected individual is no longer sick. Lastly, even very small amounts of contamination in the laboratory can cause a false positive. No matter the cause, false positives mean higher reported mortality rates, more confusion, more fear, and more bad decisions.

The RT-qPCR test for SARS-COV-2 is being used as a qualitative test, despite the technique name including the word quantitative. This means that the actual amount of virus in a sample is not considered important, only the presence of even a small amount of virus. This concern would be lessened if the actual test results showing levels of virus detected were available. Unfortunately, all the public sees are numbers of positive or negative determinations.

WHO Guidance and the Test

The World Health Organization (WHO) originally based testing on a kit developed in Germany, not on the Chinese protocol. WHO has since developed general guidance for testing SARS-COV-2. This guidance requires some understanding of terminology so it’s helpful to understand the virus and the principle of testing.

RT-qPCR involves multiple steps. The sample is first lysed (i.e. the cells are cut) to release any viral material. Then the target RNA is converted into complementary DNA (cDNA) using an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. This is sometimes called the “extraction” step. After this, the cDNA is used as a template for amplification using qPCR, allowing the original quantity of target RNA to be determined.

The amplification is not done on the entire cDNA sequence but on segments that are expected to be representative of the specific genome of interest and, correspondingly, not representative of other genetic materials that could be present. Segments of the SARS-COV-2 genetic code that are usually targeted correspond to sections of the original RNA named ORF1a, ORF1ab, S, M, E, and N.

Synthetic primers and fluorescent probes are identified to match up with the target genetic segments to facilitate amplification and detection. The primers are small nucleotide sequences that bind to the target segments of the cDNA genetic sequence. The primers used are critical and issues with primer design can lead to variation in results.

As described in an article in The Scientist, the WHO-recommended primers first target the E gene of SARS-COV-2. The E gene is considered highly divergent and therefore more specific to the different coronaviruses. If a lab following WHO guidance obtains a positive screening test, it will do confirmatory testing targeting other areas of the virus genome. To avoid false positives, “every positive test has been confirmed with whole genome sequencing, viral culture, or electron microscopy.”

The U.S. Test

Unfortunately, the U.S. decided to follow its own rules for testing of SARS-COV-2. In fact, WHO and CDC never discussed the U.S. using the same test as being done internationally. Investigators from The Scientist found that it was “not clear why the CDC chose to develop a different assay to that selected by the WHO and taken up by other countries. The CDC declined to respond to questions.”

The CDC was criticized for its decision and problems were later found with its test kits. Although CDC has been secretive about the details, the concerns with its test appear to have included both test design issues and contamination.

CDC began manufacturing its test kit in January and shipped it on February 5^th to state labs and to 30 other countries including 191 international labs. A week later, in a February 12^th briefing at the CDC, problems with the test were reported. Although the statements made were unclear, it appeared that states were complaining the test was “inconclusive” and therefore CDC was going to focus on “redoing the manufacturing.”

It was reported that, “the CDC added to the confusion by providing limited information to labs in the weeks that followed. There was a period of time after the tests were recalled where there was near silence. It was about two weeks.” It was only after an open letter to Congress on February 28^th, from more than 100 virologists and other specialists, that the CDC responded by allowing independent labs that had validated their own tests to begin testing.

The CDC test originally included three primers, all targeting one gene—the N gene of SARS-COV-2 that encodes for the nucleocapsid. The primers were denoted N1, N2, and N3. Nucleocapsids of RNA viruses “are fairly simple structures that contain only one major structural protein…This protein is usually basic or has a basic domain.”

Although the CDC test might have provided good sensitivity, it appears that it did not provide high specificity as it targeted only one basic gene of the coronavirus. CDC admitted the lack of certainty in a disclaimer noted in the method, saying, positive results “do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”

At first, due to CDC secrecy, problems with the test kit were difficult to understand. As the Washington Post reported, “The trouble with the CDC test arose because the third attempt at a match, known as the N3 component, produced an inconclusive result even on known samples of the coronavirus.”

But that was not the whole story.

On February 28^th, as the open letter to Congress was being recognized, it was reported that the N3 primer of the CDC kit was contaminated. The contamination caused the negative control within the kit, containing DNA that was unrelated to SARS-COV-2, to react as if it was a positive hit for SARS-COV-2. In other words, the kits were generating false positives for negative controls.

How much contamination was present was not clear because, again, the actual test results giving amounts of virus found are not available to the public. And CDC has not been open with communications about the problems found. Oddly enough, in April, test kits in the UK were also found to be “contaminated with COVID-19.”

What did CDC do to correct the problems with the kit? Instead of re-manufacturing the N3 primer as originally planned, on March 15^th the CDC simply told everyone who had the kit to remove the N3 primer and use the kits without it. Additionally, CDC changed its method requirements to eliminate the need to confirm positive results. This made the test kit that was based on detection of only one basic gene in SARS-COV-2 even less specific and told users that results didn’t need to be confirmed. These changes made the test less reliable in terms of identifying SARS-COV-2 and therefore made any subsequent estimates of mortality rates less reliable as well.

Summary

The history of testing for SARS-COV-2 infection has involved problems that have led to delays in testing and reporting of rates of infection than are falsely higher than actual. Complicating these issues are government mandates for medical professionals to list COVID-19 as cause of death for patients who have inconclusive causes of death and, in some cases, were never tested for SARS-COV-2 at all.

Understanding problems with the test performed for identification of infected patients can lead to much needed clarity and less panic. There are many questions that still need answers. For example: Are reported rates for other diseases like influenza dropping in proportion to the rise in reported infection by SARS-COV-2? What were the details of the Chinese study that was mysteriously retracted? What has investigation into the CDC kit contamination revealed? What other countries have based their mortality figures on test kits that provided unreliable results?

Citizens can help by calling on authorities and test facilities to publicly share the details of testing including the actual results of the RT-qPCR tests showing levels of virus present. In addition to information sharing, an international investigation into the problems seen with testing, starting with Chinese results and U.S. test kits, should be conducted. Such an investigation could lead to preventing the reporting of false positives and the ensuing panic and bad decision making that come from artificially high estimated mortality rates.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Dig Within.

“Colonialism is not a thinking machine,
nor a body endowed with reasoning faculties.
It is violence in its natural state…”

— Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (1963)

This past month Israeli soldiers dumped a Palestinian worker at a checkpoint on the border of the West Bank, shivering from fever and barely able to breathe. According to Middle East Eye, he “had been showing signs of the coronavirus over the past four days, and was recently tested for the virus. But before the man, allegedly a resident of Nablus, could receive his test results, his Israeli employer reportedly called the authorities, who picked him up and dropped him on the other side of the Beit Sira checkpoint, which connects central Israel and the occupied West Bank.” “It’s like we are slaves to them,” says a local Palestinian, “They use us when they need us, and when they are finished, they throw us away like trash.” Since the crisis began Israeli soldiers have actively obstructed the emergency response for Palestinians by shutting down multiple clinics and continuing their practice of arbitrary house demolitions.

Checkpoint in Bethlehem. [Photo: Anne Paq]

Praise for “battle-ready” Israel’s militarized response to the coronavirus pandemic has turned a blind eye to the manner in which it has also weaponized the coronavirus pandemonium against Palestinians. While Gaza has been strangled by a 13-year blockade and repeated military invasions, which renders its two million inhabitants vulnerable to pandemics, in the West Bank Palestinians struggle with a brutal occupation that seeks to deny them the most basic and necessary means to survive and care for themselves. As of April 9, 2020, the West Bank is reported to have 250 cases of the coronavirus. However, these numbers are set to increase significantly in the coming period due to the return of many Palestinian workers from Israel following Passover and for Ramadan. While people in Italy and UK take to their balconies applauding the “essential sector” workers, Palestinians who work in Israel’s “essential industries” find themselves crushed “between the rock of the occupation and the hammer of coronavirus.”¹

Palestinian civil society organizations are calling for an immediate international intervention. Though the COVID crisis may be an “exceptional” moment in recent world history, the conditions to which Palestinians are subjected reminds us that the Nakba (النكبة) – the expulsion, dispossession, and dehumanization of Palestinians in 1948 – is not a fact of the past, but is ongoing. Palestinian workers bear the brunt of this violence. It is imperative that the international left recognize the exceptional setting of the pandemic confronting Palestinians, and take political actions in support of immediate relief to the medical emergency and an end to the Israeli occupation.

The Occupation and the Pandemic

Many Palestinians are denied access to basic health services by Israeli land confiscations and checkpoints. Palestinian communities in Area C, which comprises approximately 60 per cent of the West Bank, are particularly in jeopardy.² In the area of the Naqab (Negev), for example, over 80,000 Palestinians have no access to emergency healthcare. Coronavirus cases are rapidly spreading in East Jerusalem, where Palestinians are subject to Israel’s discriminatory “residency” criteria and severe underfunding of public services.³ Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem only have 22 ventilators for nearly 350,000 people. Many working class and poor Palestinians’ access to health services in the West Bank has been on the decline because their public health infrastructure has been undermined by Israel’s withholding of clearance revenues to the Palestinian Authority (PA), cuts in US funding under the Trump administration, as well as austerity measures imposed on the PA by the World Bank and IMF. In the West Bank, only 256 adult ventilators are available for a population of three million Palestinians, of which 90 per cent are already in use. Spread of the virus will have catastrophic consequences for Palestinians.

Yet efforts by Palestinians to develop communal systems of support are systematically sabotaged by the Israeli occupation. In March, Palestinians involved in disinfecting public spaces and distributing aid packages in the Old City of Jerusalem were arrested. In early April, the Israeli army arrested the Palestinian Authority’s Jerusalem Affairs Minister Fadi Hidmi as he sought to assist Palestinians in Jerusalem with the COVID pandemic.⁴ On April 15, despite forty confirmed cases in the East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan, the Israeli army raided the coronavirus testing clinic in the local mosque and arrested its organizers. Palestinian residents of Silwan have been repeatedly the target of evictions and expulsions, as have Palestinians throughout Area C. In the Jordan Valley hamlet of Khirbet Ibziq, similarly, the Israeli army is sabotaging coronavirus relief attempts by confiscating equipment for the construction of a field clinic and emergency housing for its residents, some of whom have been subject to house demolitions.⁵ Even as the United Nations has called for ceasefire in all conflict zones and populations world over are told to stay indoors, Israel throws Palestinians out of their homes.

On a daily basis, Palestinians confront institutionalized segregation through Israel’s control over their water, access to which is a basic necessity under this pandemic. Israel’s appropriation and exploitation of water in Palestine’s coastal and mountain aquifers and in the Jordan Valley has been one of its main weapons of war. After the 1967 occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, Israeli authorities issued military orders to consolidate their control over underground water basins and water-related infrastructure, a control which they safeguarded under the terms of the 1994 Oslo Accords. Tens of thousands of Palestinians are forced to purchase water (trucked or from the Israeli state-owned water company, Mekorot) at exorbitant prices. According to the United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, more than 180 rural communities in the West Bank have no access to running water. In the “unrecognized” villages of the West Bank, over 56,000 people are in the same situation. According to Amnesty International, water expenses can amount to one-half of the family’s monthly income in some of the poorest communities. The outcome is a manifestly racialized discrimination; the average Israeli settler living in the West Bank consumes three to eight times the amount of water than Palestinians.⁶ This system of “water apartheid” makes it impossible for Palestinians, especially working class and poor, to maintain the most basic hygiene conditions that are necessary to survive this pandemic. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel as an occupying power must at a minimum ensure the basic conditions of health and hygiene, including conditions of water and sanitation.

This moment of the COVID pandemic is being exploited by the Israeli authorities to further intensify military actions, electronic and other mechanisms of surveillance, and to create new “facts on the ground” in a process of annexation of Palestinian land that has been normalized by the Trump administration, recent Israeli Knesset decisions, and the “unity deal” being negotiated between Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz.⁷In the last month, major Israeli settlement blocs such as Gush Etzion south of Jerusalem are being expanded, further cutting the territorial contiguity of the West Bank.⁸ Apartheid road infrastructure for settlers only are being extended in major settlements like Ma’ale Adumim.⁹ While the Palestinian Authority has imposed lockdowns in the West Bank, the Israeli army has intensified night raids, arrests, home demolitions, and house evictions in the West Bank and Jerusalem.¹⁰ In a two week period during the pandemic in March alone, according to Mondoweiss, “Israeli forces injured 200 Palestinians, detained 100, demolished 16 structures.” Israeli violations in the West Bank have intensified meanwhile, with recent news reports that attacks by settlers have risen by 78 per cent with Palestinians being brutally assaulted,¹¹ kidnapped, their olive trees uprooted, and their property spat on by Israeli soldiers and attacked by settler-youths who are under coronavirus quarantine.

Palestinians Crossing the Green Line and the Apartheid of Virus Containment

Palestinians who work in Israel and the settlements are particularly vulnerable during the pandemic. Having stripped Palestinians of their land, Israeli colonization has worked to transform them under military rule into dependent, subordinate, and exploitable wage-workers incorporated into the Israeli economy. A systematic policy of de-development suppressed Palestinian industrial development after 1967, and, accompanied by the expropriation of cultivable land and water in the Occupied Territories, forced many Palestinians to work as daily wage labourers in Israel and on the very settlements built on their confiscated lands. This policy remains in place today. Given the high levels of unemployment as a result of Israel’s strangulation of their economy, Palestinians now working in Israel and the settlements are estimated to number over 133,000,¹² while their wages support a population of over half a million.¹³

Even before the pandemic, these thousands of workers were subject to multiple tools of racial discrimination by the Israeli authorities. These include subjection to the checkpoints’ permits system, which is a primary tool of blackmail to politically discipline Palestinians and force collaboration; inhumane conditions in the checkpoints as thousands cross in the early morning hours; humiliation and harassment by soldiers; and discrimination in law and exploitation in practice by Israeli employers. Palestinian workers have minimal to no legal protections, are paid far less than their Jewish Israeli co-workers, without the benefits of health insurance, and yet they are forced to pay social security contributions and union fees to the Israeli labour syndicate Histadrut without representation. They are exploited by Israeli and Palestinian intermediaries – mafias who force them to pay exorbitant fees (at over $800 (US) monthly) to acquire black market permits to simply cross the Green Line but without any guarantee of actual employment.

The Israelis have been lauded for their “military style” effectiveness in response to COVID, tightening internal lockdowns. However, in order to keep key sectors of the Israeli economy running in the midst of the pandemic, which stood to lose $1.8-billion a month from the cessation of construction alone,¹⁴ the Israeli government allowed continued entry of Palestinian workers into Israel. In doing so, Israeli authorities have used the pandemic to intensify surveillance and repression of these workers. Palestinians who require permits to stay in Israel are now “advised” to download a smartphone app called “Al Munasiq” (“The Coordinator”) which allows the Israeli military to track users’ location, and access their personal files as well as the phone’s camera.

The frontiers of Israeli apartheid not only segregate Palestinians from Jewish Israelis, but also the Palestinian bodies themselves. Israel has privileged able-bodied young Palestinian workers to the exclusion of older ones. On March 11, the Israeli authorities announced new regulations barring Palestinian workers over 50 years of age from crossing effective March 12; On March 17, they announced that effective March 18, those Palestinian workers under 50 were obliged to remain in Israel for a one- to two-month period if they wished to continue employment. It is estimated that between forty and fifty thousand Palestinian workers entered Israel in this scramble. However, on March 25, the Palestinian Prime Minister issued a call for Palestinian workers to return to the West Bank following public outcries over their racist and inhumane treatment. Workers are being forced to live in squalid conditions at their places of work in Israel, which are reportedly “not appropriate for humans” while Israel has failed to test workers for coronavirus. Rather than being cared for, workers who develop symptoms or who have been suspected of being sick have been have been dumped back into the West Bank at checkpoints along the Green Line, “like trash,” often without coordination with Palestinian authorities.

A potential uncontrolled spread of coronavirus is feared in the West Bank due to the return of over 40,000 workers after the start of Passover and Ramadan. Moreover, the Israeli government has announced that workers who return to the West Bank during this holiday period will be denied entry back into Israel for employment.¹⁵ These workers are highly reliant on their wages in Israel as the only source of income and many still owe debts for the permits they purchased to cross the checkpoints.¹⁶Meanwhile they risk direct exposure to the virus in Israel and are simultaneously unable to access healthcare or testing. Upon their return to the West Bank, these workers are still unable to get tested and face backlash with the recent surge of cases.¹⁷

International Labour Solidarity with Palestinians

This moment of crisis offers a historical opportunity to galvanize solidarity movements with Palestinians and other indigenous people and workers around the world. On April 7, a coalition of Palestinian human rights and civil society organizations issued a new call for international solidarity, demanding that Israel allow access to critical civilian health infrastructure, and release Palestinian political prisoners who have been illegally detained and risk exposure to the virus in Israeli prisons. They have also called for the siege of Gaza to be broken with another Freedom Flotilla, and the escalation of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign.¹⁸ Coalitions between civil society organizations have issued a Palestinian Civil Society Joint Statement on COVID. Regular systems of reporting have been established by Al-Haq, the long-time legal advocacy group, to monitor the violence to which Palestinians are being subject in the current pandemic, as well as, on basic conditions of water, health, and medical equipment. Most recently on April 14, 2020, a coalition of human rights organizations issued an urgent appeal to the United Nations Special Procedures. They are calling on the UN to denounce Israel’s systematic practices of racial discrimination and exploitation of Palestinian labour, who are forced to risk their health and life under this crisis. Beyond COVID, initiativesto bring Israel to trial on war crimes in the International Criminal Court have direct bearing on current realities.

One of the questions for the international left is how to urgently mobilize support for the campaigns and coalitions being advanced in/from Palestine. Nakba Day on May 15, 2020 will mark the 72nd year of the unconscionable injustices against which the Palestinian people continue to struggle. It is imperative for left forces to link the specific conditions of colonialism and apartheid facing Palestinians with neoliberal attacks on working classes the world over. The struggle of Palestinian workers cannot be interpreted only as a national struggle for self-determination. COVID-19 comes at a time of intensified capitalist crisis, in which the working class has been under systematic attack from decades of neoliberalism, commodification of most areas of social life, dispossession of land base, and indebtedness. Palestinian workers are fully incorporated in these processes of global finance capital, in the particular context of the ongoing Israeli settler-colonial rule. Thus, struggle of workers in Palestine with COVID-19 needs to be understood as a struggle also against capitalism. Calls for unified global action by labour have been made by the International Labour Network of Solidarity and Struggle, among others, demanding solidarity with Palestinians and all colonized people in this pandemic.¹⁹ We need to urgently act in solidarity, understood, in the words of Mozambican revolutionary Samora Machel, not as “an act of charity but an act of unity between allies fighting on different terrains toward the same objectives.”²⁰

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

G.N. Nithya is a Ph.D. candidate at York University.

Notes

1. Mahmoud Zawahreh, Palestinian activist, in “Coronavirus: Israeli settlers exploit lockdown to annex Palestinian land.”
2. Joint statement, “Israeli Apartheid Undermines Palestinian Right to Health Amidst COVID-19 Pandemic,” 7 April 2020; World Health Organization, “Overcoming barriers to healthcare access in the West Bank with mobile clinics.”
3. Nir Hasson, “After Weeks of Warning, Coronavirus Spreading Among Palestinians in East Jerusalem,” 14 April 2020; J. Ahmad, “Falling between the cracks in Jerusalem,” 30 March 2020.
4. Daoud Kuttab, “Palestinian minister claims Israeli police physically abused him,” 4 April 2020; Dr. Ashrawi, “Israel deliberately undermining Palestinian efforts to combat COVID19 pandemic,” 3 April 2020.
5. B’Tselem, “During the Coronavirus crisis, Israel confiscates tents designated for clinic in the Northern West Bank,” 26 March 2020; The New Arab, “Coronavirus under occupation: Israeli forces demolish emergency health clinic for Palestinians,” 27 March 2020.
6. Adri Nieuwhof, “Israeli settlers use six times more water than Palestinians,” 8 April 2013; Al-Haq, “On World Water Day, Al-Haq Recalls Israeli Water-Apartheid Amidst a Global Pandemic,” 23 March 2020.
7. Chaim Levinson, Jonathan Lis, “Netanyahu, Gantz Agree on West Bank Annexation Proposal as Unity Deal Nears,” 6 April 2020; Yaser Alashqar, “From Covid-19 to the ‘Deal of the Century’ – Palestine and international law,” 8 April 2020.
8. “Israel exploiting coronavirus for settlement expansion,” 12 March 2020; Akram Al-Waara, “Coronavirus: Israeli settlers exploit lockdown to annex Palestinian land,” 27 March 2020.
9. Haaretz editorial, “Israel’s Latest Highway to Apartheid,” 11 March 2020; for background: “The E1 plan and its implications for human rights in the West Bank,” 27 Nov. 2013.
10. Ali Abunimah, “Israel attacks Palestinians as they fight COVID-19,” 31 March 2020; “Israel demolishes Palestinian homes amid coronavirus crisis,” 28 March 2020; “Since coronavirus pandemic outbreak: Israel kidnapped 292 Palestinian,” 3 April 2020.
11. Tamara Nassar, “Settler attacks rise by 78 percent amid pandemic,” 11 April 2020; “Jewish Settlers Attack Palestinian Family Homes in Hebron,” 6 April 2020.
12. Estimates includes West Bank and Gaza, “The Labour Force Survey Results 2019,” Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics.
13. In a recent interview with Al-Jazeera, director of the International Labour Organization (ILO) in Jerusalem estimated these figures at 200,000 Palestinian workers, implying their wages support a population of over one million (assuming each worker supports at least five dependents) (“Palestinian labourers fear loss of income as well as coronavirus”).
14. On March 6, 2020, the Israeli financial newspaper, Calcalist, estimated significant losses at $1.8-billion monthly for the construction sector if Palestinian workers were not allowed in, see Ahmad Melhem, “Israel tightens grip on Palestinian workers to limit COVID-19,” 20 March 2020; Adam Rasgon, “PA urges Palestinian workers to return to West Bank as Israel’s virus cases grow,” 25 March 2020.
15. Jack Khoury and Hagar Shezaf, “Palestinians fear coronavirus surge as workers return from Israel over passover,” 4 April 2020; Rania Zabaneh, “Palestinians brace coronavirus outbreak workers return,” 6 April 2020.
16. Zeina Amro, “A Glimpse into the COVID-19 Crisis in the Context of Palestine,” 2 April 2020; Alex Lederman, “Palestinian labourers fear loss of income as well as coronavirus,” 28 March 2020.
17. Palestinians brace for influx of workers as Covid-19 cases continue to rise; see video.
18. Al-Haq, “In the face of potential COVID-19 outbreak in the Gaza Strip, Israel is obliged to take measures to save lives,” 7 April 2020; Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council press release, “PHROC Calls the International Community & ICRC for an Urgent Intervention,” 23 March 2020; Samidoun, “Virtual call to action for Palestine: COVID-19, Gaza and the Struggle for Justice,” 16 March 2020; also see, internationally: Michael Arria, “Warren, Van Hollen lead Senators in demanding Trump admin send aid to Palestine amid COVID-19 crisis,” 27 March 2020; IfNotNow, “Demand Israel Protect Palestinians in Gaza.”
19. Solidaires (CM), “Coronavirus: colonialism worsens the situation too,” 1 April 2020; Solidaires (CM), “Palestine in the Time of Covid-19,” 9 April 2020.
20. Salim Vally, “From South Africa to Palestine, Lessons for the New Anti‐Apartheid Movement,” Left Turn, Notes from the Global Intifada, April 2008.

All images in this article are from The Bullet unless otherwise stated.

“The costs of the pandemic keep piling up,” writes Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post. “Somebody has to pay for this unprecedented damage. That somebody should be the government of China.”

And why, pray tell, should China’s government be punished? For “intentionally lying to the world about the danger of the virus, and proactively impeding a global response that might have prevented a worldwide contagion.”

Sounds fair, doesn’t it? If a government lies and people die as a result, that government and its functionaries should be held responsible, right? Good enough for me.

But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so if we’re having Peking Duck this week, I’d like to know when Thiessen plans to cough up his share of US government’s tab.

As a speechwriter for US president George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the first decade of this century, Thiessen was directly responsible for pushing lies that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Humanity is still paying a steep price for fairy tales about weapons of mass destruction and cries of wolf that “the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud” – fairy tales and cries of wolf that Thiessen helped draft and craft.

In fact, he’s got a lot of nerve pretending that he’s even on the same moral level as Chinese government actors who may have lied about COVID-19, let alone in a position to lecture them.

Those Chinese actors were, at worst, trying to save face for their regime, and at best trying to keep themselves out of jail (the Chinese Communist Party has a reputation for harsh treatment of people who embarrass it).

Thiessen was shilling for an unprovoked war of aggression in Iraq by his regime, and he could have quit that job any time he chose without fear of being dragged off for “re-education.”

Governments collectively, and the people who comprise them individually, lie. A lot. About all kinds of different things and for all kinds of different reasons. And often, as a result, people die. I’m all for holding them accountable, but accountability starts at home.

Let’s be honest about what’s going on here: Republican flacks like Thiessen are trying to shift blame away from their party’s own policy failures by re-premising the same old anti-China campaign they’ve been waging for years.

Don’t forget to tip your server, Marc.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism. He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

Featured image is from Morning Star

We are seeing a massive backlash against the coronavirus lockdowns all over the United States, and it is likely that the protests against these lockdowns will only intensify in the days ahead.  But some elected officials are doubling down and are insisting that “shelter-in-place” orders will remain in effect in their jurisdictions for quite a few months to come. 

I honestly do not know how that is possibly going to work, because after just a few weeks millions upon millions of Americans have become deeply frustrated with these lockdowns.  Trying to confine people to their homes for the foreseeable future is likely to spark tremendous explosions of anger, but that appears to be exactly what authorities intend to do in some of our largest urban areas.  For example, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio just told Fox News that he expects his city will be shut down until July or August…

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio joined Bill Hemmer today on FOX News Channel.

The mayor told Hemmer he does not expect New York City to open until July or August.

Does he honestly believe that New York City residents will put up with being confined to their homes for another three or four months?

Over on the west coast, California Governor Gavin Newsom recently told the press that there probably will not be mass gatherings in his state “until we get to herd immunity and we get to a vaccine”…

“The prospect of mass gatherings is negligible at best until we get to herd immunity and we get to a vaccine,” Newsom told reporters at his press briefing.

“Large-scale events that bring in hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of strangers … [are] not in the cards based upon our current guidelines and current expectations,” he said.

It is exceedingly unlikely that we will get to the point of “herd immunity” in the United States this year, and most experts do not anticipate a vaccine until some time in 2021.

Would he really try to keep his state locked down for that long?

L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti appears to be on the exact same page, and he has already pretty much ruled out all large gatherings in his city “until 2021”…

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said Wednesday that large gatherings like sporting events and concerts are unlikely to occur until 2021 due to the coronavirus pandemic, a major blow for one of the world’s major sports and entertainment capitals.

Considering the fact that the NFL has two teams in Los Angeles, this is potentially an absolutely devastating blow for football fans.

Of course it is possible that the Rams and the Chargers could play their games elsewhere, but that is probably not likely.

Especially in liberal bastions on the east and west coasts, fear of large gatherings is likely to persist for a long time to come.  Facebook has already canceled all large company events until 2021, and other big tech firms will almost certainly follow suit.

Without a doubt, everyone should be in favor of reasonable measures to help prevent the spread of the virus, but the hysteria that we are seeing in some areas of California right now is off the charts.

For instance, Mendocino County has actually banned people from singing in online worship services.  The following is an excerpt from their absurd social distancing directives…

No singing or use of wind instruments, harmonicas, or other instruments that could spread COVID-19 through projected droplets shall be permitted unless the recording of the event is done at one’s residence, and involving only the members of one’s household or living unit, because of the increased risk of transmission of COVID-19.

Of course we aren’t just seeing this sort of insanity here in the United States.

Over in Australia, Prime Minister Scott Morrison is seriously considering extending his nation’s social distancing measures for many months to come…

Australian public life could be constrained for another year because of the coronavirus pandemic, Prime Minister Scott Morrison warned on Friday, as the country’s most populous state mulled sending children to school in shifts.

Australia has so far avoided the high numbers of coronavirus casualties reported around the world after closing its borders and imposing strict “social distancing” measures for the past month.

These lockdowns may be slowing down the spread of the virus to a certain extent, but they are also absolutely crushing economic activity.

Thousands of businesses have been either crippled or destroyed, and tens of millions of jobs have been lost in the United States alone.

Needless to say, business owners and workers all over the nation are sick and tired of not being able to make a living, and President Trump added fuel to their frustration when he called for several states to be “liberated” on Friday…

President Trump made himself the star of the ‘lockdown rebellion’ on Friday by tweeting ‘LIBERATE Minnesota’ and then adding Michigan and Virginia to the list of states that should be freed.

The tweets came one day after the president’s coronavirus taskforce rolled out guidelines that would give governors broad power to decide when states’ economies would open back up amid the coronavirus pandemic.

And instead of waiting for permission, some business owners across the country have decided that they are going to reopen anyway…

Summit Motorsports Park owner Bill Bader Jr. vowed to start holding events with or without government permission, in a Facebook live post earlier this week.

“I’m not asking, I’m opening,” he said in the video and said that he thought that business closures were an overreaction. “If in Huron County, for example, we are able to save every life and limit and ultimately mitigate any outbreaks of Covid-19, but in the process of that we all starve to death, what have we accomplished.”

As I have warned all along, Americans are simply not going to have much patience with these sorts of lockdowns, and this is particularly true in areas of the nation that tend to lean conservative.

But those on the left are pointing out that we are already starting to see a huge surge in confirmed cases in parts of the country that haven’t been locked down…

The bump in coronavirus cases is most pronounced in states without stay at home orders. Oklahoma saw a 53% increase in cases over the past week, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. Over same time, cases jumped 60% in Arkansas, 74% in Nebraska, and 82% in Iowa. South Dakota saw a whopping 205% spike.

Once restrictions start being lifted nationwide, it is probably inevitable that we will see another huge wave of new cases and new deaths.

However, it is important to point out that this virus is going to eventually spread through most of the population no matter what measures we take.  Yes, we want to keep our hospitals from being completely overwhelmed, but we also don’t want to completely destroy our economy at the same time.

Our policy makers are going to have some very, very tough decisions in the days ahead, and the truth is that this coronavirus pandemic is just the very beginning of our problems.

The months in front of us are going to be extremely challenging, and life as you have known it will never be the same again.

The good news is that some of the coronavirus lockdowns will start to be lifted in the weeks ahead, and that will enable millions of Americans to start making a living once again.

But in other areas, politicians are warning that the lockdowns could last for many months to come.

If the politicians in your state tried to do that, what would you do?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

My name is Michael Snyder and I am the publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. I have written four books that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The End, Get Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters.

Featured image is from Pixabay

Things are getting dizzy in the White House on what, exactly, is being done to “open the economy”.  Cranky advocates for the financial argument over the restrictions of public health have been attempting to claw back some ground.  As Jonathan Chait puts it, “The anti-public health faction either believes the dangers of the coronavirus have been exaggerated, or that the cost of social-distancing requirements is so high that the economy should simply be opened, regardless of medical danger.” 

Officials such as US Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin and White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow have been busy pushing the line that the shuttered economy will be opened come May.  In Mnuchin’s words, “As soon as the president feels comfortable with the medical issues, we are making everything necessary that American companies and American workers can be open for business and that they have the liquidity they need to operate the business in the interim.”  On the Fox Business Network, Kudlow outlined his views.  “Our intent here was, is, to try to relieve people of the enormous difficult hardships they are suffering through no fault of their own.”

The economy-before-health group, which also consists of Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner, has never had much time for the medical arguments.  In the views of a senior administration official, “They already know what they want to do and they’re looking for ways to do it.”

What, then, could be done to remove the shutters?  President Donald Trump initially felt enough confidence to claim the broadest of powers on the subject, bypassing states and their authority to manage and ease the coronavirus lockdowns.  “The authority of the president of the United States having to do with the subject we are talking about is total,” he explained at a White House press conference early last week.  “I have the ultimate authority.”

He tantalised those gathered with promises of a written paper on the subject, though felt it unnecessary “because the governors need us one way or the other because, ultimately, it comes with the federal government.” 

On April 14, Trump took aim at his most favourite of hobby horses – the “Fake News Media” – for claiming “that it is the Governors decision to open up the states, not that of the President of the United States & the Federal Government.  Let it be fully understood that this is incorrect.”  Legal authorities such as Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas in Austin disagree: “the president has no formal legal authority to categorically override local or state shelter-in-place orders or to reopen schools and small businesses.”   

After his initial imputation of such vast constitutional powers, Trump felt that it was all up to the governors in any case.  He called testing for COVID-19 “a local thing”, feeling that State officials were showing little or no initiative in using commercial labs.

Things are certainly not rosy, let alone coordinated, between the White House and the governors.  Criticism of the president’s uneven and tardy response has earned rebuke and mocking.  Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer became “Gretchen ‘Half’ Whitmer”; Washington Governor Jay Inslee was lashed by comments of being a “failed presidential candidate who was “constantly chirping”.  As Trump has explained with a note of tartness to Vice President Mike Pence, “If they don’t treat you right, I don’t call.”  Even during times of high crisis, the president luxuriates in adolescent petulance.

In certain states, there has been a rash of protests against quarantine regimes.  Trump, ever the tease, has thrown in his lot with them, tweeting messages of “liberation” for Minnesota, Michigan and Virginia, all led by Democratic governors.  Michigan, in particular, has one of the firmest quarantine regimes in the country, measures which have spawned such groups of disgruntlement as the Michiganders Against Excessive Quarantine. 

The April 15 protest, which featured a gathering outside the Michigan State Capitol, was held with a daring impertinence, with participants fobbing off anything related to physical distancing rules.  Four Michigan residents have also decided to throw the law book at the governor, with legal proceedings claiming that the “Stay Home, Stay Safe” executive order is in violation of their constitutional rights.  The attorney responsible for filing the suit, one David Helm, argues that Whitner’s initial executive order passed muster in targeting “the specific needs of the crises”; the second, issued on April 9, was “unreasonable” and an act of executive over stretch.

The White House has suggested a strategy to the 50 governors, one involving three phases.  Phase one continues to feature social distancing in public, the isolation of vulnerable individuals, socialising in small groups and minimising “non-essential travel”.  Bars are to be remain closed, but gyms can open on the proviso of observing “strict physical distancing and sanitation protocols”.  Phase Two keeps vulnerable individuals in shelter, increases the number of individuals who can gather in social settings (from 10 to 50) and permits non-essential travel.  The continuation of telework where feasible and keeping common areas where workers might gather closed also feature.  The final phase permits vulnerable individuals to resume public interactions, though low-risk populations should still exercise caution in spending time “in crowded environments” and the resumption of “unrestricted staffing of worksites”.

But confusion reigns, exemplified by the remarks made by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. “Open what, open it when, and open it how?”  Trump continues to play – loudly – to his political base, indulging bouts of pageantry even as he mocks the methods of the States.  In responding to Trump’s tweets of support for the protestors, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz tried to get some clarification.  “I called to ask, what are we doing differently about moving towards getting as many people back into the workforce without compromising the health of Minnesotans or the providers?”  No reply was forthcoming.  And that, to a governor who has not, as Walz described it, “had open clashes with the administration.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Email: [email protected]

Sometimes, the best thing to do, is to do nothing at all. Take Sweden, for example, where the government decided not to shut down the economy, but to take a more thoughtful and balanced approach. Sweden has kept its primary schools, restaurants, shops and gyms open for business even though fewer people are out in public or carrying on as they normally would. At the same time, the government has kept the Swedish people well-informed so they understand the risks the virus poses to their health and the health of others. This is how the Swedes have minimized their chances of getting the infection while avoiding more extreme measures like shelter-in-place which is de facto house arrest.

What the Swedish experiment demonstrates, is that there’s a way to navigate these unprecedented public health challenges without recklessly imposing police state policies and without doing irreparable harm to the economy. And, yes, the results of this experiment are not yet known, but what we do know is that most nations cannot simply print-up trillions of dollars to counter the knock-on effects of bringing the economy to a screeching halt. These countries must dip into their reserves or take out loans from the IMF in order to recover from the lack of production and activity. That means they’re going to face years of slow growth and high unemployment to dig out from the mess their leaders created for them.

And that rule applies to the US too, even though the government has been recklessly printing money to pay the bills. The unforeseen cost to the US will come in the form of long-term unemployment triggered by millions of failed small and mid-sized businesses. That grim scenario is all but certain now. And just as the USG “disappeared” millions of workers from the unemployment rolls following the 2008 Financial Crisis– forcing them to find low-paying, part-time, no-benefits work in the “gig” economy– so too, millions of more working people will fall through the cracks and wind up homeless, jobless and destitute following this crisis. One $1,200 check from Uncle Sam and a few weeks of unemployment compensation is not going to not be enough to prevent the fundamental restructuring of the US labor force that will be impossible to avoid if the economy isn’t restarted pronto.

That’s why we should look to countries like Sweden that have taken a more measured approach that allow parts of the economy to continue to function during the epidemic, so other parts can gear-up quickly and return to full capacity with minimal disruption. This should not be a “liberal vs conservative” issue as it’s become in the United States. One should not oppose restarting the economy just because Trump is ‘for it’, but because millions of working people are facing an uncertain future in an economy which– most economists believe– is headed for a severe and protracted recession. Liberals should be looking for ways to avoid that dismal outcome instead of wasting all their time criticizing Trump. (Of course, now that the idiot Trump has appointed Ivanka, Jared, Kudlow and Wilbur Ross to lead his Council to Re-Open America” it will be impossible to extricate the issue from partisan politics.) This is a clip from an article by Donald Jeffries at Lew Rockwell:

“The shutdown of businesses now has been going on for more than a month. How many of the dwindling small businesses left in our casino economy have already closed down forever? How many mid-sized ones will ever be able to reopen? How many millions will be furloughed, laid off, fired- however they word it- because of this draconian reaction? How can an economy based on commerce exist without commerce?” (“The Locked Down World”, Donald Jeffries, Lew Rockwell)

Indeed. This isn’t a question of putting profits before people. The economy IS our life. Try to make a living without an economy. Try to feed your family or pay the rent or buy a car or do anything without an economy. We need the economy. Working people need the economy, and we need to find a way to do two things at the same time: Keep the economy running and save as many lives as possible. The idea that we can just do one of these things and not the other, is not only blatantly false, it is destructive to our own best interests. We have to do both, there is no other way. Here’s more background on Sweden from an article at Haaretz:

“The truth is that we have a policy similar to that of other countries,” says Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s state epidemiologist, “Like everyone, we are trying to slow down the rate of infection … The differences derive from a different tradition and from a different culture that prevail in Sweden. We prefer voluntary measures, and there is a high level of trust here between the population and the authorities, so we are able to avoid coercive restrictions”…

It’s still too early to say whether Stockholm’s policy will turn out to be a success story or a blueprint for disaster. But, when the microbes settle, following the global crisis, Sweden may be able to constitute a kind of control group: Did other countries go too far in the restrictions they have been imposing on their populations? Was the economic catastrophe spawned globally by the crisis really unavoidable? Or will the Swedish case turn out to be an example of governmental complacency that cost human lives unnecessarily?” (“Why Sweden Isn’t Forcing Its Citizens to Stay Home Due to the Coronaviru”, Haaretz)

Tegnell, is no long-haired, fist-waving radical, he’s Sweden’s chief epidemiologist and has worked for mainstream organizations like the WHO and the European Commission. Where he differs from so many of his peers is simply in his approach, which empowers ordinary people to use their own common sense regarding their health, their safety and the safety of others. It’s simple, if you develop symptoms, stay home. Tegnell believes that its easier to get people to do the right thing by trusting their judgement then by ordering them to do so.

That said, Sweden’s objectives are the same as every other country impacted by the pandemic. The emphasis is on “flattening the curve”, slowing the rate of infection, testing as many people as possible, and protecting the vulnerable and older populations. It’s just their methods are different. They’ve taken a more nuanced approach that relies on level-headed people conforming to the guidelines that help to minimize contagion until some better remedy is found. “Social distancing” is practiced in Sweden, but the population has not had their civil liberties suspended nor have they been put under house arrest until the threat has passed. Sweden has not compromised its core values in a frenzied attempt to stave off sickness or death. Can the U.S. say the same? Here’s more from an article at the Washington Times:

“As government leaders in the UK and the United States are grappling with how to revive dormant economies, Dr. Tegnell said the Swedish approach will allow the country to maintain social distancing measures in the long term without putting the economic system at risk. Dr. Tegnell said he believes certain regions in Sweden are already very close to … a state where so many in the population have built up resistance to the virus that it is no longer a pandemic threat…

“We do believe the main difference between our policies and many other countries’ policies is that we could easily keep these kinds of policies in place for months, maybe even years, without any real damage to society or our economy,” Dr. Tegnell said. Although the government has not issued a stay-at-home order, many Swedes have decided to quarantine and practice social distancing on their own volition, Dr. Tegnell said.” (“Top Swedish official: Virus rates easing up despite loose rules”, The Washington Times)

The threat of pandemic is new to most countries, so it’s not entirely fair to criticize their response. But, at this point, reasonable people should be able agree that implementing sweeping policies that inflict incalculable damage to the economy and on people’s personal liberties is a gross overreaction that poses as big a threat as the pandemic itself. Leaders must be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. That’s all we should expect of them: Just restart the damn economy while minimizing the risks of infection as much as possible. Is that too much to ask? Here’s an excerpt from an article at MedicineNet:

“The financial ruin this pandemic has caused for many will almost certainly lead to increased suicide, mental illness, and physical health problems exacerbated by a loss of health insurance in countries without socialized medicine, according to the World Economic Forum. That’s partly why both Sweden and Singapore have tried to keep life in their countries as normal as possible for as long as possible during the response. It does not explain the drastically different death tolls between the two countries, however….

Anders Tengall, the country’s chief epidemiologist, is making a grim wager. The hypothesis is there will not be significantly more Swedes dead at the end of the pandemic than if the country had initiated stricter distancing protocols, but the looser approach will keep the number of cases from spiking when lockdowns are lifted.

Tengall’s and the rest of the Swedish government’s bet is this approach is more sustainable, and can help prevent some of those other bad health outcomes that accompany economic depression.” (“Sweden and Singapore: The COVID-19 ‘Soft’ Approach vs. Techno-Surveillance”, MedicineNet)

So, yes, the number of deaths per thousand in Sweden do not compare favorably to nearby Denmark, but the final results of the experiment might not be known for years. With a population of 5.8 million, Denmark’s death-toll is currently 336, while Sweden’s is 1,400 for a population of 10.2 million. (as of 4-17-20) So, as a practical matter, the Swedish method looks vastly inferior. (Interestingly, Sweden’s population is similar to NY City’s 8.4 million, but coronavirus deaths in NYC have now reached a horrific 12,822.)

But there’s more to this story than mere data-points or the latest grim statistics. Here’s a clip from the LA Times that helps to connect the dots:

“Tegnell… insists that Sweden’s approach still seems to make sense, though he also acknowledges that the world is in uncharted territory with the virus. He argues that while Sweden might have more infections in the short term, it will not face the risk of a huge infection spike that Denmark might face once its lockdown is lifted.

“I think both Norway and Denmark are now very concerned about how you stop this complete lockdown in a way so you don’t cause this wave to come immediately when you start loosening up,” he said. He said authorities know that the physical distancing Swedes are engaging in works, because officials have recorded a sudden end to the flu season and to a winter vomiting illness.” (“Sweden sticks to ‘low-scale’ lockdown despite rise in coronavirus deaths’”, LA Times)

The Swedish plan will continue to be criticized by public health experts who think that their draconian recommendations should be fully-implemented without the slightest deviation, but it could turn out that the Swedish model is not only vastly superior to the other courses of action but, ultimately, the only real option for countries that want to save lives but avoid a permanently-hobbled and severely-depressed economy.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

VICE on Thursday published an “astounding” and “important” exclusive report on how Rick Snyder, a Republican who served as Michigan’s governor from 2011 to 2019, “knew about Flint’s toxic water—and lied about it.”

The report, based on a year-and-a-half investigation, comes almost six years after an emergency manager appointed by Snyder switched Flint’s water supply from Detroit’s system to the Flint River. Since that move on April 25, 2014, city residents have endured health consequences resulting from a deadly Legionella pneumophila bacterial outbreak and exposure to heavy metals and cancer-causing contaminants.

6 years after Flint began using a toxic water source that sickened its residents, @VICE uncovered payoffs, whistleblower silencing, a shady financial deal, a coverup, & the former gov. who presided over it all. By @JordanChariton & me#FlintWaterCrisishttps://t.co/Gt2fjv280s

— Jenn Dize 👩🏻‍💻 (@JennElizabethJ) April 16, 2020

As Jordan Chariton and Jenn Dize reported Thursday:

Hundreds of confidential pages of documents obtained by VICE, along with emails and interviews, reveal a coordinated, five-year cover-up overseen by Snyder and his top officials to prevent news of Flint’s deadly water from going public—while there was still time to save lives—and then limit the damage after the crisis made global headlines.

All told, the waterborne bacterial disease may have killed at least 115 people in 2014 and 2015, and potentially more whose pneumonia wasn’t officially considered Legionnaires’ disease, the illness caused by Legionella. In addition to the outbreak, Flint’s water supply was contaminated with lead and other heavy metals, harmful bacteria, carcinogens, and other toxic components. This wreaked havoc on Flint residents, leaving them with a laundry list of illnesses, including kidney and liver problems, severe bone and muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, loss of teeth, autoimmune diseases, neurological deficiencies, miscarriages, Parkinson’s disease, severe fatigue, seizures, and volatile mood disorders.

Beyond this, the long-term effects of heavy-metal poisoning takes years to develop, meaning many ill residents’ conditions are worsening as the years go on. Many have said they still rely on bottled water to avoid using the water that comes through their pipes and into their homes, schools, and businesses.

The report detailed actions of local and state officials both leading up to and during the public health crisis, which continues today. It is based on interviews and documents from a criminal investigation of Snyder’s administration that was led by special prosecutor Todd Flood from 2016 until last year, when newly elected state Attorney General Dana Nessel fired Flood and others.

The prosecution team led by Flood charged 15 Flint and Michigan officials with various crimes; seven of those cases were resolved with plea agreements. In January 2019, Nessel appointed Fadwa Hammoud as the state’s solicitor general and assigned her to take over the Flint criminal cases.

In June, the state’s prosecution team dismissed all pending criminal charges against the eight remaining defendants and launched a new probe based on concerns about the initial one. That decision, as Common Dreams reported, “elicited fresh concerns and demands for justice.”

VICE noted that with Flint about to enter its sixth year of the water crisis, “the clock for justice is also ticking.” Unless the Republican-controlled state legislature intervenes, the statute of limitations for filing new felony misconduct-in-office charges will run out next week. Chariton highlighted that detail in a series of tweets about the reporting Thursday.

the statute of limitations to press new felony misconduct in office charges related to the #FlintWaterCrisis runs out in 9 days (4/25/14 to 4/25/20). Some lawmakers have called to extend it from 6 years to 10 years…so far unsuccessfully.

— Jordan (@JordanChariton) April 16, 2020

In August, a pair of state legislators from Flint proposed legislation to extend the statute of limitations from six years to 10. Karen Weaver, then-mayor of Flint, expressed support for the proposal, declaring at the time that “there is no time limit that can be put on the amount of suffering that we have faced, nor the amount of pain as a result of the loss of life.”

Weaver told VICE that the governor’s office repeatedly dangled “a pot of money for different things” and pressured her to publicly claim that the city’s water was safe. The outlet reported that “after repeated attempts by the Snyder administration to get Mayor Weaver to cooperate proved unsuccessful, the promised funding suddenly became unavailable.”

The outlet added:

Weaver was even pressed to say the water in Flint’s schools was safe to drink, according to former city government officials familiar with the administration’s overtures to Weaver. Weaver didn’t, and soon after, the remaining free water-bottle stations Flint residents relied on were prematurely shut down.

When the stations were shuttered, Weaver attempted to reopen them by turning to the $48.8 million rainy-day fund that was allocated to Flint from the state’s 2017-2018 budget. But when Weaver looked, the money was gone. The Snyder administration had been using these funds—meant to be under Flint’s control—to pay for the water stations.

In addition to detailing interactions between Weaver and the Snyder administration from the mayor’s perspective, the report highlighted a few findings from the Flint criminal investigation documents:

• Snyder was warned about the dangers of using the Flint River as a water source a year before the water switch even occurred.
• Snyder had knowledge of the Legionella outbreak in Flint as early as October 2014, six months after the water switch—and 16 months earlier than he claimed to have learned of the deadly outbreak in testimony under oath before Congress.
• Communication among Snyder, his top officials, and the state health department spiked in October 2014 around the same time state environmental and health officials traded emails and calls about the Legionella outbreak in Flint.

Snyder and his attorneys did not respond to VICE‘s requests for comment. Several other officials named in the exhaustive report also declined to respond or comment, with some of them citing the ongoing criminal investigation.

The reporting provoked a fresh wave of criticism directed at government officials involved in the crisis and was published as the international community contends with a global pandemic that has infected more than two million people since late last year.

Sharing Chariton and Dize’s Flint piece on Twitter Thursday, VICE senior editor Maxwell Strachan wrote that “coronavirus is the biggest story in the country, and rightfully so. But today, this enormous, exclusive, and damning story should be a very, very close second.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The answer to the question is “YES.”  The large bailed-out creditors will end up with the property of the non-bailed-out debtors who are being pushed deeper into debt with “bail-out loans” and fees and penalties for missed debt payments. Write-offs for the One Percent, and more indebtedness for everyone else.

Turn your mind to the economy.  The US has a work force of 164,000,000.  The unemployment forecast from the work closedowns is 30%.  That would mean 49,000,000 people who are potential rioters. (We are half way there with today’s report of a 16% unemployment rate with 22 million unemployed). Many of these people were already living paycheck to paycheck, could not raise $400, and their debts leave them no discretionary income.  As they could barely service their debts when employed, how do they service them when unemployed and when their small businesses are closed and incurring costs but have no revenues?  Loans further indebt them. The cash payouts to the unemployed might cover food and housing but will not service their debts.  

Fast food franchises and stores in malls are saying they are not paying their rents for three months.  Mall owners won’t be able to pay their creditors.  The bailout works for no one except those who caused the problem. As they are being bailed out, they will have the money to buy up or foreclose on the bankrupted businesses. More property will be concentrated in fewer hands.  

The bail-out scheme concocted by the New York banks and Trump’s Treasury Secretary, who earned the name “the foreclosure king” during his Wall Street career, leaves creditors whole and debtors deeper in debt.  

The more debt is concentrated in fewer hands and the more indebted everyone else becomes, the less consumer purchasing power there is to drive the economy.  The foreclosed assets become less valuable as their profitability declines with consumer purchasing power.

The destruction of the US economy has been underway since global corporations moved middle class jobs offshore. It has been underway since the financial sector diverted a larger share of consumer income to the service of debt.  It has been underway since corporations invested their profits in buying back their own shares instead of expanding their production capabilities.  It has been underway since Quantitative Easing inflated stock and bond prices beyond realistic values. It has been going on since the rules against concentration were set aside and the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed.  It has been going on since endless wars crowded out infrastructure investment and social safety net expansion.  

Is this a plot or stupidity?  Whatever the answer, the economy is being destroyed.  

The economic problem is that private sector debt, both personal and corporate, is too great to be paid.  This problem existed prior to the closedown.  The closedown means that there is even less income with which to service the unsustainable level of debt.  This is not a problem that can be fixed with more debt.

The problem is that banks lend to finance the purchase of existing financial assets, not to exand the economy’s productive potential.

The problem is that corporations use their profits and borrow money in order to buy back their own equity instead of investing in their businesses.  The executives indebt the corporations while decapitalizing them, and they are rewarded for doing so with “performance bonuses.”

The problem is that global corporations thinking short-term moved high-productivity, high-value-added US jobs to Asia, thus reducing earned income in the US, impairing state and local tax base, and causing the Federal Reserve to substitute a growth in consumer debt in place of the lost consumer income growth.

The people in charge of the fix are only fixing it for themselves and in a short-sighted way.  There is only one way to fix the situation, and that is to write down private sector debts to levels that can be serviced.  As the creditors are being bailed out regardless, their loan losses don’t matter.

The bank and corporate bailouts are an opportunity to fix the economy in other important ways. In effect, the bailouts amount to nationalization.  The government should accept the ownership that it is purchasing.  Then the government can break up the “banks too big to fail” and separate investment from commercial banking without having to pass new Glass-Steagall legislation and without having to battle against financial lobbying in Congress.  Once broken up, the banks could be sold off.  This would take enormous vulnerability out of the financial system and restore financial competition.  With corporations in government hands, the jobs could be brought home from overseas.  The middle class would be restored. 

These measures together with a debt writedown would restore consumer purchasing power. Pent-up demand would propel the economy to higher growth as occurred following World War II.  

This is a real solution to a real problem.  But with the One Percent in charge of the problem, we are not going to get a real solution.  We are going to get more money used to push up prices of financial assets and paper over unsustainable debt and a dying economy with an artificially-inflated stock market.

The elite have failed us too many times.  It is time to dethrone them.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

In the first of three books on Cuba, Latin America and the U.S., published in 1999 by Editorial José Martí (Havana), I wrote:

“During the 1960 May Day speech, Fidel Castro developed the notion of how the new state was a state of the majority in the true sense of the term. After the U.S. airstrikes took place as part of the overall policy to destroy the Revolution and to restore U.S. political and economic power, the people were faced with the real possibility of confronting full armed aggression. From this the notion of the militia arose.”[i]

On May 1, 1960 at the annual May Day march in Havana, the publication quotes Fidel:

“Only a few months ago there was not a single organized worker or peasant militia. The appeal for the organization of the militia was issued in the month of October, on 26 October, to be precise, in connection with the protest against the air attack which cost our citizenry more than 40 victims.

Six months ago, we did not have a single workers’ militia. Six months ago, the workers did not know how to handle weapons.  Six months ago, the workers did not know how to march. Six months ago, we did not have a single company of militiamen to defend the Revolution in the event of attack.  And in only six months we have organized the militia, we have trained and instructed them.” [ii]

Then, further developing Fidel’s unique vision of the militia, the book continues:

“The establishment of the militia meant far more than close ties between the state and the people. It signified in reality the masses of people becoming an extension of the state. The Rebel Army was the factor allowing the people to take political power, and out of it emerged the new state to protect and extend this political power in the hands of the majority. Therefore, the extent to which people participated in the armed protection and extension of the Revolution was necessarily an indication as to what point the people were actually in power. The Revolution and its defence had sunk such deep roots amongst the people that never did it cross the minds of the new government that the people may turn their arms against it. And so, guns were given to the people. This feature of the new Cuba was brought home in a most lively way by Fidel Castro on May 1, 1960 when he suggested the  analogy of what would happen if armaments were handed out to the most oppressed section of the population in a country where exploitation and discrimination prevails.

From the same May 1, 1960 podium where Fidel spoke, the Historical Leader of the Cuban Revolution is quoted once again in the book:

“A democracy exists when the people are made strong by uniting them!  A democracy exists when guns are given to the peasants, and to the workers, and to the students, and to the women, and to the Negroes, and to the poor — to each citizen who is prepared to defend a just cause!  A democracy exists when not only do the rights of the majority count, but when they are given weapons as well!  And this can only be done by a truly democratic government, wherein the majority governs!

And this could never be done by a pseudo-democracy.  We would liketo know what would happen if the Negroes in the southern part of the United States, who have so many times been lynched, were each given a gun!  Whatcould never be done by an exploiting oligarchy, what never could be done by a military camp representing those who oppress and plunder the peoples,what could never be done by a minority government is to give each worker,each student, each young person, each humble citizen, each of those whomake up the majority of the people a gun.”[iii]

The role of the militia in defeating the U.S. was even highlighted by BBC in 2011:

“The American plan was to sneak ashore virtually unopposed, secure the area, take the airfield and fly in a government-in-exile who would then call for direct US support.

At the same time, they were relying on a mass uprising in Cuba against the revolutionaries.

It could not have gone more wrong: when an advance frogman lit a beacon to show the exiles where to land, it also alerted the Cuban militia to their presence.

Local fisherman Gregorio Moreira, who still lives in the same house beside the beach, was one of the first to raise the alarm.

“I went out of the house and saw a flare, like a candle, in the sky. So I headed to the trench with my father and my brothers,” 74-year-old Mr Moreira recalls.

He was joined on the beach by one of his neighbours, another fisherman, Domingo Rodriguez.

“We thought, ‘This is the invasion boys, be careful! They are trying to invade.’

“We had 11 rifles between us and at about 0400 they started the landing, so we opened fire.”

Reinforcements, including Cuban air force planes, quickly arrived.

The exiles had some air support, but US President John F Kennedy was determined to keep the U.S. involvement a secret and as the initiative turned against the invading force, he backed away from providing further critically needed air cover.

At the same time, Fidel Castro took personal charge of the operation, and within only three days the battle was over. “

Furthermore, Granma in reporting on the anniversary act in Playa Girón in 2017, points out the important role of Fidel and the militia:

His [Fidel] physical presence at the scene of the invasion contributed to keeping morale high among the militias and was decisive to their victory in those glorious days of April 1961, stated Kenia Otaño, a young resident from Ciénaga de Zapata, speaking during the act.

Today, on the anniversary of the victory in Playa Girón, Cuba is more than able to confront a similar Playa Girón-type military provocation by the U.S. Washington knows it.

In addition, now there are two “civic-military unions” in the region: Cuba and Venezuela. Furthermore, Cuba and Venezuela today have more friends than ever around the world in defense of the Cuban and Bolivarian Revolutions.

The Yanquis should pay attention to history.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Arnold August is a Canadian journalist and lecturer, the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion and Cuba–U.S. Relations: Obama and Beyond. He collaborates with many web sites, television and radio broadcasts based in Latin America, Europe, North America and the Middle East. Twitter  Facebook. 

Notes

[i] August, Arnold, Democracy in Cuba and the 1997-98 Elections, Editorial José Martí, Havana, 1999, page 195.

[ii] Castro Ruz, Fidel, Revolución, La Habana, May 2, 1960 (Translation by author)

[iii] Castro Ruz, Fidel, Ibid.

A future without independent media leaves us with an upside down reality where according to the corporate media “NATO deserves a Nobel Peace Prize”, and where “nuclear weapons and wars make us safer”

 

If, like us, this is a future you wish to avoid, please help sustain Global Research’s activities by making a donation or taking out a membership now!

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

*     *     *

The Massive Covid-19 Hoax

By Tony Cartalucci, April 20, 2020

The numbers of infections versus deaths in Iceland where testing has been the most widespread shows a death rate of about 0.5%, though only 5% of the population has been tested. 50% of those tested showed no symptoms at all meaning that many, many more Icelanders likely had the virus, overcame it with ease, and never visited a doctor or hospital to avail themselves for testing or to make into national Covid-19 statistics.

Video: “The House Cat Flu” is Coming. The Meow Apocalypse…

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 19, 2020

In 2009, hundreds of thousands of pigs were executed Worldwide, despite the fact that  the WHO had confirmed that there was no danger of transmission from pigs to humans.

And then what happened, an authoritative study by the John Hopkins School of Public Health was released saying that humans could infect the pigs. Putting Meat on the Table Industrial Farm Animal Production in Americas, see also Washington Post, May 9 2009).

A Universal Basic Income Is Essential and Will Work

By Ellen Brown, April 20, 2020

The mandated shutdown from the coronavirus has exacerbated the debt crisis, but the economy was suffering from an unprecedented buildup of debt well before that. A UBI would address the gap between consumer debt and the money available to repay it; but there are equivalent gaps for business debt, federal debt, and state and municipal debt, leaving room for quite a bit of helicopter money before debt deflation would turn into inflation.

Orwellian Lockstep and a Loaded Syringe

By Colin Todhunter, April 20, 2020

Some years ago, the then vice-president of Monsanto Robert T Fraley asked, “Why do people doubt science”. He posed the question partly because he had difficulty in believing that some people had valid concerns about the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture.

Critics were questioning the science behind GM technology and the impacts of GMOs because they could see how science is used, corrupted and manipulated by powerful corporations to serve their own ends. And it was also because they regard these conglomerates as largely unaccountable and unregulated. 

Lock Step, This Is No Futuristic Scenario: Panic and the Post-Pandemic Future?

By F. William Engdahl, April 19, 2020

Every day world mainstream news reports more people in more countries diagnosed “positive” for the coronavirus illness, now called COVID-19. As the reported numbers grow, so does widespread nervousness, often in the form of panic shopping for masks, disinfections, toilet paper, canned goods. We are told to accept the testing results as science-based. While it is next to impossible to get a full picture of what is taking place in China, the center of the novel virus storm, there is a process, being fed by mainstream media accounts and genuine panic in populations unclear what the real dangers are, that has alarming implications for the post-pandemic future.

Bill Gates and the Depopulation Agenda. Robert F. Kennedy Junior Calls for an Investigation

By Peter Koenig, April 18, 2020

For over twenty years Bill Gates and his Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) have been vaccinating foremost children by the millions in remote areas of poor countries, mostly Africa and Asia. Most of their vaccination program had disastrous results, causing the very illness (polio, for example in India) and sterilizing young women (Kenya, with modified tetanus vaccines). Many of the children died. Many of the programs were carried out with the backing of the WHO and – yes – the UN Agency responsible for the Protection of Children, UNICEF.

Why Are They Inflating the Numbers? New York City Adding 3,800 Unconfirmed Cases to COVID-19 Death Toll

By Timothy Alexander Guzman, April 17, 2020

Mayor De Blasio said that there was an increase in “unexplained at-home deaths” and that he “suspected many of them were caused by Covid-19″and he also said that “there’s no question in my mind and the doctors can speak to this, the driver of this huge uptick in deaths at home is Covid-19 and some people are dying directly of it and some people are dying indirectly of it, but it is the tragic X factor here.” There is something terribly wrong with this picture. Why are they adding unconfirmed cases to the death toll?

The US administration views Iraq as an arena for confrontation with Iran, with the aim of subjugating the country to its hegemony and dominance. The US imposes harsh sanctions on Iran and is trying to close the Iraqi market to prevent Tehran from smuggling its oil through Mesopotamia, and to obstruct the sale of gas even if it means cutting the supply of electricity to southern Iraq. All US means are valid for the current administration to ​​crush Iran with economic sanctions and close off its access to neighbouring countries. The US is also said to be preparing a military campaign against Kataeb Hezbollah in Iraq, apparently convinced that this group is the Iraqi branch of Hezbollah Lebanon. Even if both groups have the same objective—to oppose US hegemony—they differ in leadership and in their approach and relationship to Iran. However, it should be borne in mind that the consequences on US national territory of the devastating effect of COVID-19 have created an unprecedented economic decline and this burden also falls on the US army deployed abroad. Also, history shows that the US does not engage in any war if victory is not guaranteed. 

There are many reasons why the US is not even close to starting a war in Iraq. There is no doubt that America has the military power to wage any war it wants against any small or medium-sized country. However, Washington may start a war at will but will not be able to stop it so easily. It also has no idea about the damage a war on Iraq could cause. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria are the best evidence, if we evoke contemporary history, of the US inability to decide when a war should stop! Hence, launching a war on Iraq in 2020 would not be such a cakewalk as the 2003 war. Notwithstanding its occupation of Iraq with tens of thousands of men, the US failed to subjugate Iraq, mainly due to the emergence of the Sunni and Shia resistance which drove America out of Iraq in 2011.

And when US forces returned in 2014 – at the request of the Iraqi government – to contribute to fighting ISIS, the US presence was regulated and limited to fighting the Takfiri organisation and to offering paid-for military training. It was to refrain from conducting any military activity in the country without the permission of the Iraqi Prime Minister. The US has not only violated this agreement, it hasattacked the Iraqi army, federal police, and the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) on the Iraq-Syria border, killing and wounding 56 elements. Furthermore, it allowed Israel to attack Iraqi security forces’ warehouses, this according to what the American ambassador in Iraq revealed to the Prime Minister during a private visit to his office in Baghdad. Also, the US crowned its illegal interference in Iraqi affairs with the assassination of two leaders, the Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani on a mission requested by Iraqi Premier, and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis the commander of the PMF. These acts pushed the Iraqi parliament to formally request the immediate US departure from Iraq.

Iran was the first to respond to the need to defend Baghdad and Erbil when these were under imminent danger from the ISIS advance in 2014. Tehran carried on supplying the Iraqis with weapons at the request of Baghdad. A decision-maker in Iraq said “a senior British diplomat told a senior Iraqi official in Baghdad that the US believes that the PMF has very accurate Iranian missiles that can reach any country in the region and this is what worries America and the countries of the region.”

Following parliament’s request and the increase of hostility towards the US presence in Iraq, where foreign troops are considered occupation forces, the US initiated a redeployment plan. It has pulled out of 6 military bases and centres but equipped the military bases of Ayn al-Assad, Balad, and Harir with Patriot missiles, disregarding Baghdad’s disapproval. This is why Iraqi leaders are skeptical about the seriousness of the US’s real intention of withdrawal.

The US’s presence in Iraq aims to control Iran and to control access to the oil. Therefore – sources believe – the US exit will not be straightforward. The US has failed, after 17 years of occupation and military assistance against ISIS, to win the hearts and minds of the population.

The US wrongly assumed that Ismail Qaani, the commander of the IRGC-Quds brigade, would not replace his assassinated predecessor Qassem Soelimani. It also failed to understand that Iran is a country, whereas the IRGC is an institution. The axis of the resistance had never depended on a specific person, whatever his status. Qassem Soleimani was indeed a decision maker, but he was affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard Corps – Al-Quds Brigade, which is headed by its supreme leader Sayed Ali Khamenei. Following the assassination of Soleimani, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, took over in the temporary void to follow up on the affairs of the Palestinians in Gaza, the development in Syria, the Iraqis and Yemenis. We can see the presence of the Lebanese Hezbollah in all these axes and countries.

In Iraq, statements have emerged from different new organisations showing competence in media warfare, possession of drones and reading of aerial footage, and a similarity to the methods and professionalism of the Lebanese Hezbollah. One of the latest communiqués of the new anonymous group “Islamic Resistance in Iraq – Cave Owners (companions)” thanked Sunni Iraqi for their help in attacking the US convoy travelling between Erbil and Salahuddine province and invited the Iraqi Sunnis to join the resistance against the US forces. The group offered to arm, train and deliver weapons to “our Sunni Brothers. ”

Another reason why the US is far from declaring any war on Iraqi groups is the outbreak of the Corona virus and the decision taken by the Pentagon to stop all military movement between the bases, and military deployment in the whole country. Any war is a risky adventure that could have heavy consequences for the US army especially that, in the number of cases and the number of deaths caused by the Covid virus, the US holds first rank. President Donald Trump is in no position to allow his army to be hit by the virus.

We also have already seen how President Trump refused to attack Iran on several occasions. Iran has said that it will defend Iraq, as Admiral Ali Shamkhani, Secretary-General of National Security-has confirmed. Therefore, the US does not want to see Iran involved on the battlefield in Iraq. Iran has shot down the most sophisticated drones and bombed the American base of Ayn al-Assad in the first attack against US forces since Pearl Harbour during the days of World War II. Trump preferred not to respond.

Last but not least, President Trump will not fight a war in the next few months before the presidential elections, especially when the results of such a war and its consequent retaliation are unpredictable. As a result, the US administration’s leaking of information to the Western media that the Pentagon issued an order to prepare for a war in Iraq can be identified as part of the psychological war.

The US has violated its agreements with Iraq in many occasions, deploying Patriot missiles to protect US bases inside Iraq and redeploying its forces by pulling out from more vulnerable bases spread in various parts of Iraq. However, the Patriots already demonstrated their inability to repel missiles fired from Lebanon, Yemen and Palestine. Consequently, it is a defensive measure that will not protect the US from the decision of various Iraqi organisations to bomb US bases when confrontation becomes inescapable, if the US insists on staying in Iraq and disregarding the Iraqis’ will. Thus, America doesn’t itself hold the decision to go to war in Mesopotamia: most probably the many Iraqi groups will be the ones starting it. The US departure may protect US interests strategically but, if the US insists on staying, the power of the central government in Baghdad will be weakened. Lebanon is the best example of this phenomenon. And Iraqi resistance organisations will become quasi-state actors, much stronger than they are now.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All images in this article are from the author

The heavily anticipated (at least by Anti-Empire) Stanford University antibodies test of a representative population has now concluded.

Background

Addressing COVID-19 is a pressing health and social concern. To date, many epidemic projections and policies addressing COVID-19 have been designed without seroprevalence data to inform epidemic parameters.

We measured the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County. Methods On 4/3-4/4, 2020, we tested county residents for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a lateral flow immunoassay. Participants were recruited using Facebook ads targeting a representative sample of the county by demographic and geographic characteristics. We report the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a sample of 3,330 people, adjusting for zip code, sex, and race/ethnicity. We also adjust for test performance characteristics using 3 different estimates: (i) the test manufacturer’s data, (ii) a sample of 37 positive and 30 negative controls tested at Stanford, and (iii) a combination of both.

Results

The unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5% (exact binomial 95CI 1.11-1.97%), and the population-weighted prevalence was 2.81% (95CI 2.24-3.37%).

Under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics, the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%).

These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases.

Conclusions

The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases.

Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.

Professor Doctor John Ioannidis reports:

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has more:

 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The Trump administration unveiled on March 31 a “democratic transition” plan to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from office, in favor of a “council of state” composed of both opposition and ruling party loyalists.

The plan was, however, less an offer to negotiate than a diktat, with the US State Department (3/31/20) vowing that “sanctions will remain in effect, and increase, until the Maduro regime accepts a genuine political transition.”

Despite the obvious mafioso overtones, Washington’s stenographers in the corporate press were quick to present the initiative as “sanctions relief,” once again whitewashing murderous US economic warfare against Venezuela (FAIR.org, 2/6/19, 6/14/19, 6/26/19).

Western journalists’ callous obfuscation of sanctions’ deadly toll, especially amid a global pandemic (FAIR.org, 3/25/20), goes hand in hand with their parroting of bogus “narco-terrorism” charges leveled against Maduro and top Venezuelan officials, which butresses Washington’s ever-illicit casus belli.

An Offer They Can’t Refuse

The New York Times (3/31/20) jumped at the opportunity to furnish the Trump administration’s plan with a varnish of reasonability. “The proposal…offers to ease American sanctions intended to pressure President Nicolás Maduro and his loyalists over the past year,” Lara Jakes wrote, misconstruing the unilateral measures destroying Venezuela’s economy as well-intentioned steps to bring about “fair elections.”

At no point did the paper of record mention Washington’s threat to ramp up illegal sanctions if Maduro refuses the “offer” to replace his government with a five-person junta, in flagrant violation of Venezuela’s constitution. Other Western media likewise covered up the US blackmail, praising Donald Trump’s bayonet-hoisted ultimatum as a “roadmap to relief” (Washington Post, 3/31/20), a “more toned-down approach” (Reuters, 3/31/20) and a “conciliatory framework” (Economist, 4/2/20).

Having dutifully whitewashed US sanctions, the Times and its counterparts were free to cast war criminal Elliott Abrams, rehabilitated last year as Trump’s Venezuela envoy (CounterSpin, 3/1/19), as an honest broker committed to good-faith dialogue:

But Mr. Abrams was careful to say that the plan was an opening offer for talks between the two sides, “not a take-it-or-leave-it proposition,” and that no single issue was a deal breaker—except the demand for Mr. Maduro’s departure.

By contrast, Maduro—reelected in internationally monitored elections with a greater percentage of the electorate than Trump won in 2016, or Barack Obama in 2012—is for the Times “reminiscent of mid-20th century Latin American strongmen,” whose 2018 victory was “self-declared.”

The Times went on to accuse the Venezuelan leader of “creating one of the world’s largest refugee populations,” concealing the role of criminal sanctions in driving migration (FAIR.org, 2/18/18).

This vilification of Maduro and the Chavista poor people’s movement does not merely reflect reporters’ professional class bias, but is structurally necessary to justify US economic warfare and more overt criminality in the first place.

It is therefore no coincidence that the Trump administration’s gunpoint “proposal” to overturn Venezuela’s constitutional order came on the heels of Department of Justice “narco-terrorism” charges against the Venezuelan head of state and other top officials, which corporate journalists trumpeted enthusiastically.

Most outlets regarded the timing as a symptom of “contradictory” (Washington Post, 4/14/20) or “erratic” (New York Times, 4/10/20) US policy, which could “make it harder to remove Maduro” (Economist, 4/2/20), but the underlying regime change (ir)rationality never comes into question.

Indeed, even liberal imperialist academics like David Smilde and Abraham Lowenthal (Washington Post, 4/14/20) declined to call for scrapping the indictments, let alone easing sanctions, as a goodwill gesture aimed at securing Chavista support for the US plan, which they hailed as a “step in the right direction.” Rather, they merely recommend that the Trump administration offer “guarantees for indicted officials” against extradition, as if Maduro would be inclined to negotiate while Washington continues its collective punishment and maintains a $15 million bounty on his head.

Smilde and his Washington Office on Latin America colleague Geoff Ramsey’s  (Washington Post, 3/27/20) refusal to demand the immediate annulment of the drug charges and illegal sanctions is hardly surprising, given both men’s long-running support for US coup efforts (Common Dreams, 3/5/19).

(Left) The New York Times found Maduro’s white suit and being flanked by ministers as “reminiscent of dictators.”; (Right) The Washington Post found an unconstitutional plan to remove an elected president on the basis of threats as “a step in the right direction.”

Calling the Kettle Black

The DoJ’s indictment of 14 current or former senior Venezuelan officials on “narco-terrorism” charges provided the Western media with fresh grist for its imperial propaganda mill.

This is hardly the first time that the corporate media have reported the Washington’s evidence-free drug allegations against official enemies, which they have frequently done without any pretense of journalistic rigor (Extra!, 1/90, 9/12; FAIR.org,  9/24/19, 5/24/19).

The New York Times (3/26/20) dedicated no less than 12 paragraphs to repeating prosecutors’ claims, which are centered on the outlandish notion that Maduro secretly heads a drug cartel that conspired with Colombia’s FARC guerrillas to “‘flood’ the United States with cocaine.”

Despite marshaling a crack team of three writers and four contributing reporters, the Times proved incapable of citing any contrarian perspectives, let alone basic facts, that cast doubt on the “narco-terrorism” narrative.

The Guardian (3/26/20) and the Washington Post (3/27/20) were virtually the only outlets to mention the US government’s own publicly available data showing that just a small fraction of drug routes pass through Venezuela, with the overwhelming majority of cocaine entering the United States via Mexico and Central America. Furthermore, Colombia remains the world’s largest cocaine producer, right under the nose of large US military and DEA contingents, which have long waged a “war for drugs and of terror” in the country.

The DoJ’s case looks like a reheated version of equally unfounded accusations against former President Hugo Chávez, which corporate journalists eagerly promoted last year (FAIR.org, 9/24/19).

A map produced by the US Southern Command shows that most drug routes enter the US via the Pacific and then Central America. (Business Insider)

As with prior allegations against Socialist Party Vice President Diosdado Cabello (Wall Street Journal, 5/18/15), the indictments hinge on the testimony of defectors, whose claims are echoed in the Western press without scrutiny.

In the most recent case, retired Maj. Gen. Cliver Alcalá and former intelligence chief Hugo “El Pollo” Carvajal were also charged by the DoJ and pledged to cooperate with US authorities. Both had previously broken with the Maduro government and endorsed self-proclaimed “interim president” Juan Guaidó.

Alcalá, who swiftly surrendered to DEA agents and was flown to the US, boasted of plotting a coup in conjunction with Guaidó and “US advisers.”

In an exposé of the coup plot, the Financial Times (4/4/20) cast doubt on the general’s “rambling and contradictory” account, quoting several US officials denying the coup attempt and alleging Alcalá was “acting on the orders of Caracas.”

The outlet conveniently ignored that this would not be the first time Alcalá conspired to invade Venezuela with a paramilitary force.

According to Bloomberg (3/6/19), there was a plan for the general to lead a contingent of 200 Venezuelan exile soldiers to clear the way for the entry of “humanitarian aid” on February 23, 2019, which was vetoed at the last minute by Colombia, suggesting high-level coordination with Washington, Bogotá and Guaidó.

By repeating the US narrative of Alcalá as a Maduro “plant,” corporate journalists paradoxically legitimize the general as a reliable source of current information on Venezuelan “narco-terrorism,” while concealing his embarrassing ties to the US and its opposition proxies.

As we have exposed for FAIR.org (5/24/19), Carvajal has already proved his worth in the past by serving up to credulous reporters highly dubious allegations about Venezuelan leaders’ Hezbollah ties (New York Times, 2/21/19).

(Left) The New York Times (and other outlets) accepted the DoJ’s “narco-terrorism” charges at face value; (Right) An AP headline endorsed Trump’s dubious justification for an aggressive military move.

Imaginary Cartels, Real Warships

The uncritical coverage of the DoJ charges paved the way for a further US escalation shortly after the “transition” plan was unveiled.

On March 31, the Trump administration announced a military deployment to the Caribbean described by Associated Press (4/1/20) as “one of the largest in the region since the 1989 invasion of Panama.”

One might have expected such an obscenely expensive display of force amid a deadly pandemic currently killing thousands of Americans to be met with widespread rebuke across the media spectrum.

In fact, the opposition was largely muted. Newsweek (4/3/20) and Foreign Policy (4/2/20) gave voice to the Pentagon’s concern that the operation was wasteful and politically motivated, while the New York Times (4/10/20) published an op-ed raising polite proceduralist quibbles.  Agreeing with the Trump administration that Maduro is a “dictator” who “must go,” Michael Shifter and Michael Camilleri nonetheless placed a vague call for Washington “to reboot sanctions policy, provide aid through accountable channels, and press the country’s leaders to work together.” Evidently, demanding the immediate lifting of (arguably genocidal) sanctions was too unreasonable to ask.

Referring to the Venezuelan military as “deeply involved in corruption and criminality,” Shifter and Camilleri exemplify the decadent imperial intelligentsia’s psychology of displacement.

From social democratic left to neoliberal right, Global North journalists and intellectuals remain invested in the self-serving illusion that besieged Southern nations such as Venezuela and Iran are more “criminal,” “corrupt” and “authoritarian” than the US empire (FAIR.org, 2/12/20).

For all their polite critiques of illegal US sanctions and military escalation–whose monstrosity has been laid bare by the current pandemic–the cult of Western exceptionalism goes unchallenged.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Lucas Koerner is an editor and political analyst at Venezuelanalysis.

Ricardo Vaz is a political analyst and editor at Venezuelanalysis.

Featured image is from Novinite.com

According to an April 6 article on CNBC.com, Spain is slated to become the first country in Europe to introduce a universal basic income (UBI) on a long-term basis. Spain’s Minister for Economic Affairs has announced plans to roll out a UBI “as soon as possible,” with the goal of providing a nationwide basic wage that supports citizens “forever.” Guy Standing, a research professor at the University of London, told CNBC that there was no prospect of a global economic revival without a universal basic income. “It’s almost a no-brainer,” he said. “We are going to have some sort of basic income system sooner or later ….”

“Where will the government find the money?” is no longer a valid objection to providing an economic safety net for the people. The government can find the money in the same place it just found more than $5 trillion for Wall Street and Corporate America: the central bank can print it. In an April 9 post commenting on the $1.77 trillion handed to Wall Street under the CARES Act, Wolf Richter observed, “If the Fed had sent that $1.77 Trillion to the 130 million households in the US, each household would have received $13,600. But no, this was helicopter money exclusively for Wall Street and for asset holders.”

“Helicopter money” – money simply issued by the central bank and injected into the economy – could be used in many ways, including building infrastructure, capitalizing a national infrastructure and development bank, providing free state university tuition, or funding Medicare, social security, or a universal basic income. In the current crisis, in which a government-mandated shutdown has left households more vulnerable than at any time since the Great Depression, a UBI seems the most direct and efficient way to get money to everyone who needs it. But critics argue that it will just trigger inflation and collapse the dollar. As gold proponent Mike Maloney complained on an April 16 podcast:

Typing extra digits into computers does not make us wealthy. If this insane theory of printing money for almost everyone on a permanent basis takes hold, the value of the dollars in your purse or pocketbook will … just continue to erode …. I just want someone to explain to me how this is going to work.

Having done quite a bit of study on that, I thought I would take on the challenge. Here is how and why a central bank-financed UBI can work without eroding the dollar.

In a Debt-Based System, the Consumer Economy Is Chronically Short of Money

First, some basics of modern money. We do not have a fixed and stable money system. We have a credit system, in which money is created and destroyed by banks every day. Money is created as a deposit when the bank makes a loan and is extinguished when the loan is repaid, as explained in detail by the Bank of England here. When fewer loans are being created than are being repaid, the money supply shrinks, a phenomenon called “debt deflation.” Deflation then triggers recession and depression. The term “helicopter money” was coined to describe the cure for that much-feared syndrome. Economist Milton Friedman said it was easy to cure a deflation: just print money and rain it down from helicopters on the people.

Our money supply is in a chronic state of deflation, due to the way money comes into existence. Banks create the principal but not the interest needed to repay their loans, so more money is always owed back than was created in the original loans. Thus debt always grows faster than the money supply, as can be seen in this chart from WorkableEconomics.com:

When the debt burden grow so large that borrowers cannot take on more, they pay down old loans without taking out new ones and the money supply shrinks or deflates.

Critics of this “debt virus” theory say the gap between debt and the money available to repay can be filled through the “velocity of money.” Debts are repaid over time, and if the payments received collectively by the lenders are spent back into the economy, they are collectively available to the debtors to pay their next monthly balances. (See a fuller explanation here.) The flaw in this argument is that money created as a loan is extinguished on repayment and is not available to be spent back into the economy. Repayment zeros out the debit by which it was created, and the money just disappears.

Another problem with the “velocity of money” argument is that lenders don’t typically spend their profits back into the consumer economy. In fact, we have two economies – the consumer/producer economy where goods and services are produced and traded, and the financialized economy where money chases “yields” without producing new goods and services. The financialized economy is essentially a parasite on the real economy, and it now contains most of the money in the system. In an unwritten policy called the “Fed put”, the central bank routinely manipulates the money supply to prop up financial markets. That means corporate owners and investors can make more and faster money in the financialized economy than by investing in workers and equipment. Bankers, investors and other “savers” put their money in stocks and bonds, hide it in offshore tax havens, send it abroad, or just keep it in cash. At the end of 2018, US corporations were sitting on $1.7 trillion in cash, and 70% of $100 bills were held overseas.

Meanwhile the producer/consumer economy is left with insufficient investment and insufficient demand. According to a July 2017 paper from the Roosevelt Institute called “What Recovery? The Case for Continued Expansionary Policy at the Fed”:

GDP remains well below both the long-run trend and the level predicted by forecasters a decade ago. In 2016, real per capita GDP was 10% below the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) 2006 forecast, and shows no signs of returning to the predicted level.

The report showed that the most likely explanation for this lackluster growth was inadequate demand. Wages were stagnant; and before producers would produce, they needed customers knocking on their doors.

In ancient Mesopotamia, the gap between debt and the money available to repay it was corrected with periodic debt “jubilees” – forgiveness of loans that wiped the slate clean. But today the lenders are not kings and temples. They are private bankers who don’t engage in debt forgiveness because their mandate is to maximize shareholder profits, and because by doing so they would risk insolvency themselves. But there is another way to avoid the debt gap, and that is by filling it with regular injections of new debt-free money.

How Much Money Needs to Be Injected to Stabilize the Money Supply?

The mandated shutdown from the coronavirus has exacerbated the debt crisis, but the economy was suffering from an unprecedented buildup of debt well before that. A UBI would address the gap between consumer debt and the money available to repay it; but there are equivalent gaps for business debt, federal debt, and state and municipal debt, leaving room for quite a bit of helicopter money before debt deflation would turn into inflation.

Looking just at the consumer debt gap, in 2019 80% of US households had to borrow to meet expenses. See this chart provided by Lance Roberts in an April 2019 article on Seeking Alpha:

After the 2008 financial crisis, income and debt combined were not sufficient to fill the gap. By April 2019, about one-third of student loans and car loans were defaulting or had already defaulted. The predictable result was a growing wave of personal bankruptcies, bank bankruptcies, and debt deflation.

Roberts showed in a second chart that by 2019, the gap between annual real disposable income and the cost of living was over $15,000 per person, and the annual deficit that could not be filled even by borrowing was over $3,200:

Assume, then, a national dividend dropped directly into people’s bank accounts of $1,200 per month or $14,200 per year. This would come close to the average $15,000 needed to fill the gap between real disposable income and the cost of living. If the 80% of recipients needing to borrow to meet expenses used the money to repay their consumer debts (credit cards, student debt, medical bills, etc.), that money would void out debt and disappear. These loan repayments (or some of them) could be made mandatory and automatic. The other 20% of recipients, who don’t need to borrow to meet expenses, would not need their national dividends for that purpose either. Most would save it or invest it in non-consumer markets. And the money that was actually spent on consumer goods and services would help fill the 10% gap between real and potential GDP, allowing supply to rise with demand, keeping prices stable. The end result would be no net increase in the consumer price index.

The current economic shutdown will necessarily result in shortages, and the prices of those commodities can be expected to inflate; but it won’t be the result of “demand/pull” inflation triggered by helicopter money. It will be “cost/push” inflation from factory closures, supply disruptions, and increased business costs.

International Precedents

Critics of central bank money injections point to the notorious hyperinflations of history – in Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, etc. These disasters, however, were not caused by government money-printing to stimulate the economy. According to Prof. Michael Hudson, who has studied the question extensively, “Every hyperinflation in history has been caused by foreign debt service collapsing the exchange rate. The problem almost always has resulted from wartime foreign currency strains, not domestic spending.”

For contemporary examples of governments injecting new money to fund domestic growth, we can look to China and Japan. In the last two decades, China’s M2 money supply grew from 11 trillion yuan to 194 trillion yuan, a nearly 1,800% increase. Yet the average inflation rate of its Consumer Price Index hovered between 2% and 3% during that period. The flood of money injected into the economy did not trigger an inflationary crisis because China’s GDP grew at the same fast clip, allowing supply and demand to rise together. Another factor was the Chinese propensity to save. As incomes went up, the percent of income spent on goods and services went down.

In Japan, the massive stimulus programs called “Abenomics” have been funded through bond purchases by the Japanese central bank. The Bank of Japan has now “monetized” nearly half the government’s debt, injecting new money into the economy by purchasing government bonds with yen created on the bank’s books. If the US Fed did that, it would own $12 trillion in US government bonds, over three times the $3.6 trillion in Treasury debt it holds now. Yet Japan’s inflation rate remains stubbornly below the BOJ’s 2% target. Deflation continues to be a greater concern in Japan than inflation, despite unprecedented debt monetization by its central bank.

UBI and Fears of the “Nanny State”

Wary critics warn that a UBI is the road to totalitarianism, the “cashless society,” dependence on the “nanny state,” and mandatory digital IDs. But none of those outcomes need accompany a UBI. It does not make people dependent on the government, so long as they can work. It is just supplementary income, similar to the dividends investors get from their stocks. A UBI does not make people lazy, as numerous studies have shown. To the contrary, they become more productive than without it. And a UBI does not mean cash would be eliminated. Over 90% of the money supply is already digital. UBI payments can be distributed digitally without changing the system we have. 

A UBI can serve the goals both of fiscal policy, providing a vital safety net for citizens in desperate times, and of monetary policy, by stabilizing the money supply. The consumer/producer economy actually needs regular injections of helicopter money to remain sustainable, stimulate economic productivity, and avoid deflationary recessions.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, The Web of Debt Blog.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of Debt, The Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age.  She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com. 

Some years ago, the then vice-president of Monsanto Robert T Fraley asked, “Why do people doubt science”. He posed the question partly because he had difficulty in believing that some people had valid concerns about the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture.

Critics were questioning the science behind GM technology and the impacts of GMOs because they could see how science is used, corrupted and manipulated by powerful corporations to serve their own ends. And it was also because they regard these conglomerates as largely unaccountable and unregulated. 

We need look no further than the current coronavirus issue to understand how vested interests are set to profit by spinning the crisis a certain way and how questionable science is being used to pursue policies that are essentially illogical or ‘unscientific’. Politicians refer to ‘science’ and expect the public to defer to the authority of science without questioning the legitimacy of scientific modelling or data.

Although this legitimacy is being questioned on various levels, arguments challenging the official line are being sidelined. Governments, the police and the corporate media have become the arbiters of truth even if ‘the truth’ does not correspond with expert opinion or rational thought which challenges the mainstream narrative.

For instance, testing for coronavirus could be flawed (producing a majority of ‘false positives’) and the processes involved in determining death rates could be inflating the numbers: for example, dying ‘with’ coronavirus’ is different to dying ‘due to’ coronavirus: a serious distinction given that up to 98 per cent of people (according to official sources) who may be dying with it have at least one serious life-threatening condition. Moreover, the case-fatality ratio could be so low as to make the lockdown response appear wholly disproportionate. Yet we are asked to accept statistics at face value – and by implication, the policies based on them.

Indeed, documentary maker and author David Cayley addresses this last point by saying that modern society is hyper-scientific but radically unscientific as it has no standard against which it can measure or assess what it has done: that we must at all costs ‘save lives’ is not questioned, but this makes it very easy to start a stampede. Making an entire country go home and stay home has immense, incalculable costs in terms of well-being and livelihoods. Cayley argues that this itself has created a pervasive sense of panic and crisis and is largely a result of the measures taken against the pandemic and not of the pandemic itself.

He argues that the declaration by the World Health Organization that a pandemic (at the time based on a suspected 150 deaths globally) was now officially in progress did not change anyone’s health status, but it dramatically changed the public atmosphere. Moreover, the measures mandated have involved a remarkable curtailing of civil liberty.

One of the hallmarks of the current situation, he stresses, is that some think that ‘science’ knows more than it does and therefore they – especially politicians – know more than they do. Although certain epidemiologists may say frankly that there is very little sturdy evidence to base policies on, this has not prevented politicians from acting as if everything they say or do is based on solid science.

The current paradigm – with its rhetoric of physical distancing, flattening the curve and saving lives – could be difficult to escape from. Cayley says either we call it off soon and face the possibility that it was all misguided (referring to the policies adopted in Sweden to make his point), or we extend it and create harms that may be worse than the casualties we may have averted.

The lockdown may not be merited if we were to genuinely adopt a knowledge-based approach. For instance, if we look at early projections by Neil Ferguson of Imperial College in the UK, he had grossly overstated the number of possible deaths resulting from the coronavirus and has now backtracked substantially. Ferguson has a chequered track record, which led UK newspaper The Telegraph to run a piece entitled ‘How accurate was the science that led to lockdown?’ The article outlines Ferguson’s previous flawed predictions about infectious diseases and a number of experts raise serious questions about the modelling that led to lockdown in the UK.

It is worth noting that the lockdown policies we now see are remarkably similar to the disturbing Orwellian ‘Lock Step’ future scenario that was set out in 2010 by the Rockefeller Foundation report ‘Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development’. The report foresaw a future situation where freedoms are curtailed and draconian high-tech surveillance measures are rolled out under the ongoing pretexts of impending pandemics. Is this the type of technology use we can expect to see as hundreds of millions are marginalized and pushed into joblessness?

Instead of encouraging more diverse, informed and objective opinions in the mainstream, we too often see money and power forcing the issue, not least in the form of Bill Gates who tells the world ‘normality’ may not return for another 18 months – until he and his close associates in the pharmaceuticals industry find a vaccine and we are all vaccinated.

US attorney Robert F Kennedy Jr says that top Trump advisor Stephen Fauci has made the reckless choice to fast track vaccines, partially funded by Gates, without critical animal studies. Gates is so worried about the danger of adverse events that he says vaccines shouldn’t be distributed until governments agree to indemnity against lawsuits.

But this should come as little surprise. Kennedy notes that the Gates Foundation and its global vaccine agenda already has much to answer for. For example, Indian doctors blame the Gates Foundation for paralysing 490,000 children. And in 2009, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental vaccines, developed by Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Merck, on 23,000 girls. About 1,200 suffered severe side effects and seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates-funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations.

Kennedy adds that in 2010 the Gates Foundation funded a trial of GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects to 1,048 of the 5,949 children. In 2002, Gates’ operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Approximately 50 of the 500 children vaccinated developed paralysis.

Bill Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO in 2010. In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilising millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a  ’tetanus’ vaccine campaign. Independent labs found a sterility formula in every vaccine tested.  

Instead of prioritising projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases and improve health – clean water, hygiene, nutrition and economic development – the Gates Foundation spends only about $650 million of its $5 billion budget on these areas.

Despite all of this, Gates appears on prime-time TV news shows in the US and the UK pushing his undemocratic and unaccountable pro-big pharma vaccination and surveillance agendas and is afforded deference by presenters who dare not mention any of what Kennedy outlines. Quite the opposite – he is treated like royalty.  

In the meantime, an open Letter from Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, emeritus professor of medical microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, to Angela Merkel has called for an urgent reassessment of Germany’s lockdown. Dr Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health at Stanford University argues that we have made such decisions on the basis of unreliable data. In addition, numerous articles have recently appeared online which present the views of dozens of experts who question policies and the data being cited about the coronavirus.  

While it is not the intention to dismiss the dangers of Covid-19, responses to those dangers must be proportionate to actual risks. And perspective is everything.

Millions die each year due to unnecessary conflicts, malnutrition and hunger, a range of preventative diseases (often far outweighing the apparent impact of Covid-19), environmental pollution and economic plunder which deprives poor countriesof their natural wealth. Neoliberal reforms have pushed millions of farmers and poor people in India and elsewhere to the brink of joblessness and despair, while our food is being contaminated with toxic chemicals and the global ecosystem faces an apocalyptic breakdown.

Much of the above is being driven by an inherently predatory economic system and facilitated by those who now say they want to ‘save lives’ by implementing devastating lockdowns. Yet, for the media and the political class, the public’s attention should not be allowed to dwell on such things.

And that has easily been taken care of.

In the UK, the population is constantly subjected via their TV screens to clap for NHS workers, support the NHS and to stay home and save lives on the basis of questionable data and policies. Its emotive stuff taking place under a ruling Conservative Party that has cut thousands of hospital beds, frozen staff pay and demonised junior doctors.

As people passively accept the stripping of their fundamental rights, Lionel Shriver, writing in The Spectator, says that the supine capitulation to a de facto police state has been one of the most depressing spectacles he has ever witnessed. 

It’s a point of view that will resonate with many.

In the meantime, Bill Gates awaits as the saviour of humanity – with a loaded syringe.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

Is it coincidental that the first widely reported COVID-19 outbreak was in China.  

It’s unknown if the virus was natural or man-made, the latter very much possible, perhaps originating in a US bio-lab.

The US has a long disturbing history of bio-and-chemical warfare, waging it against Native Americans, during its Civil War, in WW I and II, and all its wars thereafter against invented enemies to the present day — along with homeland experiments.

Since at least the early 1940s, the US conducted research, development, and testing of bioweapons at Fort Detrick, MD, later at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs, Pine Bluff, AR and Dugway Proving Ground, UT.

Biological agents were introduced in New York, San Francisco, and other US cities to learn the effects of germ warfare.

The CIA’s Project MKULTRA research produced drugs and biological agents for mind control and behavioral modification.

The history of US development and use of banned weapons is long and disturbing.

Arsenals of chemical, biological, radiological, and other banned weapons are maintained by the Pentagon and CIA.

International law bans use of chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, the latter used by US forces at least since the preemptive 1991 Gulf War.

Depleted uranium weapons are radioactive, chemically toxic and poisonous, yet used in all US wars of aggression since GHW Bush’s aggression against Iraq.

No evidence suggests COVID-19 was made in a Chinese lab or originated from bats or other wildlife.

Was it made in the USA? US intelligence and the Pentagon have known for years about possible coronavirus outbreaks that could spread widely in the US and elsewhere.

COVID-19 shares common symptoms with seasonal flu/influenza that infects millions of Americans annually, hospitalizes hundreds of thousands, and results in tens of thousands of deaths — with no fear-mongering/screaming headlines.

Both are communicable diseases, COVID-19 more contagious by a factor of about 2.5 to 3.5, why precautions for personal safety are warranted.

Older individuals, anyone with a weakened immune system, and others with significant health issues are most vulnerable to serious illness from COVID-19.

According to Healthline.com, from 25 – 50% of COVID-19 infected individuals may be asymptomatic.

Iceland researchers reported that around half of individuals who tested positive for the virus had no symptoms.

That’s good news for them, worrisome for their ability to unwittingly spread disease to others.

The same goes for epidemic-level seasonal flu and numerous other infectious diseases that do not reach epidemic levels in developed and most other countries.

Because COVID-19 is much more contagious than influenza it’s wise to take protective measures if in a high-risk group.

The economic, political, and geopolitical fallout from what’s going on is far more serious than contagion that will pass.

Evidence one day may show that that US dark forces were and remain responsible for unleashing COVID-19 and its accompanying fear-mongering to further its objectives — domestic and geopolitical.

The former is all about the largest ever wealth transfer from ordinary Americans to privileged ones, along with greater erosion of human and civil rights for enhanced population control.

The latter appears primarily to target China, a nation heading toward surpassing the US as the world’s leading economy in the years ahead.

Washington’s likely main objective is trying to derail its growing economic, financial, industrial, technological, and geopolitical development.

It’s also a likely attempt to reverse US decline while other nations are rising, notably China.

It’s US public enemy No. one because of its growing geopolitical influence — establishment media allied with US dark forces in vilifying the country.

Last week, the NYT falsely accused China of growing “nationalism and xenophobia,” claiming “foreigners are being shunned, barred from public spaces and even evicted (sic).”

China leads the world in combatting COVID-19. It’s all-out efforts reduced outbreaks to a trickle.

Like other countries, it’s playing it safe until the virus is fully contained and no longer a threat to anyone, a short-term policy to ensure public health.

In its latest edition, the Times arrogantly said “(t)he US tried to teach China a lesson about (the) media, but it backfired.”

The above refers to Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal correspondents expelled from the country, including from Hong Kong and Macau.

China’s Foreign Ministry explained the action as follows:

Its authorities responded to Washington’s “unwarranted restrictions on Chinese media agencies and personnel in the US…subject(ing) them to growing discrimination and politically-motivated oppression.”

In February, the Trump regime “designated five Chinese media entities in the US as ‘foreign missions’ and imposed a cap on the number of their employees, in effect expelling Chinese journalists from the US.”

Beijing imposed “reciprocal measures” on US correspondents  because of “unreasonable oppression the Chinese media organizations experience in the US” — what the Times and other establishment media failed to explain, including the following Chinese Foreign Ministry remark:

“What we reject is ideological bias against China, fake news made in the name of press freedom, and breaches of ethics in journalism.”

“Should the US choose to go further down the wrong path, it could expect more countermeasures from China.”

US fake news about China and other sovereign independent countries on its target list for regime change is longstanding.

A WaPo editorial last week falsely accused China of spreading COVID-19 globally, along with “cover(ing) up the truth as the virus spread (sic).”

A WSJ report was similar, quoting Senator Rick Scott, calling for a congressional investigation into the alleged WHO’s “role in helping Communist China cover up information regarding the threat of the coronavirus.”

Over the weekend, Trump warned of “consequences” if China was “knowingly responsible” for spreading COVID-19, adding:

“It could have been stopped in China before it started and it wasn’t, and the whole world is suffering because of it (sic).”

His weekend and earlier remarks were all about falsely shifting blame to China for his own failings and malfeasance.

If evidence proves the novel coronavirus to be a US bioweapon unleashed at home and abroad, it’ll be covered up to wrongfully shift blame to China.

It’s part of US war on the country by other means, what’s likely to intensify ahead.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Last week the socialist pest from Vermont, Senator Bernie Sanders, formally endorsed former vice president Biden in an awkward livestream in which the two septuagenarians told one another how wonderful they are and how awful Trump is. As of this writing, masses of Sanders’ supporters, the Bernie Bros, refuse to accept the endorsement and vow to fight on against the Democrat Party Establishment. Polls indicate that a significant number of Bernie Bros, perhaps as many as 10 percent, would vote for Trump before Biden.

There followed the coup-de-tat. Showing great political courage, Barack Obama waited till Biden had won the primaries to endorse his vice president. Three years after leaving office, Obama still looks old and tired. He watches powerlessly as Trump wipes away his legacy. Trump withdrew the United States from Obama’s ‘Iran Deal’. With the noxious individual mandate repealed by congress, Obamacare is dying a slow death. The man who offered ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’ is a spent force now, too close to the center for the hard-left, while even his most ardent supporters wonder to what his eight years in office amounted.

After 18 months of campaigning, former vice president Joe Biden is the undisputed victor of the 2020 Democrat Party primary. The Democrat Presidential Primary began with such high hopes and had a slew of interesting and intersectional candidates. None of the young rising stars proved to be up to the task of defeating a 77-year-old white man who has been in politics for 50 years.

Former Congressman Robert Francis O’Rourke was young and charismatic, Kennedyesque, the nostalgists in the Dem media exclaimed. But with O’Rourke it seemed that there was no there-there.  In 2018, he failed to unseat the unpopular Senator Ted Cruz. On the campaign trail he spoke in platitudes only, his arms flailing about wildly as he did so. O’Rourke came off like a Generation-X cliché, a man in arrested development, stuck permanently in the mid-1990s.

New Jersey Senator Corey Booker (for whom we voted) looked like a strong candidate on paper. He was a college football player at Stanford and Rhodes Scholar. Booker was mayor of the state’s largest city, Newark, before being elected to the senate. But in committee hearings, Booker had this weird way of yelling at Trump officials so that his eyes seemed nearly to pop out of his head. Booker is the son of an IBM executive, and didn’t really have strong appeal among African American voters, while affluent white liberals preferred candidates more like them.

California Senator Kamala Harris is both female and black, twice a minority, one could say, giving her impressive intersectional credentials. Harris portrayed herself as a progressive but tough on crime prosecutor and attorney general. After eviscerating Joe Biden over his 1970s era opposition to Forced Busing, Harris was briefly the frontrunner. At the next debate, Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard took Harris’ strength and turned it against her, ‘She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana,’ Gabbard said. Harris never recovered.

Which opened a path to the nomination for Elizabeth Warren. The septuagenarian and senator from Massachusetts had all the right progressive stances and stole Sanders’ issues in a bid to win over the Bernie Bros. For decades, Warren lied about her Cherokee heritage (she has none) to advance her career. On the stump she has the bearing and voice of a middle school librarian, making her almost as unlikable as Hilary Clinton, no easy feat.

There were at least a dozen also-rans none of whom had any hope of winning the nomination, all but a few of them utterly forgettable and forgotten. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio appealed to nobody. Pete Buttigieg, mayor of Indiana’s fourth largest city, tried to be the white, gay Obama. Late in the race came former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg. He campaigned for three months, spent a billion dollars and then dropped out just in time to disappear for the Wuhan Coronavirus crisis. Warren is at least coherent.

Not so, Sleepy Joe, as the president calls him. On the campaign trail, Biden will tell you what bills he voted for, pieces of legislation he co- and the senators with whom he wrote them. The man’s work goes all the way back to the Nixon Administration.  On his podcasts and livestreams from his home study in Wilmington, Delaware, Biden will sure as heck tell you what needs to be done during the Wuhan Coronavirus pandemic and how he’s going to do it.  Last week he harkened back to the Roosevelt Administration, of which he has vague memories, “You know, there’s a, uh — during World War II, you know, Roosevelt came up with a thing that uh, you know was totally different than a, than the, you know he called it you know the, World War II, he had the war… the war production board,” he told us. And so, after eighteen months of campaigning and a couple dozen candidates, the Democrat Party has chosen Joe Biden.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

William Stroock is an author of military fiction.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

US President Donald Trump tried to prove his effective leadership in the COVID-19 fight during the White House briefing on Saturday. He said that the US mortality rate was 11.24 per 100,000 people, lower than that of Spain, France and Italy. China’s mortality rate is only 0.33 per 100,000 people and Trump blasted it as “impossible,” saying “does anybody really believe this number?”

The COVID-19 has claimed 4,632 lives in the Chinese mainland so far. For the Chinese people, the number is already very large. Some 3,869 people died of the virus in Wuhan, which is difficult for people to accept. Chinese public opinion has been questioning why so many people died. We think our country could have saved more lives and we sincerely believe that there is room for improvement.

The US is the most powerful country and has the most abundant medical resources and the most advanced technology. It could also refer to China’s experience. But now, its daily deaths are around 2,000 and could peak at 4,000. This is completely beyond the Chinese imagination of the US. There is no reason for such mass deaths. The COVID-19 spread in the US is almost like that of a primitive society. It should not have been like this if the US had the slightest science and organization.

The US president and ruling elite should have reflected on the current situation, but the federal government regards passing the buck to others as top priority. It quarrels with governors and the Democratic Party internally, and shirks responsibility to China and the WHO externally. Now it is claiming the US mortality rate is not as high as Europe and China’s figure is “impossible.” This is politically unethical.

China never intended to compare itself with the US. China has been doing its utmost to protect people’s lives while the US has been weighing between people’s lives and the economy. Moreover, those in power are calculating which side helps them win the upcoming election.

The US has never seen containing the epidemic and reducing the death toll as an overarching purpose. The federal and state governments have been engaging in endless disputes, and leading officials at both levels are focusing on their public appearances. US officials are in fact competing on how to act more like a “wartime leader” and how to shift blame onto others.

To put it bluntly, the US is no match for China in terms of anti-epidemic organization and mobilization. The US political system has been hit by the pandemic on its weak side and we were willing to show understanding for that. After all, every system has its weaknesses.

However, the Trump administration has repeatedly found fault with China, blatantly accused China of fabricating epidemic achievements, eagerly passed the buck to China and unscrupulously attempted to win reelection by stepping on China. In that case it is not our fault to reveal the miserable failure of the US.

Nearly 40,000 people have died of the coronavirus in the US, way beyond other countries in the world. And it is hard to tell how large it will become. Even if US laws are not ready to hold those in power accountable, history will eventually put them on trial.

The Chinese government has done its utmost to fight the epidemic and has controlled it, preventing the deaths from rising out of control like that in the US. China’s achievements stand the test of time and all kinds of doubts. The Trump administration only wants to shirk responsibility by blackening China. This will be proven a lame trick. This will only reflect the incompetence and ethical failings of the related US politicians.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

It was like scenes from an Armageddon-like movie made in Hollywood instead of a real-world Tehran hospital, Hesam Khezri said, describing the state of Masih Daneshvari during the first days of the coronavirus outbreak in Iran.

“Looking down from the rooftop of the hospital…you could see dozens of ambulances rushing with their sirens blaring. People in sanitary clothes were going hurriedly from side to side transferring patients on stretchers,” Khezri told Middle East Eye.

Khezri is a doctor’s assistant working in the hospital’s surgery department but was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) as the demand for more personnel to deal with the crisis grew.

He was diagnosed with Covid-19 on 1 April.

“Suddenly, we were spearheading the fight against Corona,” Khezri said of Masih Daneshvari, a big hospital built in a mountainous area north of the capital.

“We were all taken by surprise. By no means, could the hospital staff have predicted that within 48 hours more than 20 different wards, including three for emergencies, would be filled with patients suspected of having coronavirus,” Khezri said.

The Iranian health ministry publicly announced the first two cases of Covid-19 in the country on 19 February.

A few days later, Iran became one of the global epicentres of the virus. At the time of publishing this article, there are more than 76,000 confirmed cases and more than 5,000 deaths in Iran.

Since the onset of the outbreak, Masih Daneshvari quickly became the primary destination for infected patients, with Iranian health officials also sending suspected cases there.

Khezri said the situation was made complicated by the state of panic felt by the hospital staff who had little experience in dealing with a new virus that is yet to have a cure.

“Within 24 hours, between 650 and 700 people were taken to our hospital, a trend that gained serious momentum over the next few days”, he added.

The rapid increase in the number of cases and the death toll saw other hospitals and medical centres in Tehran join the efforts to contain the spread of the virus.

Iranian Health Minister Saeed Nemaki recently said that despite the state of the first days of the outbreak, Iranian medical staff are already much more experienced now than they were at the outset.

The first wave of infections had caused fear and pushed people, either suffering from coronavirus symptoms or wishing to be tested, to rush to the hospital.

“A large number of people could have contracted the virus in the hospital during the early days,” Khezri said.

But, he added, the situation eventually improved at Masihi Daneshvari with fewer people seeking hospital treatment and medical staff having gained some experience in how to manage the inflow of patients.

Today, people presenting with acute difficulty in breathing and dry coughs are sent to the relevant departments for blood tests and CT scans for their lungs.

Meanwhile, patients with no pulmonary problem are sent into quarantine either at home or in an isolated ward in the hospital.

The frontline

“I will never in my life forget these days I am going through. [We see] patients who are in good condition in the morning but then show severe symptoms at night and die before the next morning,” Fatemeh, a nurse in Masih Daneshvari, said using only her first name.

Fatemeh said fear was prevalent at the beginning of the crisis, especially when some of the staff contracted the virus themselves.

“But now, as the cases increase, what matters most to us is saving people’s lives.”

In Iran, as is the case in many countries, there was a shortage of medical staff on the frontline of the outbreak.

Nurses and doctors have had to spend numerous long days and nights at the hospital, with many retired doctors and nurses returning to assist the exhausted personnel.

Being most at risk for exposure, health professionals are being applauded all around the world for their relentless efforts and dedication in battling the virus.

According to Iran’s health ministry, 43 medical workers including doctors have died so far after contracting the disease.

Nurses and doctors in the special unit for Covid-19 patients in Masih Daneshvari Hospital pose for a photo (MEE/Mohammadreza Abbassi)

Fatemeh said Masih Daneshvari Hospital has suffered from a severe shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) – such as face masks, gloves, and sanitary clothing – at the start of the outbreak, and although the problem is being gradually solved, the damage was already done.

“We received a big shock at first,” she said.

“The huge number of cases and our poor experience in dealing with the disease has led us to witness some of our colleagues getting infected and has increased our anxiety in dealing with coronavirus patients.”

Medical staff either work 19-hour shifts and are off for 48 hours afterwards or works 7am-2pm shifts every day.

A few days after the outbreak, some retired physicians and nurses voluntarily joined the staff, reducing the initial pressure.

Dealing with grief

Hospital staff sometimes have to wear PPE for 19 hours at a time, which Fatemeh says can feel like a nightmare, but this is not their only problem.

“We work for many hours and days and have to isolate ourselves because of our exposure to the virus. Many of us have not seen our families for fear of transmitting the virus to them,” she said.

Many of the medical workers were not able to spend the eve of the Iranian new year, Nowruz, with their families because they had to stay at the hospital.

“Seeing the death of patients has caused us a lot of grief and sorrow. We have to sometimes sing together and play instruments to get over the sad situation,” Fatemeh said, praying that the crisis will be over soon.

Besides the medical staff, many other workers are part of the tragic scenes, including the personnel in charge of carrying the corpses to the morgue, those in charge of maintaining the quarantined areas of the hospital, and the catering staff taking care of the patients’ meals.

They too have to wear PPE as they carry out physically demanding tasks while also being exposed to Covid-19 patients.

In the coronavirus unit at Masih Daneshvari, a member of the cleaning crew has taken the initiative, in addition to his daily duties, to talk to patients, to listen and entertain them, and to improve the morale of his colleagues.

US sanctions

The coronavirus crisis in Iran has been compounded by the harsh sanctions imposed by the United States, which has essentially cut Iran off from the international banking system.

While Washington has repeatedly insisted that medicines and humanitarian goods are excluded from the sanctions, restrictions on trade have made many international banks and companies reluctant to do business with Iran.

Iranian officials have rejected recent US claims that Tehran can still import medicine and food, saying that no company is willing to sell medicine to Iran out of fear of punitive measures by Washington.

Medical staff work 19-hour shifts and are off for 48 hours or works 7am-2pm shifts every day (MEE/Mohammadreza Abbasi)

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has warned of a humanitarian catastrophe if the sanctions against Iran remain in place.

A large number of civil and humanitarian groups across the world, as well as officials and even some US congressmen, have also called for the temporary lifting of sanctions on Iran during its battle against coronavirus.

One doctor at Masih Daneshvari said there is, in fact, no shortage of medical equipment at the hospital, with enough ventilators and beds in the intensive care unit.

But, the problem, he said, is the shortage of medicine caused by the sanctions.

“A pack of Tamiflu [an antiviral medication] is sold at over $100 on the black market in Iran. Had it not been for the sanctions, this medicine would cost less than $5,” the doctor told Middle East Eye on condition of anonymity.

“Another anti-coronavirus drug, Actemra [tocilizumab] is now traded at $3,000 on Iran’s unofficial market, while the same medicine would not be worth more than $100 had the situation been normal. That is the case with other imported medicines.”

Masih Daneshvari Hospital is a specialised centre for lung diseases and one of the best medical establishments in the Middle East. It is also presided over by prominent Iranian politician Ali Akbar Velayati.

Warnings

But the case is different for other hospitals in Iran.

According to various reports, many hospitals in the country lack appropriate medical equipment.

Other reports say that medical staff in many hospitals, particularly in small towns, face shortages of basic necessities such as face masks, sanitary clothes and goggles.

The overall situation of the coronavirus outbreak in Iran is improving according to the president and some health officials, although the daily number of reported cases in the country has not yet dropped.

Nevertheless, the number of suspected cases or infected people admitted to Masih Daneshvari Hospital has significantly decreased compared to the early days of the outbreak.

According to the doctor who wished to remain unnamed, the number of cases has dropped from 600-700 per day to 150.

He believes that Iran has already reached the peak of the disease and it will be on a downward trend.

The doctor cautioned, however, that if social distancing measures and restrictions on people’s activities are rolled back too soon, the country will suffer a more severe outbreak and a second peak.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: The goggles of a member of the emergency medical staff cloud up after several consecutive hours of use (MEE/Mohammadreza Abbasi)

The U.S. Forces in Korea (USFK) has furloughed about half of its 8,500 local hires, not for fear of the COVID 19 pandemic, but in a ploy to extract more subsidies from the South Korean government, using workers as pawns.

As of April 1, about 4,000 Korean employees were put on unpaid leave until further notice after the U.S. and South Korean governments failed to renew a cost-sharing deal that expired December 31.

“This is an unfortunate day for us,” USFK commander, Gen. Robert B. Abrams, said on April 1, commenting on the unprecedented massive furlough. “It’s heartbreaking.”

In a sarcastic tweet he sent some hours later, however, the four-star army general betrayed his sympathetically toned remarks.

“I learned today that,” Gen. Abrams said, “’Don’t count your chickens before they hatch’ = ‘Don’t eat your kimchi stew before the time is right.’”

He dashed any hope for a quick end to the furlough, dismissing local press reports that the two governments were a few days away from reaching a new deal.

Five-fold increase

The initial stages of negotiations for the renewal of a cost-sharing deal, known as the Special Measures Agreement (SMA), were bound to fail, as the Trump administration demanded of the South Korean government about $5 billion a year, more than a five-fold increase from about $853 million of the previous agreement. The Trump administration rejected a 13% increase offered by the South Korean government.

However, the mass furloughs could have been avoided had the United States not rejected an offer by South Korea to cover local hires’ wages during the runup to a new deal.

As of press time, half the usual level of South Korean staff clean and maintain at least 17 U.S. military bases for 25,800 troops stationed in the country.

U.S. belligerence

On the campaign trail, Trump routinely attacked South Korea, one of Asia’s new economic powerhouses, for shrewdly passing military costs on to the United States. In January 2016, he slammed South Korea, saying, “South Korea is a money machine. They pay us peanuts.” He went on to declare, “South Korea should pay us and pay us very substantially for protecting them”

However, South Koreans have been paying for the U.S. military presence on their own soil since 1953, when U.S. bases and camps began to dot their war-torn country to house more than 100,000 troops, after the Korean War of 1950 to 1953, a civil war that grew into a war by proxy between the Cold War superpowers.

While public data are still scant, there were three big bumps in South Korean contributions during the Cold War, between the 1950s and the early 1990s, when the country emerged as the U.S. government’s bulwark against communist bloc. In 1966, the United States and South Korean entered into the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), under which South Korea would pay for the land and facility use by the USFK.

In 1979 when the Carter administration stepped up pressure on South Korea, still a poor country with a per-capita GNI of $1,670, to increase military spending and financial support for the USFK, U.S. ambassador William Gleysteen and USFK commander John Wickham jointly warned Washington of “one of the most serious misperceptions” about U.S. policy toward Korea: “The U.S. finances a significant portion of Korean defense.” They argued that South Korea’s support largely exceeded that of more prominent allies with a U.S. military presence. Gleysteen and Wickham recommended gradual pressure. Any immediate, substantial rise in host-country support, they warned, would result in the postponement of South Korea’s infrastructure expenditures or even the downgrading of its credit ratings.

In 1991, the two countries signed the SMA, replacing much of the SOFA and further strengthening South Korea’s financial contributions to the USFK. In the three decades since 1991, South Korea’s payouts rose by 10 times, despite the post-Cold War reality that the USFK, once committed almost exclusively to the Korean peninsula, were increasingly becoming something of a rapid response force for the entire region.

Major foothold

The 28,500-strong USFK represents the U.S. military’s third-largest overseas presence. Nothing showcases South Korea’s financial burden better than Camp Humphreys, about 40 miles southwest of Seoul, and the largest U.S. military base outside the United States. The base, which can accommodate up to 45,000 personnel from all military branches, was completed in 2017, with the rise of China as military superpower in mind. Camp Humphreys, about 250 miles away from China’s eastern seaboard, is the most forefront of about 400 U.S. military bases encircling China. While neither government discloses dollar figures, several press reports said South Korea paid more than $9 billion out of a total of $10.8 billion for the construction.

Direct hit

The 4,000 USFK Korean employees were held financially hostage as the country grappled with the economic and social fallout of the coronavirus pandemic. Categorized as freelancers under contract with a foreign entity, these workers are not entitled to furlough benefits. Their employment status and conditions are governed under a vagely SOFA that does not delineate labor rights or employment status.

USFK local hires are in a legal limbo that falls between U.S. and Korean jurisdiction. The workers are left with little legal recourse in the face of layoffs or wage freezes. Between 2017 and 2019, the USFK shed 400 to 500 Korean hires despite continued rises in South Korean subsidies. During the Great Recession in 2018, the command refused to approve a mediation deal by South Korea’s labor relations commission over a three-year wage freeze. All of these issues should now be settled under SOFA structure. Under the SOFA, both parties must agree to even discuss an issue, and to date, the U.S. has refused to initiate discussion about these labor concerns. The SOFA bans workers from taking collective action such as stoppages over a pending settlement.

“Amid the COVID 19 pandemic, it is even difficult find interim part-time jobs,” said the USFK Korean Employees Union in a statement. “Our livelihood will be hit directly.”

Unionists mount daily pickets at Camp Humphreys while the government considers a one-time loan program for the workers. As one community activist told the press, “This amounts to daylight robbery.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Kap Seol is a writer based in New York.

Featured image is from Flickr

By all accounts and from the very beginning it was clear that Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) was at the very most a bad cold – little more dangerous than the annual flu – but being deliberately hyped to stampede the public into a tangled web of bad policies.

As early as last month cooler-headed experts warned that hyped death rates spread by politicians, the Western corporate media, other various panic-mongers, and even World Health Organization (WHO) officials would give way to much, much lower death rates as more people were tested, found to have had the virus, and showed little to no symptoms.

The numbers of infections versus deaths in Iceland where testing has been the most widespread shows a death rate of about 0.5%, though only 5% of the population has been tested. 50% of those tested showed no symptoms at all meaning that many, many more Icelanders likely had the virus, overcame it with ease, and never visited a doctor or hospital to avail themselves for testing or to make into national Covid-19 statistics.

Another study conducted in the United States by Stanford University found the infection rate was likely 50-85 times higher than reported – meaning the death rate was astronomically lower than reported at around 0.2% to as low as 0.12% – not the 3-4% claimed by the World Health Organization.

In other words – Covid-19 is no more dangerous or deadly than the annual flu. But it has been hyped as such by Western politicians, the Western corporate media, and even international institutions like WHO – a deliberate deception accompanied by coordinated theater including government briefings with reporters comically spaced out in “fear” of contracting Covid-19.

Other props used to panic the public into imprisoning themselves at home and accepting the immense socioeconomic damage “lockdowns” are causing included showing the expotential graphs of infections seemingly rising straight up with no end in sight.

If responsible journalists put these graphs in context – say, perhaps next to annual flu infection curves – the public would notice they are identical and simply represent the way the flu, colds, and Covid-19 which is related to both – work their way through populations.

The same goes for total deaths. Should the media present Covid-19 deaths in the context of and in comparison to annual deaths from the flu, Americans – for example – would see that versus the 2019 flu season, Covid-19 is actually 30,000-40,000 deaths short of just matching the common flu – saying nothing of living up to the hype and hysteria the government and media have deliberately created around Covid-19 to justify lockdowns.

So why have governments around the globe crippled their economies, put millions out of work, and placed draconian measures in place to, in essence, imprison their populations at home?

Those with power and money seek to keep what they have and to take what little is left in the hands of others. During the manufactured “War on Terror,” similar hysteria was deliberately spread across society to justify draconian police powers at home and endless wars abroad – pouring ultimately trillions into the accounts of defense contractors and the financial institutions invested in them.

During a manufactured health crisis like the 2009 H1N1 “Swine Flu” outbreak, the unfounded fear of an uncontrollable pathogen ravaging the population helped justify the centralizing of control over people’s health and lifestyle while pumping billions in pubic funding into the coffers of big-pharma.

And here we are again with the very same interests who lied to us about all of the above, doing it again and on a much larger and more destructive scale – creating socioeconomic havoc virtually no one will escape completely.

If the Covid-19 hoax doesn’t convince you to divest from the politicians and the corporations they serve – including divesting from big-business’ goods and services – nothing will. Special interests just beta-tested turning entire nations into virtual prisons. If people allow it this time, their ability to do it again and to an even greater and more disruptive degree is all but guaranteed.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Tony Cartalucci writes on his blog site, Land Destroyer Report, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from LDR unless otherwise stated

Washington-based military think tanks constantly warn of possible attacks by the wicked North Koreans who have a large arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver to North America.

So do Britain, France, Russia, India, Pakistan, China, India and Israel. The US still has a very large, lethal arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. I recently wrote of how the Reagan administration supplied Iraq with feeder stocks to make anthrax, Q Fever and other biowarfare materials for use against Iranians.

And yet we have just seen from the COVID-19 scare how woefully unprepared we were for a chemical/biological attack despite being world leader in germ and chemical warfare.

As the bodies of COVID-19 victims pile up from New York to New Zealand, politicians are waging a furious blame game over the pandemic.

At first, President Donald Trump dismissed COVID-19 as a simple cold or flu and, in the best dictatorial tradition, scared into silence scientists and politicians who disagreed with him for over a month.

China’s General Secretary Xi Jinping, or high-level Communist Party officials, may have suppressed information about the Wuhan virus for six days before news of the killer virus was revealed and a common Party response agreed upon.

Covering up bad news is standard procedure in Communist and autocratic regimes. That’s a major reason why the slow motion collapse of the Soviet Union’s economy went unknown to the Kremlin until too late.

In Trumpistan, none of the sycophants and yes-men around the president, except for the admirable Dr. Fauci, dared contradict the Great White Father cum Physician cum Mussolini in the White House. Anyone who does quickly gets a ‘you’re fired.’

Many of Trump’s evangelical supporters in the Bible Belt view him as a semi-religious figure, a sort of holy man who can, in the best Old Testament Biblical tradition, stop or even cure plague and pestilence. That’s what Trump’s claim to be able to miraculously end the Coronavirus plague by Easter was all about.

Next, fearing American voters would blame him for ineptitude and quackery for downplaying the crisis, Trump sought to lay blame on China and the World Health Organization for the pandemic. Flat-earth Midwestern Republicans believe the UN and anything that sounds international is satanic. This includes the bumbling, overly bureaucratic WHO which has indeed been too easy on China as the right-wing Republicans claim.

But this is the same UN-directed outfit that played a key role in repressing or even eradicating malaria, smallpox, Ebola, river blindness, bilharzia and other dreadful plagues of Africa and Asia. WHO has also had some success in fighting dengue and tsetse flies.

After studying the timeline of recent events in Wuhan, it appears to me that there was some confusion among Chinese medical authorities because of the unknown nature of the new virus. It took them close to a week to evaluate the virus which was at first believed to be a virulent influenza.

Their confusion was minor compared to the muddled reaction of US political and medical authorities and Trump-supporting evangelical groups who each had their own beliefs (usually mistaken) about the new virus. Trump was very successful at laying blame on China – just as the lethal 1918 flu epidemic that began in US Army camps and killed millions of people was successfully marketed to the public as the ‘Spanish flu.’

In an effort to come up with a snake-oil cure, Trump told Americans to take the anti-malaria drugs Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine. French doctors warned these drugs could provoke serious, even lethal heart problems.

They were quite right. I took Chloroquine while in the jungle in southern Africa while covering the fighting between South African (SADF) forces and East-Bloc backed African Congress forces. I developed a mild but still very scary psychological problem and was sick as hell. Who wants to be psycho and paranoid in the deepest jungle?

One remarkable factor in this 21st century plague is how successful China appears to be so far in bottling up the COVID plague. It may be the Chinese are fudging the facts as Republicans, who never lie, claim.

However, I think the key to China’s success has been the ubiquity of special Communist Party committees who ruthlessly and successfully managed the epidemic. Every Chinese factory, apartment building, school and organization has its very own Party official whose job is to spy and report on every person in their group.

Each member is graded and guided. ‘Good’ Communists received better apartments, school slots, factory jobs and retirement care based on their grade book. The all-seeing party knows all, sees all, and can control just about everyone.

That’s how China has so far bested this plague – though of course Trump will try to take the credit.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Apple and Google last week announced a joint contact tracing effort that would use Bluetooth technology to help alert people who have been in close proximity to someone who tested positive for COVID-19. Similar proposals have been put forward by an MIT-associated effort called PACT as well as by multiple European groups.

These proposals differ from the traditional public health technique of “contact tracing” to try to stop the spread of a disease. In place of human interviewers, they would use location or proximity data generated by mobile phones to contact people who may have been exposed.

While some of these systems could offer public health benefits, they may also cause significant risks to privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. If such systems are to work, there must be widespread, free, and quick testing available. The systems must also be widely adopted, but that will not happen if people do not trust them. For there to be trust, the tool must protect privacy, be voluntary, and store data on an individual’s device rather than in a centralized repository.

A well-designed tool would give people actionable medical information while also protecting privacy and giving users control, but a poorly designed one could pose unnecessary and significant risks to privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. To help distinguish between the two, the ACLU is publishing a set of technology principlesagainst which developers, the public, and policymakers can judge any contact tracing apps and protocols.

Technology principles that embed privacy by design are one important type of protection. There still need to be strict policies to mitigate against overreach and abuse. These policies, at a minimum, should include:

• Voluntariness — Whenever possible, a person testing positive must consent to any data sharing by the app. The decision to use a tracking app should be voluntary and uncoerced. Installation, use, or reporting must not be a precondition for returning to work or school, for example.
• Use Limitations — The data should not be used for purposes other than public health — not for advertising and especially not for any punitive or law enforcement purposes.
• Minimization — Policies must be in place to ensure that only necessary information is collected and to prohibit any data sharing with anyone outside of the public health effort.
• Data Destruction — Both the technology and related policies and procedures should ensure deletion of data when there is no longer a need to hold it.
• Transparency — If the government obtains any data, it must be fully transparent about what data it is acquiring, from where, and how it is using that data.
• No Mission Creep – Policies must be in place to ensure tracking does not outlive the effort against COVID-19.

These policies, at a minimum, must be in place to ensure that any tracking app will be effective and will accord with civil liberties and human rights.

The Apple/Google proposal, for instance, offers a strong start when measured against these technology principles. Rather than track sensitive location histories, the Apple/Google protocol aims to use Bluetooth technology to record one phone’s proximity to another. Then, if a person tests positive, those logs can be used to notify people who were within Bluetooth range and refer them for testing, recommend self-isolation, or encourage treatment if any exists. Like the similar proposals, it relies on Bluetooth because the location data our cell phones generate is not accurate enoughfor contact tracing.

Like location histories, however, proximity records can be highly revealing because they expose who we spend time with. To their credit, the Apple/Google developers have considered that privacy problem. Rather than identify the people who own the phones, apps based on the protocol would use identifiers that cannot easily be traced back to phone owners.

As of this writing, the Apple/Google protocol could better address certain important privacy-related questions, however. For example, how does the tool define an epidemiologically relevant “contact”? The public needs to know if it is a good technological approximation of what public health professionals believe is a concern. Otherwise, the tool could be collecting far more personal information than is warranted by the crisis or could cause too many false alarms. And if there is indeed a plan to terminate the program at the conclusion of the pandemic, what criteria are the companies using to indicate when to press the built-in self-destruct button?

Another issue is whether phone users control when to submit their proximity logs for publication to the exposure database. These decisions should be made by the phone user. There may be good reasons why people do not want to upload all their data. User control can help to reduce false positives, for example if a user knows that identified contacts during that time were inaccurate (because they were in a car or wearing protective gear). It would also encourage people whose records include particularly sensitive contact information to at least volunteer the non-sensitive part of their records rather than fail to participate completely.

Also, when users share their proximity logs, what will they reveal? Right now, under the Apple/Google proposal, an infected user publicly shares a set of keys. Each key provides 24 hours of linkable data — a length of time that threatens the promised anonymity of the system. It is too easy to re-identify someone from 24 hours of data and the current proposal makes it impossible for the user to redact selected times during the day. There are other options that would ensure that identifiers published in the exposure database are as difficult as possible to connect to a person’s name or identity.

Voluntariness is particularly important. A critical mass of people will need to use a contact tracing app for it to be an effective public health mechanism, but some proposals to obtain that level of adoption have been coercive and scary. This is the wrong approach. When people feel that their phones are antagonistic rather than helpful, they will just turn location functions off or turn their phones off entirely. Others could simply leave their phone at home or acquire and register a second, dummy phone that is not their primary device with which they leave home. Good public health measures will leverage people’s own incentives to report disease, respond to warnings, and help stop the virus’s spread.

In the coming weeks and months, we are going to see a push to reopen the economy — an effort that will rely heavily on public health measures that include contact tracing. Bluetooth proximity tracking may be tried as a part of such efforts, though we don’t know how practical it will prove in real-world deployments. But privacy-by-design principles and the policy safeguards outlined here must be core to that effort if we are to benefit from a proximity tracking tool that can give people actionable medical information while also protecting privacy and giving users control.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Jennifer Stisa Granick, Surveillance and Cybersecurity Counsel

A new Gallup poll showed Trump’s mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis and indifference toward infected Americans is catching up to him.

Concerned only about his own self-interest and monied ones he serves at the expense of the health and welfare of ordinary people everywhere, a newly released Gallup poll showed dissatisfaction with him growing.

His weeks earlier approval rating of 49%, the highest of his presidency, slumped to 43%.

Congress is worse at 30%, its lowest approval rating in over a decade.

Respondents’ satisfaction with the direction of the country fell 12 points from weeks earlier.

Poll results, based on interviews conducted from April 1 – 14, showed the sharpest drop in Trump’s approval rating in opinion surveys conducted by Gallup.

In over three years in office, he failed to ever reach the historic average 53% approval rating of US presidents since 1945.

His low since taking office was 40%. His approval among registered Dems fell six points to 7%.

He’s down four points among independents to 39%. Approval among registered Republicans in 93%.

According to Real Clear Politics, 11 national polls show Trump’s disapproval among respondents exceeding his approval by an average of five points.

A CNN/SSRS poll has his approval at 44%, his disapproval at 51%.

A FiveThirtyEight poll published Friday showed Trump’s approval at 44%, his disapproval at 52%.

Some others out in mid-April were as follows:

Morning Consult: 42% approve v. 54% disapprove of Trump’s performance.

YouGov: 42% approve v. 53% disapprove.

Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion Research: 46% approve v. 53% disapprove

Global Strategy Group/GBAO: 44% approve v. 54% disapprove.

Change Research: 44% approve v. 56% disapprove.

A new Pew Research poll showed that 65% of respondents believe Trump reacted too slowly to COVID-19 outbreaks.

Almost three-fourths of respondents believe the worst is still to come. Two-thirds fear state authorities will lift restrictions too soon.

Over half of respondents said Trump’s portrayal of current economic and contagion conditions is better than reality.

The nays on Trump have it. His bump was short-lived. The longer economic hard times and COVID-19 outbreaks continue, the worse his reelection prospect.

A USA/Ipsos poll released Monday showed “rising (public) uncertainty about when routine daily activities will seem safe again.”

Numbers of respondents expressing concern that COVID-19 threatens them personally doubled in recent weeks from 15- 29%.

Nearly all respondents said their lives were changed at least to some extent because of current conditions.

A late March Kaiser Family Foundation poll found nearly half of respondents saying what’s going on affected their mental health, 19% indicating it’s having a “major impact.”

The longer current conditions continue, or if they ease and then worsen, the more dismal survey numbers may look ahead.

A mid-April Gallup poll showed “Americans remain risk averse about getting back to normal.”

Around 80% of respondents said they’ll wait before resuming normal activities.

Rural and other less populated areas may ease restrictions sooner than large urban ones.

The longer shutdown continues, the more restless and eager increasing numbers of people may be to return to work for vital income to support themselves and families.

In the last four weeks, around 22 million US applications for unemployment benefits were processed.

A backlog likely includes millions more, authorities unable to keep pace with unprecedented demand.

State and city budgets are hard-pressed, large shortfalls expected, assuring cuts in essential services without federal help that’s very stingy for ordinary people.

The extent of US unemployment since March is unprecedented with likely more to come.

Because most US workers live from paycheck to paycheck, millions of Americans may be unable to pay rent, service mortgages, pay medical expenses with loss of insurance, and cover other essentials.

Homelessness may increase dramatically. Already hard-pressed food banks are overwhelmed by public need, hunger in America growing exponentially.

Feeding America needs greater amounts of charitable contributions to meet growing demand for their help.

What’s happening worldwide in most countries is what a perfect storm is all about that won’t likely end any time soon.

Hindsight will best explain the human toll from what’s ongoing that’s already unprecedented for growing millions of families in need.

Breadwinners are out of work. Stores, restaurants, factories, theaters, recreational facilities, sports arenas, hotels, and transportation facilities are closed.

Fear of coronavirus contagion has ordinary people looking at others like they’re typhoid Mary, even friends, keeping a good distance away.

A next door neighbor friend I’ve known for years in my building asked if it was OK to ride in the same elevator together.

People fear the unknown, especially because of round-the clock establishment media reports on one topic — COVID-19 contagion.

Even doctors aren’t operating normally, some only seeing emergency patients, others practicing telemedicine, many working shorter schedules.

One of my doctors told me his patient load is 20% of normal. Two others suspended face-to-face visits.

COVID-19 will pass — though maybe not for some time with possible new waves ahead.

The economic and social fallout is far more serious. It’ll likely be long-lasting for ordinary Americans and their counterparts abroad, especially for the world’s most disadvantaged people.

Michel Chossudovsky explained what establishment media ignore, saying the following:

“The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire World into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy and extreme poverty.”

It’s also a way for greater social control by eroding fundamental rights on the phony pretext of greater public safety and security — along with pulling off the greatest heist of wealth from ordinary people to super-rich ones in world history.

When current economic and contagion conditions ease, the state of things is highly likely to be more dismal for most Americans and others abroad than when what’s ongoing began.

The scourge of force-fed neoliberalism is coming full force to the US and most other countries.

It’s about more greatly empowering and further enriching wealth and privileged interests — at the expense of pushing growing poverty and human misery to unprecedented levels.

That’s what lies behind the current socio-economic/public health crisis.

A dystopian world more unsafe and unfit to live in for ordinary people everywhere than already has arrived.

Governments in the US and other Western countries are the public’s enemy, not its savior or ally.

We have a choice — resist or suffer the longterm consequences of what’s going on, our rights lost, our welfare harmed, our future hopes dashed.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The attempt to make the irrational and implausible appear rational and plausible has now reached dizzying new heights. The ceaseless flow of blatantly contradictory proclamations and actions emanating out of governments and global institutions that represent health, the economy and justice, sets the scene for the puppet dictators to play their Covid crisis cards.

With approximately three billion people now under house arrest, it certainly is not a pretty picture.

But here we are; and the media is the design and control agent for ensuring that this picture reaches every home and flat TV screen in the Western World. While the media’s main controlling agent may appear to be government, government moves in lock-step with the commands of corporations, billionaires and bankers and they, in turn,  are beholden to some form of conductor who is not directing from in front of the orchestra, but from somewhere behind the orchestra pit – somewhere dark. 

We are finding ourselves being herded by this Corona cabal. There is a distinct feeling that we are entering into a fundamental battle for the survival of the species. While the present battle lines are being defined by the degree to which irrational and draconian lock-down measures are being imposed on those whose basic civil rights and liberties are completely disrespected or simply not considered at all.

That amounts to a deliberate attempt to pick a fight with the people of this planet – and then, if they retaliate – imprison them. I believe this provocation is being masterminded to create sufficient confusion and fear to allow the perpetrators to take a big step forward in what was publicly stated in George Bush’s infamous announcement of a ‘New World Order’ on September 11^th 1990, thirty years ago.  A declaration made in the context of foreign affairs dealings with Russia, but disguising the coming imposition of a despotic totalitarian regime whose covert web was already being wrapped around the planet via decades of US military industrial funding and hegemonic power play.

So let us remind ourselves, on 19 March 2020 – which now seems a long time ago – the British government published this official announcement under the title ‘Status of Covid-19’ “As of 19 March 2020, Covid-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectuous disease (HCID) in the UK.” On the very next day a colleague sent me a scan taken from a page of The American Encyclopedia of Practical Medicine clearly stating that Corona Virus is the medical term for the Common Flu (influenza). I then read some statistics relating to the number of deaths caused by the common flu and each country showed a similar pattern: the number of month by month deaths attributable to the common flu very closely aligned with those being given for CV-19.

So where does that leave us today?

Caste your mind for a moment to the global warming scam and consequent arrival of Green New Deal and its fanatical ambition to achieve ‘Zero Carbon’ planetary (CO2) emissions. The language being used here is designed to deliberately create confusion, since ‘carbon’ is a vital clear and completely natural gas that plants take-in in order to live and grow. Without it the plant kingdom would die – and so would we – for a lack of oxygen. If the ‘science’ was real one would not hear government leaders (advised by scientists) spouting on about why we must achieve Zero Carbon, because they would realise that they were promoting an extinction event – the end of oxygen – and that would not be popular with the voters, one presumes. The science is fake, even when it is occasionally stated as anthropogenic CO2 emissions rather than simply ‘carbon’.

Now we are seeing the same thing happening with the Corona Virus. It is being portrayed as a killer and so bad that we all have to be locked away from each other and from most normal activities for months on end, like cattle suffering from mad cow disease, or as though five Chernobyls had suddenly gone into melt down. But the reality is that the common flu bears the encyclopedia description ‘Corona Virus’. So just like with ‘carbon’ being designated a killer in the global warming fake dialogue, so the common flu is also being hyped-up as a pandemic killer within the context of the current Covid-19 epidemic. 

In both cases the language has been twisted inside-out and up-side-down – so as to thoroughly confuse the situation and deliberately obfuscate reality. We are then informed by straight-faced ‘experts’ that the resulting irrational gobbledygook is the bona fide truth.

To do this, they rely on our gullibility and willingness to suspend our powers of reason when confronted by a deceptively managed ‘big show’. One that typically features suited officials bearing various pompous titles being wheeled out so as to show us how very well trained in the art of lying they really are.

It’s unnervingly interesting that millions and millions can be brought to their knees by such a simple technique. Such a basic form of deception. And it is, of course, amplified when combined with digital communication techniques, subliminal and actual mind control methodologies and dire warnings that deliberately provoke fear. All this is what we now have to contend with, recognise for what it is and then take specific actions to counter and render inoperative.

We are at the turning point of humanity’s long history of slavery to the perpetrators of mass hypnosis and the deep levels of domination which this form of sedation makes possible. However, even the best laid plans in the world cannot plan for the ‘law of unintended consequences’ and the fact that even the most skilfully contrived plots produce unforeseen and unintended outcomes. This is where the laws of nature and the universe ultimately undo the demonically inspired forces of tunnel vision despots, and expose the underlying weakness of those obsessed with puffed-up political power.

It is our job to now hold the line of fearless commitment to the deeper truths of life and pass their message on to those who have ears to hear. Under the law of unintended consequences some rather remarkable things are happening during this unprecedented domestic imprisonment of great swathes of society, with its consequent lack of commercial activities.

There is a great reduction of noise, everywhere. There is a marked drop in levels of pollution, in general. The sky is largely free of aircraft and even the chemtrails have temporarily abated. People confined to their houses and apartments are finding creative ways of expressing their humanity and pride, for example in joining together in songs and music from balconies and across the streets in which they live. Humour erupts where the absurdity of the supposedly ‘precautionary regulations’ reaches critical levels. 

All sorts of sparks are illuminating the imposed shadows of darkness. We are witnessing and participating in – pockets of instinctive survival rebelliousness – thus brightening the standardised moods of internalised anxiety and fear-based obedience to the state. Not only on the earthly plain are we being subjected to deep challenge, but on the cosmic level we are also being taunted. Ever more taunted to wake-up!

That is the dual nature of the Lila; the divine cosmic play. A game in which the Creator ensures that  ‘evil’ is unwittingly given an unlikely role, that of forcing the good in us to come out of its shell – and take a lead in guiding us through the labyrinth. We are being coaxed to rise up as one, from North to South, from East to West, to liberate ourselves from that which will – unless we finally withdraw our acquiescence  – destroy the greater part of life on Earth.

Covid-19 is our trigger point. Along with the forced deployment of genetically engineered foods and 5G microwave radiation, this is the event which will turn the tide of history and reveal ‘we the people’ to be the true heirs to the future. We are touching critical mass. They have gone one step too far – and know it. The mix is explosive.

Rise-up, we have work to do.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Julian Rose is a writer, organic farmer, international activist and holistic practitioner/teacher. Two of Julian’s books ‘Creative Solutions to a World in Crisis’ and ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ are particularly prescient reading for this time. See www.julianrose.info for more information.

Featured image is from Greek City Times

“And all the news just repeats itself

Like some forgotten dream we’ve both seen”

– John Prine, Hello in There

Without the ability to forget, we become imprisoned within a collective mental habit that induces us to repeat things that are as hard to escape as is trying to unlearn how to ride a bicycle. This results in the experience of boredom that John Prine captures in the above epigraph from his moving song, “Hello In There,” where the daily news reports seem so old to an elderly couple because they are so repetitive and not new and they realize that. Now that not just old folks are “in there” and people of all ages are “sheltering in place,” the ability “to forget what it is worse than useless to remember,” as Thoreau put is, has become more important than ever if one wishes to not be driven crazy with boredom of the self- and socially-induced kinds.

“Oh, every thought that’s strung a knot in my mind/I might go insane if it couldn’t be sprung,” sang Bob Dylan in “Restless Farewell,” echoing Thoreau.

As a motivating force in human affairs, boredom is hard to beat.  Hatred, envy, lust, love, anger, jealousy: these are some of the alluring emotions that are often emphasized.  But boredom – it is so boring!  Why go there? It seems too simple an explanation for human behavior, yet nothing is more complex and powerful.

Boredom is like sex once was long ago – a taboo. To admit one is bored is to confess to the modern equivalent of a mortal sin.  I think there is an unacknowledged agreement to deny the truth of boredom for what it can reveal about how we live and die.  For boredom is intimately tied to our experience and understanding of time and space, and time in its turn is the home from which the modern mind is exiled, as we wander nowhere in a transcendental homelessness, without leaving the places where we are while already being no longer there.  To contemplate our existential and social confusion terrorizes people.

Since it is hydra-headed, boredom’s truths are many. It is often the flip side of the constant agitation and false excitation of modern life and the search for diversion. Conversely, modern manic high-tech busyness, while aimed at repressing boredom, simultaneously serves the function of boring through intense repetition, numbing those who seek to use it to escape boredom. It’s a rotating spit.

In the culture of the copy, everything is replayed, rerun, recapitulated, reiterated, repeated, reproduced, replicated, over and over and over again. Unlike our lives that pass in a flash one time only, we are living in a techno world where we have internalized the machine and unconsciously think we can digitally record our lives and play them again.

Going live tends to irritate and scare people.

So the solution to boredom becomes a problem equal to the boredom itself. It becomes boring. One is trapped, going round and round, even if one doesn’t know it.  Then there are those who keep themselves extremely busy, buzzing like an insect’s hum, and deny they are ever bored.  They are some of the most boring people you can find, because the sound of their busyness produces no echo since it sounds over a sea of nothingness, as Kierkegaard put it

The current societal coronavirus shutdown that has people locked in their homes under house arrest offers a perfect example of agitated digital boredom at its finest.  The incarceration is a two-headed monster serving to drive people quite mad and very anxious as they go nowhere but around and around on the information superhighway, setting the stage for the day the authorities press the release button and people manically rush out into the streets, thanking their bosses for their freedom.

It is a common experience for people who are “sheltering in place” to say their sense of time is distorted and they aren’t sure what day it is.  A sense of temporal disorientation prevails, just as it does for those in prisons.  “Every ruling minority needs to numb and, if possible, to kill the time-sense of those it exploits,” wrote John Berger.  “This is the authoritarian secret of all methods of imprisonment.”

What was once felt but rarely said to be the boredom of “normal” life with its tedious rounds of the same old-same old will feel like liberation and a gift from the authorities when the go button is pressed.  The daily rounds of getting and spending will commence with shouts of joy.  The “new” normal, however, will quickly seem old as the daily grind, which is reality for most working people, resumes, even if at reduced wages and lost opportunities and carried out within a social spectacle that will produce “exciting news” that will be repeated repetitively to keep people aroused, “engaged,” and fearful of the next crisis erupting even as so many go bankrupt.  Angst will float in the bubble of hyperreality as the economic screws are tightened on working people everywhere.

If you can keep yourself busy and preoccupied with trivia and shopping; if you can consume news, entertainment, and social media 24/7; if you can embrace all the weapons of mass distraction offered, then you can deny that boredom is speaking to you, even when these methods of avoiding boredom are themselves monotonously boring.  Self-deception and social control are conjoined tricksters.

Boredom has many voices, but the most feared yet liberating message it utters may be: “You are trapped on the merry-go-round of the living dead, bored to death, repeating yourself. You are being oppressed by an unjust social order and are being conned. Why not start living.” This is the experience of boredom that can give rise to revolt and the urge for freedom, something radically upsetting to both the trapped and their trappers. Echo’s voice is liberated to speak when people are willing to listen.

The essential element of boredom is repetition and monotony; knowing that day follows dusty day and you are going to read, hear, or experience the same thing again and again. As Macbeth says:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day….

In a terrifying take on this idea, Nietzsche suggested, through his idea of eternal recurrence, that we best be very careful how we live each moment since they are eternal, and that after death we will have to live our lives over and over again down to the slightest detail, while remembering that we are doing so.  Eternal repetition sounds a bit boring, wouldn’t you say? Now that’s a thought to rouse one from lethargy and perhaps escape boredom for good.

Interestingly, modernity has forced upon us the necessity for choice.  Constant choices are demanded of us, and the more choices we have in a high-tech capitalist consumer culture, the more boring repetitions we encounter. One reason for this is the need of the corporations, government, and the media to offer us something “new” every hour of every day. Pseudo-events and “news” are manufactured non-stop.  And the “new” is updated, with the “new” so often turning out to be old, a variation on a theme across all forms of media and the consuming life.  Having to fill up the space and their pockets, these corporations are experts at repetition, and repetition is the key to effective propaganda.

Have you noticed that when you go to your favorite television station or website, you will encounter endless repetition? If you switch channels or websites – from liberal to conservative, etc. – you will see that most are beating the same drum, flipped to one side or the other.  These days it’s coronavirus-coronavirus-coronavirus, Trump-Trump-Trump; endless droning on today about what was droned on about yesterday.  Soon the subject will change, and be repeated until something else is manufactured to keep people occupied and bored.  You can easily fill in the blanks.

But why do people subject themselves to such boring repetition?  Could the writer William Saroyan’s flippant remark shed some light on this phenomenon? Regarding the claim that smoking causes cancer, he said, “You may tend to get cancer from the thing that makes you want to smoke, not from the smoking itself.”

Could wanting to flee existential and social boredom by embracing the culturally proffered means to do so, be the real problem? What is it about boredom that so frightens people?  Does boredom scare people to death?  Is getting as far away from death the goal?  But is not the flight from death the flight from life and therefore the embrace of death?

I think the quest to seek a solution to boredom is the problem.  Walter Benjamin said it beautifully in “The Storyteller”:

Boredom is the dream bird that hatches the egg of experience.  A rustling in the leaves drives him away.

But such creative boredom demands a silent patience and a state of mental relaxation that is almost extinct.  It can only be experienced if one dwells and does not flee into action.  It means forgetting what an oppressive society wants us to always remember.

Maybe in a mediated world where direct experience is becoming more and more uncommon – as we live in a world of screens and filters and electronic gadgets that occupy our living space – we are afraid of fully experiencing inspired boredom because it may force us to consider living.  And since living is change, and change is always new, it frightens us. It means time goes by. But without embracing change we cannot make social change.  We may think we can, but we will be doing the same old boring thing and strengthening the existing system.

To rotate on boredom’s spit is to slowly die.

Alan Watts once wisely said:

To resist change, to try to cling to life, is therefore like holding your breath: if you persist, you kill yourself.

Only when it hatches, can the dream bird fly.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. Visit the author’s website here.

Featured image is from Getty

Legislation circulating in the US Congress threatens to withdraw military support from Saudi Arabia.

This is not because Saudi Arabia is an absolute dictatorship which still severs heads off in public. It is not because Saudi Arabia arms and funds some of the worst terrorist organizations on Earth – including Al Qaeda, its Syrian franchise Tahrir al-Sham – previously known as Jabhat Al Nusra, and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

And it’s not even because of Saudi Arabia’s years of committing war crimes in neighboring Yemen.

These are all aspects of modern Saudi Arabia the US has in fact aided and abetted.

Instead, US representatives are threatening to withdraw US military support from Saudi Arabia for allegedly lowering energy prices by flooding markets with Saudi oil.

Reuters in its article, “Bill would remove US troops from Saudi Arabia in 30 days,” would claim:

A Republican US senator introduced legislation on Thursday to remove American troops from Saudi Arabia, adding pressure on the kingdom to tighten its oil taps to reverse the crude price drop that has hurt domestic energy companies.

The threat of yanking out military support from Saudi Arabia undermines decades of propaganda attempting to justify US military support for the Saudi regime.

According to the US State Department’s own website under a section titled, “US Relations With Saudi Arabia,” the US supports Saudi Arabia because (emphasis added):

The United States and Saudi Arabia have a common interest in preserving the stability, security, and prosperity of the Gulf region and consult closely on a wide range of regional and global issues.  Saudi Arabia plays an important role in working toward a peaceful and prosperous future for the region and is a strong partner in security and counterterrorism efforts and in military, diplomatic, and financial cooperation.  Its forces works closely with US military and law enforcement bodies to safeguard both countries’ national security interests.

If anything the US State Department says about US-Saudi relations is true – “preserving the stability, security, and prosperity of the Gulf region” must surely come first and foremost – especially ahead of something as trivial as oil profits for America’s domestic shale industry.

Of course, very little the US State Department says is ever true. US ties with Saudi Arabia have helped drive precisely the opposite of stability, security, and prosperity for both the Persian Gulf region as well as the wider Middle East and even as far as North Africa and Central Asia – with both nations playing leading roles in destabilizing and destroying nations, fueling extremism, separatism, and terrorism, and even engaging in direct military aggression.

Because of the dubious nature of US-Saudi ties and the true agenda of money and power that defines them – there should be little surprise that at moments of opportunity, these two “allies” draw geopolitical and economic daggers against one another.

The US threatening to withdraw military support from Saudi Arabia would leave Riyadh particularly vulnerable in the many proxy wars it wages on Washington’s behalf against Iran, Syria, Yemen, and beyond. Of course – the ultimate loser would be Washington itself – which would be further isolating itself in a region increasingly slipping out from under its control.

The US finds itself trying to prioritize its various rackets – its domestic shale gas industry versus its protection rackets abroad, versus its profitable and endless wars, versus maintaining a collection of obedient client regimes around the globe.

But by threatening Saudi Arabia – whether the threat is empty or not – Washington once again reveals to the world that it maintains an international order exclusively serving special interests – using platitudes like “preserving the stability, security, and prosperity of the Gulf region” as an increasingly tenuous facade behind which it advances its self-serving agenda.

Saudi Arabia – despite its many, many sins and from a realist point of view – must begin seriously thinking about a major overhaul of its economic, political, diplomatic, and military alignment within the region and world. As multipolarism moves forward and the tired unipolar order Riyadh belongs to – subordinated to Washington – continues to fade, the threats Riyadh faces will increase as will the cost of being an American “ally.”

When Washington begins turning the screws on Riyadh, it does however open a window of opportunity for nations like Russia and China who are looking to improve and expand ties with Saudi Arabia and lead it toward a more constructive role upon the international stage.

It also opens a window of opportunity for nations like Iran – who are perceived as enemies of Saudi Arabia – but who would benefit greatly from a Saudi Arabia that no longer serves US interests and instead truly seeks to preserve “the stability, security, and prosperity” of the region – side-by-side with other nations that actually are located there – not a nation located oceans and continents away.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

For bipartisan US hardliners and their establishment media press agents, any pretext will do to bash China and other sovereign independent nations on the US target list for regime change.

Blaming China for spreading COVID-19 outbreaks plays out daily in the US, its own gross failings and wrongdoing given short shrift or ignored.

The US under both right wings of its war party consistently and repeatedly shifts blame for its war on humanity onto others.

China is a prime target, COVID-19 the latest pretext, its authorities falsely blamed for spreading outbreaks — instead of praising how effectively they addressed the issue, far better than any other countries, world’s different from Trump regime bungling and indifference to the problem.

After China raised the number of known COVID-1 deaths in the  country to around 4,600, about a 50% increase in Hubei province, its epicenter, Trump falsely claimed its authorities “doubl(ed) the number,” adding:

“It is far higher than that and far higher than the US, not even close.”

Through Saturday, known US deaths from COVID-19 are around 39,000 — about eightfold China’s mortality rate from the disease.

The true US total may be far higher because of undercounting, including by mistakenly attributing seasonal flu/influenza deaths to COVID-19. Their symptoms are similar.

On a daily basis, the novel coronavirus is currently the leading US cause of death, LiveScience.com reported on April 10 — a dismal reality Trump and hardliners surrounding him won’t touch.

Over the weekend, the NYT falsely accused China’s Xi Jinping of weakening China’s global standing by “aggressive diplomacy,” claiming he’s using COVID-19 outbreaks “to shore up his political power at home” — a US specialty, the Times adding:

Beijing “accused Western countries of failing to protect their people” — clearly the case in the US, Britain, and likely elsewhere in the West.

Compared to China’s effective response to COVID-19 outbreaks, bringing them under control in around two months, they continue spreading in the US and Europe.

While the US is doing little or nothing to aid other countries combat COVID-19 outbreaks abroad and treat infected individuals, China sent vital medical supplies, technology, and experts to nearly 100 nations worldwide.

Xi stressed that viruses have no borders, mutual cooperation among nations needed to combat COVID-19 outbreaks.

Authorities in nations receiving Chinese aid expressed gratitude for the helping hand.

China’s Global Times slammed US mishandling of the issue, saying “nobody (is) accountable despite rising virus deaths.”

Sharing a common border and interests, China and Russia united to combat COVID-19 and aid other countries in need — while the Trump regime blames other nations for its own bungling and indifference to the issue.

According to US media reports, nursing homes in America are hotbeds of COVID-19 deaths,  numbering in the thousands from the infection compounded by indifference from management, leading to poor treatment by staff.

An estimated 20% of COVID-19 fatalities occurred in these facilities. According to the CDC, the US has around 15,6000 nursing homes for the elderly.

About 70% are for-profit businesses, benefitting most by cost control that can come at the expense of patient care for the sick and infirm.

Elder abuse in the US is widespread, and not just in nursing homes.

The late comedian Jerry Lewis once said old people are discarded like yesterday’s garbage in the US.

In congressional testimony at age 92, the late actor Mickey Rooney explained abusive treatment he received from his stepson, saying “(y)ou can’t believe it’s happening to you.”

“You feel overwhelmed.” He urged Congress to criminalize what’s happening.

“I’m asking you to stop this elderly abuse,” he urged. “I mean stop it now. Not tomorrow. Not next month, but now.” Pass legislation saying “it’s a crime, and we will not allow it in the United States of America.”

It happens nationwide because authorities at the federal, state, and local levels do little or nothing to stop it.

Common problems include untreated bedsores, inadequate medical care, malnutrition, dehydration, preventable accidents, along with inadequate sanitation and hygiene.

Mistreatment jeopardizes the health, welfare and lives of elderly Americans, at times responsible for serious illnesses, injuries or deaths — including thousands perishing from COVID-19 this year.

For many it’s for lack of proper care, the issue most often under the radar. It won’t likely stay above it for long.

Despite spending around double the per capita amount on healthcare compared to other developed countries, America falls woefully short in treating its sick, disabled, and otherwise needy.

A 2017 Commonwealth Fund study of the US, other Western countries, Australia and New Zealand (10 nations in total), found America’s performance record was dead last in care process, access, administrative efficiency, equity and health outcomes.

It has open-checkbook funding for militarism, imperial wars, corporate handouts, and other benefits to its privileged class — peanuts for ordinary Americans, including at times of duress like now when generous government help is essential.

The US has the world’s best healthcare system – based on the ability to pay — a fundamental human right commodified for profit.

It’s the only developed nation without some form of universal coverage that’s especially essential at times like now for its poor, most disadvantaged, and millions of unemployed.

The Times and other establishment media go out of their way to irresponsibly bash China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and other sovereign independent nations the US doesn’t control.

Accountability begins at home. The Trump regime and vast majority in Congress serve privileged interests exclusively.

They don’t give a hoot about ordinary people at home and abroad. Their disturbing policymaking shows it.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

He was standing there, in the middle of the school yard…alone. At first I envisioned him as a pitcher, standing on the mound with a field full of players, some behind him, and  some facing him, in the middle of a game. No, he was standing all alone, dressed in an old winter coat, surrounded by the dying leaves of autumn by his feet. I watched him from my classroom window as he paced about in the yard. He seemed to be waiting, and even though quite far away, I understood who he was awaiting. And being only eleven years old, I was amazed at myself for such a revelation. I knew just what was happening on this chilly Wednesday afternoon at a quarter to three.

The bell rang, startling no one, as we all had been sitting there, for seemed an eternity, restlessly awaiting it. The sound of it still came across as harsh and abrupt and cold, as if a forewarning to us all this November day. The jail was open, and the inmates were freed, until but tomorrow morning at eight, when this prison would re-engulf us again. Most of my classmates darted for the exits, swarming into the yard like ants running to a piece of chocolate. I just stood there by the window, gazing out at the sights below. I tried to follow that solitary man, lost now in a mass of adolescents. Finally, after a few moments, I caught sight of him again. He was walking through the crowds searching for what seemed to be but one face. And as far as I could see, he hadn’t found it yet. I wondered to myself, who was he looking for, this lonely man dressed in that funny worn coat? I stood up and got my own coat. As I rearranged my books and sorted out my homework, my teacher told me to hurry up as she was ready to lock up. Lock up, I thought, what a sin to be locked up in here all night…. All day was enough. I quickly walked back to the window. The school yard was emptying out now. Most of the kids were on their way home, to a glass of milk or a bottle of soda and some cookies. Yet, the man was still there, standing by the pitcher’s mound, looking about the yard. He still hadn’t found who he was seeking. Poor guy.

I remember shouting out “Good bye Mrs. Steckler” and hurried down the stairs. Got to go, I thought, before they lock me in here. As I reached the school yard doors, I stopped for a moment. Tonight was Wednesday. Mom always made pot roast on Wednesday, and she knew I hated pot roast. Yet, she made it every Wednesday, like clockwork. And I would never eat any, but she made it just the same. As I pushed open the heavy steel door, his presence startled me! The old winter coat made him look menacing. I jumped back a bit as he smiled at me.

“What took you so long, son? I must have seen every kid but you in the yard.”

“Well, I got sort of tied up a bit.”

“Oh well, here you are, what the heck.”

His hug was so tight, I could not breathe. I inhaled the deep smell of  the fabric of that old coat as he kept me in his embrace.

“What’s the matter, too old to kiss your old man? Come on son, give your pop a kiss.”

We walked on, arm in arm, and I never did get to eat Mom’s pot roast this Weds. afternoon.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Cross Currents and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘ It’s the Empire… Stupid ‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected]

No evidence suggests that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese lab or from bat-eating Chinese people.

Writer Allen Yu explained that no Chinese tradition of bat-eating exists. Videos suggesting otherwise weren’t from Wuhan or elsewhere in China.

Filming was “in Palau or Indonesia, in locales where bats have traditionally been consumed as food,” said Yu, adding:

The bat-eating theory doesn’t hold up. “According to current research, it is not likely that bat (or other) consumption” of wild animals caused COVID-19.

Researcher Larry Romanoff explained that “Japanese and Taiwanese epidemiologists and pharmacologists have determined that the new coronavirus (COVID-19) almost certainly originated in the US.”

In September 2019, Japanese citizens who never visited China were infected with the novel coronavirus in Hawaii — “long before the outbreak in Wuhan.”

Falsely blaming China for its origination is all about the Trump regime shifting blame for its own wrongdoing and failings onto others.

French virologist/Nobel laureate for Medicine Luc Montagnier said COVID-19 was man-made, not transmitted to humans from bats or other wildlife.

In April, a peer-reviewed study published in the Antiviral Research medical journal revealed unique COVID-19 features that facilitate human-to-human transmission — making the novel coronavirus much more contagious than seasonal flu/influenza.

The study also found no evidence that COVID-19 evolved naturally. Its genetic coding isn’t natural.

Most likely it was engineered with elements from MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) — first reported in 2012, according to the study.

Genomics researcher James Lyons-Weiler explained that “(t)here is no doubt that there is a novel sequence in 2019-nCoV” —the virus causing COVID-19 disease, adding:

“IPAK researchers found a sequence similarity between a pShuttle-SN recombination vector sequence and INS1378,” indicating human engineering.

Infectious diseases expert Dr. Yuhong Dong explained that “this new coronavirus has unprecedented virologic features that suggest genetic engineering may have been involved in its creation.”

“The virus (has) severe clinical features. Thus it poses a huge threat to humans.”

“It is imperative for scientists, physicians, and people all over the world, including governments and public health authorities, to make every effort to investigate this mysterious and suspicious virus in order to elucidate its origin and to protect the ultimate future of the human race.”

A Lancet report said “recombination is probably not the reason for emergence of this virus” — meaning mutations likely didn’t occur naturally.

Greek scientists found no connection between COVID-19 and viruses occurring naturally, saying:

“(T)he new coronavirus provides a new lineage for almost half of its genome, with no close genetic relationships to other viruses within the subgenus of sarbecovirus” — meaning it didn’t occur from natural mutations.

China’s Global Times accused the Trump regime of “international hooliganism” by the following tactics:

Accusing Beijing of initially “concealing” COVID-19 outbreaks, claiming it let the disease spread and “harm the US and the world.”

Claiming China concealed its “actual number of deaths.”

By its actions, the Trump regime fueled anti-China sentiment and encouraged individual and class-action lawsuits — while diverting attention from its own failings.

On March 13, Thailand Medical News (TMN) news reported that “traditional Chinese medicine concoctions used alone or in conjunction with antiviral protocols (is the) secret to (its success in) controlling…COVID-19 outbreaks.”

A peer-reviewed Lancet study of 102 Chinese COVID-19 infected patients treated by the above protocol showed nearly all recovered.

Another study of 701 confirmed COVID-19 infected patients showed that over 90% were cured, had improved symptoms, or were stable with no further deterioration when treated withe above protocol.

China is in the forefront of combatting COVID-19, the US a laggard for failing to prepare for what its officials knew was possible long in advance of outbreaks, and failing to provide proper help to states, local communities, and ordinary Americans in need.

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) said “minimal diagnostic” testing for weeks after outbreaks began contributed to their spread, adding:

Faulty test kits produced inconclusive or invalid results, making a bad situation worse.

The proof of the pudding is in the data. The US by far leads the world in COVID-19 outbreaks (around 700,000 through Friday), deaths (about 37,000), and mishandling of the public health crisis.

The true seriousness of the disease will best be known in hindsight.

Calling it a hoax is a disservice to growing numbers of infected Americans and others abroad.

According to CDC data for April 14, more Americans died from COVID-19 infection than any other cause.

The Trump regime’s blame game, falsely accusing China for originating COVID-19, encouraged multiple class action lawsuits in the US.

Through mid-April, numerous suits were filed against China and other targets, seeking trillions of dollars in compensation.

One filed in late March by California property managers and an accounting firm that represent small businesses seeks compensation from China for what it had nothing to do with.

A Florida class action suit representing millions of state residents seeks to cash in the same way.

Freedom Watch head Larry Klayman leads another anti-China class-action suit that falsely accuses Beijing of unleashing a biological weapon on humanity.

Anti-China lawsuits are highly unlikely to be successful. No evidence suggests Beijing’s responsibility for COVID-19 outbreaks.

According to California attorney Kent Schmidt, numerous class-action suits were filed, adding:

“These early filings can be indicative of the liabilities that companies should take into consideration and inform their practices now to avoid getting hit with one of these costly lawsuits.”

A class-action case was filed against Norwegian Cruise Lines. It alleges that the company made “unproven (and) blatantly false” statements regarding COVID-19 in order to entice customers to purchase cruises, thus endangering the lives of both their customers and crew members.”

Other cruise line companies may face similar lawsuits.

A virtual cottage industry of litigation stems from COVID-19 outbreaks.

A Washington state civic organization sued Fox News for claiming that COVID-19 is a hoax.

Stating an opinion, true or false, doesn’t involve legal liability.

New York Sports Clubs was sued for allegedly defrauding members during the shutdown.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals was sued for allegedly claiming it developed a vaccine for COVID-19.

A union representing state employees sued Alaska for subjecting them to health and safety risks from COVID-19 outbreaks.

Use of Zoom communications telecommuting application risks lawsuits for violating privacy protections. At least one class-action lawsuit already was filed against the company.

Tort lawyers in the US and perhaps elsewhere see COVID-19 outbreaks as a chance to cash in big.

A Final Comment

Republican Senator Josh Hawley introduced the so-called Justice for Victims of COVID-19 Act to hold China responsible for outbreaks.

The measure would strip Beijing of immunity in US court and permit lawsuits against the state and its authorities.

GOP Senator Tom Cotton and Rep. Dan Crenshaw introduced legislation to let US citizens sue China for “damages” caused by COVID-19.

Given anti-China fervor in the US in more normal times, now bordering on hysteria, the measure will likely become the law of the land.

The so-called Immunities Act protects foreign nations from being sued in US courts — except for China.

Enactment of these measures into law will likely produce a greater divide between both countries, making mutual cooperation all the harder.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Asia Times

While the world confronts a real-life deadly epidemic, the Covid-afflicted US Navy struggles to maintain the farce of keeping the planet safe from fictitious threats.

“The US Navy’s Pacific Command is not in its normal operational mode.”

On April 9, the Kitsap Sun reported  that Pentagon and Navy brass were in conflict about whether there’s a COVID-19 outbreak on the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Chester Nimitz docked at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington. I grew up in Bremerton, so much of this story is familiar to me, but like all COVID-19 stories, it’s changing fast. The brass may have come to an agreement about what’s happening on the Nimitz and what to do about it by the time this is published, but dissension and disorientation will no doubt continue as long as the coronavirus spreads and kills, especially in the Navy, where sailors share particularly close quarters.

Before the conflict about COVID-19 aboard the Nimitz, the Navy was set to deploy it to the Pacific to “relieve” the USS Theodore Roosevelt, which was already docked in Guam because of a COVID-19 outbreak onboard. On April 14, Stars and Stripes  reported that one sailor on the Roosevelt had died of the virus, another was in intensive care, at least four had been hospitalized, and 589 had tested positive. Most of the crew of about 4,800 had been transferred from the ship to Guam, but roughly a thousand remained on board to perform key functions such as the operation of the ship’s nuclear reactors. Several sources reported  that the sailor from the Roosevelt was the second US serviceperson to die of COVID-19.

“Dissension and disorientation will no doubt continue as long as the coronavirus spreads and kills.”

Not surprisingly, the 160,000 Micronesian natives of Guam, a US island territory, aren’t happy  about hosting hundreds of infected sailors in their beachside tourist hotels, but their home hasn’t been their own for a long time; the US seized the island from Spain in 1898. It’s now the site of Anderson Air Force Base and Naval Base Guam, situated a mere 2100 ocean miles from the Korean Peninsula.

In April 2017, NPR International published a story headlined “Why Is North Korea Threatening Guam? ” (LOL). It read:

“There is trouble in paradise — but that is nothing new for Guam. The U.S. island territory in the western Pacific Ocean is ringed by beaches, studded with palm trees and packed with bombs. It’s small but strategically significant.

“After President Trump threatened to bring ‘fire and fury’ down on North Korea, Pyongyang said Wednesday that it is ‘carefully examining the operational plan for making an enveloping fire at the areas around Guam.’

“. . .The U.S. uses the island for war games and joint exercises. Guam also stores a massive quantity of weapons. As of 2014, according to Andersen Air Force Base , Guam held ‘the largest munitions stockpile in the world’ — stored in igloos ‘deep [in] the jungle, surrounded by brown tree snakes and wild boar.’”

Guam is, to say the least, essential to US Pacific military strategy. It’s probably the last place the Navy would have wanted to weather a pandemic, restless natives or no.

Or would that be Albuquerque, home to New Mexico’s Kirtland Air Force Base and Sandia Labs, which would be the world’s third greatest nuclear power if cities were in the running?

Or maybe my hometown, Bremerton, home to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, where the USS Nimitz now awaits orders to deploy or not, due to conflict in the chain of command about how to handle COVID-19 infections among its crew.

“Albuquerque would be the world’s third greatest nuclear power if cities were in the running.”

The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard repairs, overhauls, refuels, and recycles the Navy’s nuclear-powered and armed aircraft carriers and submarines. In 2004, Naval Base Bremerton merged with Naval Submarine Base Bangor to become Naval Base Kitsap [County]. It includes the Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific (SWFPAC), which provides maintenance, calibration, missile assembly/test, spare parts, and spare nuclear warhead storage for the UGM-133 Trident II ballistic missiles deployed on nuclear submarines.

Full staffing and a tight chain of command are obviously optimal throughout US military operations, but disruptions began as soon as COVID-19 began to spread. I reported on early disruptions two weeks ago in “Pentagon Orders All Installations to Stop Reporting COVID-19 Infections and Deaths,” and there’ve been more since.

The US Navy’s Pacific Command is not in its normal operational mode, although I’m sure someone could figure out how to fire off a few nuclear bombs if they perceived the need in some Strangelovian scenario. The USS Nimitz was supposed to relieve the USS Roosevelt in the Pacific, and now it’s stuck in Bremerton with COVID-19 and/or fears of it, while the Roosevelt is stuck in Guam, with sailors sick and even dying in hospitals, 600 hundred more infected, and a skeleton crew of 1000 tending its nuclear reactors.

The natives in both places fear infection spreading through the ranks and into their communities. On April 13, the Kitsap Sun reported that “U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, is asking the Navy to boost pay for shipyard workers and provide them additional personal protection amid the COVID-19 pandemic.”

There have been 128 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and one death in Kitsap County, and on April 14 the Sun reported  that “Kitsap County’s drive-thru testing site reopened Tuesday to an expanded pool of people who are eligible for free COVID-19 testing.” At least one sailor aboard the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Vinson, also docked at Kitsap Naval Base, has been diagnosed with COVID-19.

Further developments will be reported here and on the websites of Stars and Stripes , Defense One , Military.com, and my hometown newspaper, the Kitsap Sun.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire  Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and   Peace Prize  for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. Please support her work on Patreon.  She can be reached at ann-at-anngarrison.com. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Time and again, Trump’s hyperbole defies reality.

As US economic conditions peaked in mid-February and began declining sharply, he falsely claimed that “(o)ur economy (is) the greatest…we’ve had in the history of our country.”

His fantasy assessment was reminiscent of noted economist of his day Irving Fisher.

On October 17, 1929 (a week before Black Thursday), he claimed “stock prices had reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.”

Crash and the Great Depression followed. Even John Maynard Keynes was wrong in 1927, saying:

“We will not have any more crashes in our time.”

In the late 1920s, the US economy was a house of cards, the same thing true about most of the past decade in America, the chickens now coming home to roost, as the saying goes.

What’ll unfold in the months ahead be best be understood in hindsight.

All vaccines, no exceptions, are harmful to human health. Rushing COVID-19 vaccine development could prove deadly for many.

Even establishment figures like Harvard Medical School Professor Dr. David S. Jones warned that “(t)he basic history lesson when it comes to vaccines and immunization is that there always has been a risk and there always will be a risk.”

Australian vaccine expert Ian Frazer said at best vaccines can take years to develop. No successful ones were ever developed for coronaviruses, he explained, adding:

“One of the problems with corona vaccines in the past has been that when the immune response does cross over to where the virus-infected cells are it actually increases the pathology rather than reducing it.”

The reality is when vaccine availability is announced, at best they may only work for a few months, at worst not at all — either way most likely to cause more harm than good.

Economist David Rosenberg believes economic recovery will be slower at best under optimum conditions.

Things won’t return to “normal” until a COVID-19 vaccine is available, he said, the risk of mass immunization not considered.

He sees economic downturn bottoming in  Q II, adding: “A lot of what I call economic detonation is not permanent.”

Perhaps not for the economy as reflected by macro data ahead, things likely to be much different for most people in the US, West, and elsewhere as the future unfolds.

Rosenberg: “I think that the recovery is going to be very slow, and things will not generate significant, sustained momentum until we put this pandemic behind us and people’s fears about going out and engaging with each other again resorts back to what it might have looked like previous to the mid-part of February.”

He stressed that numbers of job losses in the West don’t fully reflect the plunge in hours worked.

Based on that metric, unemployment is much higher. He sees no V-shaped recovery.

Shadowstats economist John Williams said “pending first quarter (US) GDP contraction should rival the depths of the Great Depression,” adding:

Q II should be worse. April US unemployment will more than double anything seen” post-WW II.

March retail sales plunged a record 10.3%. March industrial production fell more than any time “since the post-World War II production shutdown.”

Global economies and markets are experiencing “extraordinarily unstable circumstances.”

“Financial market and political turmoil (has) likely just begun, despite ongoing massive systemic manipulations and interventions.”

Williams sees US unemployment reaching 43%. US Q II GDP will “likely see the deepest drop in modern history.”

Economist Joe Carson explained that exploding corporate debt “is the exact opposite of the practices that were employed in the past to help the economy escape recession.”

“The payback will be weak growth (when recovery occurs) as firms struggle with record debt levels.”

Excess easy money fueled the bubble economy, “and its fall deepens the recession and slows the recovery.”

Economies function best when companies focus on productive investments and innovation.

Notably since the 2008-09 great recession, things in the US were polar opposite. Protracted easy money fueled corporate stock buybacks and unsustainable bubble markets.

Market manipulation propelled US and other equity prices higher this month. Market analyst Scott Minerd believes the S&P 500 may fall to around 1,200 from its April 17 2,875 level.

“How do we know when we have not reached the bottom,” he asked? “When the talking heads on CNBC (and other financial channels) are buying.”

Current gains are unsustainable, he stressed. “The market at this level based upon where earnings are doesn’t represent any kind of intrinsic value. It is being entirely propped up by liquidity.”

“It’s going to be a long haul to get back to the unemployment levels we saw prior to the downturn,.”

“That’s why I’m so concerned about a longer-term plan to encourage business to get people back to work.”

Billionaire investor Jeffrey Grundlack tweeted:

“ ‘A successful near-term retest of the March lows’ was such a consensus opinion no wonder we got a big, rapid rally instead.

“The new narrative: ‘thanks to the Fed there will be no retest’ will likely not come to pass either, leaving ‘a takeout of the March lows’ as the base case.”

Grundlach believes markets are “dysfunctional” and that projections of a quick economic recovery unrealistic.

Economist Chris Rupkey believes “(t)he worst is yet to come.” The worse things get, the longer the recovery.

Millions of jobs will be lost longterm as large numbers of mainly small and medium-sized businesses go bankrupt.

When the US and other economies reopen, many people may avoid large crowds for sometime to come.

Stores, restaurants, theaters, sports areas, airline and other transportation terminals, as well as other businesses may not return to normal for many months or years.

According to MIT researchers, reopening the US economy too soon could “lead to an exponential explosion in the infected case count, thus nullifying the role played by all measures implemented in the US since mid March 2020” — the same true for other nations with high infection rates.

Clearly what’s happening in many countries is unprecedented in modern times. The coast may not be clear for some time.

When public health and economic normality is likely to return is largely guesswork. The fullness of time will explain best.

As long as significant numbers of outbreaks continue, it’s better to be safe than sorry.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

To the casual observer, there appear to be ‘hot’ pockets of coronavirus infections in certain areas of the country such as NYC which reportedly has been ravaged by CV infections as well as the State of Michigan which, according to its Democratic Governor Gretchen Witmer,  has registered the  “third highest number of COVID 19 cases in the country.“

Yet those ‘hot’ pockets do not explain why the number of fatalities would be so dramatically beyond a statistical norm unless the cause of death is more of a  judgment i.e. political call as opposed to relying on a medical diagnostic laboratory-confirmed test.

In any case, it appears that the process being used to report those deaths is seriously flawed with, in some cases, different States with a Democratic Governor who have a looser standard and use a different criteria, for determining what is a COVID 19 related death.  The numbers are squirrely, all over the map.

The problem with how coronavirus deaths are being reported in the US without following a consistent standard has been further confused by the CDC which recently issued a new ruling  that deaths do not need to be confirmed by a test in order to be attributed to CV. The effect of that ruling has elevated what may not even be an epidemic into a bona fide pandemic.  

As of April 16, the CDC reported total US coronavirus deaths at 31,071 which included  ‘probable’  CV deaths at 4,141.  Therefore, the more accurate and true number of CV related deaths in the US is 26,930 while the true number of laboratory-confirmed deaths may also remain problematic.  The CDC’s most current numbers of national CV deaths has not yet reached the average for flu related deaths of 35,000.  No matter how that number might increase, it will always contain a significant number of ‘probable’ CV deaths.

At an April 7^th press conference, Dr. Deborah Birx, coordinator of the President’s  CV Task Force said that in the US, ‘we’ve taken a very liberal approach to mortality … counting the deaths of people with underlying conditions as covid-19 deaths“ and that if “someone dies with covid-19, we are counting that as a covid-19 death” even if it was not the clinical cause of death.

The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists* (CSTE) which represent state health officials, also adopted  guidelines to include ‘probable’ CV deaths without a test along with confirmed deaths. Ohio, Delaware and Conneticut all follow the CSTE guidelines  with Pennsylvania not distinguishing between the probable and confirmed CV deaths.

NYC is one of those localities that count ‘probable” CV infections that have never been tested  and add them to their confirmed deaths.

As Michigan’s Governor Witmer extended her state’s “StayHome” Order until April 30^th,  her state’s  tolerance for increased citizen restrictions erupted  in a noisy push back demonstration at the State Capitol. 

With a statewide population of less than 10 million, Witner  defended the new  restrictions by claiming 29, 263 fatalities  which is immediately suspect as that number cites more fatalities than the CDC is reporting for the  entire country.  The discre3pancy may be attributed to the inclusion of ‘probable’ CV deaths or some other statistical trick to pad the numbers. While Witmer has responded by accusing the protestors of spreading the virus, qualified protesters would do well to closely scrutinize the State’s numbers to confirm   how many ‘confirmed’ cases of CV are to be found. 

Witner’s new Order includes  civil fines up to  $1000, the possibility of criminal charges and a $500 fine or 90 days in jail  for any non essential business that remain open. In response, four County Sheriff’s announced they would not enforce the Governor’s new Executive Order. 

Colorado with 347 deaths,  does not use a test to label a COVID 19 death  but relies on a ‘highly likely” or a  ‘probable” determination that may be based on symptoms. In Alabama, a physician reviews  the records of anyone who died and who tested positive for CV. as that State makes the distinction between those who died with CV but not of CV which is a higher standard than the CDC recommends.   

Therein lies another  conundrum of exactly how many deaths in the US  are identified  as CV since there are anywhere from  five to eleven different CV strains have been identified, with at least one SARS CoV2 strain  of three estimated to be of the lethal variety.

Important questions remain for the Task Force to address like exactly what strain is being tested for? Are any of the tests  making the distinction to identify which strain of CV is found or are all and any strain discovered being counted as CV ‘infected?’ If so, there is another opportunity to pad the CV numbers.  It would also be informative for any of the Task Force to explain the difference between the known strains and especially to explaint that if one strain of the Safe CV strain is discovered, it mostly likely could be  from a cold or flu attack from some years   Since the Task Force appears to be dominated by Big Pharma  lackeys, let’s not expect that sort of clarity to be forthcoming.

There is clearly an active campaign on the part of the CDC, the Task Force, some Democratic Governors and the pro Big Pharma crowd to increase the number of fatalities where possible as good for business.   The incentive for a  federal agency, a locality  or state can be attributed to  an increase in available funding down the road. 

There has been great hue and cry about ventilators.  Why aren’t there more ventilators  available? President Trump has encouraged industry to increase the  manufacture of ventilators amid a great pr effort  as they are  identified as vitally necessary for treatment. Yet the medical community is not united in that approach citing ventilators as causing oxidative stress which may then lead to organ failure.

While a shocking number of Americans remain behind closed doors, there is no doubt that the entire CV crisis has been well planned and superbly executed  leaving many Americans to confront their own reality about who they are and how they will respond as the crisis escalates with a more authoritarian government forcing mandatory untested vaccinations as Congress rubber stamps the Bio Patriot Act.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Renee Parsons  has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter.   She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member in the US House of Representatives in Washington, DC.  Renee is also a student of the Quantum Field. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The chaos that Iraq is experiencing today has roots in the 2003 US invasion, which set-up sectarian divisions that have been used to keep the country in turmoil. The US foreign policy is based on creating chaos in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Lebanon to further the US agenda.  Iraq today stands on the edge of breaking free of the shackles of US domination.  

Iraq has a new Prime Minister

On April 19, the President of Iraq named former spy-chief Mustafa Kadhimi as Prime Minister-designate. Kadhimi announced on April 14 that he had selected a cabinet. He is expected to be approved by Parliament before to April 23, when the Holy month of Ramadan begins.  On April 13, the US stated support for the new government, but not without mentioning Shia and Sunni differences.

In a statement to the media, Kadhimi said, “We have no choice but to work on a comprehensive Iraqi national project, which transcends sub-identities, whether ethnic or sectarian.” He added that a top priority was to negotiate with the US concerning their military presence, stressing that ‘Iraq is not an arena for settling scores’.

Kadhemi faces serious challenges concerning the COVID-19 crisis, and the economic crisis following it, as well as record-low oil prices.  As of April 14, the country has registered 1,400 COVID-19 cases and 78 deaths, according to the health ministry.

The Sunni-Shia divide

The shah of Iran was a close US ally and many would classify him as the definition of an “American Puppet”.  However, the Iranian grass-roots revolution in 1979 saw the US-backed regime toppled.  While the Shah was on his peacock throne, the US had never discussed Sunni-Shia differences. Iraq is a Shia majority, and neighbor of Iran, with shared historical, geographical and religious experiences. The Sunni-Shia divide didn’t exist in Iran, or Iraq, or Syria before the US state department, and their co-workers in the CIA developing the hatred to be used as their tool. The US used Arab media to replace ‘Israel’ with Iran as the ‘enemy’, thus pushing the occupation of Palestine into the oblivion.

The US invasion of Iraq 2003

Seventeen years ago, on March 19, 2003, the United States of America attacked and invaded Iraq.  The US destroyed most of the Iraqi infrastructure and occupied the country for eight years, withdrawing troops in 2011, after having spent nearly $2 trillion in war-related costs.  The Bush administration had been high-jacked by a group of extremists, including Richard T. Perle, who had worked for Israeli PM Netanyahu in 1996. The group controlling the White House in 2003 had wanted to create a ‘New Middle East’.

The US killed an estimated 600,000 Iraqi civilians during the early stages, which fueled sectarian violence and the rise of religious militants.  The Iraqi people have suffered almost two decades of violence and chaos which was the aftermath of the invasion, and the failures of the US occupation.  Paul Bremer, the American installed dictator of the occupation, caused Iraq to be divided along sectarian lines.

In 2014 the US troops arrived again in Iraq, but this time to fight ISIS, which was defeated in 2017.

Trump assassinated Soleimani

On January 3, President Trump ordered the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force. Also killed was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who founded Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah unit after the 2003 US invasion. The killing was a breach of the 2014 agreement between the Iraqi government and the US, concerning the re-entering Iraq to fight ISIS. The Iraqi government, military and resistance groups all were shocked at the magnitude of the drone strike.  Sayyed Ali Khamenei of Iran said, “The price of the assassination of Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis is the US departure from West Asia.”  This marked a line being drawn in the sand: the US must be forced to leave Iraq, regardless of the cost.

Iraqi Parliament orders US troops out

Two days after the Trump ordered assassination; the Iraqi Parliament met and passed a resolution demanding the complete withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq.  Driving the US out of Iraq is their goal.

PM Abdul-Mahdi asked parliament to take “urgent measures” to ensure the removal of foreign forces from the country, and he later met with US Ambassador Matthew H. Tueller and stressed the need for the two countries “to work together to execute the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq,” and added the situation in Iraq was “critical”.

US Embassy  and bases attacked

Iraqi soldiers attacked the US Embassy in Baghdad on December 31, 2019, in retaliation for US attacks on Iraqi military bases which resulted in the deaths of dozens of soldiers.  These soldiers had been US allies in Iraq during the fight to defeat ISIS. In January more attacks took place on the Embassy, and in February attacks continued, with the latest attacks occurring in late March, resulting in the US State Department ordering some Embassy employees to leave the country.

By early April, David Schenker, assistant secretary of Near Eastern Affairs, stated that Iraqi military groups have been regularly shelling bases in Iraq which house US troops, as well as the US Embassy area, and this poses a significant threat to US forces in Iraq.  Schenker voiced the US disappointment in the Iraqi military for not being able to protect the US military in Iraq.

Recently, three rockets landed near an area housing workers of the US oil service company Halliburton, which was brought into Iraq by VP Dick Cheney in 2003, in the looting of oil resources of Iraq made possible by the unprovoked invasion.

New videos have emerged on the internet from organizations determined to drive the US troops out of Iraq. The videos employ drone footage of the various bases the US troops are stationed at, and the message is clear: the unwelcome foreign Army is not secure as long as they remain in Iraq.

The US withdrawal begins

An Iraqi member of Parliament, Ali al-Ghanimi, told the media that US troops have begun to consolidate their presence in two large Iraqi bases: one in Erbil in the North and the other in Ain- al-Assad airbase.  Al-Ghanimi reported the US troops previously had been scattered among 15 military bases, and he saw the consolidation of troops as a sign of beginning an ultimate total withdrawal.

June meeting planned to discuss withdrawal

US Ambassador Matthew Tueller met with caretaker Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi to discuss the issues surrounding the US military presence in Iraq, and the need for discussions between both countries.  US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has proposed a large meeting in June to agree upon the mechanism of withdrawal of troops.  Some Iraqi military units have promised to not attack US troops while the US exhibits sincere efforts to leave Iraq.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a Syrian-American award-winning journalist.

Featured image is from Murtadha Sudani – Anadolu Agency

Vor über 500 Jahren schrieb Thomas Morus, englischer Staatsmann und humanistischer Gelehrter den philosophischen Dialog „Utopia“. Als kleiner Inselstaat ist „Utopia“ – griechisch „Nirgendwo“ oder „Nicht-Ort“ – ein Gegenmodell zum zeitgenössischen England und ein Heilmittel für eine verfallende Gesellschaft. Wenn nichts mehr hilft, so die Botschaft von „Utopia“, dann hilft es, die Dinge radikal anders anzugehen. Ein nachvollziehbarer Gedanke. Steht dieser radikale Schritt nicht auch heute an? Man stelle sich vor, es fänden sich beherzte Staatsmänner, die ihre Generäle und das Militär hinter sich wüssten und denen das Wohl der Menschheit tatsächlich am Herzen läge. Sie könnten gemeinsam der satanischen Kabale bei ihrem Krieg gegen die Menschheit noch „in die Suppe spucken“ und damit beginnen, eine humane Gesellschaft auf den Weg zu bringen.

Thomas Morus‘ ideale Gesellschaft „Utopia“

Die Erstveröffentlichung von Morus‘ Schilderung einer „idealen“ – jedoch sehr fernen – Gesellschaft geschah auf Betreiben des berühmten Humanisten Erasmus von Rotterdam 1516 in Löwen (Belgien). Der Roman des Autors der Renaissance hatte den Untertitel „Vom besten Zustand des Staates oder von der neuen Insel Utopia.“ In ihm wird eine auf rationalen Gleichheitsgrundsätzen, Arbeitsamkeit und dem Streben nach Bildung basierende Gesellschaft mit demokratischen Grundsätzen beschrieben. Aller Besitz in dieser Republik ist gemeinschaftlich. Es herrschen Religionsfreiheit und Toleranz. Alle lieben den Frieden, verabscheuen den Krieg als etwas ganz „Bestialisches“, schaffen ihn aber letztlich nicht ab. Außerdem weist der Modell-Staat „Utopia“ totalitäre Züge auf.

Thomas Morus stützt sich in seinem Werk auf Platon (Politeia), Aristoteles, Cicero und andere Gelehrte vor ihm. Das Buch war so prägend, dass man fortan jeden Roman, in dem eine erfundene positive Gesellschaft dargestellt wird, als Utopie oder utopischen Roman bezeichnete. In Zeiten gesellschaftlicher Krisen kann eine Utopie auch ein politisches Mittel sein, nicht in Passivität und Resignation zu versinken (Robert Jungk).

Welcher radikale Schritt stünde heute an?

Müsste nicht zuallererst die korrupte und verdorbene „Elite“ beziehungsweise das „Establishment“ oder der „Tiefe Staat“ mit all seinen satanischen Praktiken wie zum Beispiel Kinderschändung aus den Angeln gehoben und dafür gesorgt werden, dass deren Protagonisten nie wieder ans Ruder kommen? Der amtierende US-amerikanische Präsident Donald Trump hat bei seiner Antrittsrede (Inauguration Speech) Entsprechendes angekündigt?

Die Menschheitsfragen und Menschheitsprobleme müssten einvernehmlich zum Wohle aller beantwortet beziehungsweise gelöst werden. Die laufenden Kriege seien zu stoppen und neue zu verhindern. Alle geistigen Kräfte seien für die Frage einzusetzen, wie der Mensch lernen kann, in Frieden mit anderen Menschen zusammenzuleben.

Die Aufgabe eines zukünftigen Staates wäre es, alles zu unterlassen, was die Würde eines Menschen beeinträchtigt. Und diese Menschenwürde muss überpositives Recht, also Naturrecht sein. An diesem Naturrecht müssten sich der Staat, die Staatsführung sowie die Gesetze eines Staates zu allen Zeiten kritisch messen lassen. (Siehe „NRhZ“ Nr. 741: „Autonomie und Naturrecht“)

Das gegenwärtige Wirtschaftssystem beruht nicht auf dem Gemeinschaftsprinzip; lediglich eine kleine Schicht von Superreichen wird begünstigt, indes die meisten Bürger und vermehrt die Jugend der schwankenden Konjunktur, den Wirtschaftskrisen und der Arbeitslosigkeit ausgeliefert sind. Gefragt seien Reformvorschläge, die den Gemeinschaftsgedanken in sich tragen und die Schranken zwischen den Menschen zu beseitigen helfen. „Schwerter zu Pflugscharen“ war das Motto vieler Denker; heißt: von Kriegswirtschaft auf Friedenswirtschaft umstellen. Vor allem müsse die Finanzwirtschaft, die einen parasitären Charakter entwickelt hat, wieder am Gemeinwohl orientiert werden.

Allgegenwärtiges Streben nach Herrschaft und Macht vergiftet unser Zusammenleben. Deshalb müssten das menschliche Gemeinschaftsgefühl und der Geist der Verantwortlichkeit die Gewalttätigkeit beenden. Kulturentwicklung besteht im Wesentlichen darin, dass sich die Stimme des Menschheitsgewissens mehr und mehr Gehör verschafft. Eine ethische Errungenschaft ist das Anwachsen des menschlichen Gemeinschaftsgefühls, das Wissen um die Zusammengehörigkeit aller Menschen. Es gäbe die Menschheit nicht mehr, hätten unsere Vorfahren nicht Gemeinsinn und das Gefühl des Miteinanderseins zum Leitmotiv ihres Handelns gemacht. Diese Idee müsse auch die Jugend durchdringen. Sie soll ja die Welt einmal in eine andere Bahn lenken.

*

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler-

The recent so-called “exchange of criticisms” between Russia and China over their respective border policies in response to World War C is more of a rare wrinkle in their relations caused by media reports than a growing rift that could endanger their comprehensive strategic partnership, though it should still be monitored in the worst-case scenario that it turns out to be a turning point in their relations in hindsight.

“Trouble In Paradise?”

The Mainstream and especially Alternative Media have become accustomed to reporting about the increasing closeness between Russia and China ever since the onset of the New Cold War in 2014, each for their own reasons (the former mostly to ominously fearmonger and the latter to wishfully cheerlead) which rarely portray this comprehensive strategic partnership for the pragmatic marriage of convenience that it really is, which is why it was so surprising to them that these two Great Powers recently exchanged criticisms of one another over their respective border policies during World War C. Global Times, a popular Chinese media outlet run by the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) People’s Daily, published an editorial on 13 April titled “Russian alarm on imported infection risk: Global Times editorial” which painted a bleak picture about Russia’s COVID-19 containment efforts. The author of the present analysis is sharing the piece in full below and underlining specific passages in order to draw the reader’s attention to them, followed by an analysis of the article itself before discussing Russia’s official reaction to it that was soon thereafter reported upon by TASS and RT:

China’s “Message”

“The number of imported cases from Russia has surged. At least 409 imported cases from Russia have been confirmed as of press time, China’s largest source of imported cases. The China-Russia border city of Suifenhe has been hit hard by returnees from Russia by land. Since the start of April, every flight from Russia to China has seen a high rate of infection, suggesting the worsening situation in Russia.

Russia is the latest example of a failure to control imported cases and can serve as a warning to others. When the virus wreaked havoc in Europe, Russia appeared to have successfully blocked the epidemic outside its border. It was only on March 2 that the country reported its first case, much later than Western Europe and the US. Russia has also imposed strict restrictions on the entry of Chinese travelers. But it eventually failed to curb the epidemic.

Russian experts said hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens returned from Italy, France, Spain and other Western European countries in late March. Most of them ended up in Moscow or transited through the capital, making the city the worst-hit area within Russia. Europe is one of the global hubs. It would be much tougher for Russia to guard against cases from there than from China.

The virus knows no borders or races. The Chinese people have watched Russia became a severely affected country from one that did a great job. This should sound the alarm: China must strictly prevent the inflow of cases and avoid a second outbreak. For China, understanding this is perhaps more important than coping with the large number of imported cases from Russia. The anti-pandemic fight is a protracted one, and we cannot lose any battle.

Northeast China’s Heilongjiang Province and others are facing a major test from the sudden influx of infected people from Russia. But it is believed that they are able to handle it. And the central government is also mobilizing and ready to provide support. Another problem is how to avoid panic of Chinese people returning home. That will increase the risk of those compatriots and also increase the difficulty of China’s response.

Some say there are 1.5 million Chinese people in Russia. But according to Da Zhigang, a Chinese expert based in Heilongjiang, the number should be around 100,000. Some of them are worried that Russia’s prevention and control system is weak and the medical system may break down. They know that China has done a good job in domestic prevention and medical care is guaranteed. Thus, the willingness to return to China is strong among them.

For Chinese people in Russia, we encourage them to stay where they are to avoid being infected. The most effective way to prevent infection is to implement strict self-quarantine. The risk of long-distance travel is very high. The flight from Moscow to Shanghai on Friday carried 204 people and 60 people have been diagnosed with COVID-19 so far. This was the flight with the most confirmed cases since the global outbreak. We cannot confirm how many of them were infected during their trip, but the ratio is not low.

Among those who returned to China from Russia through the Suifenhe land port, the infection rate was also very high. This has sounded the alarm for the Chinese people in Russia. The actual infection rate in Russia is likely to be high, and every flight to China imposes a great risk to healthy passengers. If it were not the last resort, Chinese people in Russia should not take the risk.

China and Russia are comprehensive strategic partners of coordination for a new era. They should have enough political will and resources to coordinate supporting Russia’s anti-epidemic fight and helping the Chinese people in Russia. China and Russia should help and understand each other, and jointly defeating a vicious enemy such as the COVID-19 as they build a high-level strategic relationship.“

Explaining The Global Times’ Op-Ed

The first thing to be said is that it’s not exactly accurate to interpret this piece as being an official “message” from China despite Global Times being managed by a CCP-run outlet, the same as can be said about RT in respect to be being publicly financed as well. Both media platforms clearly have an editorial stance that favors that respective governments, but they are not official reflections of state policy even though it can sometimes be speculated that their editorial decisions to publish certain content might hint at a certain unspoken stance that can’t be publicly expressed for “politically correct” reasons. For example, if one applies the standard that the Global Times’ piece reflects China’s official policy, then they should hold the same view that RT’s rare China-bashing is also a reflection of Russia’s official policy, which clearly isn’t the case.

After all, RT published two of its own op-eds in late March which included extremely provocative passages about China. The narrative propagated in the article titled “From villain to hero? After its badly botched response to the Covid-19 outbreak, China now seeks to be the world’s savior” is self-explanatory and includes the quip that “A cynic might suggest that there is something intrinsically wrong with China arguably being entirely responsible for spreading a disease then selling its cure back to those nations who have not managed to avoid its killer path” while the piece titled “I am an American constitutional lawyer – and I see our government using Covid-19 to take away our fundamental rights” which came out a few days later is less direct but nevertheless strongly implies that China is abusing its citizens when the outlet’s contributor wrote that “The very premise of popular films like V for Vendetta reveal this: a group uses a virus to seize power and create a totalitarian society. Anyone could witness this from far-off lands, watching the news about China locking people up in their own homes and then removing them screaming from those homes whenever the state wanted.” Furthermore, RT hosted notorious China-basher Gordon Chang on a show discussing the US’ response to this global pandemic earlier that month, which can be interpreted as an attempt by their producers to “gently” introduce him to their audience, build his credibility, then possibly interview him about China in the event that Russia’s relations with the People’s Republic sour one day and the decision is made to “unleash” him as the ultimate “perception manager” on this topic.

Still, it would be amiss to assume that RT is acting at the direct order of shadowy state figures in this respect, the same as it would be equally amiss to assume the same about the Global Times vis-a-vis the CCP regarding its recent editorial about the worsening COVID-19 situation in Russia that’s comparatively milder in its criticisms of Moscow’s comprehensive strategic partner than RT’s two cited ones were of China. Having gotten that “disclaimer” out of the way, it should be objectively acknowledged that the Global Times article is somewhat critical of Russia, but purely in an objective sense and not the fearmongering and/or fake news-driven subjective one that characterizes most Mainstream Media reporting on the country. President Putin himself recently acknowledged that the situation is worsening in his country, so there’s no longer any “taboo” about discussing this, let alone by one of the leading international media outlets of Russia’s trusted comprehensive strategic partner.

All that the Global Times did was draw attention to the objectively existing and easily verifiable fact officially shared by the Chinese authorities that the largest number of imported cases into their country are attributable to their compatriots who are returning home from Russia. Extrapolating on this, the editorial included passages remarking on the observable failure of the Russian authorities to fully contain this outbreak and the possibility of its medial system breaking down, the latter of which has since been vindicated by the Moscow health department’s warning that the city might soon experience a shortage of hospital beds in the coming weeks. No attribution of blame was even remotely implied in the piece, simply a listing of facts and interpretations thereof that are relevant for Chinese citizens and the outlet’s international readership alike.

Russia’s Official Reaction To The Global Times

Even so, Russia reacted real negatively to the Global Times’ editorial. TASS published a short report on 15 April headlined “Kremlin says countries should drop accusations and join efforts to fight COVID-19” which cited presidential spokesman Peskov’s response to a question about that particular piece, with the relevant portions of that article being republished below for the reader’s convenience:

“The Kremlin disapproves of ‘playing table tennis’ through mutual accusations and wants to see countries join their efforts to tackle the coronavirus crisis, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a comment on China’s Global Times daily’s article claiming that China is facing the threat of a second wave of infection as people are returning from Russia.

“We hear that various countries exchange such criticism about coronavirus, which is reminiscent of a table tennis game. We think that there’s little use in it. On the contrary, Moscow is a supporter of uniting globally to counter the coronavirus,” Peskov noted. The spokesman added that Moscow does not agree with such accusations. “In any case, we cannot agree with this criticism, if there was criticism voiced in that newspaper,” he said, clarifying that he is not aware of the article in question.”

What’s interesting is that he implied that the Global Times’ editorial stance is the same as its government’s despite the outlet not being an official representative of the state like its Ministry of Foreign Affairs is. In addition, describing their reporting and the analysis the facts thereof as “reminiscent of a table tennis game” after talking about how “various countries exchange such criticism about coronavirus” implies that Russia participated in this “game” as well.

It hasn’t, at least to the best knowledge of the present article’s author, unless one speculates that Peskov was referring to RT’s rare instance of China-bashing that was described earlier. That of course can’t be known for sure, but moving along, it should also be pointed out how he clarified that he actually wasn’t even aware of the article in question anyhow and was thus only responding to the claims made in the unnamed journalist’s question about that piece.

Is RT Stirring The Pot?

This is extremely important because it suggests that the Russian media’s reporting about this exchange isn’t as accurate as it should be. This is even more so the case when reading how RT — which to remind the reader once again, isn’t “state-run” despite being publicly financed and therefore isn’t an official representative of the Russian government the same as the Global Times isn’t China’s official representative either — dramatically headlined their article “Kremlin rejects criticism as China calls Russia its ‘largest source of imported coronavirus cases’“.

There’s a lot wrong with how they covered this, presuming of course that they intended to abide by the journalistic standards of simply reporting the facts like they regularly present themselves as doing since they should have otherwise indicated that they were analyzing/interpreting them if that’s what they indeed meant to do (recognizing that journalism and analysis, despite being closely related, are actually two separate information products that readers can tell the difference between upon becoming “media literate”). To begin with, it’s mistaken at best and misleading at worst to equate the Global Times’ editorial with the official position of the Chinese government, and secondly, RT didn’t mention in their article that Peskov clarified that he wasn’t even aware of the editorial in question before being asked about it.

For the reader’s convenience, here’s the entirety of their report on his remarks:

“The Kremlin has rejected criticism of Russia’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak after China said its largest source of imported cases had come from transmissions in the far northeast, bordering Russia. “We hear that there is now an exchange of criticism over coronavirus between different countries, which is played like ping pong. We consider this to be a thankless exercise,” spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Wednesday.

Beijing’s Global Times newspaper said in an editorial on April 13: “The Chinese people have watched Russia become a severely affected country from one that did a great job. This should sound the alarm: China must strictly prevent the inflow of cases and avoid a second outbreak.” The newspaper is run by the Chinese Communist Party’s People’s Daily.

China reported 46 new confirmed cases on Tuesday compared with 89 cases a day earlier, according to the National Health Commission. Of the new cases, 36 involved travelers arriving in the country from overseas, compared with 86 a day earlier.

“China is on guard against imported cases,” the state-owned Global Times wrote in its editorial on Tuesday, saying that the US and Europe are “not ready to restart [their] economy.” It warned that “once the epidemic is repeated in Europe and the US, or spreads around the epicenters worldwide, it will disastrously continue.””

Only RT itself can account for why the editorial decision was made to omit that crucial detail, but leaving it out left the reader with the false impression that Peskov planned to make a statement about the Global Times’ piece and wasn’t just generically responding to a journalist’s question about something that he wasn’t even aware about before being asked. This raises very uncomfortable questions about whether RT is either simply incompetent in how it reports on Russian-Chinese relations (which are strategically sensitive) or if something more insidious might be brewing per its earlier publishing of two China-bashing pieces and its efforts to “gently” introduce notorious China-basher Gordon Chang to its largely China-friendly audience.

Earlier Wrinkles In Russian-Chinese Relations

Whatever the case may be, there’s no ignoring the fact that some wrinkles were earlier observed in Russian-Chinese relations as a result of World War C. Russia’s leading business daily Kommersant reported that “Chinese diplomats were at a loss after Russia barred entry to Chinese citizens as a coronavirus prevention measure” in mid-February, a move that the author analyzed in his piece titled “Russia Bans Most Chinese From Entry: ‘Pure Racism’ Or ‘Preventive Reaction’?” The Global Times published an article around the same time titled “Russian ban on Chinese visitors regrettable but understandable: experts“, which cites Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang as saying that “Russia informed China through diplomatic channels in advance before issuing the ban”.

That could have been the end of their differing views over border security at the start of World War C had it not been for the subsequent reports that the Russian authorities were discriminating against Chinese citizens in Moscow. Whatever may or may not have happened was apparently serious enough to warrant the Chinese Embassy in Russia officially complaining about this through a letter that they published in the Novaya Gazeta newspaper, after which the Global Times published a detailed report sourced from some of the alleged victims titled “Dozens of Chinese citizens forcibly quarantined and deported in Russia amid coronavirus“.

It’s unclear how that scandalous situation was resolved, if ever, but the next wrinkle in Russian-Chinese relations came earlier this month after the latter closed down a border crossing along its neighbor’s Far Eastern frontier over fears of imported cases arriving from Russia. The Global Times once again took the lead in reporting on this in their relevant article on 9 April titled “China, Russia appear to be in discord over whether to re-open land port amid pandemic“. Instead of republishing it in full below like the one that forms the focus of this present analysis, here are some highlights that convey its main points, with key passages underlined like before:

“As epidemic wanes in China, North East China’s Heilongjiang Province recently came under the spotlight as one of its border cities with Russia, Suifenhe, recorded 118 COVID-19 cases in just 5 days, all of whom were Chinese nationals returning home from Russia. The growing number not only shocked China but also overwhelmed the medical capacity of the small border city, which has a population of mere 70,000.

Fearing that the pouring infections might collapse its medical system and spark widespread outbreak, China temporarily suspended the Suifenhe land port on April 7 to give itself more time to prepare for the inbound patients. The only problem is that Russia, which is under increasing pressure to contain the virus as it just witnessed a record-high single day surge of confirmed cases, may not be able to accommodate Chinese nationals aggregating at the border for long.

Lu Yuguang, a journalist of Phoenix TV in Russia, said Wednesday on Twitter-like Weibo that Russia’s Ussuriysk customs required the Chinese side to re-open its border port to receive citizens returning to China through the land port as the direct flight was limited to once a week. Customs said they have opened the Pogranichny port and moved stranded Chinese travelers to the port, waiting for Suifenhe to open up, according to Lu’s post. Lu’s post has not been verified by the embassy and consulates as of press time.

…

Lu’s post has sparked massive debates on the Chinese internet with some netizens expressing disappointment over Russia’s arrangement, claiming it was irrational to let Chinese nationals to wait at the border for Suifenhe to open, as doing so might facilitate cross-infection. Global Times also learned that the hotels available for isolation in Suifenhe, which locked down on Wednesday, are fully occupied, including hotels for hundreds of medical workers. A makeshift hospital with over 600 beds is expected to be completed on April 11, which might ease the burden. “Our public health capacity is saturated, and we hope that the Russian side will understand and help take care of our compatriots for the time being,” a Suifenhe resdient told the Global Times on Thursday.

…

The Chinese government attaches great importance to the health and safety of Chinese citizens in Russia, maintaining close communication with the Russian side, and urges the Russian government to provide convenience and guarantee for Chinese citizens in terms of residence and medical treatment.

…

Wu Dahui, a professor of international relations at Tsinghua University, told the Global Times that it is not the case that China doesn’t want to accept its citizens stranded on the border. China is moving to make preparations to receive them, such as hospitals and medical teams.

Wu said the rumors over the Ussuriysk customs’ move to some extent shows the severe condition in Russia’s far east region in terms of pandemic prevention and control, as they do not have the ability to temporarily take in stranded Chinese. Local Russian regulators also face pressure from the central government, which might lead to the stranding of Chinese at the border.
Yang Jin, an associate research fellow at the Institute of Russian, Eastern European and Central Asian Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Thursday that “it is normal for Russia to express its concern as the confirmed cases in the country is rising, but we also hope Russia could understand China’s pressure.””

Cooperation Amid Controversy

While the above-mentioned wrinkles are understandably cause for concern, it should be noted that Russia and China still retained — and even strengthened — their cooperation in other dimensions during this time. Famous Chinese billionaire Jack Ma gifted Russia over 1 million masks and 200,000 testing kits in late March, which earned him heartfelt thanks from Russian Defense Minister Shoigu. China then pledged to deliver over 80 million masks to Russia in April or early May and later dispatched medical experts to Moscow to brief their counterparts on their country’s successful COVID containment measures. In addition Chinese Foreign Ministry Zhao Lijian recently thanked Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov for his opposition to the West’s calls for reparations from China over the fact that the virus originated within its borders.

The spokesman also answered some specific questions about Russia during a different press conference earlier this week, with the relevant exchanges being republished below and points of interest underlined by the author:

“RIA Novosti: I have two questions. First of all, yesterday Heilongjiang provincial authorities promised up to 5000 yuan for reports about illegal crossing of China-Russia border. I wonder if there were already any cases or incidents of illegal border crossing, or it’s just precautions? And secondly, I wonder if the Foreign Ministry has any statistics or information on how many Chinese citizens are in Russia at the moment?

Zhao Lijian: Regarding the first question, according to the agreement on the boundary management system between China and Russia, the competent authorities and local governments of the two sides should jointly take necessary measures to prevent and stop illegal border-crossing and other illegal activities in the border area. This is a responsibility that the two sides must fulfill in order to uphold order in the border area. As to the second question, based on the information we have, there are about 100,000 Chinese citizens in Russia but the exact figure is hard to come by for the time being.”

…

Beijing Daily: We’ve noticed the increasingly severe epidemic situation in Russia. With regard to the Chinese medical group to Russia you mentioned the other day, could you talk about their work? Will China provide more assistance to Russia?

Zhao Lijian: The medical team sent by the Chinese government arrived on April 11. The experts visited designated hospitals for COVID-19 patients and had exchange with their Russian counterparts on such topics as epidemic prevention, containment, diagnosis and treatment. There will be more in-depth exchange, experience-sharing, guidance and training. The group also shared through video-link know-how in prevention and control with Chinese nationals including students and employees of Chinese enterprises in Russia and distributed medical supplies. At our most trying times fighting COVID-19, Russia offered us strong support and assistance. At present, with the fast spread of the virus, Russia is at a crucial stage. As its comprehensive strategic partner of coordination for a new era, China relates deeply to what Russia is going through and will not stand by and watch. We will further enhance cooperation with the Russian side to jointly tackle this challenges posed by the pandemic.”

Two main points stand out from his answers. The first is that he emphasized that it is the joint responsibility of the competent authorities “to prevent and stop illegal border-crossing and other illegal activities in the border area”. This strongly implies that the Russian side isn’t doing what it’s supposed to, thus feeding into the speculation that it’s passively facilitating illegal border crossings by Chinese citizens trying to get back home because the local and/or regional authorities there either don’t want them in the country any longer (i.e. the same attitude that the Moscow authorities reportedly expressed towards Chinese citizens in the capital) and/or simply aren’t able to safely accommodate them for whatever reason (e.g. state systems are overwhelmed due to World War C).

The other point, however, is much more positive and it’s that China isn’t letting these wrinkles get in the way of its comprehensive strategic partnership with Russia. Just like Russia helped China during its most trying time, so too is China reciprocating that act of friendship by helping Russia during its own present travails. Quite clearly then, the exchange of criticisms between Russia and China over their strategic partner’s response to World War C is more of a rare wrinkle in their relations than a growing rift, though there’s also no denying that the combination of Russia’s recently renewed strategic relations with newly pro-American India and the even more recent progress that it’s made towards clinching a “New Detente” with America could complicate this relationship in the future.

Concluding Thoughts

All told, it convincingly appears to be the case that the recent so-called “exchange of criticisms” between Russia and China stemming from the Global Times’ editorial is more an invention of the media (whether innocently created through RT’s journalistic incompetence or deliberately manufactured for purely speculative ends) than anything to be seriously concerned about, though several disagreements nevertheless objectively exist between these two Great Powers over their border security policies during World War C. Those issues, however, are mostly being kept under wraps and responsibly addressed by the relevant authorities at this moment owing to the sensitive nature of their bilateral strategic relations during these uncertain times so as to prevent any third state parties (such as the US and India) from exploiting their differing stances for divide-and-conquer infowar ends. Having said that, the recent wrinkles in their relations shouldn’t by any means be ignored by responsible observers since they might end up being seen as a turning point in the worst-case scenario that a growing rift eventually emerges from their increasing divergences on key issues.

 *

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

According to US constitutional experts, state governors and local officials, not Trump, are empowered to decide on when and to what extent current COVID-19 restrictions may be eased.

Days earlier, Trump falsely said “ultimately, I have to make that decision.” On April 13, he tweeted:

“(S)ome in the fake news media are saying that it is the governors decision to open up the states, not that of the president…& federal government.”

“Let it be fully understood that this is incorrect…It is the decision of the president…”

At his daily self-promoting briefing earlier this week, he arrogantly said “(t)he president… has the authority to do what the president has the authority to do…The president…calls the shots.”

No US constitutional or statute law affirms this power. According to Law Professor Robert Chesney, restrictions in place are “promulgated by state governors, county commissioners and mayors — not from the federal government.”

UC Berkeley Law School dean Erwin Chemerinsky stressed that

“Trump is wrong as a matter of constitutional law,” adding:

“Quarantine and stay-at-home orders are entirely the decision of the state governors.”

“States have the police power and the authority to quarantine.”

“The president has no authority to override such orders and order the country open.”

“No federal statute gives the president such authority. Nor did the president order sheltering in place.”

“He can exhort, but the orders come from state and local governments.”

“(H)e cannot override state or local law…The bottom line is that if California, or other states, or cities or counties, feel the need to continue restrictions…they may (legally) do so.”

According to Law Professor Jonathan Turley,

“(t)here is no authority for a president to order states to ‘open up’ if the state believes that such an order would be inimical to public health.”

“The president had no authority to order a national lockdown and certainly does not have authority to now order the lifting of such orders issued by governors.”

The US Constitution was “designed to limit federal authority.” Trump’s aim to reopen the economy “falls somewhere between the aspirational and the persuasive” — short of legal authority to order it.

“Trump has to convince, not command, governors on what is best for their states.”

James Madison, the 4th US president and one of its founders said the following:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.”

“Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite” — according to the 10th Amendment that states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Supreme Court ruled that the “safety and health of the” states’ people are for its authorities “to guard and protect,” not the “national government.”

This “right (is) secured by the federal Constitution.”

Trump has no legal authority to prioritize economic issues over public health and welfare, the latter the prerogative of states and local communities to decide.

At present, 41 US states are in mandated lockdown. Authorities of several others recommended it.

Schools are closed nationwide. Except for essential services like hospitals and pharmacies, businesses serving patrons are either closed or have limited operations — like drive-though orders offered by some restaurants.

States and local communities are empowered to order business closures, sheltering in place, and other public restrictions at their discretion — not the president or federal government.

One possible exception to the above exists — classified Presidential Emergency Action Documents that exist for worst-case scenarios like nuclear war or other extraordinary circumstances never before experienced in the nation’s history.

Created in the 1950s, they’ve never been invoked or revealed to show what powers they contain, not even to congressional members.

COVID-19 outbreaks don’t remotely rise to the level of a need to invoke whatever extraordinary powers these documents contain.

They likely circumvent international, constitutional, US statute, and individual state laws that render them illegal and highly controversial — the stuff tyrannical rule is made of if invoked.

So far at least, Trump hasn’t gone this far. On Thursday, he presented phased guidelines on reducing movement restrictions and reopening the economy in steps as considered appropriate by states and local communities.

He left it to their authorities to decide when and how to reopen their economies.

He falsely said “if they need to remain closed, we will allow them to do that.” It’s not his call. It’s the sole prerogative of state and local officials.

How phased in reopening of the economy will work in various states will depend on whether COVID-19 outbreaks are contained and don’t reemerge in a second wave ahead.

Whatever happens going forward, an unacceptable new normal is likely that involves further erosion of fundamental human and civil rights.

Post-COVID-19 life in America was likely planned in advance by the nation’s ruling class like pre-and-post-9/11 — for ill, not good.

As for Trump, his only interests are self-serving — getting reelected, protecting, preserving, and increasing his personal wealth, and serving privileged interests exclusively.

Throughout his time in office, he showed contempt for world peace, equity, justice, and the rule of law.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Over 500 years ago Thomas Morus, English statesman and humanist scholar, wrote the philosophical dialogue “Utopia”. As a small island state, “Utopia” – Greek for “Nowhere” or “Non-place” – is a counter-model to contemporary England and a cure for a decaying society. If nothing helps anymore, so the message of “Utopia”, then it helps to approach things radically differently. An understandable thought. Is this radical step not also on the agenda today? Imagine that there were courageous statesmen who knew that their generals and the military were behind them and who really cared about the well-being of humanity. Together they could still “spit in the soup” of the satanic cabal in their war against humanity and start to bring a humane society on the way.

Thomas Morus’ ideal society “Utopia”

The first publication of Morus’s description of an “ideal” – but very distant – society took place at the instigation of the famous humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam in Leuven (Belgium) in 1516. The novel by the Renaissance author had the subtitle “Of the best condition of the state or of the new island Utopia.”It describes a society based on rational principles of equality, hard work and the pursuit of education with democratic principles. All property in this republic is common. There is religious freedom and tolerance. Everyone loves peace, abhors war as something quite “bestial”, but ultimately does not abolish it. Furthermore, the model state “Utopia” has totalitarian features.

Thomas Morus bases his work on Plato (Politeia), Aristotle, Cicero and other scholars before him. The book was so formative that from then on any novel depicting an invented positive society was called a utopia or utopian novel. In times of social crisis, a utopia can also be a political means of not sinking into passivity and resignation (Robert Jungk).

What radical step would be taken today?

Shouldn’t first of all the corrupt and rotten “elite” or the “establishment” or the “Deep State” with all its satanic practices such as child abuse be taken off their hinges and their protagonists never be allowed to take control again? Ironically, President Donald Trump announced something similar in his Inauguration Speech?

The questions and problems of humanity must be answered or solved in a consensual manner for the benefit of all. The current wars had to be stopped and new ones prevented. All spiritual forces are to be employed for the question of how man can learn to live together in peace with other people.

It would be the task of a future state to refrain from everything that would affect the dignity of a human being. And this human dignity must be overpositive law, that is, Natural Law. The state, the governance and the laws of a state must at all times be critically measured against this natural law. (See “NRhZ” No. 741: “Autonomy and Natural Law”)

The current economic system is not based on the Community principle; only a small stratum of super-rich people is favoured, while most citizens and, increasingly, young people are at the mercy of the fluctuating economy, economic crises and unemployment. What is needed are reform proposals that embody the Community spirit and help to remove the barriers between people. “Swords to ploughshares” was the motto of many thinkers; means: change from war economy to peace economy. Above all, the financial economy, which has developed a parasitic character, must again be oriented towards the common good.

Ubiquitous striving for domination and power poisons our living together. Therefore, the human sense of community and the spirit of responsibility should end the violence. Cultural development essentially consists in making the voice of human conscience more and more audible. An ethical achievement is the growth of the human sense of community, the knowledge that all people belong together. Humanity would no longer exist if our ancestors had not made community spirit and the feeling of togetherness the leitmotif of their actions. This idea must also permeate the youth. They should steer the world into a different direction.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a qualified psychologist and educational scientist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Italy has been affected by the coronavirus more than any other European country, with over 168,000 confirmed cases and 22,000 deaths. Europe is mobilizing to help Italy but this has not always been the case, and rather was a reaction to the Russian, Chinese and Turkish assistance given to the Mediterranean country. In the early days of the crisis, in the face of a need for a common European response as would be expected from the European Union, too many, especially Germany, thought only of their own problems, making a mockery of Western liberalism.

The self-serving interests were harmful and could have avoided thousands of deaths in Italy. Social distancing is a must between individuals to prevent the spread of the virus and fundamental for our safety, but the distance between European nations, on the contrary, puts everyone in danger and is exactly what happened when coronavirus began to devastate Italy. From the beginning of the pandemic, the European Union refused to coordinate to deal with the enormity of the crisis.

The European Union’s lacklustre response to the crisis saw Professor Mauro Ferrari quit his position as President of the European Research Council when he became frustrated with the bloc’s inaction to create a dedicated research programme into coronavirus.

“I arrived at the European Research Council a fervent supporter of the European Union [but] the Covid-19 crisis completely changed my views, though the ideals of international collaboration I continue to support with enthusiasm,” he told the Financial Times.

The ERC however hit back, saying

“During his three-month term in office, Professor Ferrari displayed a complete lack of appreciation for the raison-d’être of the ERC to support excellent frontier science, designed and implemented by the best researchers in Europe.”

Rather than assisting Italy, Brussels was too busy engaging in a war of words with a renowned professor who was frustrated as he was restricted from dealing with the coronavirus in an effective manner. Instead Italy had to rely on assistance from Cuba, Albania, Turkey, China and Russia among others to deal with the public health emergency.

This has caused the European Union to have a change in pace and now millions of masks have been delivered to Italy. The mobilization of aid from non-European Union countries to Italy significantly embarrassed the bloc, forced it into action, and has even humbled it now.

European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen extended a “heartfelt apology” to Italy on behalf of Europe, admitting that it had not been by its side since the beginning of the crisis.

“It’s right that Europe offers its heartfelt apology,” she said when speaking at a debate in the European Parliament on Thursday. She added that “too many were not there on time when Italy needed a helping hand at the very beginning.”

However, she went on to claim that “Europe has now become the world’s beating heart of solidarity.” She of course did not mention that Russia was one of the very few countries to help the Mediterranean country, resulting in an increase of Russophilia and anti-European Union sentiment among the local people .

For many Italians, the apology is not good enough and it is inexcusable that the European Union was not there for them in their hour of need. Many in Italy will not forget that and it will certainly become a major talking point in future Italian elections and in debates on Rome’s relations with Moscow in the post-coronavirus world.

Although der Leyen claims that Europe is the “beating heart of solidarity,” it is Turkey that has provided aid to 24 different countries from North America to South America, Africa to Asia, and across Europe. Although Turkey is engaging on this mission of good will to improve its reputation after it received international condemnation because of their attempt to asymmetrically invade Greece with illegal immigrants, it has proven to be more of a “beating heart of solidarity” than the European Union has.

Last week during a meeting of European Union finance ministers discussing a financial rescue package, a clear division was seen between northern European countries and the Mediterranean European countries. Led by the Netherlands, the wealthier northern European countries refused to back a rescue package that would soften the economic blow the coronavirus pandemic has caused to southern European countries.

While der Leyen makes apologies and propagandizes that the European Union is the “world’s beating heart of solidarity,” the facts are proven on the ground – while northern Europe contracted to protect state interests, it was non-European Union members who mobilized to assist Italy. This will prove to be a decisive soft power victory for Russia, China and Turkey and will have great geopolitical ramifications in the post-coronavirus world.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

New York City recently added close to 3,800 deaths due to the Coronavirus (Covid-19). The problem is that the Coronavirus death toll is unconfirmed. 

According to a report by Bloomberg News, ‘NYC Adds 3,800 Probable Virus Victims to Death Toll’ stated that “New York City added thousands of people to its coronavirus death toll to account for victims who died in recent weeks without a confirmed diagnosis.”

Yes, you read this right, they added close to 3,800 deaths without any confirmed Covid-19 cases. The data according to Mayor Bill De Blasio’s administration titled ‘Confirmed and Probable COVID-19 Deaths Weekly Report’ defines probable as “A death is classified as probable if the decedent was a New York City resident (NYC resident or residency pending) who had no known positive laboratory test for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) but the death certificate lists as a cause of death “COVID-19” or an equivalent”. The press secretary to Mayor Bill de Blasio, Freddi Goldstein said

“that the data include at-home deaths of people suspected of having Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That judgment is based on reported symptoms including cough, fever and shortness of breath.”

The Bloomberg report said that

“the unconfirmed presumed victims represent about 36% of the 10,367 virus-related deaths in New York, the nation’s most populous city.”

Mayor De Blasio said that there was an increase in “unexplained at-home deaths” and that he “suspected many of them were caused by Covid-19″and he also said that “there’s no question in my mind and the doctors can speak to this, the driver of this huge uptick in deaths at home is Covid-19 and some people are dying directly of it and some people are dying indirectly of it, but it is the tragic X factor here.” There is something terribly wrong with this picture. Why are they adding unconfirmed cases to the death toll?

Recently, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) came out with ‘Guidelines for Certifying Covid-19 Deaths’ that clearly states the following:

In Cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID-19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g. the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed”

Why did the CDC release guidelines that will certify questionable Covid-19 deaths in the first place? One answer to that question is that First and foremost, The CDC and the pharmaceutical industry (Big Pharma) want to scare the public about the seriousness of the outbreak, which it is serious especially for the elderly and those with serious health issues.  But they also want the public to believe that a future vaccine that is already in development is needed to combat the Coronavirus. For Big Pharma, an elevated death toll with inflated numbers will allow the state to vaccinate the public because of the fear factor. The bigger the number, the more people will want the Covid-19 vaccine so that they themselves won’t end up being part of that statistic. The CDC is pro-Big Pharma and pro-vaccine. As more data is released down the road, unsettling truths about the death toll will be revealed and hopefully, people will wake up from the mass hysteria.

Reference

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

The verbal attacks by members of the Brazilian government on China have been costly, not only to Brazil, but also to Jair Bolsonaro‘s biggest international ally, the United States. The offensive words to China recently spoken by Deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro, education minister Abraham Weintraub and foreign affairs minister Ernesto Araújo created a situation of gigantic diplomatic tension between Brazil and China. Beijing is well aware of how to manipulate this tension in its favor. As China is Brazil’s biggest trade partner, the Asian country is demanding certain benefits in its negotiations, which are quickly being granted.

Cornered and pressured in the face of the irresponsibility of his son and other members of his government, Jair Bolsonaro recently contacted Chinese President Xi Jinping apologizing for what had happened and trying to return to closer ties between the both countries. Xi, in all his political expertise, was not proud and welcomed Bolsonaro’s lamentations, but apparently demanded certain concessions. Just three days after telephone contact between the heads of State, Brazilian Vice President Hamilton Mourão announced that Huawei, a Chinese multinational in the technology and telecommunications industry, will be able to participate in the 5G technology infrastructure in Brazil.

The announcement of Huawei’s participation is the result of a true lesson of international relations expertise by the Chinese president. During the controversy involving the Brazilian government and its offenses against Beijing, several media agencies gave enormous coverage to the case, overestimating an alleged threat to the supply of masks and sanitary equipment to combat the pandemic of the new coronavirus in Brazil. The attention of Brazilians was focused on monitoring whether China would retaliate against Brazil by abandoning it to its own fate in the fight against the infection. In fact, this shows how far political analysts, the media and Brazilian public opinion in general are lagging behind in knowing how to do business on the international arena.

China has absolutely nothing to gain by blocking the supply of medical and sanitary equipment to Brazil or any other country. This international cooperation campaign is one of the great tools of Chinese foreign policy today. These acts of humanitarian diplomacy allow Beijing to strengthen relations with several countries, undermining influences from other powers and raising its international image. Still, the Chinese government is fully aware that in bilateral relations between Brazil and China, Brazilians are the most fragile part, with various sectors of the Brazilian economy dependent on the Chinese market, such as agribusiness. It is obvious that China would use this whole scenario as a backdrop to try to improve some specific points in the relations with Brazil instead of simply making silly decisions such as imposing international sanctions, cutting mask supplies or banning the purchase of Brazilian soy.

Unlike Bolsonaro, Xi Jinping demonstrates great skill and decorum in his relations with other statesmen. The Brazilian president’s apology was a beautiful opportunity to gently “suggest” the Chinese company’s insertion on the big 5G technology auction in Brazil. Interestingly, the biggest loser in this agreement was precisely the nation that Brazil currently supports and swears loyalty – the US. As it is well known, the great international dispute over control of 5G technology is between Washington and Beijing. Until then, the Brazilian government kept China out of the infrastructure projects in 5G platforms in the country, precisely because of its total alignment with the US, which is a central feature of Bolsonaro’s foreign policy. Now, this small “exchange of favors” between Brazil and China calls into question all the cooperation between Brasília and Washington in recent years. Attacking China, Brazil has hit the United States, its biggest international “ally”, and will now be even more vulnerable to the overwhelming advance of Chinese interests.

Gradually, over the past few decades, China has undeniably made its technological production a strong soft power mechanism. However, some geopolitical opponents of China have gone far beyond the concrete data in their speculations about China’s technological strategy. It was Donald Trump’s unfounded conspiracies about an alleged use of Huawei’s 5G technology for espionage purposes that served as the basis for international pressure to abolish Chinese participation on the 5G structure in all Washington allied countries – like Bolsonaro’s Brazil considers itself.

It was precisely this conspiracy speech that the Brazilian government maintained to keep China away from the 5G network in Brazil, but that all changed with Bolsonaro’s call to apologize for his son’s words. Now, what will become of the speech on Chinese espionage through Huawei? And what Bolsonaro will answer to Donald Trump? More importantly, what will be the Trump’s reaction to Bolsonaro’s betrayal? Considering the great strategic value of 5G technology, it is still possible that Brazil will lose its total alignment with the USA forever and be forced to further strengthen ties with China.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image: Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro shake hands during a press statement after their bilateral meeting at Itamaraty Palace in Brasilia, Brazil, on November 13, 2019. (Photo by Sergio LIMA / AFP) (Photo by SERGIO LIMA/AFP via Getty Images)

The head of the Russian Reconciliation Center affiliated with the Russian Ministry of Defense, Oleg Goralev, announced on Wednesday that the 27 militants who surrendered to the Syrian authorities, reported that they had received training by the American military to carry out attacks on oil and gas sites as well as the infrastructure of sites under the control of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA).

“According to the testimonies of members of the armed groups who joined the government forces, the Americans provided them with weapons and vehicles, and they were trained by the United States to sabotage the oil and gas infrastructure, transport and organize terrorist acts in the territories under the control of the Syrian government forces,” Goralev said in a briefing.

Goralev noted that

“on the night of April 13-14, a group of gunmen who were trained at the U.S. Army base near the Rukban Camp tried to leave the Al-Tanf area.”

He said that

“the gunmen decided to surrender to the government forces and return to a peaceful life, but on the borders of the 55-km security zone, a group of extremist gangs attacked by the so-called ‘Commandos of the Revolution’, supported by the United States.”

He continued:

“As a result of the clash, the fighters lost 3 trucks, and 27 people managed to escape, and they are currently in Palmyra under the protection of the Syrian Arab Army.”

He added that they

“handed over dozens of small arms, including rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine guns, including weapons manufactured in Western countries.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from AMN