With hybrid warfare 2.0 against China reaching fever pitch, the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative, will continue to be demonized 24/7 as the proverbial evil communist plot for economic and geopolitical domination of the “free” world, boosted by a sinister disinformation campaign. 

It’s idle to discuss with simpletons. In the interest of an informed debate, what matters is to find the deeper roots of Beijing’s strategy – what the Chinese learned from their own rich history and how they are applying these lessons as a re-emerging major power in the young 21^st century.

Let’s start with how East and West used to position themselves at the center of the world.

The first Chinese historic-geographic encyclopedia, the 2^nd century B.C. Classic of the Mountains and the Seas, tells us the world was what was under the sun (tienhia). Composed of “mountains and seas” (shanhai), the world was laid out between “four seas” (shihai). There’s only one thing that does not change: the center. And its name is “Middle Kingdom” (Zhongguo), that is, China.

The principle of a huge continent surrounded by seas, the “exterior ocean,” seems to have derived from Buddhist cosmology, in which the world is described as a “four-petal lotus.” But the Sinocentric spirit was powerful enough to discard and prevail over every cosmogony that might have contradicted it, such as the Buddhist, which placed India at the center.

Now compare Ancient Greece. Its center, based on reconstituted maps by Hippocrates and Herodotus, is a composite in the Aegean Sea, featuring the Delphi-Delos-Ionia triad. The major split between East and West goes back to the Roman empire in the 3^rd century. And it starts with Diocletian, who made it all about geopolitics.

Here’s the sequence: In 293, he installs a tetrarchy, with two Augustuses and two Caesars, and four prefectures. Maximian Augustus is charged to defend the West (Occidens), with the “prefecture of Italy” having Milan as capital. Diocletian charges himself to defend the East (Oriens), with the “prefecture of Orient” having Nicomedia as capital.

Political religion is added to this new politico-military complex. Diocletian starts the Christian dioceses (dioikesis, in Greek, after his name), twelve in total. There is already a diocese of the Orient – basically the Levant and northern Egypt.

There’s no diocese of the Occident. But there is a diocese of Asia: basically the Western part of Mediterranean Turkey nowadays, heir to the ancient Roman provinces in Asia. That’s quite interesting: the Orient is placed east of Asia.

The historical center, Rome, is just a symbol. There’s no more center; in fact, the center is slouching towards the Orient. Nicomedia, Diocletian’s capital, is quickly replaced by neighbor Byzantium under Constantine and rechristened as Constantinople: he wants to turn it into “the new Rome.”

When the Western Roman empire falls in 476, the empire of the Orient remains.

Officially, it will become the Byzantine empire only in the year 732, while the Holy Roman Empire – which, as we know, was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire – resurrects with Charlemagne in 800. From Charlemagne onwards, the Occident regards itself as “Europe,” and vice-versa: the historical center and the engine of this vast geographical space, which will eventually reach and incorporate the Americas.

Superstar admiral 

We’re still immersed in a – literally – oceanic debate among historians about the myriad reasons and the context that led everyone and his neighbor to frenetically take to the seas starting in the late 15^th century – from Columbus and Vasco da Gama to Magellan.

But the West usually forgets about the true pioneer: iconic Admiral Zheng He, original name Ma He, a eunuch and Muslim Hui from Yunnan province.

His father and grandfather had been pilgrims to Mecca. Zheng He grew up speaking Mandarin and Arabic and learning a lot about geography. When he was 13, he was placed in the house of a Ming prince, Zhu Di, member of the new dynasty that came to power in 1387.

Educated as a diplomat and warrior, Zheng He converted to Buddhism under his new name, although he always remained faithful to Islam. After all, as I saw for myself when I visited Hui communities in 1997 when branching out from the Silk Road, on my way to Labrang monastery in Xiahe, Hui Islam is a fascinating syncretism incorporating Buddhism, the Tao and Confucianism.

Zhu Di brought down the Emperor in 1402 and took the name Yong Le. A year later he had already commissioned Zheng He as admiral, and ordered him to supervise the construction of a large fleet to explore the seas around China. Or, to be more precise, the “Occidental ocean” (Xiyang): that is, the Indian Ocean.

Thus from 1405 to 1433, roughly three decades, Zheng He led seven expeditions across the seas all the way to Arabia and Eastern Africa, leaving from Nanjing in the Yangtze and benefiting from monsoon winds. They hit Champa, Borneo, Java, Malacca, Sumatra, Ceylon, Calicut, Hormuz, Aden, Jeddah/Mecca, Mogadiscio and the Eastern African coast south of the Equator.

Those were real armadas, sometimes with over 200 ships, including the 72 main ones, carrying as many as 30,000 men and vast amounts of precious merchandise for trade: silk, porcelain, silver, cotton, leather products, iron utensils. The leading vessel of the first expedition, with Zheng He as captain, was 140 meters long, 50 meters wide and carrying over 500 men.

This was the original Maritime Silk Road, now revived in the 21^st century. And it was coupled with another extension of the overland Silk Road: after all the dreaded Mongols were in retreat, there were new allies all the way to Transoxiana, the Chinese managed to strike a peace deal with the successor of Tamerlane. So the Silk Roads were booming again. The Ming court sent diplomats all over Asia – Tibet, Nepal, Bengal, even Japan.

The main objective of pioneering Chinese seafaring has always puzzled Western historians. Essentially, it was a diplomatic, commercial and military mix. It was important to have Chinese suzerainty recognized – and materialized via the payment of a tribute. But most of all this was about trade; no wonder the ships had special cabins for merchants.

The armada was designated as the Treasury Fleet – but denoting more a prestige operation than a vehicle for capturing riches. Yong Le was strong on soft power and economics – as he took control of overseas trade by imposing an imperial monopoly over all transactions. So in the end this was a clever, comprehensive application of the Chinese tributary system – in the commercial, diplomatic and cultural spheres.

Yong Le was in fact following the instructions of his predecessor Hongwu, the founder of the Ming (“Lights”) dynasty. Legend rules that Hongwu ordered that one billion trees should be planted in the Nanjing region to supply the building of a navy.

Then there was the transfer of the capital from Nanjing to Beijing in 1421, and the construction of the Forbidden City. That cost a lot of money. As much as the naval expeditions were expensive, their profits, of course, were useful.

Yong Le wanted to establish Chinese – and pan-Asian – stability via a true Pax Sinica. That was not imposed by force but rather by diplomacy, coupled with a subtle demonstration of power. The Armada was the aircraft carrier of the time, with cannons on sight – but rarely used – and practicing “freedom of navigation”.

What the emperor wanted was allied local rulers, and for that he used intrigue and commerce rather than shock and awe via battles and massacres. For instance, Zheng He proclaimed Chinese suzerainty over Sumatra, Cochin and Ceylon. He privileged equitable commerce. So this was never a colonization process.

On the contrary: before each expedition, as its planning proceeded, emissaries from countries to be visited were invited to the Ming court and treated, well, royally.

Plundering Europeans

Now compare that with the European colonization led a decade later by the Portuguese across these same lands and these same seas. Between (a little) carrot and (a lot of) stick, the Europeans drove commerce mostly via massacres and forced conversions. Trading posts were soon turned into forts and military installations, something that Zheng He’s expeditions never attempted.

In fact Zheng He left so many good memories that he was divinized under his Chinese name, San Bao, which means “Three Treasures,” in such places in Southeast Asia as Malacca and Siam’s Ayutthaya.

What can only be described as Judeo-Christian sadomasochism focused on imposing suffering as virtue, the only path to reach Paradise. Zheng He would never have considered that his sailors – and the populations he made contact with – had to pay this price.

So why did it all end, and so suddenly? Essentially Yong Le run out of money because of his grandiose imperial adventures. The Grand Canal – linking the Yellow River and the Yangtze basins – cost a fortune. Same for building the Forbidden City. The revenue from the expeditions was not enough.

And just as the Forbidden City was inaugurated, it caught fire in May 1421. Bad omen. According to tradition, this means disharmony between Heaven and the sovereign, a development outside of the astral norm. Confucians used it to blame the eunuch councilors, very close to the merchants and the cosmopolitan elites around the emperor. On top of it, the southern borders were restless and the Mongol threat never really went away.

The new Ming emperor, Zhu Gaozhi, laid down the law: “China’s territory produces all goods in abundance; so why should we buy abroad trinkets without any interest?”

His successor Zhu Zanji was even more radical. Up to 1452, a series of imperial edicts prohibited foreign trade and overseas travel. Every infraction was considered piracy punished by death. Worse, studying foreign languages was banished, as was the teaching of Chinese to foreigners.

Zheng He died (in early 1433? 1435?) in true character, in the middle of the sea, north of Java, as he was returning from the seventh, and last, expedition. The documents and the charts used for the expeditions were destroyed, as well as the ships.

So the Ming ditched naval power and re-embraced old agrarian Confucianism, which privileges agriculture over trade, the earth over the seas, and the center over foreign lands.

No more naval retreat

The takeaway is that the formidable naval tributary system put in place by Yong Le and Zheng He was a victim of excess – too much state spending, peasant turbulence – as well as its own success.

In less than a century, from the Zheng He expeditions to the Ming retreat, this turned out to be a massive game changer in history and geopolitics, prefiguring what would happen immediately afterwards in the long 16^th century: the era when Europe started and eventually managed to rule the world.

One image is stark. While Zheng He’s lieutenants were sailing the eastern coast of Africa all the way to the south, in 1433, the Portuguese expeditions were just starting their adventures in the Atlantic, also sailing south, little by little, along the Western coast of Africa. The mythical Cape Bojador was conquered in 1434.

After the seven Ming expeditions crisscrossed Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean from 1403 for nearly three decades, only half a century later Bartolomeu Dias would conquer the Cape of Good Hope, in 1488, and Vasco da Gama would arrive in Goa in 1498.

Imagine a historical “what if?”: the Chinese and the Portuguese bumping into each other in Swahili land. After all, in 1417 it was the turn of Hong Bao, the Muslim eunuch who was Zheng He’s lieutenant; and in 1498 it was Vasco da Gama’s turn, guided by the “Lion of the Sea” Ibn Majid, his legendary Arab master navigator.

The Ming were not obsessed with gold and spices. For them, trade should be based on equitable exchange, under the framework of the tribute. As Joseph Needham conclusively proved in works such as Science and Civilization in China, the Europeans wanted Asian products way more than Orientals wanted European products, “and the only way to pay for them was gold.”

For the Portuguese, the “discovered” lands were all potential colonization territory. And for that the few colonizers needed slaves. For the Chinese, slavery amounted to domestic chores at best. For the Europeans, it was all about the massive exploitation of a workforce in the fields and in mines, especially concerning black populations in Africa.

In Asia, in contrast to Chinese diplomacy, the Europeans went for massacre. Via torture and mutilations, Vasco da Gama and other Portuguese colonizers deployed a real war of terror against civilian populations.

This absolutely major structural difference is at the root of the world- system and the geo-historical organization of our world, as analyzed by crack geographers such as Christian Grataloup and Paul Pelletier.  Asian nations did not have to manage – or to suffer – the painful repercussions of slavery.

So in the space of only a few decades the Chinese abdicated from closer relations with Southeast Asia, India and Eastern Africa. The Ming fleet was destroyed. China abandoned overseas trade and retreated unto itself to focus on agriculture.

Once again: the direct connection between the Chinese naval retreat and the European colonial expansion is capable of explaining the development process of the two “worlds” – the West and the Chinese center – since the 15^th century.

At the end of the 15^th century, there were no Chinese architects left capable of building large ships. Development of weaponry also had been abandoned. In just a few decades, crucially, the Sinified world lost its vast technological advance over the West. It got weaker. And later it would pay a huge price, symbolized in the Chinese unconsciousness by the “century of humiliation.”

All of the above explains quite a few things. How Xi Jinping and the current leadership did their homework. Why China won’t pull a Ming remix and retreat again. Why and how the overland Silk Road and the Maritime Silk Road are being revived. How there won’t be any more humiliations. And most of all, why the West – especially the American empire – absolutely refuses to admit the new course of 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.

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Chinese President Xi Jinping visits the Jiayu Pass, a famed MIng Dynasty era part of the Great Wall in Jiayuguan City, during an inspection tour of northwest China’s Gansu Province, August 20, 2019. Photo: Facebook

Since the Trump administration declared national emergency in mid-march over the rapid spread of COVID-19, the task of developing a vaccine has fallen on the U.S. Army’s top virus research lab in Fort Detrick, located in suburban Maryland some 50 miles outside of Washington, D.C..

Over the past decades, leading researches on a wide range of viruses and bacteria were conducted inside the sprawling complex. Its state-of-the-art facilities also store some of the most dangerous toxins known to mankind, including Ebola, anthrax and the SARS coronavirus.

The obscure army base came under the spotlight in 2008 after one of its scientists was suspected to have perpetrated the 2001 anthrax attack, where several letters containing the deadly germ was mailed to American media and government offices.

Last year, one of the most prominent high-security labs inside the campus was shut down by health authorities due to safety violations. Besides a few incidents here and there, Fort Detrick seems like an ordinary place for modern medical science. Dialing back to history a little further, however, a period of purely freakish history begins to emerge.

After World War II, Fort Detrick became a site of horrifying scientific experiments conducted under a top-secret CIA quest to control the human mind, known as Project MK Ultra. After more than 20 years, the project ended in abysmal failure and led to an unknown number of deaths, including a scientist who participated in the project, and at least hundreds of American and Canadian victims subjected to mental and physical torture. The experiments not only violated international law, but also the agency’s own charter which forbids domestic activity.

Project MK Ultra was brought to life by the godfather of America’s intelligence empire – CIA Director Allen Dulles, whose ever-fiery rhetoric about Soviet threat helped him prop up an omnipotent national security apparatus that would come to define American politics. In 1953, after capturing American pilots who admitted to deploying anthrax during the Korean War, Dulles began touting theories that they had been brainwashed by then communists of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. To ensure national security, he argued, the U.S. must devise its own brainwashing program.

Dulles’ claim turned out to be based on nothing more than pure Cold War fantasy as a report he later commissioned rejected the communist brainwashing claims. Yet, the cunning spymaster Dulles who was known to have actively rescued several top Nazi officials against the will of his own government, continued the program for a far more nefarious reason.

As explained by David Talbot in his book The Devil’s Chessboard, many spies recruited in the early days of the Cold War were sketchy, undependable characters motivated by inner vulnerabilities such as greed, lust or revenge. Meanwhile, the agency was looking for ways to rule out these psychological variables by creating human machines that would act on command, even against his own conscience.

In official terms, the main goal of the program was “research and development of chemical, biological, and radiological materials capable of employment in clandestine operations to control human behavior,” according to a declassified memo produced by the CIA Inspector General. It quickly ballooned in scale, branching into 149 sub-projects involving at least 80 institutions including universities, hospitals, prisons and drug companies across the United States and Canada.

To master mind control, a cadre of rogue scientists freely tested extreme methods on humans that would land anyone in prison had it not been inside the parameters of Fort Dertrick. These include forced administration of psychoactive drugs, forced electroshocks, physical and sexual abuses, as well as a myriad of other torments all silently carried out behind the high walls of “national security.”

Dulles was especially keen on finding out if hallucinogens like LSD could induce selected individuals to carry out “acts of substantial sabotage or acts of violence, including murder,” recalled the agency’s top poisons expert Sidney Gottlieb who spearheaded the program.

Declassified documents reviewed by CGTN showed the premises being investigated under the program ranged from the bizarre to the extremes of science fiction: Drugs that would “cause mental confusion;” “provide a maximum of amnesia;” “produce pure euphoria with no subsequent let-down;” “lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men;” and many others.

Throughout its two-decade lifespan, MK Ultra was executed in extreme secrecy as the agency had expected significant political backlash had it become public knowledge. It was so secretive, in fact, that only a few top agency officials were aware of its existence.

Unbeknownst to neither the White House nor Congress, people of the forgotten corner of America – the prisoners, prostitutes and the homeless – were picked off the streets as unwitting participants in the mad science at Fort Derrick: “People who could not fight back,” in the words of Gottlieb. However, the program also relied on people who could, including American soldiers and unsuspecting patients who inadvertently stumbled into MK Ultra-associated hospitals and clinics across North America.

In July 1954, airman Jimmy Shaver at the Lackland Air Force Base was accused of raping and killing a three-year-old girl in San Antonio. Throughout the incident, he was often reported to be in a “dazed” and “trance-like” state. While under arrest, Shaver also seemed to have lost a tremendous amount of his memory, including those involving his wife. Four years later, he was executed on his 33rd birthday. It wasn’t until later the public learned that Shaver, who had no previous criminal record, was one of the guinea pigs used by MK Ultra. The mind-control project had played a significant role in sending Shaver to the electric chair, according to The Intercept.

Others who survived the brutal experiments revealed the horrendous aftereffects of the CIA-sanctioned brainwashing. Linda McDonald, a 25-year-old mother of five young children, reported that she had essentially turned into an infant after going through the notorious Sleep Room experiments, which she was told would treat her non-existent acute schizophrenia. For 86 days, McDonald was in a coma induced by rounds of powerful narcotics and electroshocks that fried her brains 102 times.

“I had to be toilet trained,” McDonald said. “I was a vegetable. I had no identity, no memory. I had never existed in the world before. Like a baby.”

Yet, of all the 180 doctors and researchers who took part in these illegal experiments, few had expressed any suspicion or remorse. The one who did turned up dead.

Frank Olson was a biochemist and father of three children who worked in the Biological Warfare Laboratories at Fort Detrick. He was one of the MK Ultra scientists who regularly traveled between “black sites” in Europe to observe different human experiments. After a 1952 visit to the Camp King, a notorious CIA safe house in Germany, he was particularly shaken by the cruelty to which Soviet prisoners were subjected to, according to Talbot.

“He had a tough time after Germany … drugs, torture, brainwashing,” Olson’s former colleague at Detrick, researcher Norman Cournoyer was quoted as saying. By the time he returned from Germany, Olson had suffered a “moral crisis” and was ready to give up his science career to become a dentist, according to Olson’s family. Yet, before he could change his life, the scientist himself had unknowingly become one of many unwitting victims of MK Ultra.

A week before Thanksgiving, Olson was invited to a weekend retreat in a secluded CIA facility at Deep Creek Lake in Maryland. One night after dinner, Olson and other unsuspecting scientists were given LSD-laced drinks, after which he began to hallucinate wildly. The ordeal ended a week later, when he crashed through the 10th floor window at the Statler Hotel in Manhattan. The scientist’s death was hastily concluded by CIA officials as suicide. However, Olson’s children could hardly accept the “narrative” and began their own investigation into the tragic end of their father.

After decades back and forth with the U.S. government and investigation by Frank’s son Eric and Nils, including an exhumation autopsy, substantial evidence have weighted toward the possibility of the scientist’s murder. After examining Olson’s remains, Forensic pathologist James Starrs pointed out several key inconsistencies that contradicted with the official narrative suicide. Despite having landed on his back, the skull above Olson’s eye had cracked, suggesting a blunt force to the head prior to crashing through the window.

“The death of Frank Olson on 28 November 1953 was a murder, not a suicide,” Eric Olson declared. “This is not an LSD drug-experiment story, as it was represented in 1975. This is a biological warfare story. Frank Olson did not die because he was an experimental guinea pig who experienced a ‘bad trip.’ He died because of concern that he would divulge information concerning a highly classified CIA interrogation program in the early 1950s, and concerning the use of biological weapons by the United States in the Korean War.”

*

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 CGTN

When coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) began dominating headlines, it was accompanied by fears of potential shortages of critical medical equipment including personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilators.

Nations like Russia had large stockpiles of affordable ventilators on hand – so many that they were able to send them overseas to nations at risk of shortages.

One of those nations included the United States.

Reuters in an article titled, “Russian plane with coronavirus medical gear lands in US after Trump-Putin call,” would admit (emphasis added):

The State Department said that following the call between the two leaders, the United States “has agreed to purchase” needed medical supplies, including ventilators and personal protection equipment, from Russia and that they were handed over to the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Wednesday in New York City.

As generous and impressive as Russia’s response was – the real question was – why was it necessary in the first place?

America’s Ventilator Shortage: Known for Over a Decade  

While many may believe America’s ventilator shortage was a result of being blindsided by the speed COVID-19 spread, the truth is America’s shortage was know for at least a decade.

A 2010 MIT student project would set out to design a cheap, easily manufactured, and portable ventilator to address the shortage. The project paper titled, “Design and Prototyping of a Low-cost Portable Mechanical Ventilator”, would note:

While there are enough ventilators for regular use, there is a lack of preparedness for cases of mass casualty such as influenza pandemics, natural disasters and massive toxic chemical releases. The costs of stockpiling and deployment of state-of-the-art mechanical ventilators for mass casualty settings in developed countries are prohibitive. According to the national preparedness plan issued by President Bush in November 2005, the United States would need as many as 742,500 ventilators in a worst-case pandemic. When compared to the 100,000 presently in use, it is clear that the system is lacking.

The New York Times would also note just how long the shortage of ventilators in the US loomed in an article titled, “The US Tried to Build a New Fleet of Ventilators. The Mission Failed,” which reported:

Thirteen years ago, a group of US public health officials came up with a plan to address what they regarded as one of the medical system’s crucial vulnerabilities: a shortage of ventilators.

The breathing-assistance machines tended to be bulky, expensive and limited in number. The plan was to build a large fleet of inexpensive portable devices to deploy in a flu pandemic or another crisis.

The NYT article explains that the plan fell apart – specifically because the company that was eventually contracted to build the fleet of inexpensive, portable ventilators was bought out by a multi-billion dollar medical device manufacturer.

It is only 30 paragraphs into the NYT article that the company is named – Covidien. After the buy out, Covidien not only demanded more money to develop the ventilator, but also demanded a higher price for them once developed. They also reassigned staff working on the project, essentially shelving the effort. The motivation was simple – the company already sold much more expensive ventilators whose market position would be threatened by the development and deployment of cheaper alternatives.

Many more paragraphs later it is reported that Covidien has since been acquired by Medtronic – a US company based overseas to avoid paying US taxes and which made headlines recently when it waffled on releasing the designs of its ventilator to help aid in the shortages the company it acquired helped precipitate in the first place.

What emerges is a story of systematic corruption, monopolization, profiteering, and indifference by not a single company – but an entire industry – indifference to the actual purpose of human healthcare which is preserving human health.

The highjacking of human healthcare in the United States profit-driven corporations not only created an easily remedied ventilator shortage, but did so to the extent of leaving the US at the mercy of supposed “enemies” like Russia.

While Washington’s current adversarial footing with Russia is based on perpetuating American hegemony rather than any actual threat Russia poses, the fact that the greed of American corporations driving US foreign policy has in this case undermined US objectives and its leverage against Moscow helps illustrate how America’s current power structure is its own worst enemy.

For the average American the problem of national healthcare being highjacked by greedy corporations leaving them at the mercy of unaccessible, overpriced, and often ineffective medication and medical equipment is obvious and immediate. Growing numbers of Americans are investing their time and energy into opensource alternatives which – while unlikely to solve immediate problems – is creating an ecosystem of innovation that may eventually help replace existing monopolies.

For those invested in American hegemony – the fact that it is demonstrably unsustainable and often counterproductive should encourage serious rethinking.

For nations abroad targeted by American special interests, using alternative media to raise awareness of cheaper and more effective alternatives – helping Americans understand that the current state of US healthcare is neither tolerable nor necessary – will help undermine these corrosive special interests and make room for more honest and productive interests – interests that will better serve the American people and better serve America’s relationship with the rest of the 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.

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

Pro-NATO propaganda units have broadcasted a new episode of their censorship excuse series.

On May 5^th, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab), published a new piece designed to label SouthFront as official Russian propaganda. (LINK) The article employs a twisted, yet sophisticated, style of mixing words, pictures and public facts in order to support the Atlantic Council’s agenda. It largely attempts to build an association between SouthFront and News Front, and in so doing, relies heavily, if not entirely on guilt by association, to label SouthFront as official Russian propaganda. Throughout its report, the DFRLab fails to provide a single example of any association between the two entities, providing zero evidence.

The DFRLab “hit piece” fully confirms the conclusions reached by our analysis “An In-Depth Look Behind the Scenes of SouthFront Censorship”, published last week. Thus, we would like to extend a big thank you to the team of DFRLab. Thanks to their incompetence, they provided us with overwhelming evidence for the upcoming court case against Facebook and YouTube.

Screenshot: Medium

Let’s take a closer look at the DFRLab’s published “report”. As we have already pointed out, in order to label SouthFront as official Russian propaganda, NATO propagandists first identify another media site with a similar name, and then proceed to emphasize the similarity of the two brands.

The name of this organization is “News Front”, which indeed shares the word “Front” in its name, yet the similarities end there. News Front is an official Russian organization that is located in Crimea and publicly pursues an acute pro-Russian patriotic informational agenda for a Russian speaking audience.

During the entire article, DFRLab proceeds to regularly put the SouthFront name next to that of News Front, as if in a crime witness line-up, and yet 90% of the text is dedicated to News Front. The first 12 paragraphs are dedicated to an overview of open data about the founders and editors of News Front. In order to paint a picture of the supposed malign behavior of News Front, the DFLab authors added to the report such names as RT, Sputniknews, Mehr, Press TV. In other words, media sites whose affiliation with state governments is a declared matter of public record.

SouthFront is only sparingly mentioned during this entire segment. For example, the authors added a single screenshot of the deleted Facebook page of SouthFront claiming that “Most of the assets that DFRLab had access to did not hide their connection to South Front or News Front.”

Screenshot: Medium

Any reader, even the most loyal of DFRLab followers, would be surprised by such an almost subliminal attempt to conflate the two organizations. What is the aim of the authors in presenting to the audience this screenshot? If they were trying to display their deep investigative research in concluding that the screenshot belongs to SouthFront, then we can only say, thank you Captain Obvious.

At this point, this brilliant investigation once again forgets about SouthFront all together and focuses on publishing screenshots demonstrating that News Front’s various Facebook pages were linked with one another. All Facebook pages run by a single organization are linked. What a surprise! Bravo DFRLabs for this brilliant deduction.

Screenshot: Medium

We do not know if there are any violations of journalistic norms or Facebook’s Terms of Service on the part of News Front. In any case, it remains unclear how the big international team of authors working under the brand of SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence is linked to News Front in any way. Instead the   DFRLab authors resort to a little bit of journalistic “sleight of hand.”

“Though the DFRLab did not find that the accounts involved used inauthentic means at scale, there were clear attempts to use sockpuppet accounts to push content, especially in promoting News Front and South Front stories.”

From this quote, it becomes clear that they accuse SouthFront’s Facebook page (see this) of using “sockpuppet” accounts to push content;  however, they decline to provide any evidence to confirm this claim, because it is simply a blatant lie.

At this point in the article, DFRLab focuses on juggling screenshots of News Front and Anna News accounts related to various aspects of the pro-Russian agenda they are trying to peddle to the reader. Vague conspiracy reasoning of the authors regarding News Front and Anna News continues almost until the end of the article. After this, they once again, without any pretext, mention SouthFront.

“South Front features similar content to News Front, but the former mostly posts military-related analysis.”

Screenshot: Medium

This claim demonstrates that DFRLab team members have never actually read any of the content available on southfront.org and know nothing about SouthFront’s long history of accomplished work, content and editorial policy. Instead, they resort to simple dishonesty. To push their stated agenda, they enlist the aid of our old acquaintances from EUvsdisinfo:

“According to EUvsDisinfo, the outlet shares Russian talking points “verbatim” and is “frequently featured in [its] database of cases of disinformation.”

If EUvsdisinfo is the only source of DFRLab’s revelations about SouthFront, this explains the poor quality of the article. On May 6^th, SouthFront released an in-depth look at claims made by EUvsdidinfo regarding SouthFront. In its recent article vilifying SouthFront, this pro-NATO propaganda unit cherry-picks a mere 3 of approximately 3,000 articles released by SouthFront since the start of the year.

Near the end of the report, having realized that their ‘investigation’ is long on inuendo and short on facts implicating SouthFront in their imaginary conspiracy, DFRLabs presented the coup de grace. They found two Facebook pages “ZuidFront” and “South Front Netherlands” and published 3 screenshots of posts from these pages dated 2015, 2016 and 2017. The Facebook post of “ZuidFront” demonstrates the position of then DPR head Alexander Zakharchenko towards Brexit, while two SouthFront Netherlands posts are dedicated to the MH17 case. The DFRLab article then presents a screenshot of the “South Front Netherlands” description which states that the page is run by a group of Dutch citizens that translate content of SouthFront and other media organizations.

The screenshots posted by DFRLab are below:

Screenshot: Medium

Screenshot: Medium

Screenshot: Medium

SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence is an independent group of authors from around the world that focuses on issues of international relations, armed conflicts and crises. The individuals that run “ZuidFront” and “South Front Netherlands” made use of the umbrella brand of SouthFront, but operated independently. We regularly receive emails and messages from people that want to contribute their efforts to share and promote an independent point of view on key developments around the world. SouthFront always tries to provide them with technical help, advice and other assistance. We have repeatedly done this in the past and will continue to do this.

Another ridiculous attempt by the DFRLab authors to link SouthFront with News Front is through the use of various screenshots and statistics regarding the posting of content on News Front’s Facebook page. The main point is that News Front published some southfront.org content on their Facebook page.

Until recently, and largely as a result of this issue, the SouthFront team knew very little about News Front. The only contact that we had with any of the other sites mentioned was with Anna News in 2016, when Anna News translated several SouthFront videos into Russian on their own initiative. These examples are the few meager “contacts” that SouthFront has had with the group of nefarious Russian organizations mentioned in the DFLab hit piece. Furthermore, DFRLab failed to specify how many News Front articles were published by SouhFront’s Facebook page. Why? The answer is simple: the SouthFront Facebook page has never posted News Front articles. All content published on our Facebook page originated from southfront.org.

SouthFront is also mentioned again in the conclusion of the DFRLab piece. The incompetence of the authors is perplexing, as they assert that in general, SouthFront specializes in covering the conflict in Ukraine.

Screenshot: Medium

The conflict in eastern Ukraine is just one among the many conflicts covered by SouthFront. In the recent years, accounting for only 1.5% of SouthFront content. Now that we realize how especially concerned the pro-NATO propagandists are by alternative coverage of the conflict in Ukraine, we promise to contribute far more time and energy in our efforts to cover developments in Ukraine and Eastern Europe in general.

*

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.

Support South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

As every day reveals yet another failure of the state to tackle the COVID-19 crisis and it merges into the next, it is becoming apparent that this government does not really understand the scale of damage being done to the very fabric of Britain’s society. It is a fair question to ask if they even care that much. Institutions such as the Bank of England, World Bank, IMF and so on are not known for doom-mongering, if anything, they are usually so over-optimistic that their forecasts are rarely right when it comes to oncoming recessions. But this latest one from the BoE is pure comedy.

Their assumptions for a drop of 14 per cent GDP in 2020 followed by a bounceback of 15 per cent in 2021 is as farcical as anything I’ve ever read in my life.

To get to this bounceback, the BofE assumes the Stirling exchange rate will be unaffected by what looks more like an inevitable hard-Brexit. It assumes the lockdown will have little effect on employment and therefore household consumption will come straight back as it was before the crisis. It assumes an immediate bounce-back of business investment and that productivity will remain the same and that wages will be unaffected. Whatever these guys are smoking, I’m sure we’d all like some if all it does is make you happy and fulfilled by our future prospects.

The economy of Britain has already entered a deep recession – the biggest. By what pace and for how long is anyone’s guess. Insolvencies and debt defaults will cripple the country as banks take the hiding of their lives. Unemployment will soar, business investment will collapse. No-one will sell anything on credit unless they’ve been smokin the weed of the BofE. From an economic standpoint, the crisis Britain faces is as bad as anything it has ever faced. And to put some perspective on that – the Bank of England has said Britain faces a deeper recession now than it has done since the 1700s – when the total population of the country was barely 8 million. At this moment, Britain has 9 million unemployed so the comparison is meaningless.

No-one will care about the climate crisis, corporate profits, food standards or the NHS when unemployment is 15 per cent, when poverty trebles, homelessness quadruples and food banks are as common as a Tesco store

Right now, our government and all of its resources should be focused on the COVID crisis to ensure the nation is as protected as is humanly possible. In that challenge, so far, they have failed almost all of the tests put before them. They failed to listen to the experts, they failed the NHS, its medics and key workers and failed to lockdown early enough. Procurement tests have failed, testing has failed and Europe’s biggest death rate is the sum of all that failure. It is sad to witness it all. The economy is being bolstered by massive public spending and currently on life support and it remains to be seen if the government did the right thing or not. If the government fails that test – it will be truly catastrophic for us all.

With most of the world focused on stopping the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump and Johnson administrations are moving forward with US-UK trade negotiations. As if that matters right now. Their ideology is more important than the crisis at hand and the one that’s coming next.

Civil society groups in both countries are now diverting attention away from what they should be doing and worrying about how corporations will act to secure their profits at the expense of the environment, consumer safety, public health and worker rights. Actually, it’s at the expense of everything we really need right now.

A powerful and diverse array of unions and public interest groups from both sides of the Atlantic sent a unified message that trade negotiations between the United States and United Kingdom must prioritize working families, public health and the environment over corporate profits.

The organizations expressed their concerns (pdf letter), which include environmental, animal welfare, health, food, farming, labour, digital, development, faith and social justice organizations. They demanded the inclusion of binding climate and labour standards and the exclusion of terms that undermine consumer health and safety, financial, privacy and other public interest safeguards.

And even they, with all their economic and legal expertise, are missing the point right now. They themselves have not got to grips with reality.

Here is just one of many comments made from the campaigners:

“The Government has failed to convincingly set out what it hopes to achieve through a US-UK trade deal, despite the risks it could pose to the environment, food standards and public health. It is difficult to see how the deal is consistent with our climate change commitments, especially the goal of net-zero by 2050. The deal poses severe risks to UK agriculture and food standards, which the Government has refused to protect in law. And the deal threatens the NHS and medicines pricing – a key priority for US negotiators” -David Lawrence, Trade Justice Movement.

What these good people are missing here is that no-one will care about the climate crisis, corporate profits, food standards or when unemployment is 15 per cent, when poverty trebles, homelessness quadruples, violent crime skyrockets and food banks are as common as a Tesco store. This is the next failure of the state. Western democracies dramatically miscalculated giving so much ‘market freedom’ to banks and in 2008 the financial system imploded. That event threatened our world, ushered in the likes of Trump, Johnson and others – but what’s coming next will be much worse.

The amount of money lost in asset prices over global stock markets in March was something in the order of $25 trillion. Corporate profit warnings in the four weeks of March (in Britain) eclipsed that of the entire year of the financial collapse in 2008 that took ten years for Britain to stabilise. In six weeks, the Bank of England has committed to new stimulus funding and is doing behind the door deals to save British businesses. It’s secretly thrown over £100bn in 6 weeks at them – and that ‘s what we know of. £660bn has been committed by the government. In 2008, it took two years to dish out £500bn to save the banks and six weeks this time to dish out three-quarters of a trillion. And there’s a long way to go yet.

A back of a fag-packet calculation looks like we are in for something like three times the crisis of 2008.

The rules of the current world order are over. If France or Germany wants to trade illegally and outside of the constraints of the EU with another country it will. They will be more worried by protesting farmers and factory workers than a bureaucrat from Brussels wagging their finger at them. No-one will care about the WTO, trade agreements, handshakes, nods, the rule of law or anything else. By this time next year, the public will have reacted. People like Putin, Bolsanoro, Macron, Trump and Johnson could have been kicked out of office for their mishandling of phase one (human death toll) and phase two (economic death toll). Who knows – and that’s the point.

COVID-19 will teach us all that each country will do what it takes to survive. Anything outside of this is utter nonsense. The real question is – will Britain come out losing or winning because winning only means we’ve survived it.

*

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 things we were worried would happen are happening.”—Angus Johnston, professor at the City University of New York

No one is safe.

No one is immune.

No one gets spared the anguish, fear and heartache of living under the shadow of an authoritarian police state.

That’s the message being broadcast 24/7 with every new piece of government propaganda, every new law that criminalizes otherwise lawful activity, every new policeman on the beat, every new surveillance camera casting a watchful eye, every sensationalist news story that titillates and distracts, every new prison or detention center built to house troublemakers and other undesirables, every new court ruling that gives government agents a green light to strip and steal and rape and ravage the citizenry, every school that opts to indoctrinate rather than educate, and every new justification for why Americans should comply with the government’s attempts to trample the Constitution underfoot.

Yes, COVID-19 has taken a significant toll on the nation emotionally, physically, and economically, but there are still greater dangers on the horizon.

As long as “we the people” continue to allow the government to trample our rights in the so-called name of national security, things will get worse, not better.

It’s already worse.

Now there’s talk of mass testing for COVID-19 antibodies, screening checkpoints, contact tracing, immunity passports to allow those who have recovered from the virus to move around more freely, and snitch tip lines for reporting “rule breakers” to the authorities.

If you can’t read the writing on the wall, you need to pay better attention.

These may seem like small, necessary steps in the war against the COVID-19 virus, but they’re only necessary to the police state in its efforts to further undermine the Constitution, extend its control over the populace, and feed its insatiable appetite for ever-greater powers.

Nothing is ever as simple as the government claims it is.

Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America healthy again—rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.

The war on drugs turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with SWAT teams and militarized police.

The war on terror turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention.

The war on immigration turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with roving government agents demanding “papers, please.”

This war on COVID-19 will be yet another war on the American people, waged with all of the surveillance weaponry at the government’s disposal: thermal imaging cameras, drones, contact tracing, biometric databases, etc.

So you see, when you talk about empowering government agents to screen the populace in order to control and prevent spread of this virus, what you’re really talking about is creating a society in which ID cards, round ups, checkpoints and detention centers become routine weapons used by the government to control and suppress the populace, no matter the threat.

This is also how you pave the way for a national identification system of epic proportions.

Imagine it: a national classification system that not only categorizes you according to your health status but also allows the government to sort you in a hundred other ways: by gender, orientation, wealth, medical condition, religious beliefs, political viewpoint, legal status, etc.

Are you starting to get the bigger picture yet?

This is just another wolf in sheep’s clothing, a “show me your papers” scheme disguised as a means of fighting a virus.

Don’t fall for it.

The ramifications of such a “show me your papers” society in which government officials are empowered to stop individuals, demand they identify themselves, and subject them to patdowns, warrantless screenings, searches, and interrogations are beyond chilling.

By allowing government agents to establish a litmus test for individuals to be able to exit a state of lockdown and engage in commerce, movement and any other right that corresponds to life in a supposedly free society, it lays the groundwork for a society in which you are required to identify yourself at any time to anygovernment worker who demands it for any reason.

Such tactics quickly lead one down a slippery slope that ends with government agents empowered to force anyone and everyone to prove they are in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books.

It used to be that unless police had a reasonable suspicion that a person was guilty of wrongdoing, they had no legal authority to stop the person and require identification. In other words, “we the people” had the right to come and go as we please without the fear of being questioned by police or forced to identify ourselves.

Unfortunately, in this age of COVID-19, that unrestricted right to move about freely is being pitted against the government’s power to lock down communities at a moment’s notice. And in this tug-of-war between individual freedoms and government power, “we the people” have been on the losing end of the deal.

Curiously enough, these COVID-19 restrictions dovetail conveniently with a national timeline for states to comply with the Real ID Act, which imposes federal standards on identity documents such as state drivers’ licenses, a prelude to this national identification system.

Talk about a perfect storm for bringing about a national ID card, the ultimate human tracking device.

Granted, in the absence of a national ID card, which would make the police state’s task of monitoring, tracking and singling out individual suspects far simpler, “we the people” are already tracked in a myriad of ways: through our state driver’s licenses, Social Security numbers, bank accounts, purchases and electronic transactions; by way of our correspondence and communication devices—email, phone calls and mobile phones; through chips implanted in our vehicles, identification documents, even our clothing.

Add to this the fact that businesses, schools and other facilities are relying more and more on fingerprints and facial recognition to identify us. All the while, data companies such as Acxiom are capturing vast caches of personal information to help airports, retailers, police and other government authorities instantly determine whether someone is the person he or she claims to be.

This informational glut—used to great advantage by both the government and corporate sectors—has converged into a mandate for “an internal passport,” a.k.a., a national ID card that would store information as basic as a person’s name, birth date and place of birth, as well as private information, including a Social Security number, fingerprint, retinal scan and personal, criminal and financial records.

A federalized, computerized, cross-referenced, databased system of identification policed by government agents would be the final nail in the coffin for privacy (not to mention a logistical security nightmare that would leave Americans even more vulnerable to every hacker in the cybersphere).

Americans have always resisted adopting a national ID card for good reason: it gives the government and its agents the ultimate power to target, track and terrorize the populace according to the government’s own nefarious purposes.

National ID card systems have been used before, by other oppressive governments, in the name of national security, invariably with horrifying results.

For instance, in Germany, the Nazis required all Jews to carry special stamped ID cards for travel within the country. A prelude to the yellow Star of David badges, these stamped cards were instrumental in identifying Jews for deportation to death camps in Poland.

Author Raul Hilberg summarizes the impact that such a system had on the Jews:

The whole identification system, with its personal documents, specially assigned names, and conspicuous tagging in public, was a powerful weapon in the hands of the police. First, the system was an auxiliary device that facilitated the enforcement of residence and movement restrictions. Second, it was an independent control measure in that it enabled the police to pick up any Jew, anywhere, anytime. Third, and perhaps most important, identification had a paralyzing effect on its victims.

In South Africa during apartheid, pass books were used to regulate the movement of black citizens and segregate the population. The Pass Laws Act of 1952 stipulated where, when and for how long a black African could remain in certain areas. Any government employee could strike out entries, which cancelled the permission to remain in an area. A pass book that did not have a valid entry resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of the bearer.

Identity cards played a crucial role in the genocide of the Tutsis in the central African country of Rwanda. The assault, carried out by extremist Hutu militia groups, lasted around 100 days and resulted in close to a million deaths. While the ID cards were not a precondition to the genocide, they were a facilitating factor. Once the genocide began, the production of an identity card with the designation “Tutsi” spelled a death sentence at any roadblock.

Identity cards have also helped oppressive regimes carry out eliminationist policies such as mass expulsion, forced relocation and group denationalization. Through the use of identity cards, Ethiopian authorities were able to identify people with Eritrean affiliation during the mass expulsion of 1998. The Vietnamese government was able to locate ethnic Chinese more easily during their 1978-79 expulsion. The USSR used identity cards to force the relocation of ethnic Koreans (1937), Volga Germans (1941), Kamyks and Karachai (1943), Crimean Tartars, Meshkhetian Turks, Chechens, Ingush and Balkars (1944) and ethnic Greeks (1949). And ethnic Vietnamese were identified for group denationalization through identity cards in Cambodia in 1993, as were the Kurds in Syria in 1962.

And in the United States, post-9/11, more than 750 Muslim men were rounded up on the basis of their religion and ethnicity and detained for up to eight months. Their experiences echo those of 120,000 Japanese-Americans who were similarly detained 75 years ago following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Despite a belated apology and monetary issuance by the U.S. government, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to declare such a practice illegal. Moreover, laws such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) empower the government to arrest and detain indefinitely anyone they “suspect” of being an enemy of the state.

You see, you may be innocent of wrongdoing now, but when the standard for innocence is set by the government, no one is safe.

Everyone is a suspect.

And anyone can be a criminal when it’s the government determining what is a crime.

It’s no longer a matter of if, but when.

Remember, the police state does not discriminate.

At some point, it will not matter whether your skin is black or yellow or brown or white. It will not matter whether you’re an immigrant or a citizen. It will not matter whether you’re rich or poor. It won’t even matter whether you’re driving, flying or walking.

After all, government-issued bullets will kill you just as easily whether you’re a law-abiding citizen or a hardened criminal. Government jails will hold you just as easily whether you’ve obeyed every law or broken a dozen. And whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, government agents will treat you like a suspect simply because they have been trained to view and treat everyone like potential criminals.

Eventually, when the police state has turned that final screw and slammed that final door, all that will matter is whether some government agent—poorly trained, utterly ignorant and dismissive of the Constitution, way too hyped up on the power of their badges, and authorized to detain, search, interrogate, threaten and generally harass anyone they see fit—chooses to single you out for special treatment.

We’ve been having this same debate about the perils of government overreach for the past 50-plus years, and still we don’t seem to learn, or if we learn, we learn too late.

All of the excessive, abusive tactics employed by the government today—warrantless surveillance, stop and frisk searches, SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, asset forfeiture schemes, private prisons, indefinite detention, militarized police, etc.—started out as a seemingly well-meaning plan to address some problem in society that needed a little extra help.

Be careful what you wish for: you will get more than you bargained for, especially when the government’s involved.

In the case of a national identification system, it might start off as a means of tracking COVID-19 cases in order to “safely” re-open the nation, but it will end up as a means of controlling the American people.

For those tempted to justify these draconian measures for whatever reason—for the sake of their health, the economy, or national security—remember, you can’t have it both ways.

You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.

You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.

You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if you’re inclined to advance this double standard because you believe you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, beware: there’s always a boomerang effect.

*

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 Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image is from The Crux

“If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.” – Lao Tzu

Are you too waiting for the second wave?

What type of waves are we talking about?

Your eyes are riveted perhaps on a multifaceted agent called Covid-19 [1] and you hear that this agent will be coming back every year, or even several times a year.

Personally, I am more afraid of waves of panic, and downpours of fears and lies inflicted on us every year, even several times a year.

Your minds are fed with various of fears and contradictory measures, sometimes as absurd as forcing thirteen-year-old children to wear face masks.

It is not surprising that people of all walks of life, nationalities and cultures are starting to lose faith in what they are told.

We hear ad nauseam the alternative voices being called ‘conspirational’ by the ‘official’ commercially sponsored media.

Among those accused of promoting ‘conspiracy theories’, we find university professors, serious scientists, level-headed researchers and highly qualified doctors.

These persons have a proven track record of seriously done work.

They are reliable. They can be trusted.

In fact, as soon as you deviate even so slightly from the official line, you are called a conspiratorialist spreader of dangerous disinformation, a conspiracy theorist, or more simply, an unreasonable person. Yes, idiot.

Fortunately, despite the insistence coming from some quarters to discredit any alternative to the official discourse, the people themselves are waking up. Citizens feel that something is amiss, and they are more and more losing confidence in the narrative of the ‘Ministry of Truth’.

Lie # 1: Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work

Lie # 2: Hydroxychloroquine is too dangerous

Some countries use it with good results and without major side effects.

In countries where prescriptions have been banned outside hospitals, such as in France andBelgium, some field doctors have “disobeyed” and done what they thought was right, with good results and without major side effects.

Just imagine!

Qualified, experienced doctors, normally responsible and free to prescribe, prohibited from doing their job!

I refer you to my previous article (in French): Covid-19: And what now?  ( Covid-19: Et maintenant?)

Beyond the controversy over the scientific merits of giving an inexpensive drug (that has been known and prescribed in huge amounts for more than 70 years) to infected and symptomatic people or people at risk (caregivers, residents of nursing homes or hospital patients), in a specific setting (cardiac monitoring, compliance with contraindications, dosages, earliness) and this without waiting a year or more for a “gold standard double blind randomized clinical control trial” which hasn’t even been scheduled yet, my question is:

Do the authorities, helped by the media, want to take away all hope from the people?

Any hope that could overshadow expensive, unknown and very profitable treatments for merchants who infiltrate all governments and health institutions, especially in France and Belgium [See my article: Covid-19: Check the Source of your Information!  War against…  Corruption?], but also throughout Europe, worldwide [Politics and Corruption at the World Health Organization (WHO …].

Let us be clear: any new vaccine, although it can bring huge benefits to the vaccine industry, is potentially dangerous for the vaccinated.

Any new drug is potentially dangerous, and for some, they are very expensive, especially those ending in –ab [2-3] and in -ir, like Remdesivir which already does a lot of good for the finances of the Gilead firm [4] despite proof of its ineffectiveness, as stated in the Economic Times site, on Apr 23 2020 [5].

These molecules are even more risky if they are prepared under special emergency authorizations, in haste, without respecting the standard steps of marketing authorization that every drug must follow, according to the very same rigorous procedures that university establishment requests loud and clear for hydroxychloroquine, vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc…   maybe the next will be H2O…

Lie # 3: Do not look to food supplements such as ZINC, Vitamin C and Vitamin D

Let me make it simple so that everyone understands.

Our best ally against any aggressive pathogen, or any infection, is our immune system.

It is not the masks, the physical distance, nor the vaccines, but first and foremost our immune system in perfect good working order that will protect us.

Our immune system!

By analogy, this system is like the defense of a country, with its borders, its soldiers, its planes, its radars, its armored vehicles, its artillery, its snipers …

For all of the following statements, please refer to the footnotes.

Zinc [6], vitamin D [7], vitamin C are all three essential elements of our immune defense system.

These are ammunition, missiles, gasoline and body armor when you go to war.

Now read the following carefully:

Most populations are deficient in these three elements [8].

Our Health Authorities know this well.

For Zinc in particular, this deficiency affects populations precisely at risk of developing a serious form of COVID-19 (leading to intensive care, and death): the obese, diabetics and the elderly [9].

Not to supplement these populations in zinc, today, it would be like sending the soldiers of an army to go to the front without ammunition for their rifles, without gasoline in their armored vehicles.

In addition, intense and prolonged confinement resulted in under-exposure to the sun and lack of sunlight is aggravating the deficit of vitamin D, which is otherwise produced in the skin under the effect of by the sun’s rays. Sunlight also kills viruses in minutes, yet they tell us to hunker indoors.

What is more, such an excessive and prolonged lock-down has brought about a dropin physical activity and phenomenal level of stress, thus further diminishing the effectiveness of our immune systems [10-11], even more than it was before.

Findings from the outset!

Findings from research provide solid grounds for giving supplements of these three elements, zinc, vitamin C, vitamin D to help the immune system fight coronavirus infections [12].

Side effects from these three time-tested nutrients are rare, and are easy for general practitioners to control [Read: It Is Not Only the COVID-19 Virus that Is Dangerous. It Is How Our …  ].

But, as expected, here in Belgium the Health Authorities disapprove of these potential natural treatments.

“No multi-center, double-blind, peer-reviewed studies. ”

“No evidence of effectiveness. ”

“There is no clinical evidence. ”

Always the same screeds repeated ad nauseum to disqualify these inexpensive therapeutic avenues, devoid of side effects but that they are very unprofitable for anyone, except for the patient.

Above all, it is clinical common sense to admit that there is value in using these substances for any infectious disease and for COVID-19 more specifically, and also to trust general practitioners who know their job.

Lie # 4: “COVID-19” deaths are all due to “COVID-19”.

No!

This may be the hardest thing to believe.

However, no, the “COVID-19” counted deaths did not all die from the “COVID-19”.

Many reliable testimonies bear witness to the fact that the dead labelled “COVID-19” have not all died from that cause.

Especially in the old-peoples nursing homes that were under an authoritarian lock-down like in France, Belgium, Spain, Italy.

Thousands of frail and elderly people have died of loneliness, stress, physical inactivity, deficiencies in zinc, vitamin C, vitamin D, inability to move to eat and drink and receive love from their closest ones.

With or without COVID-19.

Thousands of people may have died or may have had to be hospitalized, threatened with the use of damaging respiratory ventilators, because they could not be treated by their general practitioners with drugs such as hydroxychloroquine.

Looking back at what was done with the benefit of perspective, could it even be that a large scale, planned euthanasia has been presented as the covid-19 pandemia?

I could have gone on listing the many more lies.

Other whistleblowers are doing that, and this story is not over.

For instead of this unleashed ocean of fears and lies, I suggest that we substitute it with a peaceful ocean of calm and common sense.

More and more people are starting to realize that something is wrong.

There will be a demand for accountability.  We will need to confine the mad captains that led us astray to these troubled waters to their cabins and take back control of our bodies and our minds.

Soon.

I have good hope we shall.

*

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 Pascal Sacré is an Anesthesiologist-Intensivist in Belgium.

Notes

[1] Covid-19 : une maladie virale aux multiples visages, « Covid-19 : a viral disease with multiple faces », Le Monde, 2 avril 2020

[2] Pharmacoeconomic Review Report : sarilumab (Kevzara), Table 1 Cost Comparison Table of Biologic Treatments for Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adult Patients

[3] Actemra (tocilizumab) is a member of the interleukin inhibitors drug class

[4] Gilead could make a profit from COVID-19 drug

[5] Gilead’s antiviral drug remdesivir flops in first trial

[6] The Role of Zinc in Antiviral Immunity :

The role of zinc as an antiviral can be separated into 2 categories : 1) zinc supplementation implemented to improve the antiviral response and systemic immunity in patients with zinc deficiency, and 2) zinc treatment performed to specifically inhibit viral replication or infection-related symptoms.

Zinc is essential for the immunity and most humans have low levels :

https://www.hug-ge.ch/sites/interhug/files/structures/coronavirus/documents/zinc_et_covid-19.pdf

In infectious context, most humans should take zinc, because zinc is an essentiel component of many physiologic parameters, notably the immune system.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19523191

Immun Ageing. 2009 Jun 12 ;6 :9. Doi : 10.1186/1742-4933-6-9.

The immune system and the impact of zinc during aging.

The trace element zinc is essential for the immune system, and zinc deficiency affects multiple aspects of innate and adaptive immunity.

Many studies confirm a decline of zinc levels with age.

Even marginal zinc deprivation can affect immune function.

Consequently, oral zinc supplementation demonstrates the potential to improve immunity and efficiently downregulates chronic inflammatory responses in the elderly. These data indicate that a wide prevalence of marginal zinc deficiency in elderly people may contribute to immunosenescence.

[7] VITAMINE D :

Vitamine D and the immune system:

Vitamin D supplementation and respiratory infections

[8] Deficiences:

Vitamin C Deficiency

Vitamin C deficiency is common, even in industrialized countries

Vitamine D deficiency:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024173/

To mitigate Vitamine D epidemic deficiency:

https://www.revmed.ch/RMS/2011/RMS-319/Vitamine-D-actualite-et-recommandations

Vitamine D deficiency is frequent and under-diagnosed.

Vitamin D is in a way a marker of good health and a marker of the evolution of our society

Globally, an estimated one billion people are said to have such a deficit. In Western countries, more than 40% of the population over 50 years of age are said to be in deficit. In Europe, a study has shown that 80% of older people have 25 (OH) D levels below 30 ng / ml.

[9] ZINC deficiency:

https://www.ulb-ibc.be/oligo-elements/

Page 3/6 :

Obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes

Zinc

• Zinc and selenium deficits linked to eating habits (foods with high caloric density low in micronutrients) and increased needs linked to oxidative stress and inflammation.
• If the zinc deficit is significant and if the coverage of needs is difficult, the use of oral forms of zinc is sometimes justified.

Geriatric population

Zinc

• Zinc deficiency more frequent in institutionalized people : insufficient food intake, frequent polypharmacy. Associated with an increased incidence of infections, poor wound healing (pressure sores) and dysfunction of the immune system.

[10] Anxiety about coronavirus can increase the risk of infection

[11] The Impact of Everyday Stressors on the Immune System and Health,Research over the past three to four decades has clearly established that psychological stress affects clinically relevant immune system outcomes, including inflammatory processes, wound healing, and responses to infectious agents and other immune challenges

[12] CORONAVIRUS LINKS:

Links between Zinc and coronavirus SARS-CoV-2:

https://www.hug-ge.ch/sites/interhug/files/structures/coronavirus/documents/zinc_et_covid-19.pdf

An in vitro experiment indicates that when the limitations to intracellular penetration of Zn2 + were lifted, it effectively inhibits, at doses equivalent to 2.0 μmol / L, the activity of synthesis of viral RNA by the replication complex and multiprotein transcription of SARS-CoV, prompting some authors to consider zinc as a therapeutic option in patients affected by SARS-CoV-2

29. Velthuis AJW te, Worm SHE van den, Sims AC, Baric RS, Snijder EJ, Hemert MJ van. Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture. PLoS Pathogens [Internet]. Nov 2010 [cité 16 avr 2020] ;6(11). Available on : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2973827/
30. Zhang L, Liu Y. Potential interventions for novel coronavirus in China : A systematic review. Journal of Medical Virology. 2020 ;92(5) :479‑90.

Links between Vitamine C and coronavirus SRAS CoV-2

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04264533

Vitamin C Infusion for the Treatment of Severe 2019-nCoV Infected Pneumonia

Vitamine D and Coronavirus:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3593258

Vitamin D Level of Mild and Severe Elderly Cases of COVID-19: A Preliminary Report

Basic healthy solutions such as Vitamin D supplementation could be raised even in the community level and awareness on Vitamin D benefits in fighting infections, such as COVID-19, should be disseminated especially to the vulnerable elderly population.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3571484

Vitamin D Supplementation Could Possibly Improve Clinical Outcomes of Patients Infected with Coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19)

The results suggest that an increase in serum 25(OH) D level in the body could either improve clinical outcomes or mitigate worst (severe to critical) outcomes, while a decrease in serum 25(OH) D level in the body could worsen clinical outcomes of COVID-2019 patients.

Featured image: Healthcare workers were registered Wednesday when they performed rapid coronavirus tests on citizens in their cars, enabled by the government of Brasilia, Brazil. April 22, 2020. | Photo: EFE

At a time of COVID-19 related lockdowns and social distancing in most countries, Pompeo showed up in Israel Tuesday.

He came to meet with and bolster Netanyahu ahead of his upcoming trial to start later this month for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

He’s the only indicted figure in Israeli history to be sworn into office as prime minister — heading a coalition regime with Benny Gantz in a junior partnership role, at least for now.

Last week, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled against the Movement for the Quality of Government in Israel’s urging to disqualify Netanyahu because of serious charges he faces, clear evidence proving them.

For the first time, the High Court ruled (unanimously) that it’s OK for a corrupt figure to lead the Jewish state — effectively legitimizing his criminality, instead of demanding that the judicial process should decide his fate.

Pompeo was also at Netanyahu’s swearing in to highlight the Trump regime’s approval of his illegal plan to annex settlements, the Jordan Valley, and northern Dead Sea.

Taking these steps will officially end the illusion of a possible two-state solution Israel never accepted throughout its history.

Annexation will formally steal around another 30% of historic Palestinian land.

The Trump regime approved the grand theft in its farcical no-peace/peace plan no one for peace, equity, and justice would accept. Palestinians rejected it before released.

Days earlier, US envoy to Israel David Friedman noted the Trump regime’s support for annexation, adding that talks with Palestinians should accompany it.

He failed to explain that Israel, like the US, doesn’t negotiate. Both countries demand, wanting things their way no matter how harmful their policies are to most people or that they repeatedly breach the rule of law.

According to what Netanyahu and Gantz agreed to in forming a ruling coalition regime, Likud and Blue & White must jointly approve legislative proposals to advance them, including annexation of Palestinian land that requires Knesset authorization.

When the moment of truth arrives in the coming weeks or longer, will Gantz go along with Netanyahu’s annexation scheme or will he block it because it risks a potentially damaging international reaction?

If both sides deadlock on this and/or other issues, the outcome could be a fourth election — what most likely will happen if Netanyahu’s trial ends in conviction and imprisonment.

In late April, the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel wrote Israeli attorney general Mandelblit, warning against Netanyahu’s illegal annexation plan.

It cited the International Court of Justice’s 2004 ruling on Israel’s Separation Wall on stolen Palestinian land that called for completed sections to be dismantled.

The ICJ also ordered reparations to be paid to Palestinians for the “requisition and destruction of homes, businesses, and agricultural holdings (and) to return the land, orchards, olive groves, and other immovable property seized.”

Israel ignored the ruling. Wall construction continued, along with other theft of historic Palestinian land.

In its letter to Mandelblit, Adalah also stressed that the Netanyahu/Gantz coalition agreement breached international law by ignoring Security Council resolutions, the right of Palestinians to self-determination, and it bypassed other “international legal barriers.”

The West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza are illegally occupied territories. Israeli settlements are illegal under international law.

Adalah attorney Suhad Bishara said the following:

“We do not recognize any precedent anywhere in the world in which a political agreement to form a government coalition stipulates a commitment to violate international law,” adding:

“Israel’s annexation of the occupied West Bank – which this coalition agreement seeks to advance – constitutes another step toward abolishing the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people and the establishment of an apartheid regime.”

This action if taken “cannot stand the test of international or Israeli law, and we will continue to take action against it.”

An earlier Adalah press release stressed that the Trump regime’s approval of Netanyahu’s annexation scheme may result in the “forced transfer of 260,000 Palestinian citizens of Israel.”

Adalah referred to “over 260,000 Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel living in 10 towns in the Triangle region in the center of the country…”

“According to the (annexation) plan…Israel’s borders would simply be redrawn to leave (these Palestinians) outside its borders…strip(ping) them of Israeli citizenship” — leaving them permanently occupied.

The annexation scheme “establishes Israel as the sole full sovereign regime in Israel and in the 1967 Palestinian occupied territories – mandatory Palestine – effectively controlling Palestinian enclaves in that territory, and granting no political rights for most of the Palestinians living in self-governed bantustans in the West Bank and Gaza, and now, also in the Triangle region.”

If formal annexation occurs as planned, the only option for Palestinians is resistance.

Making their case in an international tribunal like the ICJ or International Criminal Court (ICC) will accomplish nothing as long as the US approves of Israel’s actions.

Palestinians are on their own in their longterm struggle for justice denied them by the Jewish state and its allies.

*

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.

Humanity is imprisoned by a killer pandemic. People are being arrested for surfing in the ocean and meditating in nature. Nations are collapsing. Hungry citizens are rioting for food. The media has generated so much confusion and fear that people are begging for salvation in a syringe.

Billionaire patent owners are pushing for globally mandated vaccines. Anyone who refuses to be injected with experimental poisons will be prohibited from travel, education and work. No, this is not a synopsis for a new horror movie. This is our current reality.

Click picture to access the video documentary

 

GR Editor’s Note

The documentary is no longer accessible. This is the message we get when clicking the link

***

Tips for staying safe

• Wear a mask
• Social Distance
• Don’t listen to Plandemic Bull Shit

***

The window of opportunity is open like never before. For the first time in human history, we have the world’s attention. Plandemic will expose the scientific and political elite who run the scam that is our global health system, while laying out a new plan; a plan that allows all of humanity to reconnect with healing forces of nature. 2020 is the code for perfect vision. It is also the year that will go down in history as the moment we finally opened our eyes.

To view the documentary: 

https://plandemicmovie.com  

 

*

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.

For this writer there are events and incidents that transcend the usual causes of sadness for many of us. Yes, we all have a myriad of memories of sadness. Perhaps when a loved one or pet becomes ill or passes away. Perhaps when someone we love moves away from us, and we hurt from missing them.

My earliest memory of a transcending type of sadness was when, as a five year old, I was standing in my bedroom viewing a movie on our 12 inch black and white TV. It was a scene from the film Of Mice and Men, based on John Steinbeck’s novel. This was near the end of the film, when George knew he could not let his mentally handicapped pal Lenny be murdered by vigilantes for accidentally strangling to death a young woman. As he got Lenny to stand with his back to him, George repeated the plans they both shared for the future. He had his gun hidden from view as his friend was focusing on the rabbits he loved so much. George then blew Lenny’s brains out! Not knowing, yet intuitively understanding that this was a ‘Mercy killing’ I began to cry. My mom heard me and rushed into the bedroom shouting ‘That is NOT a movie for a little boy!! Turn it off!!’ That sad feeling has remained with me my entire life.

When I was seven there were these two kids, a girl from my class with her younger brother, waiting with me for the dismissal gong. As we stood on the steps by the exit doors, I saw a bunch of kids teasing the two. The brother and sister had red hair and lots of freckles, unique to many in our school. Some of the kids were taunting at them, calling them fat little piggies. The younger brother started to cry. I turned to the both of them and said ‘No one is gonna hurt you two. Just follow me out.’ With that, the gong went off and the mob of us pushed through those heavy steel doors. I made this nasty face at some of  those who were bothering the two, and walked the brother and sister to the safety of their mom waiting by the curb. My sadness was for the fact that people could be so damn mean to the vulnerable among us… for no reason.

When I was eighteen the call came from my grandmother (my mom’s mother) that my grandfather, who had emphysema, had been rushed to the hospital. She was a nervous wreck, so my brother and I were told to go to the emergency room and check things out. When we arrived, and we were escorted into the area where he was, the sadness overwhelmed me. My grandfather was laid out on a stretcher, unconscious and just in his underwear. I broke down at the sight of this! My brother had to push me out of the area, I was so overcome with sadness. Seeing the man who would take me for walks in the country, or cook me my favorite dinner (homemade German style clam chowder and fried flounder), now looking like a corpse…

In previous columns this writer has mentioned the two neighbors of mine who came back from the ‘Nam’ in wooden boxes. My sadness was for the mom of one of them, our school crossing guard, and  for the younger brother of the other soldier. Both of these people were devastated by the loss of their loved ones to a (so called) ‘War’ we had no business ever being involved in. The mom of the Marine lost her wonderful bright smile after her son died. The brother of the Army Ranger got into drugs a few years later, and  died of an overdose soon after. It seems at times how sadness can be so contagious. This was the impetus to get me into becoming an anti war activist, which I remain today.

The morning of March 19th, 2003 I awoke early on, as the night before we knew something heinous was going down real soon. When I stood by the television and watched what was called ‘Shock and Awe’, I cried, and took some time to stop. Once again intuition can take over and instruct us. In my heart of hearts I knew that this illegal and immoral action was the worst I had ever experienced, even more evilly potent than the Vietnam debacle. Matter of fact, it was on par with my sadness when studying the JFK conspiracy, knowing that Lee Harvey Oswald was truly a patsy for the real Deep State. Oliver Stone did this nation a tremendous service with his 1991 film JFK, which I watch at least twice a year. When I come to the part when Kevin Costner, as Jim Garrison, almost breaks down giving his summation, I break down. There are no time limits on sadness.

Now we have a new sadness, this pandemic. Too many people, worldwide, are dying from this virus for it to be taken with anything but a grain of salt. This writer dismisses the talk, from both sides of the political spectrum, that this virus is overblown and part of a plan. Yes, there are most likely plans by those who run things, the Uber Rich who own the corporate world and our government, for more control over us working stiffs…  that’s a given. The secondary sadness I and others feel is the callous and evil (yes, evil) manner in which so little money is created for the millions of small businesses and hundreds of millions of working stiffs. Yet, they ‘give away the store’ to the big businesses and Wall Street. I see and hear and read about mega millions of us working stiffs out of work, knowing that those lucky to get benefits will see that end soon.

Meanwhile, tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of us will be at risk, virus wise and financially wise. Why won’t the mainstream media and our politicians flood the airwaves with an idea that 99+% of us need NOW, the Universal Basic Income stipend (which Spain is already adopting)? You know why, don’t you? This phony Two Party/One Party system and embedded  media, taking their orders from the Military Industrial Empire, cannot do the possible… by calling it… duh, impossible! For whom? For the banks and large corporate world, who just got their second bone -the first being the 2008-09 bailout? Do those who control things actually believe that one or even two $1200 gifts is going to keep families afloat? Maybe it takes sadness to wake people up and take off the clown makeup this empire’s propaganda conned them into wearing for so long.

Isn’t it bad enough that the Deep State wanted a circus and got enough people to elect a clown?

*

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]

“Thank God men cannot fly, and lay waste the sky as well as the earth,” – Henry David Thoreau

The moon is in trouble. And so are we.

Bruce Gagnon:

NASA is not really looking for the ‘origins of life,’ as it tells school children today. Instead, it is laying the groundwork for a new gold rush that will drain our national treasury and enrich the big corporations that now control our government. It is beyond time for the American people to wake up to the shell game underway.[1]

Americans haven’t awoken, despite the environmental damage these projects already inflict and the peril to Earth’s future and that of other planets. That damage will dramatically escalate with the U.S. Space Force and Artemis Accords.

The moon is key to the U.S. and other countries for commercial mining, military bases to control access to Earth and space, and for launching military and commercial conquest of space. On April 6, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Secretary of State to “take all appropriate actions to encourage international support for the public and private recovery and use of resources in outer space”.

“Americans should have the right to engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space, consistent with applicable law. Outer space is a legally and physically unique domain of human activity, and the United States does not view it as a global commons.” [2]

The Artemis Accords are being drafted to establish legal justification for commercial space resource extraction, exploitation, and ownership [3] (reminiscent of the Bush administration memos by Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury on torture). They would be an international pact for “like-minded nations”, foregoing the United Nations treaty process.

Vice President Mike Pence:

“The United States has always been a nation of restless pioneers, from those Americans who crossed the western frontier to settle in California to those who first stepped onto the Moon. We are ever striving to explore uncharted lands, reach new horizons, and venture into the unknown.

Today, we are renewing the legacy of those courageous space pioneers and all they represent. As part of our re-engagement in human space exploration, the Trump administration’s policy is to return to the moon by 2024, ensuring that the next man and the first woman on the moon will both be American astronauts. From there, we plan to put men and women on Mars.

To accomplish this next big leap, we will develop the technologies to live on the moon for months and even years. We will learn how to make use of resources that the moon has to offer. That includes mining oxygen from the lunar surface and rocks to fuel reusable landers, extracting water from the permanently shadowed craters of the south pole, and developing a new generation of nuclear-powered spacecraft that will help us fly further and faster than ever before. [4]

Former Nazi Major General Walter Dornberger, head of Hitler’s V1 and V2 program, told Congress in 1958 that America’s top space priority ought to be to “conquer, occupy, keep, and utilize space between the Earth and the Moon.”[5] The Apollo missions were the first phase — on-site assessments to gather samples, run experiments, and test human interaction with the lunar environment.

Since 1959, lunar missions and crashes by the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, India, Israel, and European Union have left over 413,000 pounds of debris and toxic substances on the formerly pristine lunar surface,[6] including 96 bags of bacteria-laden human excrement dumped by the Apollo missions.[7] Apollo also left a nuclear generator on the moon.[8]

Governments have intentionally hit the moon 22 times as part of experiments and conducted 17 other post-mission crashes. The U.S. did the majority — 16 post-mission crashes and 14 intentional strikes, including the 2009 LCROSS hit, equivalent to 1.5 tons of TNT, to blast 350 tons of rock and dust and create a six-mile-high cloud for data gathering and public relations. That mission cost $49 million, and NASA’s Ames Research celebrated with an all-night party.[9] In the 1950s, the U.S. even planned to drop an atomic bomb on the moon — Project A119 – but cancelled it as too risky.[10]

Why should the moon be protected? There are many reasons.

The moon

• stabilizes Earth’s rotation
• has a major role in maintaining the Earth’s magnetic field
• regulates the climate
• creates the tides
• affects plant cycles and likely affects all biology and human cycles in profound ways
• regulates the procreation of some creatures, including coral [11]

The light of the moon is essential for life, and the moon may well be a stabilizing force for every living being on the planet,

The moon is also a sovereign body with its own rights, and it belongs to no one. It is revered by Earth–based indigenous peoples and has been considered a living, sentient being by people worldwide throughout human history. The moon and earth’s self-protective systems demonstrate far more intelligence, wisdom, and life than “civilized” society understands.[12]

None of this matters to NASA, the U.S. government, other countries, and related businesses. Laser-focused on their mission objectives, with virtually no checks or public oversight, they wield the ultimate in “big toys.” The United States alone budgets millions of tax dollars every year to develop space technology for future outposts and has spent billions on the Artemis Program. For their space program, the overarching priorities are American supremacy, empire, and profit — the unflinching mandate of manifest destiny projected into space.

The United States is by far the biggest threat to space and the moon.

When you don’t initiate the boys, they burn down the village. — African saying

The 1979 United Nations Moon Treaty prohibits military bases and national appropriation of territory but only minimally protects the moon environmentally. It enshrines depredation “on the basis of equality” — “The Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind.” [13] Former astronaut Harrison Schmidt, who formed his own company to mine the moon, complained the treaty would “complicate private commercial efforts.”[14] He was not alone. The U.S. did not sign, and only 18 nations have ratified it.

“…the United States does not consider the Moon Agreement to be an effective or necessary instrument to guide nation states regarding the promotion of commercial participation in the long-term exploration, scientific discovery, and use of the Moon, Mars, or other celestial bodies. Accordingly, the Secretary of State shall object to any attempt by any other state or international organization to treat the Moon Agreement as reflecting or otherwise expressing customary international law.” [15]

Companies such as Bechtel and Bigelow Aerospace [16] are securing contracts from the FAA and other agencies to own land on the moon and mine the moon. Helium-3, used for nuclear fusion, may be worth $3 billion per metric ton, and there are millions of tons of helium-3 in the moon’s upper layer. This is one cause of the new gold rush to the moon.[17] Lunar water deposits are being assessed to see if they can provide drinking water for military and commercial bases there. Moon tourism is being pursued internationally.[18] A Japanese startup even wants to put billboards on the moon.[19]

There are direct and immediate impacts to Earth from these space programs. They accelerate climate change and will eventually torch the climate if allowed to continue. Each fossil-fuel-burning rocket launch not only uses toxic chemicals and causes toxic fallout. They also put particulate matter and exhaust into the atmosphere, and destroy part of the ozone layer.[20]

For example, before leaving Earth’s atmosphere, each shuttle spewed thousands of pounds of metals and other chemicals into the air, including lithium, nickel, mercury [21], bismuth, manganese, aluminum, iron, and zinc. “People think of a shuttle launch as a short-term, finite event, but each launch expels a huge amount of debris into the atmosphere with the potential for long-term effects on the surrounding ecosystem. The plume contains hydrogen chloride, a strong acid. After launches, the pH of the [nearby] lagoons may plummet for a short time, rendering the water nearly as caustic as battery acid.” — John Bowden, environmental chemist at Hollings Marine Laboratory in Charleston, S.C., 2014 [22]

The Earth and its atmosphere have never experienced the sheer volume of launches planned. Dramatically worsening this are the thousands of rockets to put Wi-Fi and 5G satellites into earth orbit that began last year by Elon Musk/SpaceX and others.[23]

This is sheer insanity.

Congress continues to divert more taxpayer dollars into these extremely costly space projects — the next moon visit could cost trillions. This resource extraction from taxpayers robs cities, counties, and states of critical financial resources to solve real problems right here, especially now, while ignoring the planetary environmental cost.

Where are the environmentalists, the biologists, the ocean scientists, and consumer advocates?

We must break out of the NASA trance. Everything that is done to the moon has repercussions to Earth. “National security” is protecting Earth and the moon.

Human history with empires and invaders that subjugate and plunder is being repeated again, with an addiction to “command and control” permeating these space programs. These values and policies are opposed to life, peace, and a future. The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space just sponsored a webinar on these plans “War in Space — Weaponising the final frontier”.[24]

The film “Independence Day” got it wrong, and Pogo got it right – the enemy is human. Tell children the truth: astronauts are not heroes.

Humans must repair Earth and themselves first with all available creativity and resources, and the COVID19 shutdown has worsened everything. If humans are incapable of fixing the dire messes they’ve created on Earth, incapable of stopping wars, incapable of living cooperatively with their neighbors, then they cannot go off planet or contaminate anything else.

The future is at stake. The moon must be defended. Shut NASA and these space ventures down.

*

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.

Nina Beety is an investigative writer and public speaker on governmental policy, the environment, and wireless radiation hazards. She has written two reports for officials on Smart Meter problems which are on her website www.smartmeterharm.org. She lives in California.

Notes

[1] 2006. Bruce Gagnon is co-founder of Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

http://www.space4peace.org

http://www.space4peace.org/articles/nasa_moon_base.htm

[2] https://www.whitehouse(dot).gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-encouraging-international-support-recovery-use-space-resources/

[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exploration-moon-mining-exclusi/exclusive-trump-administration-drafting-artemis-accords-pact-for-moon-mining-sources-idUSKBN22H2SB

https://opiniojuris.org/2020/05/08/the-artemis-accords-one-small-step-for-space-law/

[4] https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/14/opinion-under-president-trump-america-is-again-leading-in-space/

[5] http://www.space4peace.org/articles/nasa_moon_base.htm

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon

https://www.rt.com/news/466856-lunar-orbit-rover-india/

https://www.rt.com/news/477248-india-third-moon-mission/

https://www.rt.com/news/456482-israel-second-lunar-mission-netanyahu/

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/why-nasa-wants-to-bring-back-96-bags-of-poop-from-moon/articleshow/68788626.cms

[8] http://mozilla.github(dot)io/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull12-1/12104700912.pdf

[9]

https://www.forbes.com/2009/10/12/nasa-bombing-the-moon-opinions-contributors-kenneth-anderson-glenn-harlan-reynolds.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218768/Revealed-The-flash-saw-Nasas-49million-bomb-crashed-Moon-quest-discover-water.html

[10] http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2012/11/project-a119-the-u-s-plan-to-blow-up-the-moon-2449996.html

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/15481803/us-planned-to-blow-up-moon/

[11] https://astronomynow.com/2016/04/01/moon-thought-to-play-major-role-in-maintaining-earths-magnetic-field/

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/how-moons-gravity-influences-earth

https://beta.iop.org/how-does-moon-affect-earth

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/how-does-the-moon-affect-life-on-earth.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/02/7-ways-earth-would-change-if-our-moon-were-destroyed/

[12] for example, www.cerncourier(dot)com/cws/article/cern/50778

[13] http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/moon/text

[14] http://www.space4peace.org/articles/nasa_moon_base.htm

[15]

https://www.whitehouse(dot).gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-encouraging-international-support-recovery-use-space-resources/

[16]

http://www.moondaily(dot)com/reports/US_Issuing_Licenses_for_Mineral_Mining_on_Moon_999.html

[17] http://www.space4peace.org/articles/nasa_moon_base.htm

[18] https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/02/space-travel-russian-companies-develop-unmanned-spacecraft-for-tourists/

[19] https://www.digitaltrends(dot)com/cool-tech/glowing-space-billboards-could-light-up-the-night- sky-in-2020/

[20] https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal/

www.stopglobalwifi.org

[21] https://www.peer.org/news/press-releases/mercury-may-reach-orbit-through-regulatory-blindspot.html

[22] http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2014/may/space-shuttle-contaminants

[23] https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/planetary-emergency/

[24] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shoeFQZculM

Anxiety is a widespread phenomenon that often accompanies people from the earliest days of childhood until old age. It is part of life and has many causes. When unscrupulous despots – whether medieval popes, modern dictators or so-called philanthropists – stir up this everyday fear from outside, they are concerned with satisfying their own greed for power and subjugating the peoples. In doing so they are “doing the work of the devil”. Most people react to this diabolical “game” of the rulers with a reflex of obedience or even with unconditional submission.

At present, totalitarian governments fuel people’s fear of a virus and aggravate the problem by denying freedom to their citizens and isolating them from their fellow citizens. Neurological anxiety disorders, psychosis or suicide are the consequences. However, adults with an open mind can get a grip on their anxiety reaction if they see through the lies of the ruling class and their hidden agenda – the establishment of a New World Order (NWO) – and support themselves with safe friends and in the community. In an emergency, psychological experts provide professional help.

In the Middle Ages, it was the Church that justified its claim to power by saying that the popes were appointed by God and maintained it by threatening those who would not obey the commandments of God with ending up in hell. These fears of hell continue to affect many contemporaries to this day.

Another example of the diabolical “game” with fear is the method by which dictatorships or even democracies win the common people over to war. In an interview in April 1946, one of the main war criminals of the Second World War, Hermann Göring, made the following statement:

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. (…) That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”(1)

Today it is the totalitarian governments of dictatorships and so-called democracies that are playing the diabolical game of fear. With the help of the journaille, they spread an enormous panic and do not let independent scientists have their say. They deny citizens fundamental freedoms and demand social distancing and spying on their neighbours. The inmates of old people’s homes are denied family visits, school children are denied the necessary education and learning together with classmates. Who will one day call these dishonourable politicians to account?

At present, a video excerpt of a speech by the former German “Atomic Minister” and later Bavarian Minister President Franz Josef Strauß from the early 1980s is circulating on the Internet, in which he is visibly outraged:

“Those who confuse people, who without reason cause them uncertainty, excitement and fear, are doing the work of the devil and not the work of God.”(2)

Even if Strauß did not mean his political colleagues with this statement, but demonstrators against the then planned reprocessing plant for spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors Wackersdorf (WAW), one can only agree with it completely.

But independently thinking citizens with an open mind are not at the mercy of this diabolical “game” of the ruling class. They see through their infamous lies and hidden goals and are in close contact with safe friends. They are also not deterred by the primitive manslaughter argument that a journalist or scientist with a different opinion from the mainstream is a “conspiracy theorist” from finding out about different opinions on a subject. In this way they can get their fear reaction under 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.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(1) Interview with Gustave Gilbert in the prison cell, 18 April 1946, Nuremberg Diary (1962; original edition: “Nuremberg Diary 1947”), p. 270 books.google. (en:Hermann Göring#Nuremberg Diary (1947) p. 278–279 books.google)

(2) Franz Josef Strauß on the politics of fear – www.youtube.com

This past Friday, May 8, the US Labor Dept. released its latest jobless figures. The official report was 20 million more unemployed and an unemployment rate of 14.7%.

Both mainstream and progressive media reported the numbers: 20 million more jobless and 14.7%. But those numbers, as horrendous as they are, represent a gross under-estimation of the jobless situation in America!

One might understand why the mainstream media consistently under-reports the jobless. But it is perplexing why so many progressives continue to simply parrot the official figures. Especially when other Labor Dept. data admits the true unemployment rate is 22.4% and the officially total unemployed is 23.1 million.

US unemployment rate (Source: Trading Economics)

Here’s why the 20 million and 14.7% is a gross under-representation of the magnitude of jobless today:

Only Half Month Data

First, the 20 million for April is really only for data collected until mid-April. Nearly 10 million more jobless workers filed, and received, unemployment benefits after mid-April. And likely millions more jobless have been attempting to get benefits but haven’t. Even officially, more 33.5 million have filed for benefits, with several millions more in the pipeline. So the April numbers of jobless—both receiving benefits and not yet getting them—are more than 20 million!

Only Full Time Employed Layoffs

An even greater misrepresentation is that the official 20 million unemployed represents only full time workers becoming unemployed. It’s the figure from the government report that is the category called U-3, or full time workers. There are between 50-60 million more workers who are part time, temp, contract, gig and otherwise ‘contingent’ workers (i.e. not full time) who are not considered in the 20 million and 14.7%.

Check out the Labor Dept’s own data, in Table A-8, which shows for March and April no fewer than 7.5 million part time workers became unemployed. In April jobless in this group doubled over the previous month, rising by about 5 million in April, according to the Labor Dept.’s own monthly ‘Employment Situation Report’. 5 million to 7.5 million represent what’s called the U-4 government unemployment rate.

But there’s still more. It’s what’s called the U-5 and U-6 unemployed. Who are they? They are what the government calls workers without jobs who are ‘marginally attached’ to the labor force and workers who are too ‘discouraged’. They are just as ‘jobless’ as full time and part time workers. But they’re put in another category simply because they haven’t actively looked for a job in the most recent four weeks.

You see the US government defines unemployed as that subset of jobless who “are out of work and actively looking for work”. If you haven’t looked in the last four weeks, you may be jobless but aren’t considered unemployed! Go figure. Add them to the U-3 unemployed, and the totals for unemployed in America rise to 22.4%. Add in those who filed for benefits in the last half of April, or tried to, and we get closer to the publicly admitted 33.5 million without jobs and receiving unemployment benefits.

The Disappeared 8 Million Unemployed

But that’s not even the whole real picture. The way the government defines unemployment a worker must be part of the labor force. The labor force is composed of two groups: those who have jobs and those who are officially unemployed—i.e. out of work and looking for work in past four weeks. If you are not looking, you’re ‘marginally attached’ (U-5, U-6). It assumes if you have stopped looking in the past four weeks you are part of the 850,000 ‘marginally attached’. But that figure is not credible. Somehow there are less than a million jobless who simply haven’t tried to find a job in the last four weeks? Really? There are many millions.

A government stat that suggests there are likely millions more not in the labor force who are jobless nonetheless is called the ‘Labor Force Participation Rate’. It estimates the percent of the working age population who either have a job or are officially unemployed.

There’s approximately 164.5 million employed/officially unemployed in the US labor force as of May 1, 2020. In February 2020 the labor force participation rate was 63.4% of the US labor force. As of May 1, that had dropped to only 60.2%. That means roughly 8 million had dropped out of the labor force. And remember: if they aren’t in the labor force they can’t be counted as unemployed. So where did the additional 8 million dropping out go?

The US government doesn’t consider them unemployed so they don’t show up in the U-3 or even U-6 statistics! But if they aren’t in the labor force they are jobless by definition. Perhaps 850,000 are counted as the ‘marginally attached’. But what about the remaining 7.2 million or so? The government has no category for them except the estimation of them in the labor force participation rate. It tries to explain the large number away by saying they retired or went back to school. But did 7.2m (63.4% in Feb. drop to 60.2% in April) retire in 2 months? And they certainly can’t have gone back to school in mid-March/April 2020.

Another government statistic that corroborates this ‘missing 8 million’ in the labor force participation rate is called the Employment to Population Ratio stat. It measures how many are in the labor force as a percent of the total US population of nearly 340 million.

If the EPOP percentage goes down, then fewer are working even though they’re obviously still alive and part of the US population. That figure has declined from 61.1% of the US population employed to 51.3% of the population employed as of May 1, 2020. That’s a nearly 10% drop. 10% of 340 million is about 34 million. And 34 million is not 20 million for April, or even the Labor Dept.’s total 23.1 million.

So both the labor force participation rate and the employed to population ratio both suggest the Labor Dept.’s official U-3 (or even U-6) unemployed figures are grossly under-representations of the total Americans without jobs today.

Voluntary Jobless Are Not ‘Unemployed’

One possible reason for the discrepancies between the official unemployed of 23.1 million vs. the 33.5 million receiving benefits, or the 7-8 million not being counted per the labor force participation rate and EPOP ratio, may be due to the government in this current crisis choosing not to count as unemployed those workers forced to leave work since February to care for dependents.

Remember the government’s driving definition of unemployed is the worker must be ‘out of work and actively looking for work’. Millions of workers who have been forced by the current crisis to leave their job to care for elderly and disabled family members, or to care for young children forced to stay home due to school closures, are not ‘actively looking for work’. Few Americans can afford nannys to watch their young children so they can work. But those in this situation are not considered unemployed by the US Labor Dept. because they don’t fit the definition of ‘actively looking for work’! It’s not clear how many in this category the Labor Dept. has recently refused to acknowledge as officially unemployed.

In America you may be jobless, but that doesn’t necessarily mean per the government you are unemployed!

The above stats and data show that the under-reporting of the jobless in the US is not some kind of conspiracy by the Labor dept. and the government. The data are there, buried in the monthly labor reports beyond the executive summaries. The government stats, moreover, are not perfect. There are serious problems related to raw jobs data recovery, to the various assumptions on that raw data the government makes to come up their jobs ‘statistics’ (always operations on raw data with assumptions which data to count and how). There are conflicting conclusions often between this or that data or statistic. Furthermore, in recent years changes in statistical processing have sought repeatedly to change definitions and processes in order to ‘smooth out’ swings in the statistics—whether employment, unemployment, wages, or inflation. The government has a vested interest in ensuring the smoothing. It reduces government (and especially business) costs of programs and operations.

If there’s a conspiracy of sorts, it’s in the media that purposely seems to always ‘cherry pick’ the most conservative stat to report. Thus we get the media trumpeting every month the nearly worthless statistic of the U-3 unemployment rate—a stat that applies only to full time workers and ignores part time, temp and other contingent labor who make up now nearly a third of the US labor force; a statistic based on a narrow definition of unemployed that has become an oxymoron when estimating unemployed; a statistic based on questionable assumptions and data gathering; and a statistic that can’t be reconciled with other statistics like the labor force participate rate.

The real unemployment rate is not the U-3 figure of 14.7% but easily 25% today. And the real total jobless are not the U-3 20 million, or even 23 million, but somewhere between 35-40 million… and rising!

However, what’s really disappointing is that many progressive and left economists simply parrot the government’s and mainstream media’s misleading U-3 statistic. One can understand why the corporate mainstream media keep pushing the U-3 stat and thus trying to make the unemployment situation look better than it is (or today not as bad as it is). But progressive economists should know better.

 

*

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. Rasmus is author of the just published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, January 2020; and the previously published ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes, Clarity Press, August 2017. He blogs at jackrasmus.com and tweets at @drjackrasmus and hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, Fridays at 2pm eastern time. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The pandemic has shown the need for medical care and interventions that have nothing to do with profit. But not even SA’s proposed National Health Insurance would fit the bill.

***

Covid-19 has been linked to a number of truth claims long made by activists in South Africa and around the world. Perhaps most glaring is the need for universal healthcare and fortified public healthcare.

Following the mid-March announcements of measures to deal with the pandemic and the global financial crisis, researcher Sameer Dossani argued that while universal basic income and other income supports would help boost flagging economies, Covid-19 reveals universal healthcare as the most important need.

More recently, researcher and writer David Hemson draws attention to the 4 960 critical care beds in South Africa’s private sector versus the 2 240 ones in the public sector. Hemson underlines that one of the most pressing questions is how the private beds will be used equitably as Covid-19 spreads to the uninsured majority in the face of conflicting claims from the minority with medical insurance.

Brought to the surface by the current pandemic, these issues beg for unity through a common analysis and popular mobilisation in terms of solutions. For advocates and activists from a wide spectrum of political views – Sibongiseni Dhlomo, Shehnaz Munshi and Oupa Lehulere, to mention a few – National Health Insurance (NHI) is the solution for South Africa.

Deeper analysis that draws on medicines being used to treat the pandemic and decades of public healthcare experience in other countries, however, brings out the fundamentally flawed model of the NHI. The analysis is also relevant for other African countries in which public health insurance similar to the NHI is being designed and discussed.

Cuba and medicines 

Interferon Alfa 2B is one of 22 medicines that Cuba is producing to treat Covid-19 internationally and a major antiviral used in China from the onset of the pandemic. The story of how the antiviral came into being helps paint a picture of people-oriented, decommodified public healthcare that stands in contrast to the proposed NHI.

Interferons are proteins produced and released by cells in response to infections. The release, in turn, prompts other cells to heighten their antiviral defences. Cuba began investing in interferons in the 1970s. Interferon Alfa 2B is a product of one of Cuba’s 31 state-owned pharmaceutical firms, which fall under the umbrella agency BioCubaFarma. These firms research and produce drugs and vaccines as per the healthcare needs of the majority in Cuba.

Developed to crush the Dengue virus outbreak in Cuba in 1981, Interferon Alfa 2B was successful and has since been used to fight hepatitis B and C, shingles, HIV and Aids in Cuba and elsewhere.

Like its use, the origins of Interferon Alfa 2B is also multinational. As economic and social history lecturer Helen Yaffe explains in a London School of Economics blog, interferons were first identified by London-based researchers in 1957. By the 1970s, United States oncologist Randolph Clark Lee shared successive work with Cubans during then-president Jimmy Carter’s easing of the US embargo on Cuba. Fidel Castro saw the promise of interferons for curbing infectious diseases typical in countries like Cuba.

By September 1981, having learned from Finnish doctors how to isolate human interferon and produce it en masse, Cubans created Interferon Alfa 2B to treat Dengue fever, which affected 344 203 people in 1981. Due to the success of the antiviral, only 158 deaths resulted from the outbreak.

Multinational as it is, Interferon Alfa 2B could not have been a project for the multinational pharmaceutical industry. This is because such a drug cannot realise the level of profit required by pharmaceutical corporations. Johnson & Johnson’s profit, for example, rose 1,077% between 2018 and 2019, despite more than 13 000 lawsuits concerning ovarian and lung cancers linked to the company’s famous baby powder. Looking further back and calculating from Fortune 500 annual figures, Johnson & Johnson has had average annual profit increases of 201% since 2015.

Beyond antivirals, Interferon Alfa 2B is one of 569 medicines produced in Cuba. This is two thirds of the 857 medicines approved for use in the Cuban health system. Comprising about 21 000 workers, including 6 158 university graduates — 270 with PhDs and more than 1 000 with master’s degrees — BioCubaFarma also contributes to foreign exchange generation. As of 2015, Cuban pharmaceutical and biotechnology products were exported to 49 countries. This includes China, which has a joint venture with Cuba to produce Interferon Alfa 2B and was the first country to add it to the list of medicines to treat Covid-19.

Implications for Africa

The lesson here for South Africa and other African countries is simple. For a continent that is struggling to strengthen public healthcare and suffering from poor population health as well as high unemployment, a people-oriented, decommodified model like Cuba’s can turn healthcare into a means of transformation.

The production of health goods that prioritises the needs of the majority – and trains and employs local people in the process – helps strengthen population health while keeping costs down. It also avoids the draining of resources and lives as in the Johnson & Johnson case of soaring profits and destructive products. In addition, healthcare production driven by the needs of the majority creates the potential for exports that spread yet greater good.

In South Africa, this could take shape by socialising the private healthcare industry, which the government’s own health market inquiry has found is controlled by just four mega-corporations: Remgro, AfroCentric Investment Corporation, the Life Healthcare Group and Netcare. They own and control a number of sub-sectors that range from pharmaceutical production, pharmacies, hospitals and homes for the ill and elderly to medical scheme administration and managed care.

The monopoly of these four corporations has evolved largely after 1994 and, like many other aspects of the post-apartheid economy, is a problem that can be rectified now for the benefit of the majority. If activists mobilise around socialising the private health industry, it would be a people-centred solution for the long term, far beyond temporary solutions such as the nationalisation of healthcare industries in Spain and Italy to tackle Covid-19.

This contrasts sharply with the private health industry-dependent model of the NHI, which amplifies the current organisation of public healthcare in which the state subcontracts to private firms. As is well known in South Africa and has been documented for several European countries which have divided public healthcare between the state as funder and private firms as care providers since the 1980s, the major results are under-delivery of goods and services and wastage of public funds through overpricing, corruption and patronage.

Socialised, decommodified universal healthcare also contrasts with models of public healthcare like Canada’s, where delivery of hospital care is fully public but dependent on privately produced pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. Over the past 50 years, this dependence has meant that an increasing proportion of public funds has gone to pharmaceutical and medical equipment firms like Johnson & Johnson, while hospital funding has fallen to a bare minimum. Clearly this is not the model of universal healthcare that can take on epidemics and pandemics the way Cuba’s system has and continues to do.

As Covid-19 relief packages in many countries suggest, the risk of neoliberal solutions is high, with the largest share of benefits going to big employers, banks and other corporations rather than workers, the underemployed and the unemployed. Health systems are also at risk of being shaped and reshaped along neoliberal capitalist lines – unless activists seize the moment. The fast spread and multiple impacts of Covid-19 make the demand for decommodified, fully non-profit, people-driven universal public healthcare the basis from which to begin rebuilding society in South Africa and beyond.

*

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 Shutterstock

Sino/US relations are more dismal than at any time since Nixon’s 1972 meeting with Mao during his weeklong visit to China.

Are bilateral differences irreconcilable? Is the breach between both countries too great to restore more cooperative relations?

Is a new trade war inevitable? Has it already begun unnoticed?Has a new Cold War begun that could turn hot?

Mistrust and friction between both countries continue worsening.

On the one hand, bilateral differences stem from Trump’s reelection strategy.

His manipulating the public mind blame game aims to shift responsibility for failure to effectively address the US public health issue and economic collapse onto China.

A far greater issue is wanting the country’s rise on the world stage as a political, economic, industrial, technological, and military powerhouse undermined — a prescription for longterm friction and possible confrontation.

Trump’s Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy director Peter Navarro said

“(w)e are at war. Make no mistake about that. The Chinese unleashed a virus on the world (sic).”

Big Lies repeated endlessly get most people to believe them. Recent Gallup poll data show two-thirds of Americans view China mostly or very unfavorably.

Russia and China are jointly viewed as America’s greatest enemies — despite both countries at peace, pursuing cooperative relations with other countries, threatening none, in contrast to US war on humanity at home and abroad.

Like other hardline members of both right wings of the US war party, Navarro wants China to pay damages for COVID-19 outbreaks — what it had nothing to do with.

The Big Lie has taken on a life of its own. No letup is likely through November presidential and congressional elections.

As long as dire US main street economic conditions continue, what’s likely longterm, China bashing will likely persist, falsely blaming its ruling authorities for made-in-the-USA misery.

Michel Chossudovsky explained that COVID-19 outbreaks gave US ruling authorities, Wall Street, and other dominant corporate interests “a pretext…to trigger the entire World into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair.”

Their diabolical scheme is all about consolidating corporate America to greater size and market dominance by “eliminat(ing) (maximum numbers of) (s)mall and medium sized” enterprises.”

Their plot is aided and abetted by the Wall Street owned and controlled Fed — handing trillions of dollars in free money to major banks and other corporate favorites while the White House and Congress give crumbs alone to millions of ordinary Americans in need, leaving them largely on their own during the hardest of hard times.

Given weakness in China’s economy and export markets, along with calls in the US to bring back offshored production in the country, it’s highly unlikely that Beijing will purchase $200 billion worth of US goods and services above 2017 levels in 2020 and 2021.

According to China’s Global Times (GT) on Monday, unnamed sources in Beijing are urging a renegotiation of the so-called phase one trade deal with the US — because of China’s weakened economy and hostile Trump regime rhetoric and threats, adding:

“(A)dvisors close to the trade talks have suggested Chinese officials rekindling the possibility of invalidating the trade pact and negotiating a new one to tilt the scales more to the Chinese side…based on force majeure provisions in the pact,” — unforeseen circumstances that prevent fulfillment of the deal.

One unnamed source told GT that “(i)t’s…in China’s interests to terminate the current phase one deal. It is beneficial to us.”

Another source believes that the US can’t start another trade war because of its collapsed economy.

Chinese Academy of Social Sciences trade expert Gao Lingyun said “China knows how to respond (to a renewed US trade war war), and it is able to retaliate quickly and inflict serious harm on the US economy” ahead of its November elections.

According to the US-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), China’s purchases of US goods will fall way short of what was agreed on in the phase one deal.

It estimates about $60 billion worth of US imports in 2020, far short of $186 billion to fulfill its annual commitment.

CSIS analyst Scott Kennedy believes that even if Chinese purchases of US goods and services increase later this year, the “overall picture” won’t change, “just the details,” adding:

“The targets were never realistic. They were just gaudy numbers meant to impress. The pandemic made the unrealistic the impossible.”

Q I US energy exports to China fell 33% year-over-year. Commercial aircraft sales were virtually zero. US auto exports to the country were down by nearly 50%, soybean exports lower by 39%.

When Q II numbers are reported, they’ll likely be worse across the board, what lies ahead highly uncertain for a protracted period during troubled economic times.

Dismal Sino/US relations are more likely to worsen than improve ahead — heightening the risk that escalating Cold War could turn hot.

*

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.

More than 500 UK Jewish students and youth movement members have put their names to a letter urging the Board of Deputies to speak out against what they claim are the Israeli government’s plans for the ‘’unilateral annexation of the West Bank”.’

The letter, sent to the Board’s honorary officers, warns that the organisation’s historical support for a negotiated two-state solution with the Palestinians will be ‘’impossible to achieve’’ if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu goes ahead with the proposed annexation of a portion of the West Bank.

It goes on that the Board’s ‘’relevance’’ to the younger generation will be questioned if it does not speak out.

Among those supporting the letter – whose signatories say they are ‘’a true friend to Israel’’ and in favour of a ‘’Jewish and democratic state’’ – are J-soc members from many  universities and youth movements including Habomim Dror, FZY, LJY-Netzer and Noam.

And with many signatories listing their shul affiliation, it is evident the campaign has attracted support from young United Synagogue members.

The Board’s under-35 representative Noah Libson is among the signatories – alongside senior figures from Yachad and the Jewish Labour Movement.

Jack Lubner, one of the group behind the letter, told the JC it was initiated ‘’because we were angry and worried about annexation and wanted the communal organisations to take a stance.’’

A video circulating online to promote the campaign under the headline We Need To Talk features brief statements from supporters who say annexation would be “a violation of international law’’ and would risk Israel becoming ‘’undemocratic.’’

Mr Lubner, the JLM’s youth and students officer, added:

“The huge response to this campaign clearly shows that young British Jews are in consensus when it comes to annexation.

‘’We want the Board of Deputies and other communal organisations to listen to our concerns and represent them.”

The letter claims annexation would lead to the collapse of security co-ordination with the Palestinian Authority and Jordan and highlights statements from ‘’former Israeli generals of Shin Bet, police and Mossad’’ warning that ‘’this unilateral action is a security nightmare for Israel”.

It adds that the campaign is ‘’not about rejecting Israel and Zionism but defending a vision of them which does not compromise our broader belief in democracy and equality.

“Serious questions regarding the relevance of the Board of Deputies for our generation,” would be raised if it did not speak out.

Mr Lubner also told the JC:”Our community has a deep and strong relationship to Israel, based on our shared Jewish values of peace and justice.

‘’Being a good friend to Israel means speaking up when these values are under threat, so that we can strengthen our only Jewish state. None of us can afford to keep quiet in the face of annexation, which will endanger Israel as a secure, Jewish, democratic state.”

Last week, Board president Marie van der Zyl spoke of the UK debate around Israeli government actions, highlighting her concern “that the Jewish community stays together as a community at what is clearly a divisive time”.

*

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 former Polish Minister of Defense accused Germany of conspiring with a few other foreign actors to replace the patriotic Polish government with Europhile puppets, arguing that the country’s latest political controversy over the date of its presidential elections is proof of an attempt being made to carry out regime change in this geostrategically positioned country.

The powers-that-be behind the banning of “Plandemic” and the disparaging and slandering of Dr Judy Mikovitz are obviously afraid of something that will expose them for planning something evil. Tyrannical corporate forces, starting with Google and YouTube and the CDC and Big Pharma and the MSM have kicked into high gear before any more of us ‘Sheeple” are allowed a chance to view some unwelcome truths that are considered dangerous to the powers-that-be.

There have been any number of pro-over-vaccination trolls that are being well-compensated by Big Pharma/Big Vaccine corporations (that have ruled the world for awhile now) by recommending the banning of the documentary. Examples include any number of similarly-ignorant, shameful lobbyist/troll “journalists” that write for newspapers like the Times, the Post, the Herald, the Tribune, the Daily News, the Journal, the Chronicle, the Register, the Observer, the Sentinel and virtually every other Big Pharma/Big Vaccine-controlled major media outlet all over America and the world.

I urge readers to watch the Pandemic clip before it has been banned

Click here to watch the documentary.

*

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 Kohls is a retired rural family physician from Duluth, Minnesota who has written a weekly column for the Reader Weekly, Duluth’s alternative newsweekly magazine since his retirement in 2008. His column, titled Duty to Warn, is re-published around the world. 

He practiced holistic mental health care in Duluth for the last decade of his family practice career prior to his retirement in 2008, primarily helping psychiatric patients who had become addicted to their cocktails of psychiatric drugs to safely go through the complex withdrawal process. His Duty to Warn columns often deals with various unappreciated health issues, including those caused by Big Pharma’s over-drugging, Big Vaccine’s over-vaccinating, Big Medicine’s over-screening, over-diagnosing and over-treating agendas and Big Food’s malnourishing food industry. Those four entities can combine to even more adversely affect the physical, mental, spiritual and economic health of the recipients of the medical treatments and the eaters of the tasty and ubiquitous “FrankenFoods” – particularly when they are consumed in combinations, doses and potencies that have never been tested for safety or long-term effectiveness.

Dr Kohls’ Duty to Warn columns are archived at: 

http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2;

http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls;

http://freepress.org/geographic-scope/national; https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/gary-g-kohls/; and 

https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

The UK’s covert propaganda programmes in war-torn Syria were poorly planned, probably illegal and cost lives, according to a scathing internal review of the initiative that has been seen by Middle East Eye.

Using news agencies, social media, poster campaigns and even children’s comics, communications companies working under contract to the British government attempted to undermine both the Assad government and the Islamic State group and bolster elements within the Syrian opposition.

The UK embarked on its propaganda efforts in the country in 2012 and stepped them up dramatically the following year as the government sought to maintain a strategic foothold after parliament had voted against any British military intervention in the conflict.

The series of programmes was given the codename Operation Volute, and those involved in the work talked not of propaganda, but of “strategic communications”, or “SC”.

However, a review that was conducted during the summer of 2016 concluded that the “fundamental shortcomings” of the initiative included “no conflict analysis [and] no target audience analysis”.

The review also reveals concerns within government about the need for the programmes, which were pushed most enthusiastically by the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) from 2013 onwards because of “policy restraints” imposed by the vote against military action.

Too many projects appeared to be completed because “we had to be seen to do things” or were designed to impress the US government, the review concluded.

“Projects have pushed quick wins and shallow, numbers-driven outputs,” it said.

It concluded that there was a “major risk” that some of the government contractors’ activities were “in contravention of UK law”, although the authors do not spell out how they believe the law may have been broken.

Moreover, so much material was being produced by the propagandists that they had created “a constellation of media outlets”, in which “Syrian audiences and activists got lost and were distracted” and people no longer knew who or what to believe.

‘Lack of understanding’

The review examined two programmes that were managed by a unit within the MoD called Military Strategic Effects, and two managed by a group within the UK foreign office called the Counter-Daesh Communications Cell.

A fifth was managed by a cross-government programme called the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF), which aims to tackle conflicts that threaten UK interests.

Four of the programmes were outsourced to British communications companies, some of them run by former army officers or intelligence officers. These companies set up offices in Istanbul and Amman, where they recruited Syrians to carry out much of the day-to-day work. A fifth was outsourced to a polling company based in the United States.

The five programmes were intended to amplify the work of Syrian citizen journalists; bolster groups that the British considered to be part of what it termed “the moderate armed opposition”; counter violent extremism; and encourage dissent among members of Syria’s Alawite communities, from which the ruling Assad family comes.

Syrian staff recruited further Syrian workers, who were employed as “stringers” inside the country. Many were unaware that the projects that they were working on were being funded and managed by the British government.

Initial blueprints for at least three of the five the programmes were drawn up by an anthropologist working in counter-terrorism for the foreign office in London.

Their combined budgets from the UK government came to £9.6m ($11.9) during 2015-16, with more money earmarked for later years. The review noted that the programmes were intended to be guided by a strategy drawn up by the government’s National Security Council (NSC), but concluded that that strategy was both “weak” and “opaque”.

Many in the British government appeared to be unclear about what strategic communications could and could not achieve, the review found, and among government officials there was said to be “a lack of understanding about what the Syrian audience really wants and thinks”.

There was also said to be “a tension between the behavioural changes the SC programmes envisage (which are long term) and the short-term opportunistic aims of the CSSF programme”.

‘Reputational damage’

The review criticises a “lack of coherence” between the different strands of the programme and a “duplication” of efforts. It also highlights the complexity of working with Syria’s ever-shifting opposition forces, warning of “potential credibility damage and/or reputational damage to HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] if links between certain MAO [moderate armed opposition] and UK HMG funding leaks.”

The review addresses the deaths of some of the Syrian staff, but is not critical of this aspect of the work.

It says that that “some IPs [implementing partners] have lost several staff members”. One of the contractors is described as having “suffered losses of core staff that damaged the organisation quite fundamentally”.

One of the communications companies delivering UK government propaganda programmes was said to appear to be “an aggressive commercial organisation” which took both personal and political risks.

“There is a danger that they go too far and therefore take risks that may have an indirect negative impact for those through whom they work,” the review found, adding that there was a need to “rein in” the contractor.

The programme’s stringers and the “moderate armed opposition” on which they were reporting were also acknowledged to have caused unspecified harm: “Stringers or MAO are operating in an environment dominated by armed groups undertaking work which could cause (and has caused) harm following their activities.”

Enthusiastic military 

The review acknowledges that concerns were being expressed both inside and outside the programme.

In 2013, it says, the only UK government ministers who had been fully committed to launching new strategic communications programmes in Syria – in the absence of any British military activity on the ground – were those at the Ministry of Defence.

Some in the British government continued to “ask themselves whether taxpayers’ money should be spent on some of the activities of the programme”, while there was also said to be “substantial doubts about the programme among some HMG partners”.

But the UK’s MoD remained enthusiastic, the review said, not least because “the annual cost of the programme (i.e. non-kinetic targeting) represents extraordinary value for money given current policy restraints”.

Nevertheless, the review questioned the costs of the programme, and advised that all of the communications companies were “long overdue an intrusive external financial audit”.

Some of the programmes were intended not only to achieve behavioural change among Syrian audiences, the review noted, but also to gather “very useful” intelligence, particularly on the alliances, tactics and activities of opposition forces.

One of the communications companies was providing intelligence to international military forces based on information provided by a network of 240 stringers working on one online forum.

A key benefit of the propaganda programmes was assessed to be the British government’s “connectivity to different (armed or non-armed) networks”.

However, the review concluded that more thought needed to be given to the balance to be struck between the requirements of the British government and the needs of the Syrian people.

The best way to do this would be “to make sure that the structures that emphasise intelligence gathering are separated from the communications structures aimed at targeting the Syrian audience”.

The review does not question the UK government’s decision to run propaganda programmes in Syria, and says that “focus group discussions, anecdotal feedback and surveys indicate that target audiences bonded with products and took up intended messages, demonstrating that project delivery has been effective”.

Opposition fighters had been given training in international humanitarian law as part of one programme, and one campaign was said to have “brought about behavioural change in pro-regimists”, as it had successfully encouraged them to speak out about the number of people who were being detained by the Assad government.

The UK’s foreign office declined to answer a series of questions about the internal review of its propaganda operations in Syria.

The department declined to say whether the effects hoped for were weighed against the risk to life; how many people died; and whether the UK was supporting their dependents.

It also declined to answer questions about the risk that UK propaganda operations contravened UK law, and would not say whether government ministers had read the review.

Overall, the reviewers regarded the UK’s propaganda programmes as a failure. Asked to give them a mark of A*, A, B or C, the reviewers gave them a B, meaning that they concluded that “outputs moderately did not meet expectation”.

*

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 Syria News

“I was 21 and looking for work in 1932, one of the worst years of the Great Depression, and I can remember one bleak night in the Thirties when my father learned on Christmas Eve that he’d lost his job. To be young in my generation was to feel that your future had been mortgaged out from under you – and that’s a tragic mistake we must never allow our leaders to make again. Today’s young people must never be held hostage to the mistakes of the past.”  —Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), American actor and politician, former Governor of California and 40th U.S. President, 1981-1989, (in an address to the Nation, on Oct. 13, 1982.)

“In the Great Depression in which I grew up and remember vividly, unemployment was over 25 percent, and over 35 percent where I lived. A grown man would work all day, 16 hours, for a dollar. I remember hundreds of people walking by, people who had come down from the North just to get warm. They would come to our house as beggars even though they might have a college education. People didn’t have money. They bartered; they’d trade eggs or pigs. It was just completely different.“  —Jimmy Carter (1924- ), 39^th U.S. president (1977-1981), (in an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, on Feb. 4, 2009, talking about his book ‘An Hour Before Daylight: Memories Of A Rural Boyhood‘, published in 2001.)

“The 1929 [Great] Depression was so wide, so deep, and so long because the international economic system was rendered unstable by British inability and U.S. unwillingness to assume responsibility for stabilizing it by discharging five functions: (1) Maintaining a relatively open market for distress goods; (2) providing countercyclical, or at least stable, long term lending; (3) policing a relatively stable system of exchange rates; (4) ensuring the coordination of macroeconomic policies; (5) acting as a lender of last resort by discounting or otherwise providing liquidity in financial crisis.”  —Charles Kindleberger (1910-2003), American economic historian, and author of The Great Depression 1929-1939, 1973, revised and enlarged in 1986. (Quote in, The World in Depression, 1929-1939 (2nd ed., 1986), Ch. 14: ‘An Explanation of the 1929 Depression’.)

So far, it can be said that central banks and governments in most advanced economies have acted correctly to prevent the economic lockdown of large segments of the economy from turning into a total economic disaster. They have, at least, saved the day.

At the microeconomic level, nevertheless, there has been costly inefficiency when wage replacement programs had the unintended consequences of creating labor shortages in the very essential sector of health care centers and nursing homes.

Indeed, many deaths caused by the virulent coronavirus occurred in under-staffed institutions, where the contagion remained unchecked for months as some workers quit their job to qualify for a government wage stipend. In the haste to inject money into the economy, funds were dished out to unqualified corporations, which should not have received them. —On the whole, however, the main macroeconomic objectives seem to have been attained and the worse case scenario seems to have been avoided.

It has been estimated, according to a compilation made by Bloomberg, that governments around the world have committed themselves to spending some $ 8 trillion in fiscal measures, excluding central banks’ intervention, to prevent their economies from collapsing. The question now is to know if such a large injection of purchasing power has been enough to prevent a severe recession from turning into a long lasting economic depression.

5 to 10 percent decline in GDP, and possibly more, is not out of the question for 2020 in total

In the United States, preliminary figures for the decline in the real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during the first quarter of 2020 are not giving a complete assessment of the total economic damage caused by social distancing measures and the closure of many businesses. Indeed, it is estimated that the economic decline during the first quarter of 2020 was 4.8% of GDP, at an annual rate. It is reasonable to expect that the second quarter, which runs to the end of June, will likely show a more important decline.

That is why an economic decline of 5 to 10 percent for all of 2020 can be expected in the United States, and possibly even more, if there is a second and a third wave of coronavirus infections in the fall and next winter, as some experts have been predicting.

What to expect in Canada? The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that Canada’s real GDP could decline 6.2 per cent in 2020. This assumes that most of the decline would have occurred during the first half of the year, with a rebound during the second half, as the economic lockdown is progressively lifted. —That figure could be too optimistic. As a matter of fact, the Canadian economy is expected to suffer somewhat more from the economic lockdown than the U.S. economy because of the collapse of the relatively important oil sector.

The relative importance of the service sector

It is important to realize that today’s advanced economies have a larger share of production of services than of goods or products (primary sector: agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining; secondary sector: construction, manufacturing, energy, etc.). For example, the tertiary service sector (consumer personal services, health care, education, retail and wholesale commerce, financial services, tourism, transportation, media, culture, etc.) accounts for 80 percent of GDP in the United States, and it is also where 80 percent of the jobs are.

In Canada, because of the importance of the resource sector, the service sector accounts for only 70 percent of GDP, but it employs about three quarters of Canadians.

All this to say is that the decline in production during the current economic lockdown is really a loss. This will not be fully recovered when the economy rebounds. There cannot be an inventory of services.

As a preliminary conclusion, we can say that even with an important economic bounce back in the second half of 2020 and in 2021, as many economists expect, this would far from erasing the economic damage already done by the lockdown, during the first half of this year.

In the U.S., a 5 percent decline in real GDP for 2020 as a whole would mean a loss of output of some $1.1 trillion US. However, in the event of a more pessimistic scenario of a 10 percent decline in GDP, this could translate into a loss of output of some $2.1 trillion US.

In Canada, similar percentages would entail a loss of $117 billion CAN, in the first scenario, but a loss of $234 billion CAN, in the second scenario.

A paramount objective: To stop the advent of a persistent structural deflation

The need for central banks and governments to intervene massively in such a time of viral and economic crisis is to prevent the economic downturn from turning into a structural deflation.

A structural or malignant deflation is the result of insufficient demand in an environment of excess capacity, and that may be the consequence of an aging population. The result is a persistent downward pressure on prices and wages. Such an economic condition happens when numerous sectors (ex. financial markets, agriculture, energy, mining, etc.) experience falling prices when firms are forced to reduce prices to move their inventories in an environment of stagnant demand. This results in a drop in profits and in the demand for labor. With a high level of unemployment, wages fall with prices, and a dangerous downward wage-price spiral can be set in motion.

Indeed, when an economy faces declining asset prices, business closings and massive unemployment, banks, companies and consumers with the most debt suffer great financial losses under a crushing debt burden. This could lead to bank closures, loan delinquencies, business defaults and bankruptcies and house mortgage foreclosures… and also to lower prices and wages, and less demand. This could transform an ordinary economic recession into a full-ledged economic depression, with unemployment rates above 20 percent and lasting many years.

Deflation can bring on a destructive debt deflation

In an economy loaded with debts, as is the case presently in many economies, the advent of a structural deflation can signify a death knell for any sustainable future economic growth. Indeed, the Achilles heel of the current economic environment is the historically high level of debt as compared to Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Here is a quick look at the level of the U.S. total debt picture in mid-2019:

1. Total U.S. corporate debt (nonfinancial corporate debt of large companies, debt of small medium sized enterprises, family businesses, and other business debt) was $15.5 trillion or 72% of American GDP.
2. Total U.S. consumer debt (credit cards, auto loans, student loans, home mortgages and other household debt) was $13.95 trillion or 65.2% of GDP.
3. Total U.S. government debt (outstanding debt owed by the federal government) was $22.7 trillion or 106.1% of GDP.

All together, the total nonfinancial U.S. debt level in 2019 was about $52 trillion or 243% of GDP, for an economy that produces around $22 trillion annually of goods and services. It’s like having a 500-pound man riding a pony.

With soaring budget deficits of some $3.7 trillion in 2020-21 and of about $2.0 trillion in 2021-22, the total U.S. government debt alone could reach $27.7 trillion next year.

When there is no expected inflation, governments may rely on the central bank to purchase newly issued treasury bonds and let the money supply increase. This is not an option, however, that is open to heavily indebted private companies and consumers. The latter may have no other choice but to default on their debt, or severely curtail their expenses.

For the immediate future, the economic consequences of such a debt deflation could put an important brake on the strong recovery that many observers expect, once the pandemic crisis has run its course and the economy returns to normal.

The leveraged loan market

To add to all public and private debts, policy makers and regulators should keep an eye on the largely unregulated $1.2 trillion leveraged loans market, which is a market for speculative or low-grade high-yield corporate loans.

These relatively new debt instruments are somewhat reminiscent of the 2007-2008 subprime mortgage fiasco, which led to the 2007-2009 Great recession. They could be the first category of debts to collapse if the current recession were to deepen.

Conclusion

It is very unusual that a major public health issue is intertwined with a major economic decline. In the current double-crisis world, nobody can predict with certainty what will happen in the coming years.

That is why I submit three possible scenarios of things to come: A short-term optimistic scenario in which everything goes as wished; a mid-term stagflation scenario when both inflationary pressure and slow economic growth go side by side; and, a more pessimistic scenario, in which widespread deflation and wrong responses and bad policies combine to push the economy into a prolonged economic depression.

1. An optimistic scenario: Everything turns out just right, public bailouts are enough to prevent the onset of a structural deflation, and the unfolding of a dangerous debt deflation spiral is avoided. Unemployment returns to its historical levers. —It is based on the assumption that the threat of a virus contagion fades away permanently, and does not linger on for months, if not for years. Moreover, it is expected that disturbed commercial supply chains are easily reestablished without destructive trade wars.
2. A mid-term stagflation scenario: The current state of affairs gives rise to important shortages in certain lines of production; prices jump and there are calls for some form of rationing; and stagflation sets in. Unemployment remains high.
3. A more pessimistic scenario: After years of fiscal irresponsibility and the piling on more and more debt, the current economic recession turns into a full-fledged global economic depression and the economy struggles under a process of debt deflation. Policy mistakes are made and are a repeat of the 1930’s errors, i.e. rising interest rates, a contracting money supply, beggar-thy-neighbor trade policies, which combine to precipitate a worldwide economic depression where every country loses. Unemployment remains stubbornly above 20 percent for many years.

Geopolitically speaking, as judging by some repetitive aggressive rhetoric, again and again, the Trump administration (Trump himself, Pompeo, Kushner, Miller, etc.) seems to be tempted to start a war, commercial or otherwise, with China and/or with Iran. Such an occurrence could throw gasoline onto the fire and turn a bad situation into an economic disaster, with a galloping inflation, even possibly hyperinflation on the horizon. This does not happen often, but such events did occur in the past.

Therefore, there are many reasons why it would seem to be too early to declare victory on the economic front and think that everything will go back to normal, once the viral crisis subsides and the economic lockdown is completely lifted.

—Only time will tell.

*

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, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, of the book “The New American Empire”, and the recent book, in French « La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018 ». He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization  (CRG)

Please visit Dr. Tremblay’s site:http://rodriguetremblay100.blogspot.com/

The southern part of the Idlib zone has once again turned into a hot point with the Syrian Army and al-Qaeda militants openly clashing with each other.

On May 10, fierce clashes erupted between the Syrian Army and forces of the coalition of al-Qaeda-linked militant groups, wa-Harid al-Mu’minin, in northwestern Hama. Terrorists stormed army positions in the town of Tanjarah and seized it after a series of clashes. Intense artillery duels were also reported in al-Ankawi, al-Qahirah, Qulaydin, Kafr Uwayd, Mawzarah, Kansafrah and Ayn al-Arus. Early on May 11, the Syrian Army launched a counter-attack and recaptured Tanjarah. According to pro-militant sources, 37 soldiers and 24 militants were killed.

Earlier, on May 9, wa-Harid al-Mu’minin launched 4 rockets at Russia’s Hmeimim airbase from its positions in the village of Tardin in northern Lattakia. The rockets did not reach the airbase and fell into farmlands.

On May 8, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) struck a position of the Syrian Army near the town of al-Burayj with an anti-tank guided missile injuring several soldiers. On the same day, the army captured two field commanders and a fighter of the Turkish-backed militant group Jaysh al-Ahrar near Saraqib.

The situation is destabilizing not only on the contact line, but also inside the militant-held part of Greater Idlib itself.

On May 10, unidentified gunmen attacked a headquarters of the Turkish-backed Sham Corps near the town of Binnish in eastern Idlib. This became the second attack on the group in the last few days. On May 7, gunmen stormed the group’s HQ near the towns of al-Fu’ah and Kafriya. Pro-Turkish sources claim that the attacks were staged by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham or its allies like wa-Harid al-Mu’minin and the Turkistan Islamic Party.

These attacks happened despite the recent Turkish tactical deal with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to de-block the M4 highway near Nayrab and allow extending the joint Russian-Turkish patrols west of Saraqib. In return, Ankara stopped opposing the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham decision to open a commercial crossing between the militant-held part of Greater Idlib and the government-controlled area in western Aleppo and impose fines on the commercial traffic there.

However, the contradictions between the sides are too high and the de-escalation did not last for a long time. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its allies openly sabotage Ankara’s attempts to at least formally demonstrate that the March 5 de-escalation agreement reached in Moscow is being implemented successfully.

A series of ISIS attacks targeted positions and personnel of Syrian forces in the province of Raqqah. On May 7, Lt. Col. Ahmed Mohamed, an Air Force Intelligence Directorate officer, was killed in Dibsi ‘Afnan. On May 10, an IED explosion struck an army vehicle near Resafa reportedly killing 2 soldiers.

Meanwhile, on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, the US-led coalition and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces carried out a series of anti-ISIS operations. The most widely-covered of them took place in the village of al-Zawr. Two supposed ISIS members blew themselves up, while a third one was detained. Pro-US sources speculate that this was a high-ranking ISIS member. Some of them even speculated that he was Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, the current leader of the terrorist group.

*

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.

Support South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Dr. Francisco Durán, national director of Epidemiology of the Cuban Ministry of Public Health, reported on  Sunday that a considerable part of the population will be given tests to detect possible positive cases of COVID-19.

Durán explained that a representative sample of the population in provinces and municipalities will be taken on Tuesday, May 12, to know in real time the progress of COVID-19 with tests known as TCR, which detect the new coronavirus before the disease manifests itself.

The case is to detect cases in apparently healthy people in regions that have not reported numerous infections with COVID-19 on the island and act accordingly, Durán said in his traditional press conference to offer a balance on the state of the pandemic in the island.

The tests will be carried out in remote parts of the island to detect if cases of COVID-19 have developed in those sites that have not been previously detected to carry out a major intervention, he said.

Massive studies will begin in Cuba to find cases of coronavirus and study the contacts that may have been made, in order to reduce the spread of the pandemic in the Caribbean country, he said.

Both pharyngeal examinations and rapid tests look for cases that are important in the transmission of the disease, the spread of which is three times faster than other known coronaviruses.

The great alarm that exists for this coronavirus is due to its contagion power, which is why it is necessary to maintain confinement and health measures, he considered.

On May 9, Cuba reported 12 new positive cases for COVID-19, along with three dead and 53 medical discharges, Dr. Francisco Durán reported at a press conference.

1,824 patients have been admitted to hospitals for clinical epidemiological surveillance, while 4,081 people are monitored at home from primary health care.

The doctor specified that 1,826 samples were studied on Saturday, and 13 samples were positive. The country accumulates a total of 67,335 samples made and 1,766 positive cases.

*

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: Cuba has been fighting the coronavirus within their own borders, while also providing aid to several countries across the world. | Photo: Granma

Madagascar President Andry Rajoelina has slammed the World Health Organization for not endorsing its COVID-19 herbal cure.

Last month, the Malagasy president officially launched Covid-Organics (CVO), an organic herbal concoction, claiming that it can prevent and cure patients suffering from the novel coronavirus.

“If it were a European country which had discovered this remedy, would there be so many doubts,” he said in an exclusive interview with France 24, Paris-based international television news network and Radio France International.

”The problem is that it comes from Africa. And they cannot accept that a country like Madagascar, which is one of the poorest countries in the world, has discovered this formula to save the world,” he added.

The World Health Organization (WHO) had warned against the use of CVO without any medical supervision and cautioned against self-medication. The WHO further said that they have not approved the concoction for the patients suffering from COVID-19.

On Thursday, the WHO, however, has called for clinical trials of CVO.

“Covid-Organics is a preventive and curative remedy against COVID-19, which works very well,” said President Rajoelina.

He attributed recovery of 105 COVID-19 patients in Madagascar to the herbal potion.

“A marked improvement was observed in the health of the patients who received this remedy just 24 hours after they took the first dose. The cure was noted after seven days, even ten days. This remedy is natural and non-toxic,” he said.

Madagascar has donated CVO, which is claimed to cure the COVID-19 to several African countries.

Last week, the African Union in a statement said it is talking with Madagascar to obtain technical data regarding the safety and efficiency of the herbal remedy.

*

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 AA

Many are very angry at Boris Johnson’s pre-recorded speech last night to the nation, not least, his own cabinet who were essentially left out of the discussion prior to recording. I’ve also spoken with a few members of the Tory backbenchers who are not satisfied that the speech did anything at all to help business and there is growing anger that the government is losing control of the crisis.

The leaders of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are unified – they are not doing what Westminister is telling them to do because the messaging around government by slogan has gone wrong. Boris Johnson is losing the informational war quite quickly now, is getting desperate and is visibly shifting the blame onto the public.

The Prime Minister is urging millions of non-essential workers to go out to work – but also telling people they still can’t see family or friends even if they maintain the same social distancing rules as non-essential workers at work. This is not supposed to make sense – it is designed to cause confusion because the very same people who convinced millions to vote for Brexit and for Johnson at the last election don’t mess up messages like this.

Even the MSM media is moving against the PM.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy – Channel4 News opines – “It seems to me the significant thing that happened tonight was that the government placed responsibility for the infection rate on the public taking sensible decisions. So if infections and deaths go up again it will be the public not the government that caused it.”

Adam Boulton – political editor at Sky News asks: “I’m confused? What when where how?”

Robert Peston ITV says – “So it turns out a maximum of one person per household can meet OUTSIDE and at a 2m distance from a maximum of one person from a different household. So you can see your mum, without your dad, and only if she isn’t elderly or frail and needing to be shielded. Clear?”

Laura Kuenssberg from the BBC had nothing to say!

Comedian Matt Lucas posted a 17-second video on Twitter than in just a few hours had been watched over 2 million times. It focused on Boris Johnson’s mixed message.

The No1 trending hashtag in Britain last night was #BorisHasFailed

At first glance, it is easy to come to the conclusion that it’s hard to imagine a greater display of inept leadership and muddled thinking than Boris Johnson just put out there. But there’s a plan in play here – and its a desperate one.

First, it was the experts who got thrown under a bus by Johnson’s team as they saw they were losing the propaganda war. They are now attempting to distance themselves from a government becoming more toxic by the day. Then it was Public Health England who realised they are next in the firing line and are fighting their own battles to ensure blame is deflected away from them – and as TruePublica quite rightly predicted, third in line is Matt Hancock, who last night ended up defending himself publicly against negative briefings over his competence.  Finally, of course – the public will be at fault.

All of this is confirmation that the Boris Johnson government have completely failed the challenge that COVID-19 has brought. For perspective, Japan is an island nation and has a full democracy that punishes its leaders for failure and especially for lying to the electorate. It has a population of 126 million – has had 624 deaths at 5 deaths per million as a result of COVID-19.  The UK has a population of 67 million had nearly 32,000 officially recorded deaths at 429 deaths per million (source: worldometer)

If ever there was a demonstration of abject failure it is that the UK government has failed its people miserably and with deadly consequences – and is then attempting to blame them for it.

*

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 TP

As the Beatles once put it, “I read the news today, oh boy…” One might argue that the “oh boy” has been part and parcel of one’s morning media review ever since 9/11, but depending on one’s own inclinations, the daily content might well be considered particularly depressing over the past several years. As regular readers of Unz.com [and Global Research] will already know, my particular perception is that the American “special relationship” with the Jewish state has been a disaster for the United States and for the entire Middle East region, to include even Israel itself.

Israel has used the uncritical U.S. support it has enjoyed since the time of Lyndon Johnson to pursue unwise policies vis-à-vis its neighbors that have drawn Washington into conflicts that would have been avoided. It has meanwhile exploited the power of its formidable domestic lobby to bleed the U.S. Treasury of well over $100 billion in direct grants plus three times that much in terms of largely hidden trade and co-production arrangements approved by a subservient Congress and endorsed by a controlled media.

In return, the United States has wound up with a “best friend and ally” that has spied on the U.S., stolen its technology, corrupted its government processes and lied consistently about its neighbors to create a casus belli so Americans can die in pointless wars rather than Israelis. The Lavon Affair and the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty reveal that Israel’s government will kill Americans when it suits them to do so, knowing full well that the sycophants in Washington and the Jewish dominated media will hardly whimper at the affront.

Over the past three years Donald J. Trump has delivered on his promise to be the “best friend in Washington that Israel has ever had.” He appointed his own bankruptcy lawyer and arch Zionist David Friedman as U.S. Ambassador, a man who clearly sees his mission as promoting Israeli interests rather than those of the United States. Israel has illegally exploited an American green light to declare all of Jerusalem its capital and Trump has obligingly moved the U.S. Embassy to suit. The Jewish state, which has inevitably declared itself legally to be “Jewish” and no longer anything like a democracy, has also illegally annexed the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and is now preparing to assimilate much of the formerly Palestinian West Bank. Expulsion of nearly all remaining Palestinians, even the ones who are Israeli citizens, will no doubt come next and has in fact been called for by some Jewish politicians. The extreme Israel-philia embraced by the White House and Congress has, inter alia, meant unrelenting hostility towards both Iran and Syria, neither of which poses any real threat or challenge to the American people or to any genuine U.S. interests.

Friedman has even distorted the State Department’s use of the English language, the “occupied” West Bank is now referred to as “disputed” or “contested.” Friedman, who has disregarded existing U.S. law by contributing to Israel’s illegal settlements, has consistently served as an apologist for Israeli snipers shooting unarmed demonstrators in Gaza and for his much beloved rampaging settlers destroying the livelihoods of Palestinian farmers.

The record is appalling, thank you Mr. Trump, but, to return to the “news today,” an article that appeared last Thursday in the Jerusalem Post still had the power to make me spill my cup of coffee in disbelief. The headline read “Friedman: Second Trump term could take U.S.-Israel ties to next level.” I was not sure if I wanted to read the piece at all as I feared that it would probably mandate transferring the U.S. Treasury Department to Jerusalem and placing the Pentagon under the control of Benjamin Netanyahu. Meanwhile, we Americans would be required to cross through checkpoints when traveling between states and would only be able to find Untermensch work growing cabbages on a sprawling network of kibbutzes.

As it turned out, of course, the Friedman interview with Jerusalem Post journalists was all about Israel, not the United States, even though there was some vague nonsense about the Trump so-called peace plan munificently ending most conflict in the Middle East region and thereby benefiting Americans. Friedman began with “We need to maximize mutual benefits of the relationship in ways I don’t think have happened before. The only limits are one’s imagination as to where we can go.” If Friedman meant that the U.S. has not reaped any of the “mutual benefits” he is undoubtedly correct, but somehow I don’t think that was his intention. And there certainly has been a lot of imagination in the convoluted and often hidden Israeli Lobby schemes to bilk the American taxpayer over the course of the past 75 years.

Friedman characterized the situation before the Embassy move as “We were applying a double standard to Israel, relative to every other country in the world. We were telling Israel, you don’t have the right to choose your capital city… And it’s not just any capital; it’s Jerusalem.” Wrong, Dave. The problem with Jerusalem is that the Jewish state wanted its capital on land that it controlled but did not own under international law and through the agreements that led to the founding of Israel. Pretending that there is some special right through divine providence doesn’t change that one bit.

Friedman also had the interesting sidebar comment that illustrated just how warped the Trump view of Israel actually is. Apparently, Friedman and the president-elect had discussions on moving the Embassy prior to inauguration day “with some officials predicting that he was going to announce the move the same day as his inauguration on January 20, 2017. That didn’t happen, Friedman said, because first conversations were needed in all of the different government offices – State Department, the Pentagon and more.” That Trump was willing to highlight and promote a major pander to the Israel Lobby on the very day he was inaugurated is more than just telling, it is bizarre.

Symbols are apparently also dear to the heart of David Friedman. “Americans who support Israel understand the significance of Jerusalem. It’s what the Statue of Liberty, the Lincoln Memorial, Plymouth Rock and Valley Forge are… Because America was founded on those types of principles, Americans profoundly understand the importance of Jerusalem to the State of Israel.” Friedman added that retaining symbols like Hebron, which is in the Jewish people’s “biblical DNA” is also an important element in the Trump “peace plan.”

Whoa, David, it’s convenient to cite the American experience to justify what Israel is doing but the United States at least ostensibly was founded on the principle that “all men are created equal.” Israel is by law an apartheid state based on religion. And when last I checked Hebron was a predominantly Palestinian city under military occupation to protect the settler interlopers who are working hard to drive out the original residents. It is the site of the 1994 Ibrahimi Mosque massacre of Palestinian worshippers carried out by Brooklyn-born Jewish fanatic Baruch Goldstein. Twenty-nine Palestinians were killed. Yes, “biblical DNA” seems to fit just right if one considers the fate of the Canaanites.

And Friedman had something to say about the planned July 1^st Israeli annexation of “West Bank settlements, biblical sites and the Jordan Valley.” He provided a Trump Administration green light saying “We will be ready to address this issue if Israel is ready. Ultimately, as Secretary Pompeo said, it’s Israel’s decision. They have to decide what they want to do.” According to Friedman, the Trump administration’s “vision for peace” would allow Israel to directly annex 30% of the West Bank and exercise control over most of the remainder, which would include “all settlements and the entire Jordan Valley.” The Palestinians would have no control over water resources or even their own airspace. Mapping the precise details is currently subject to “judgment calls in Israel’s court.” Note that all the critical decision making is by Israel with the full backing of the United States. The peace plan has been rightly characterized as a complete surrender to Israeli interests with the Palestinians having no say in the outcome.

Friedman also described the importance of sending a clear message to the Palestinians blaming them for everything to include the denial of basic human rights, which is in fact an Israeli specialty. “If you tell the Palestinians that no matter what happens, no matter how recalcitrant you are, no matter how malign your activities are, no matter how you fail to observe basic human rights for your own people – with all that, you still get to veto the rights of the Jewish people and the State of Israel and their unquestionable capital… it’s just the wrong signal.”

And where to go from here? Friedman opines that “the equation of U.S.-Israel relations needs to be flipped. Rather than Americans seeing themselves as helping Israel, they must realize how much Israel can do for the U.S. – for example, by putting groundbreaking Israeli innovations on the market in the U.S. first.” Sure, steal the technology, re-engineer it, and then quietly arrange sweetheart trade deals through one’s co-religionists to sell it back to the suckers in the United States.

The Jerusalem Post interview concludes with Friedman’s prediction that “Should Trump be reelected, there will be many more opportunities for deepening the connections between the U.S. and Israel.” If that is all true, we Americans might as well surrender our sovereignty right now and save ourselves the pain of going through another corrupt presidential election.

*

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.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

As the Arab states in the Gulf embrace Beijing to ease off their over-reliance on hydrocarbons and diversify economy by seeking Chinese investment and technology, A US official threatened that the shift could jeopardize their relationship with Washington.

Giving a caveat to decades-old American allies, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker warned they “have to weigh the value of their partnership with the United States” and his country wants its partners to “do due diligence.”

The top US diplomat for Middle East sought the regional nations to be wary of Chinese aid, describing it “predatory” and conveyed his concerns over the participation of Shenzhen technology giant, Huawei, in building the 5G infrastructure across the oil-rich region.

Huawei is working in Arabian Peninsula for more than 20 years and by the end of last year, 12 out 77 5G contracts it secured globally were in the Mideast. While Schenker conceded the US lags behind China on the fifth-generation technology, still looking at providing them with the alternatives was quite farcical.

After the reportedly drafting of a new rule by the US Commerce Department to allow domestic companies work with Huawei on setting standards for 5G networks, the eminence of world’s largest telecommunication equipment manufacturer has greatly scooped.

If the US government and industry officials believe that the Huawei placement in the Entity List had put the country at disadvantage, Washington’s expectation from the Gulf nations to restrict their access to the global leader is unwarranted and prying.

Schenker’s allegation about Chinese support to the Middle East is counterfeited too. Beijing’s aid of gloves, masks, reagents and ventilators and deployment of medical experts to the region is aligned with its international commitment with the international world to defeat the coronavirus.

Chinese display of solidarity with the regional countries – including Iran, Palestine, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Algeria and others – is the testament that its indiscriminate cooperation is purely humanitarian, without expecting any political leverage.

Gulf nations have appreciated China for its aid and guidelines that helped them in controlling the spread of Covid-19. Egyptian Deputy Speaker Soliman Wahdan, Palestinian government spokesperson Ibrahim Melhem and Arab League’s Assistant General Secretary Haifa Abu-Ghazaleh all praised Beijing’s timely assistance and experience-sharing that played a key role in limiting losses and containing crisis.

Although China relies heavily on the Mideast oil to meet its massive domestic energy requirement – it has skirted becoming part of any multilateral maritime efforts such as the US-proposed International Maritime Security Construct (IMSC), Operation Sentinel, or French-led European Union initiative Operation Agenor to ensure freedom of navigation in Arabian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Oman.

The obvious reason why Beijing turned down the opportunity to become part of these campaigns was that it did not want to stir tensions in the volatile waterways and have always intended to resolve all disputes through political dialogue and peaceful means.

Rebuttal by nearly all of the major EU members – including Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands – to join the IMSC alliance and launch its own naval effort – in a way backed Chinese stance as the European bloc also coveted to lower tensions in the region.

China too last December conducted joint naval drills with Iran and Russia in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Oman, which connects to Strait of Hormuz. As it aimed at protection of international trade, countering piracy, rescue operations and sharing tactical experiences – the maneuver could be dubbed entirely routine exercise in accordance with the international law and practices.

Beijing has an economic role in the Mideast though and a very important one. The bilateral trade between the two has grown to $245 billion while in 2018 alone; China had committed $20 billion in loans for reconstruction in the Arab world as well as $3 billion in finances to the banking sector. In Middle East and North Africa (MENA), five of the top ten e-commerce firms are Chinese.

Since China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) endeavors to elevate the comprehensive strategic partnership with Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and across the region – several visits to China by the regional state leaders, including six by Egyptian President Abdul-Fattah Al-Sisi since assuming office in 2014, describe the deepening and strengthening nature of relationship between them.

In addition to providing a mixture of concessional, preferred and commercial loans to support Mideast central banks and fund mega infrastructure projects – the currency swap agreements can help the Gulf nations to eschew the weaponization of dollar, used by the US to slap economic sanctions, and achieve a higher degree of financial stability since Chinese renminbi is set to play a stronger and significant role in international trade and finance.

For conflict-stricken Arab world that is facing economic losses of about 1.2 trillion with 7.1 million workers unemployed due to the Covid-19, China is a silver-bullet that can buy its oil and gas in large quantities and then again pour billions of dollars in loan and investment to build the infrastructure and transform the region’s economy, realizing its ambition of industrialization.

*

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.

Azhar Azam works in a private Organization as “Market & Business Analyst” and writes on geopolitical issues and regional conflicts.

It was a moment the UK public had been waiting for days, ever since it was reported in several British newspapers that lockdown restrictions were to be lifted from Monday. But although people may be weary after seven weeks of following the government’s ‘Stay At Home’ advice, Prime Minister Boris Johnson did not, as some may have hoped, end the current social distancing rules. Instead, the British people have been asked to continue to stay at home and ‘Stay Alert’.

We’ve heard a great deal about government ‘messaging’ over coronavirus. For weeks now politicians and journalists alike have spoken of how crucial it is that the government gets its messaging right to get the public on side during this pandemic. And yet, far from providing greater clarity on the UK’s future coronavirus response, Boris Johnson’s recorded message aired on Sunday night seems to have caused nothing but confusion. The Twittersphere is full of memes mocking the PM. What does Stay Alert actually mean? And if the lockdown remains in place, then what is the difference between Stay Alert and Stay At Home?

To further aggravate the situation, Scotland, Wales and England are out of sync in their messaging. The leader of the Welsh Nationalists, Adam Price, said Johnson’s advice was ‘confusing and dangerous’.  In a tweet he added ‘You cannot stay alert to something you can’t see. There is no clearer and simpler message than #StayAtHome’.  A disgruntled First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted earlier on Sunday that she had first heard of the new ‘Stay Alert’ slogan when she read the newspaper headlines, revealing that Boris Johnson had not conferred with her before pressing ahead with his updated message.  Then at her daily press conference Sturgeon confirmed that the main message given out in Scotland would remain as ‘Stay At Home’. She said that the government’s advice to allow people to visit their parents at a 2m distance ‘risks lives’ and suggested Boris Johnson should make it clear in his addresses to the nation that he is referring to England, as Scotland may be in a slighter later phase in the outbreak. There are fears that the change to ‘Stay Alert’ may result in the misperception that lockdown is over, and that we may see even more scenes such as those over the holiday weekend when crowds gathered in parks and on beaches.

The ‘muddled messaging’ has provoked some opposition politicians, like Diane Abbott, to question if the government is caving into pressure from the business community to get Britain back to work. The Bank of England said last week that Britain was on track for the worst recession in 300 years and that the economy would be 30% smaller by the end of this year. In fact it’s been reported that the cabinet is divided over how soon restrictions should be lifted, with Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove concerned about the economic consequences of a continued lockdown.  It is said that Boris Johnson and Health Secretary Matt Hancock (who both incidentally fell victim to Covid-19) are more perturbed by the potential threat of another spike in cases if lockdown is lifted.

What Boris Johnson did manage to convey in his message on Sunday night was, as he put it, a ‘sketch’ of a future ‘roadmap’ of Britain’s return to normality. With graphs and charts he hinted at a future date for reopening shops and schools – June 1st. But with paths between the devolved nations already diverging in their approach to the pandemic, it’s looking increasingly likely that Scotland and Wales may forge their own routes out of lockdown, independent of Westminster.  The discord between the different nations on the next phase of the pandemic planning will only boost the Scottish and Welsh nationalist causes. Nicola Sturgeon already sails high above Boris in the opinion polls for her handling of the crisis, with hashtag #movetoscotland gaining traction on Twitter. As I have mentioned previously, Scotland has set itself apart from the rest of the UK by its handling of Covid-19, and does not have the same crippling shortages of Personal Protective Equipment – vital for reducing infection rates in hospitals – as there are south of the border.

How each devolved government handles the crisis in the coming weeks and months will therefore have a long-term impact on independence movements. If, as is arguably already the case, Sturgeon demonstrates superior leadership skills over the crisis, this will only aid the Scottish independence movement. There’s a lot to play for.

*

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.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Featured image is from TruePublica

A Fresno, California waffle restaurant dared to open its doors for business this weekend to the delight of a long line of customers, who waited up to two hours for the “privilege” of willingly spending their money in a business happy to serve them breakfast on Mother’s Day. This freedom of voluntary transaction is the core of what we used to call our free society. But in an America paralyzed by fear – ramped up by a mainstream media that churns out propaganda at a level unparalleled in history – no one is allowed to enjoy themselves.

Thankfully everyone carries a smartphone these days and can record and upload the frequent violations of our Constitutional liberties. In the case of the waffle restaurant, thanks to a cell phone video we saw the police show up in force and try to push through the crowd waiting outside. An elderly man who was next in line to enter was indignant, complaining that he had been waiting two hours to eat at the restaurant and was not about to step aside while the police shut down the place. The police proceeded to violently handcuff and arrest the man, dragging him off while his wife followed sadly behind him to the police car.

It is hard not to be disgusted by government enforcers who would brutally drag an elderly man away from a restaurant for the “crime” of wanting to take his wife out for breakfast on Mother’s Day. A virus far more deadly than the coronavirus is spreading from Washington down to the local city hall. Tin pot dictators are ruling by decree while federal, state, and local legislators largely stand by and watch as the US Constitution they swore to protect goes up in smoke.

Politicians with perfect haircuts issue “executive orders” that anyone cutting hair for mere private citizens must be arrested. In Texas a brave salon owner willingly went to jail for the “crime” of re-opening her business in defiance of “executive orders.” To add insult to injury, Governor Greg Abbott very quickly condemned the one week jail sentence of salon owner Shelley Luther – but the officers who arrested her were only carrying out Abbott’s own orders!

First we were told we had to shut down the country to “flatten the curve” so that hospitals were not overwhelmed by coronavirus patients. When most hospitals were nowhere near overwhelmed, and in fact were laying off thousands of healthcare workers because there were no patients, they moved the goalposts and said we cannot have our freedom back until a vaccine was available to force on us or the virus completely disappeared – neither of which is likely to happen anytime soon.

Many politicians clearly see the creeping totalitarianism but lack the courage to speak out. Thankfully, patriots like Shelley Luther are demonstrating the courage our political leaders lack.

When Patrick Henry famously said “give me liberty or give me death” in 1775, he didn’t add under his breath “unless a virus shows up.” If we wish to reclaim our freedoms we will have to fight – peacefully – for them. As Thomas Paine wrote in 1776, “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

*

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 the Times of India / file photo

The French organization Cuba Linda has recommended awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Cuban medical brigades for their efforts to eradicate COVID-19.

“The international community is witnessing the solidarity of health professionals who leave their country to provide services and share experiences in other parts of the world, which in the case of the pandemic caused by the new coronavirus even reaches the heart of Europe” the organization reported Tuesday.

After highlighting the great work of Cuban doctors in saving lives in different parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America, the human rights organization stressed that the press cannot hide this solidarity that “causes surprise to many in Europe.”

The largest island in the Antilles has so far sent 21 brigades of health professionals to assist 20 countries in the world in their fight to eradicate the pandemic.

Cuba has sent hundreds of doctors and nurses to various countries around the world to contribute to the fight against COVID-19 while being the victim of the blockade and unfair pressure from the United States.

Likewise, it has successfully used the drug Interferon Alfa 2B, produced on the island, to treat the symptoms of the virus and, in fact, some 15 countries have requested to purchase this drug.

*

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: A brigade of Cuban health professionals, ready to deploy in a country affected by the new coronavirus. (Source: Orinoco Tribune)

For a long time I warned that our economic bubble would burst and that we would plunge into a nightmarish economic collapse.  Now it has happened, and it turns out that fear of COVID-19 was the “black swan event” that triggered the collapse.  The ironic thing is that COVID-19 is not even close to the worst thing that is going to happen to us.  But it was more than enough to topple our incredibly fragile economic system, and now tens of millions of Americans are deeply suffering.  On Friday, the April jobs report was released, and it was the worst jobs report in U.S. history by a very, very wide margin.  According to the official numbers, 20.5 million Americans lost their jobs during the month, and the unemployment rate shot up to 14.7 percent.  During the last recession, the unemployment rate peaked at about 10 percent, and we have already left that number in the dust.  The figures that we are seeing now are truly, truly horrifying, and what is even more frightening is that they aren’t even that accurate.

But don’t take my word for it.

On Friday, the U.S. Labor Department publicly admitted that the true unemployment rate in April was closer to 20 percent…

Millions of U.S. residents were counted as employed in April despite having no job, suggesting April’s true unemployment rate was closer to 20%, much higher than the official 14.7% reported, the Labor Department said Friday.

The jobless rate should have included people on temporary unpaid leave, furloughed because of the coronavirus pandemic, the government said.

I applaud the Labor Department for trying to be honest.  In the report, they openly admitted that an “additional 7.5 million workers” should have been classified as unemployed…

But responses to the survey by which the data was collected show 11.5 million people were categorized as employed but absent from work because of vacation, parental leave or other reasons, but including 8.1 million absent for “unspecified” reasons, a group that usually numbers about 620,000.

“One assumption might be that these additional 7.5 million workers …should have been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff,” a note attached to the government’s jobs report Friday said.

If those workers had been correctly classified, the official unemployment rate would have been about 19.5 percent, and that would have put us solidly in Great Depression territory.

But others have looked at the numbers and calculated that the true rate of unemployment should be even higher than that.

For example, Standard Chartered has calculated that the true rate of unemployment could be as high as 27.5 percent…

While it is true that what the BLS reported that the April unemployment rate (UR) was less than expected (14.7% versus consensus of 16.0%) and the drop in payroll employment of 20.5 million was also less than the 22.0 million expected, Standard Chartered bank has calculated that adjustments to the headline unemployment rate push the effective number of unemployed to 42 million and the effective UR rate to 25.5%, higher even than the U-6 underemployment rate of 22.8%. Worse, if one treats underemployed in line with the U-6 methodology, the true April unemployment number would rise to an mindblowing 27.5%.

So how did Standard Chartered arrive at those numbers?  The following is how Zero Hedge explained it…

How does one get these numbers? As the bank’s chief FX strategist Steve Englander explains, start with the 23.1 million unemployed as published by BLS. To this add 8.1mn people who have dropped out of the labor force since February (previously the labor force had been growing steadily, so these are likely unemployed).

Add back 7.5MM workers classified as ‘employed but not at work for other reasons’ – BLS states that these workers are likely misclassified as employed, when they are in fact unemployed. Involuntary part-time work for economic reasons has gone up by 6.6MM and we treat these as half-unemployed (i.e., a contribution of 3.3MM).

This totals almost 42 Million effectively unemployed.

And Standard Chartered is not the only one that has come up with such a high figure.

In fact, John Williams of shadowstats.com says that if honest numbers were being used that the U.S. unemployment rate would now be an eye-popping 35.4 percent.

Wow.

Of course everyone admits that things are really, really bad and that the numbers for next month are likely to be even worse.

If you can believe it, even White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett is admitting that the official unemployment rate is likely to surge above 20 percent in “May or June”…

White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett believes the unemployment rate could rise above 20% and the worst job losses would come in “May or June” because of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

When asked Sunday what the “bottom” of the country’s unemployment pain would be, Hassett, who advises the Trump administration on economic policy and is the former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, told CBS’s “Face the Nation,” “to get unemployment rates like the ones that we’re about to see … which I think will climb up toward 20% by next month, you have to really go back to the Great Depression to see that.”

And even once this pandemic fades, many of those jobs won’t be coming back.

Initially, many employers had anticipated that they would be bringing all of their employees back following a short, severe crisis.  But at this point reality is beginning to set in for many of them.

For example, a restaurant owner in Kentucky named Britney Ruby Miller has had to lower her expectations as this pandemic has dragged on…

In late March, Britney Ruby Miller, co-owner of a small chain of steakhouse restaurants, confidently proclaimed that once the viral outbreak had subsided, her company planned to recall all its laid-off workers.

Now? Miller would be thrilled to restore, by year’s end, three-quarters of the roughly 600 workers her company had to let go.

Yes, the state of Kentucky is starting to “reopen for business”, but for now her restaurants will “be limited to 33% of capacity” and there will be all sorts of other new expenses that Miller will be forced to deal with…

Yet business won’t be returning to what it was before. In Kentucky, the restaurants will be limited to 33% of capacity. They are putting six feet between tables in all their restaurants, thereby limiting seating. Miller estimates that the company’s revenue will plunge by half to three-quarters this year.

And expenses are rising because the company must buy face masks and other equipment for the workers it does recall and restock its food, drink, and equipment supplies.

There are very, very few restaurants that can be profitable under such circumstances.

Unless the state of Kentucky lifts those ridiculous restrictions, Miller may soon lose all of her restaurants and all of her employees may soon be permanently out of jobs.

Of course more layoff announcements just keep rolling in from all over America with each passing day.  The following examples come from the Wall Street Journal…

This past week, General Electric Co., Uber Technologies Inc. UBER 6.01% and Airbnb Inc. said they would lay off thousands of workers. MGM Resorts International MGM 4.42% warned that some of the 63,000 employees it has furloughed may be let go permanently starting in August. Aerospace supplier Raytheon Technologies Corp., RTX 2.91%  job-listings site Glassdoor and United Airlines Holdings Inc. UAL 11.74% also said in the past week that they had reduced jobs or planned to do so.

This is what an economic depression looks like, and it is going to be so incredibly painful.

And it is critical to understand that what we have experienced so far is just a warm-up act for the next chapters.

If you remember how bitter the last recession was, that should motivate you to take action to prepare for what is ahead, because this economic downturn is already even worse.

Yes, the months in front of us will be exceptionally challenging, but you can get through this.  Things may look really bleak, but for now you just need to keep hanging in there.

There will be life on the other side, but your future may end up looking far different than you originally anticipated.

*

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.

Michael Snyder is the publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, whose articles are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. He has 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.

Not only are the coronavirus models being used by WHO and the most national health agencies based on highly dubious methodologies, and not only are the tests being used of wildly different quality, that only indirectly confirm antibodies of a possible COVID-19 illness. Now the actual designations of deaths related to coronavirus are being revealed to be equally problematic for a variety of reasons. It gives alarming food for thought as to the wisdom of deliberately putting most of the world’s people–and with it the world economy–into Gulag-style lockdown on the argument it is necessary to contain deaths and prevent overloading of hospital emergency services.

When we take a closer look at the definitions used in various countries for “death related to COVID-19” we get a far different picture of what is claimed to be the deadliest plague to threaten mankind since the 1918 “Spanish Flu.”

The USA and CDC definitions

Right now the USA is said to be the nation with far the largest number of COVID-19 deaths, as of this writing, with media reporting some 68,000 “Covid-19” deaths. Here is where it gets very dodgy. The Government agency responsible for making the cause of death tally for the country, the CDC, is making huge changes in how they count so-called novel coronavirus deaths.

As of May 5, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, the central agency recording cause of death nationwide, reported 39,910 COVID-19 deaths. A footnote defines this as “Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19.” How a doctor makes the “presumed” judgment leaves huge latitude to the hospital and health professionals. Although the coronavirus tests are known to be subject to false results, CDC states that even where no tests have been made a doctor can “presume” COVID-19. Useful to note for perspective is the number of USA deaths recorded from all causes in the same period of February 1 through May 2, that was 751,953.

Now it gets more murky. The CDC posted this notice: “As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths.” From that time the number of so-called COVID-19 deaths in USA has exploded in an alarming manner it would appear. On that day, April 14, New York City’s coronavirus death toll was revised with a major 3,700 fatalities added, with the provision that the count now included “people who had never tested positive for the virus but were presumed to have it.” The CDC now defines confirmed as “confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19,” which as we noted elsewhere included tests of dubious precision, but at least tests. Then they define “probable” as “with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.” Just a guess of the doctor in charge.

Now leaving aside the major discrepancy between the CDC headline COVID-19 deaths as of May 5 of 68,279 and their detailed total of 39,910 deaths for the same period, we find another problem. Hospitals and doctors are being told to list COVID-19 as cause of death even if, say, a patient age 83 with pre-existing diabetes or cardiac issues or pneumonia dies with or without COVID-19 tests. The CDC advises, “In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID cannot be made but is suspected or likely (e.g. the circumstances are compelling with a reasonable degree of certainty) it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.’” This opens the door ridiculously wide for abuse of coronavirus death numbers in the United States.

A Big Money Incentive

A provision in the March 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, known as the CARES Act, gives a major incentive for hospitals in the US, most all of them private for-profit concerns, to deem newly-admitted patients as “presumed COVID-19.” By this simple method the hospital then qualifies for a substantially larger payment from the government Medicare insurance, the national insurance for those over 65. The word “presumed” is not scientific, not at all precise but very tempting for hospitals concerned about their income in this crisis.

Dr Summer McGhee, Dean of the School of Health Sciences at the University of New Haven, notes that,

“The CARES Act authorized a temporary 20 percent increase in reimbursements from Medicare for COVID-19 patients…” He added that, as a result, “hospitals that get a lot of COVID-19 patients also get extra money from the government.”

Then, according to a Minnesota medical doctor, Scott Jensen, also a State Senator, if that COVID-19 designated patient is put on a ventilator, even if only presumed to have COVID-19, the hospital can get reimbursed three times the sum from the Medicare. Dr Jensen told a national TV interviewer,

“Right now Medicare is determining that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you get $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator you get $39,000, three times as much.”

Little wonder that states such as Massachusetts suddenly began backdating cause of death totals back to March 30, significantly inflating COVID death numbers, or that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo began demanding 30,000 ventilators and emergency equipment around the same early April time, equipment that was not needed.

In short, the COVID-19 death statistics in the USA are highly dubious for a variety of reasons, not least huge financial incentives to hospital administrators who had been told to cancel all other operations to make extra room for a predicted flood of coronavirus ill. That rising death toll said to be “COVID-19 or presumed” impacts the decisions to lock down the economy and in effect create an economic pandemic of unparalleled dimension.

Italy COVID deaths?

Not only are USA COVID-19 death numbers open to serious question. If we look closely most major countries have equally dubious data. Until recently one of the highest COVID-19 death rates in the EU was Italy where outbreaks have been concentrated in the Lombardy and adjacent regions of the industrial north. Here again the definition of cause of death has been fuzzy. A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association by a group of Italian doctors who analyzed the alarming high covid-19 figures pointed out that when state medical authorities made detailed case examination of a sample of 355 covid-19 “presumed” deaths, they found that the mean age was 79.5 years. “In this sample, 117 patients (30%) had ischemic heart disease, 126 (35.5%) had diabetes, 72 (20.3%) had active cancer, 87 (24.5%) had atrial fibrillation, 24 (6.8%) had dementia, and 34 (9.6%) had a history of stroke. The mean number of preexisting diseases was 2.7. Overall, only 3 patients (0.8%) had no diseases.” That means that of the sample 99.2% had other serious illnesses.

In Italy, the persons who tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of preexisting serious illness, were listed as COVID-19 fatalities. Italy has the EU’S oldest population on average and the worst air pollution in the EU, especially in the Lombardy region. From the first case in early February until 6 May Italy has declared 29,315 COVID-19 deaths. This is more than the total of deaths in 2017 attributed to influenza and/or pneumonia which was reported 25,000.

The reason for the apparent spike should be seriously investigated, but reports of panic among hospital workers over the shutdown declaration by the Conte government, with thousands reportedly fleeing Italy for their home countries in Poland or elsewhere, might have also played a role. On March 31 a report from northern Italy stated, “In recent weeks, most of the Eastern European nurses who worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week supporting people in need of care in Italy have left the country in a hurry. This is not least because of the panic-mongering and the curfews and border closures threatened by the ‘emergency governments.’“

In many countries the picture is one of a predominately mild influenza-like infection with comparable death rates. The lack of uniformly agreed tests and the inaccuracies of many tests used, as well as the extremely doubtful criteria for declaring a cause of death as being “from” COVID-19 suggest that it is well past time to reexamine the unprecedented lockdown measures, social distancing, possible mandatory vaccines of unproven effect, all of which are creating what is becoming the worst economic depression since the 1930’s.

*

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 at 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.

Social Security and Medicare are insurance programs, not welfare — funded by equal worker-employer payroll tax deductions.

Self-employed workers pay what’s called the Self Employment Contributions Act (SECA) tax.

Both programs are federally established contractual obligations to eligible recipients, the most essential of all US social justice programs, along with Medicaid for disadvantaged Americans unable to receive medical care when needed any other way.

Established on August 14, 1935, the landmark Social Security Act became law during the depths of the Great Depression.

Known as the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program (OASDI), it provides retirement, disability, survivorship, and death benefits to seniors and other eligible recipients.

Despite phony claims otherwise, it’s not going bankrupt. When properly administered, it’s sound and secure, needing only modest adjustments at times to assure it.

On July 30, 1965, Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Social Security (Medicare) Act, enrolling Harry and Bess Truman as its first recipients.

Medicare is the nation’s largest health insurance program, covering 68 million Americans — about one-fifth of the US population, others on their own for increasingly unaffordable coverage.

It’s why tens of millions are uninsured, most others way underinsured in the world’s richest country, the only developed one without some form of universal coverage, a fundamental human right ignored by both right wings of the one-party state.

The program is for US seniors and individuals of all ages with end-stage renal disease (permanent kidney failure treated with dialysis or a transplant).

Trump regime hardliners and likeminded congressional members want both programs eliminated by starving them of funding.

Claiming it’s needed to reduce the growing national debt ignores countless trillions of dollars poured down a black hole of waste, fraud and abuse for militarism, the Pentagon’s empire of bases, endless wars, and lavish handouts to Wall Street and other corporate favorites.

On May 4, Social Security Works.org denounced the Trump regime’s diabolical aim to kill Social Security by underfunding it.

The same goes for killing Medicare — Medicaid to follow if GOP and undemocratic Dem hardliners get their way.

They want maximum federal funds going for smashing nations, homeland police state control, and more greatly enriching US billionaires, millionaires, and corporate America — at the expense of world peace, equity, social justice, and the rule of law, notions they abhor.

A press release by Social Security Works president Nancy Altman responded to Trump, saying:

“We’re not doing anything (for ordinary Americans in need) without a payroll tax cut” that’s all about wanting a stake plunged through the heart of Social Security and Medicare as a step toward killing both programs — Altman explaining the following:

“More than 30 million Americans are newly unemployed due to the coronavirus pandemic.”

“Their paychecks are gone, but their rent, utility, grocery bills and other expenses still must be paid.”

“Seniors in nursing homes are dying at alarming rates.”

“Hospitals are desperate, as are state and local governments.”

“Americans everywhere need immediate assistance, but Donald Trump has now vowed that they won’t get any — unless Congress bows to his demand to cut” payroll taxes.

In March, Trump said if reelected “(w)e’ll be cutting” worker/employer funded Social Security and Medicare insurance programs he falsely called entitlements.

Badly needed help for growing millions of unemployed Americans is held hostage by Trump’s unacceptable demand to cut payroll taxes.

Altman: “Trump’s actions are a war on seniors. He wants to open up the economy, even though COVID-19 is disproportionately costing seniors their lives.”

“Now he is insisting on threatening Social Security (and Medicare) which most seniors rely for their food, medicine, and other basic necessities.”

During the 1930s Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt and Congress created Social Security.

In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson and congressional members established Medicare.

As a recipient of both programs, I and other seniors like myself understand their importance.

What FDR, LBJ, and Congress created long ago, Trump and other hardliners infesting Washington want destroyed.

These programs and other social ones need strengthening, not elimination.

Reelecting Trump and a GOP-dominated Congress may be their demise.

By no means am I endorsing undemocratic Dems, far from it.

The nation I grew up in long ago no longer exists, just a distant memory of a time when a youth like myself with nothing special going for me had opportunities unavailable to most young people today.

With things more likely to worsen for ordinary people in the US ahead, not improve, an appropriate epitaph for the nation might read:

Here lies the American dream, dead, buried and gone, replaced by a society unsafe and unfit to live in for the vast majority of its people.

*

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.

A University of Pennsylvania Wharton School model isn’t encouraging.

Its analysis is world’s apart from what the Trump regime suggests.

Wharton warned that if US lockdowns are lifted nationwide, businesses reopen, and pre-COVID-19 activities resume, eight million cases and 350,000 deaths could occur by end of June — what it called a worst-case scenario.

If partial reopenings occur, the Wharton model estimates around 3.2 million cases by June 30, 2.2 million if lockdowns and social distancing continue.

Through Saturday, the US had 1,334,000 reported COVID-19 cases and over 79,000 deaths nationwide.

Economically, Wharton estimates an 11.6% decline in US GDP through June if lockdowns continue, a 10.7 drop if they’re partially lifted, a 10.1% decline if full reopenings occur nationwide.

Because of Trump regime indifference toward public health, little aid provided to states, inadequate testing, and reports of false diagnoses, it’s unclear how widespread COVID-19 outbreaks and deaths are at this time.

They may be much higher or lower than official numbers, making it hard to assess the true severity of the problem, let alone to what extent it may be long-lasting.

Wharton Professor Kent Smetters warned that if states fully reopen, a worst-case scenario would be likely, “using currently available models.”

The Wharton model predicts around 160,000 US deaths through June if partial reopenings and social distancing continue.

Its best case scenario estimates around 115,000 US deaths by June 30.

It’s clear that the SARS CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome) virus that produces COVID-19 disease is highly contagious.

It disproportionately affects the elderly, obese, and individuals with weakened immune systems.

The Mayo Clinic believes continued social distancing may “become inevitable” — at least during cold weather months because “many respiratory viruses circulat(e)” in winter, notably seasonal flu/influenza.

Contact tracing is more complex, near-impossible if lockdowns end and people resume normal public activities.

According to findings of a study just published in Infection, Genetics and Evolution, scientists discovered around 200 SARS-CoV-2 mutations — meaning a combination of drug therapies may be needed to treat infected patients.

Co-study author Professor Francois Balloux said the following:

“So far we cannot say whether SARS-CoV-2 is becoming more or less lethal and contagious” because of its numerous mutations.

“A major challenge to defeat viruses is that (treatments developed) might no longer be effective if the virus has mutated.”

“If we focus our efforts on parts of the virus that are less likely to mutate, we have a better chance of developing drugs that will be effective in the long run.”

Economic collapse is far more devastating to the vast majority of Americans and others abroad than spreading COVID-19 infections.

The effects of the former will be long-lasting. Hundreds of thousands of shut down small business may never reopen, millions of jobs permanently lost.

Many states and cities furloughed large numbers of public employees because of lost income and sales tax revenues that won’t be recouped for some time, maybe years.

Around half of US household members are either unemployed or working fewer hours for poverty wages and few or no benefits.

World’s richest America is a nation of countless millions of food insecure people nationwide, tens of millions without health insurance.

Current dire economic conditions way exceed the worst of Great Depression years for most ordinary Americans at a time when the nation’s ruling authorities and majority of lawmakers are indifferent toward public health and welfare.

The America I grew up in long ago no longer exists.

It’s the wrong time to be young and/or poor and disadvantaged in the United States of I Don’t Care!

*

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 Morning Star

Big Pharma and its minions such as Anthony Fauci and Robert Redfield are determined to use Covid-19 to vaccinate us all at the expense our lives and pocketbooks.  They are using the media, grant-dependent professionals,  medical journals, and the presstitute media to conduct a campaign of disinformation about an inexpensive and successful treatment in order to pave the way for a likely unsuccessful, possibly dangerous, but very profitable vaccine.

The successful treatment is hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin and zinc. Hydroxychlorquine has been used for decades to treat malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis and has a decades long record of safety.  Despite its record of safe useage, Big Pharma and its hired hands have concocted a disinformation story that if you take it you will have a heart attack.  As Trump endorsed hydroxychloroquine, everyone who is against Trump for other reasons has picked up Big Pharma’s line as it is another avenue toward the goal of discrediting Trump.

The fact of the matter is that medical doctors involved with Covid-19 treatment report highly successful results with hydroxychloroquine.  I have posted a number of reports in which doctors and renowned scientists report the effectiveness and general safety of hydroxychloroquine.

See, for example: this and this.

The reported success of vitamin C in the treatment of Covid-19 is also subjected to disinformation by Big Pharma and its minions. 

The obvious disinformation campaign against successful and inexpensive treatments of Covid-19 has led many to the conclusion that the Covid-19 “pandemic was pre-planned from the beginning” (see this for example).

Whether pre-planned or not, Big Pharma and Bill Gates intend to cash in big time with a Covid-19 vaccine.  In effect, Big Pharma and Bill Gates and their associated scum are murderers.  They are killing people with their campaign against effective and affordable treatment.

This might strike some gullible people who trust the system as an excessive accusation, but Big Pharma has long made it clear that profit comes before life.  Dr. Peter C. Gotzsche, professor of clinical research, director of the Nordic Cochrane Center, and chief physician of Rigshospitalet and the University of Copenhagen has documented that Big Pharma’s “medicines” are the third largest killer after heart disease and cancer (see this).

We have been sold on vaccines in the face of evidence of the harm they do to some people and  the fact that they are used despite an imperfect understanding of the human immune system.  Moreover, coronaviruses are not of a class that permits effective vaccines.

But we are going to get one whether or not it is effective and whether or not we want to be vaccinated. Bill Gates is working to make sure vaccination is mandatory for all. Otherwise you cannot leave your home or your FEMA containment center. Money is pouring not into known effective treatment but into vaccine research as companies and countries race for a patent.  Bill Sardi reports that Chicago has “already purchased the syringes and spotted locations for vaccination stations” (see this).

Americans need to come to grips with how money has corrupted everything. So many of the people and institutions we formerly relied on to speak truthfully are now dependent  on grants from corporations, government agencies, and self-interested donors with agendas that truth is the casualty.  Yes, scientists will now lie for money.  Universities will produce “studies” that advance the donor’s agenda. Physicists dependent on Washington’s grants will hold their tongues when presented with obviously false claims such as massively constructed steel buildings built to withstand airliner collision collapsing into dust because of isolated low temperature fires and strikes by flimsy aluminum airplanes.  

There are a number of ways that studies can be designed to produce a conclusion that a specific treatment is or is not effective.  Consider hydroxychloroquine.  A study can get poor results from this treatment by using it as a late stage treatment when Covid-19 has advanced beyond treatment.  This appears to be the case with the New England Journal of Medicine report that “hydroxychloroquine use was not associated with a significantly higher or lower risk of intubation or death” (see this).

Like any disease, successful treatment needs to begin early, not at a late stage.  The many doctors who report success with hydroxychloroquine stress that the treatment should begin early and not be used only as a last resort.  It turns out that the NEJM study was funded by the National Institute of Health, a Big Pharma influenced organization that is hostile to a cure as opposed to a vaccine.  It is also curious that the article, “Observational Study of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19,” was quickly published in a few weeks instead of the usual lengthy time required to clear the peer-reviewed process.  And it is also curious that many were primed to use the study to discredit hydroxychloroquine despite the inconclusive study.

A corrupt establishment and media that can sell us 9/11, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Iranian nukes, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, a Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russiagate and a large number of other lies can also sell us on locking up a successful treatment in the closet while we await a vaccine.

Many decades ago George Stigler at the University of Chicago said that the trouble with regulation is that all regulatory agencies end up captured by the businesses they are tasked with regulating.  Thus we see that the EPA is in the hands of polluters, bank regulation is in the hands of bankers, telecommunication regulations—5G for example—is in the hands of tech companies who stand to profit, and approval of new medicines is in the hands of Big Pharma as is the curriculum in medical schools. Doctors are trained to connect symptoms with tests and when confirmed by a test, the doctor looks up online the specified Big Pharma treatment.

My generation grew up without vaccines and without all of the associated illnesses associated with vaccines among the over-vaccinated youth of today. Today vaccinations begin at birth and increase into high numbers.  Does the natural immune system ever develop?

That is an irrelevant question.  The driving force behind vaccination is profit, not health. If we want a health system instead of a death system, Big Pharma must be nationalized and run by scientists on salaries without patent rights and “performance bonuses.”

*

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.

May 8 marks the 75th anniversary of the Allied armies’ victory in Europe, the day when they accepted the formal surrender of Nazi Germany after a bitter, six-year-long struggle that saw tens of millions killed in fighting, famines or exterminated in death camps. While many novel socially-distanced celebrations across the world are going on, some large corporations are laying low in the knowledge that they actively collaborated with and helped Hitler’s war machine.

Standard Oil, a huge monolith now split up into a myriad of smaller ones, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, and Marathon, was crucial to both prolonging and intensifying the bloodiest conflict in human history. In the 1930s and 1940s, only the United States and Venezuela produced large quantities of oil. Starved of the substance, Germany was almost completely dependent on imports from the Western hemisphere, which Standard Oil dominated. Even after the United States declared war on Germany, it continued to use a great array of tricks to fuel Germany’s war effort, quietly filling up German tankers in the Spanish Canary Islands who would then transport the crucial liquid to German ports. Indeed, one historian quipped that

“Without the explicit help of Standard Oil, the Nazi air force would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.”

The American business community was deeply impressed by Hitler. Wall Street executive Prescott Bush (the father and grandfather of two presidents) aided Hitler’s rise and even organized a failed coup to overthrow President Roosevelt and install German-style fascism in the United States. Chase Bank performed a number of key duties for the Nazis, including accepting, laundering and converting their money into foreign currency. In 1945, they were placed on trial in a federal court for violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act. And if there is one thing Henry Ford is known for besides his cars, it is his antisemitism. Ford himself received a medal from Hitler in 1938 and profiteered from both sides during the war, manufacturing vehicles for both the Allies and the Nazis. The company is also widely accused of knowingly using slave labor in its German plants. In 2000, Food giant Nestle paid out over $14 million to survivors for the same practice.

German Fanta ads circa the 1940s

Despite being an iconic American brand, Coca-Cola was also intimately intertwined with fascism, conducting years-long publicity campaigns associating itself with Nazism and the Hitler Youth. As a result, between 1933 and 1939, the company’s sales in Germany rocketed 4,400 percent. As Coke syrup shipments dried up during the war, the company created a new drink for the German market that still exists to this day: Fanta.

Perhaps New York-based tech company IBM has the most infamous connection to the Nazis, however. Through their subsidiary, Dehomag, the company supplied Hitler with new technology to identify undesirable classes of people and to facilitate their transport to extermination camps. IBM made huge profits designing and manufacturing a system of punch cards that allowed officials to search through databases to identify individuals for extermination, expanding their business as the Holocaust accelerated.

While many corporations are keen for the day to be over, other groups want the public to remember their particular version of events. The U.K. Foreign Office, for example, released a video where Russia’s role in bringing about the end of the war was barely to be seen. NATO’s Joint Force Commander in Naples, Admiral James Foggo, also described the brave Allied forces engaged in combat in North Africa, Normandy and Italy, but appeared to make a point of not mentioning any of the far larger battles that raged on the Eastern Front, between Soviet and Axis forces. Meanwhile, NATO-linked think tank the Atlantic Council used the occasion to accuse Putin of hijacking V-E Day to push Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union comprised 80 percent of German casualties, with the current Russian government estimating their own total losses at 26.6 million people. In contrast, the U.S. did not enter the European area in any serious numbers until well after the tide had been turned, the Soviets driving Axis forces back hundreds of miles out of Russia and Ukraine by 1944. However, decades of propaganda have got people to forget these inconvenient facts; by 2015, only 11 percent of Americans and 15 percent of Britons answered the U.S.S.R. when asked which country contributed most to the defeat of Hitler.

Lest we forget, remembrance is always political. There are some who would prefer we remember certain particular aspects of events. There are others who would prefer we forgot altogether.

*

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.

Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook in July 2015.

On February 2nd, 1943, the 6th German Army, under the command of Field Marshall Von Paulus, and elements of the 4th Panzer Army, surrendered to the Red Army at Stalingrad. This stunning victory is considered the turning point in the war in Europe, heralding the defeat of fascist Germany.

That defeat came on May 2ndth 1945, when the German forces in Berlin, the capital of the Third Reich, surrendered to the forces of the Red Army that had captured the city. On May 9th the official act of surrender of the German government and military forces took place in Berlin when the Germans surrendered to the Soviet commander, Marshal Zhukov, a surrender witnessed by representatives of the American, British and French forces. This was the end of the war in Europe.

Surrenders of elements of the German armies in the Italy and Austria on May 2nd and German forces in northern Europe, on May 7th, at first claimed by the western allies to be the official surrender of Germany, were not recognised as such by the Soviet government, since they were in violation of the agreement of the European Advisory Committee of the three Big Powers, that was finalised in March, 1944. That agreement required that the surrender would be one event, would be of the German government itself, not just of army elements in impossible positions, and was to take place at the seat of government from which German aggression had been launched, Berlin.

The western allies had no choice but to agree, and to regard the May 9th ceremony as the official act of surrender of the German government. But it was clear even then that the western allies had tried to arrange a separate peace with the Germans while the Soviets were still fighting and it was made very clear that the Americans and British wanted to steal the show from the Russians. Now 70 years later, the propaganda machine in the west once again claims that the earlier date was the end of the war in Europe.

It is well to remember the significance of this attempt by the Americans and British to conclude a separate peace with the Nazis, while Soviet forces were still engaged in the fierce Battle of Berlin and what a betrayal it was of the promised solidarity between the nations fighting against fascist aggression to which the Soviet forces at Stalingrad had dealt the fatal blow.

During one of his fireside chats on American radio on July 28, 1943, American President Roosevelt said,

“The world has never seen greater devotion, determination and self-sacrifice than have been displayed by the Russian people…under the leadership of Marshal Joseph Stalin. With a nation, that in saving itself, is thereby helping to save all the world from the Nazi menace, this country of ours should always be glad to be a good neighbour and a sincere friend to the world of the future.”

Fine words, and true, but where is the good neighbour now?

Instead of international solidarity between the victors and recognition of the sacrifice of the Russian people that Roosevelt praised, the NATO countries now refuse to attend the Moscow Victory Parade commemorating the defeat of Nazi Germany. But why do they insult the one nation that suffered the most, sacrificed the most, fought the hardest and won the greatest victories against the fascists? Is it really about Ukraine? The answer is simply that they see the defeat of fascist Germany not as a victory over fascism but as a failure of the western attempt to crush Russia.

We must also remember that NATO includes the occupied German state whose forces attacked the Soviet Union on June 22nd 1941, a state that still has no sovereignty and is still occupied by American forces two decades after Russian forces left, and whose leaders, now revealed as permitting American intelligence to spy on German companies for economic advantage, are evidently in the pocket of the American government.

It includes Britain, whose war time leader, Winston Churchill, echoing public calls by American General Patton, proposed an attack on the Soviet forces in Europe to take place in July 1945, using combined American-British-Canadian forces as well as the remaining German armies. The plan even included the use of nuclear weapons. It was called Operation Unthinkable, but it was clearly very thinkable and was a plan to pick up where the Nazis had failed, to subjugate Russia, and was only shelved when analysis proved that Soviet forces were too strong to overcome.

It is clear that the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the nuclear attacks on Japan, in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were incinerated by the Americans and British, were meant as demonstrations to the Soviet Union of their power, as an attempt to intimidate and subdue their supposed ally before the war with Germany was even concluded. The threat of a continued world war against Russia was made with the attacks on those defenceless cities. But with Operation Unthinkable put on hold and the formation of the Warsaw Pact as a defense against the NATO threat, the war against Russia was continued using other means and came to be called the Cold War, a political euphemism, since Soviet forces fought against the NATO allies directly in Korea and Vietnam and by proxies in many countries seeking liberation from western colonialism in Asia, Africa and Afghanistan.

We must also remember that in 1939, when Hitler attacked Poland, both Britain and France reneged on their promise to Poland to defend it in the event of an attack by Germany because they wanted German forces to be able to move right up to the borders of the Soviet Union to make it easier for Germany to launch its invasion of Russia just two years later. The so-called phoney war after the fall of Poland until the May, 1940 German attack on France, gave crucial time to Germany to advance its plans to attack Russia.

The entire focus of the NATO alliance, formed immediately after the defeat of Germany, has been on war with Russia and, since the fall of the Soviet Union and the weakening of Russian power, the NATO alliance has steadily advanced its attack position with a series of wars from Yugoslavia to Georgia and Ukraine, from Chechnya to Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan, all designed to eliminate Russian allies and to put NATO forces right up against Russian territory on its southern and western flanks.

In a document known as the Atlantic Charter, drafted on a battleship off the coast of Newfoundland in the middle of 1941, the Americans and British promised that the goals of the world war were not to increase their territories, but to guarantee the self-government of peoples, free trade, global cooperation to secure better economic and social conditions for all, freedom from fear and want, freedom of the seas and abandonment of the use of force as an instrument of policy, and disarmament. The Soviet Union adhered to these principles in the January 1, 1942 Declaration of the United Nations.

But aside from the relentless forcing of “free trade” treaties down workers throats across the world, which really means the freedom to exploit workers everywhere for the profit of a few corporations, the western signatories have violated every one of the clauses in the Atlantic Charter document.

The world was assured that there would be peace but they have given us nothing but 70 years of war. They promised us freedom from want but have relentlessly tried to destroy any government that protects the rights of workers, and poverty has increased dramatically in every western country since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Nations that were promised liberation at the end of the world war, had to fight these same powers to attain that justice. Some like China and Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea, succeeded after long and bitter fighting, while the struggles of many others were crushed or subverted.

In Ukraine now we are witnessing a national army and formations of outright fascist militias, the new SS, firing on, and shelling fellow citizens who protest the lack of legality of the government and the American agenda of using it as a base to attack Russia. The interests of the War Party in the west prevail over the basic demands of their peoples for social and economic justice, and freedom from fear and war.

The whole world owes the peoples of the Soviet Union, of the Russian Federation, a debt that can never be repaid for their defeat of fascism in Europe. They suffered the heaviest losses, the most destruction, the heaviest burden of fighting the Nazi war machine.

The refusal of NATO leaders to attend the Moscow ceremonies on May 9th is an insult to history, to the sacrifices of scores of millions of Russians, and is tantamount to a repudiation of the principles of the Atlantic Charter and the Charter of the United Nations. But it is more than that. It is proof, if ever it was needed, that the main objective of the world war in Europe was the crushing of Russia for the benefit of the three powers, the USA, Britain and Germany. While scrapping among themselves to see who would be top dog on the world street, they were united in their desire to subdue Russia to their will. This objective was long held in check by Soviet power. The fall of the Soviet Union and its replacement by a government initially composed of compradors for the west gave the Americans and their allies the impression that they had succeeded in bringing Russia under their complete domination. But the rise of new leaders in Russia, reinvigorating Russian sovereignty and reviving Russian power and prestige in the world has angered these wolves of war who now circle, and harass, waiting for the opportunity to strike.

*

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.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto, he is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and he is known for a number of high-profile cases involving human rights and war crimes, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

In a televised address on Thursday afternoon, Prime Minister Édouard Philippe and five other ministers confirmed that President Emmanuel Macron had given the order for an end to confinement and the reopening of the economy on May 11. The government’s reckless decision, taken in the defence council in line with similar measures underway across Europe and the US, puts countless lives at risk.

In the United States, senior Trump administration officials declare that ending confinement means Americans must get used to 3,000 people in the country dying every day.

While the lockdown that began in France on March 17 is still reducing the number of new cases and deaths, the “first wave” of the pandemic is not over, neither in France nor in Europe. On Wednesday, 3,640 new cases of COVID-19 were announced in France. On the day of Philippe’s speech, there were 28,490 new cases throughout Europe, including more than 17,000 outside Russia. Philippe announced the end to lockdown while admitting that he expected many new cases and did not know what the consequences of the deconfinement would be.

“In three weeks, at the end of May, we will know exactly where we stand,” he said. “We will know whether or not we have managed to contain the epidemic. We will know the rate of contamination and hospital and intensive care unit entries… If these numbers and figures remain low, we will be able to congratulate ourselves and move into the next phase, expanding our freedom in many areas that are particularly important for the coming summer. If not, we will draw the consequences and adapt.”

Philippe’s cynical argument that the government would blindly embark on a deconfinement imposed by fate not only displays indifference to human lives; it is also false. It is precisely in such circumstances that epidemic models are used to inform decisions. Yet multiple studies show that deconfinement will lead to a massive rebound of the epidemic in the best of cases.

A study by the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) modelled the spread of the virus in a population with the protection envisaged by Macron: masks, screening of patients, and social distancing. While approximately 25,000 deaths from COVID-19 have been recorded in France, the study predicts between 33,500 and 87,100 new deaths in France from May to December 2020.

The study concluded that even in an optimistic scenario in which social distancing measures are effective, the influx of new cases would be so strong that serious cases would overflow the emergency room as early as July. “In this scenario, further containment would be inevitable,” said Nicolas Hoertel, a psychiatrist at AP-HP and a co-author of the study.

Another study by INSERM and the Sorbonne predicts that a resumption of classes by all students would provoke an epidemic wave that would overwhelm the intensive care units, taking up 138 percent of hospital capacity. If only 25 per cent of students resumed classes, this wave could rise to only 72 percent of capacity. It is unclear how workers could return to work if three-quarters of their children stayed home.

One of the authors of the study, Vittoria Colizza, pointed to the risk that “we may have to face a second wave that would be more intense than the first beginning at the end of June, with hospital reanimation resources overwhelmed until August.”

The indifference and contempt of the government for the lives of the workers are obvious. The ruling class is, moreover, aware of its own criminality. That is why the Senate voted a preventive amnesty for any health crime committed during the pandemic.

This indifference is so blatant that it has provoked criticism even within the state apparatus.

“The government announced this Thursday afternoon that it wants to end the lockdown in departments classified as red, where the virus is strongest. This is sheer madness,” said Frédérick Bierry, president of the Bas-Rhin Departmental Council in Alsace, a region hard hit by the disease. He cited an epidemiological study that “shows that the risk is to suffer another health catastrophe with more deaths.”

However, Bierry refused to call for collective opposition to deconfinement, limiting himself to proposing health security measures already proposed by the government: wearing masks, protection of the elderly or people at risk, and personal protective actions such as coughing into one’s elbow.

The only consistent and viable opposition to Macron’s policy comes from the working class. Already widely hated before the pandemic as president of the rich, Macron is imposing a murderous policy on workers who, although subject to a constant barrage of media propaganda supporting the end to the lockdown, are largely suspicious of it.

The government’s assertions that the resumption of classes and the intermixing of students will not propagate the virus, or that social distancing will be possible in crowded public transport, are not credible. According to a YouGov poll, 76 per cent of the French population believe classes should not resume before September. Another 59 per cent say they are “worried” about the May 11 deconfinement deadline.

The endangerment of tens of thousands of lives in France, and millions of lives in America and Europe, is not an economic and social necessity, but a political decision dictated by the selfish concerns of the financial aristocracy. The central banks of the US and eurozone are showering states and large companies with trillions of dollars and euros. However, apart from the small portions of this money being allocated to unemployment payments, almost all this money does not reach workers or small businesses.

Workers and small businesses are being driven to hunger or bankruptcy by the drastic shutdown of the economy, while the banks and the super-rich are lining their pockets and refusing to help workers or provide support to small business.

Speaking before the Senate on Monday, Philippe claimed that deconfinement was dictated by the need to protect France:

“This situation cannot continue. The flagships of our industry are under threat: aeronautics, the automobile industry and electronics. Small business, medium-sized businesses and start-ups are on the verge of suffocation. Everything that contributes to France’s influence—tourism, art, gastronomy—is at a standstill.”

If the economic situation for broad sections of workers is catastrophic, it is because the Macron government, like its counterparts in Europe, has done virtually nothing to improve the conditions for the working class.

As for the statements by other ministers speaking alongside Philippe, they merely underscored the massive contradictions underlying the government’s policy. They proposed the mass use of masks, even though the government had previously maintained—while it had a complete lack of mask stockpiles—that masks served no purpose for the general population. They proposed to limit virus transmission by reducing public transport use to 15 per cent of its normal level, without explaining how workers would go to work or their shops.

Perhaps the greatest cynicism came from the Minister of Labour, Muriel Pénicaud, who praised the collaboration of the state and employers with the trade union movement.

“The health of workers has never been and will never be a negotiable variable,” she said, before adding that “social dialogue [was] essential to implement these measures.”

The conditions for deconfinement and a safe return to work are not in place. Workers have every right to refuse to return to work, to thwart government policy and the ruling class’ blatant disregard for their lives. This requires the organisation of struggles independently of the trade union apparatuses and a perspective for a socialist struggle to transfer political power to the working class in Europe and the 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.

More than earlier crises of my lifetime, including the Great Depression, World War II, 9/11, the COVID-19 pandemic illuminates as never before, how precarious and uncertain is the future wellbeing, and possibly survival, of the human species. The concreteness, immediacy, and haunting uncertainties of the pandemic is quite terrifying on its own, but its heuristic pedagogy seems applicable to a range of potentially catastrophic threats of global scope, most obviously climate change, biodiversity, nuclear weaponry.

What we should now be able to realize even while asleep is that when the under-preparedness of governance and political leadership is based on ignoring a scientific consensus is combined with radical uncertainty and myopic nationalism the stage is set for planetary and species disaster, and not only personal grief and national emergency. These signature traits of the 21^st century heighten our fears and feelings of utter helplessness that gives way to a dizzying disorientation of beliefs and expectations, a fertile breeding ground for political extremism, scapegoating, and the darkest flights of fancy.

As much as the horrifying spectacle of hospitals without beds for critically ill patients and too many dead bodies to find room in city morgues or funeral homes is this sense that the lethality of COVID-19 could have been significantly mitigated if political leaders of important countries had heeded two types of advance warnings from reliable sources. There was a foreboding prediction during the past five years by epidemiologists and other health experts that conditions existed around the world that made a viral pandemic a near certainty in coming years. It was just a matter of time. For governments of affluent countries to ignore such warnings from respected experts, and in a few cases even reduce the funding of their national health systems in recent years, as the U.S. and UK are reported to have done, should be regarded as a Crime Against Humanity, malign behavior worse than gross negligence or administrative incompetence.

In addition, there were a series of authoritative disclosures of the actual COVID-19 outbreak weeks before many governments undertook suitable preparations with regard to testing kits, masks, and personal protective equipment (PPE). Instead of rational and prudent preparations, the views of qualified experts either never reached the ears of leaders and their advisors or were thrown by leaders into the nearest waste basket as alarmist rubbish, at best distractions from the only real job of peacetime government—promoting markets and pro-rich growth. Politicians like Trump, Bolsonaro, Modi, Johnson, and others did even worse, actively denying, denigrating, and dismissing concerns until the spread of the disease became undeniable with several national health systems in leading countries reacting in emergency modes on the brink of been overwhelmed. If prudent and rational, this grave peril would never have happened, especially in countries with adequate health infrastructures.

The most elementary lesson from the pandemic so far is that adoption of the Precautionary Principle should become mandatory for organs of government and political officials at every level of social organization from the municipality to the UN, and especially at the level of governments of sovereign states. The wellbeing, security, and defense of national populations is widely assumed to be the prime duty of political leaders in a still state-centric system of world order. Such vigilance by leaders should be treated as more important than living up to the oath of office, and the failure to do so regarded as a flagrant violation of public trust, warranting a punitive removal from office. Basically, the Precautionary Principle decrees that expert warnings about impending public dangers should shape governance policies, even when available evidence does not produce conclusive results as to the extent and imminence of the risk. The precautionary approach insists on paying the costs of anticipatory prudence as over against reliance on reactive crisis management, especially under circumstances that pose substantial risks of severe future harm. The Precautionary Principle, informally long practiced and advocated with respect to health, was first internationally articulated and proposed with respect to expert warning about potentially catastrophic future environmental damage if corrective steps are not taken.  The recent focus of precautionary thought and advocacy has been seeking that proper account be taken  of the dire warnings derived from global warning projections. An influential formulation of the Precautionary Principle is set forth in Principle 15 of the Final Declaration of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

The concreteness of COVID-19 disease, as immediate, life-threatening, personal, planetary, and undeniable contrasts with other threats that are presently less visible, often more distant, and not as vividly or convincingly intruding on the security of everyday life. Yet the pattern is the same: prudent anticipation is cheaper, safer, more effective, and humane than are reactive measures, especially in view of the disproportionate vulnerability of marginalized ethnic minorities, prisons and retirement homes, and impoverished communities and crowded urban settings. In this sense, a difficult part of the post-pandemic challenge is not only to renovate the health system so as to be adequately prepared, but to transfer this elementary knowledge about dealing with global health threats to other policy domains while acknowledging the diversity of risks and distinctive types of likely harm. An existing scientific consensus projects with reasonable assurance the high probability of increasingly more dangerous levels of future global warming and of diminishing biodiversity if the dissemination of greenhouse gasses is not drastically reduced. Society lacks comparable capabilities to make such high confidence predictions with respect to the advent of nuclear war or the danger of a large meteor striking the earth. In other words, fidelity to the Precautionary Principle depends on intelligent calibration to particularities of risk that pertain to each issue of concern, but with a similar resolve to apply prudently the anticipatory knowledge available.

In this fundamental sense, what is true for COVID-19 is also true for climate change and biodiversity, and likely even more so. Current levels of information suggest that even a dysfunctional delayed response will in due course contain the pandemic although with a needlessly large number of fatalities, as well as high degrees of economic and social dislocation. Yet despite the massive scale of disruption, a pandemic is expected to subside, although accompanied by some new risks of recurrence, permitting at least a prudently regulated return to normalcy. In contrast, once global warming crosses unknowable thresholds or biodiversity declines beyond a certain point, there may be no turning back, the ecological balance could become beyond the reach of alteration by human action or could only be achieved by very austere or expensive downward adjustments in standards of living and life style. This would incur much human suffering and political unrest along the way, especially if the adjustment process favors the rich and powerful, and victimizes the poor and vulnerable, which seems inevitable at this point given the way policy is formed and life circumstances structured.

The second obvious ‘teaching moment’ that has emerged during the health crisis is the globality of the challenge as contrasted with the statist fragmentation of the divisive response structures. Imposing geopolitically motivated sanctions on a state that weakens its societal capability to contain the spread and treatment of the virus virtually ensures that contagion will cross borders in greater numbers, and give rise to prolonging the pandemic and increasing the number of infections elsewhere, including quite possibly in the sanctioning countries. The sanctions currently weakening the coping capabilities of such countries such as Iran and Venezuela create a lose/lose series of antagonistic relationships between the targeted states and the rest of the world, and should be also considered as ‘geopolitical crimes’ or Crimes Against Humanity rather than as discretionary aspects of normal diplomacy. As well, maintaining such sanctions during the pandemic works against operationalizing the insight of global solidarity—‘we are all in this together’—rather than thinking of a riven world in neo-fascist terms of ‘friends and enemies.’

The Trump presidency, oblivious to the pragmatic argument of mutuality against maintaining sanctions during the COVID-19 pandemic is even more tone deaf when it comes to humanitarian normative arguments based on law and morality resting on the unacceptability and unlawfulness of international uses of force that have a primary impact on civilian populations. It is helpful to recall the notorious remark of Madeleine Albright, then U.S. Secretary of State, when asked by Leslie Stahl in the course of a ’60 Minutes’ interview whether an estimated 500,000 deaths of children attributed to the punitive sanctions imposed on Iraq after the First Gulf War five years earlier in 1991 were worth such a high human cost of innocent young live. Stahl’s question to Albright, “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” And Albright’s memorable response: “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.” Although Albright later expressed remorse about her own phraseology, suggesting that she should have put the blame on Iraq’s leader Saddam Hussein for withholding food from civilians rather than admitting that the deaths resulted from the sanctions. Actually, her spontaneous response was more truthful than her later attempt to shift blame for their inhumane impacts. Why would sanctions be maintained if not felt to be worthwhile from a geopolitical perspective? Beyond this, evidence shows that the Iraqi government behaved responsibly, establishing a food rationing arrangement that made every effort to protect Iraqi civilians from starvation. Trump, and his lead foreign policy spokesperson, Mike Pompeo seem to go further than Albright’s insensitive remark, by intensifying sanctions during the pandemic, grotesquely seeking to exploit the added vulnerability of these targeted societies while meeting the demands of the health crisis.

Trump defies globality in a further scandalous manner by blaming China for the COVID-19 outbreak, again opting for antagonistic tensions rather than affirming human solidarity and mutually beneficial cooperation. Trump also chose the time of this pandemic to defame and defund the WHO because of its supposed complicity with China’s failure to disclose sooner the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan. There is no reasonable evidence supporting such inflammatory charges against China or the WHO, and even if the allegations were to some extent accurate, it would not justify antagonizing China or weakening the WHO capabilities at a time when it is playing a crucial role in providing information and guidance to the many countries in the global South that do not have sufficient national health capabilities to depend on national or even regional capabilities. It should be beyond argument that a pandemic threat of this magnitude and lethality needs to be addressed by counseling maximum cooperation among states and through bolstering the resources and capabilities of global coordinating mechanisms. Instead of defaming and defunding the WHO at this time, the responsible approach would be to express gratitude for its existence by pledges of greater funding support. To repeat, such a litany that is true for COVID-19 is as true or truer for other serious present and impending problems of global scope and potentially severe magnitude. The so-called retreat from globalization that partly results from some negative structural consequences of neoliberalism, which has given rise to resurgent nationalisms, seems understandable with respect to the relation of states to the world economy. Nevertheless, it is a disaster if this enhanced statism is extended, as seems to be the case, to ecological and ethical contexts that give substance to nationalist standpoints. Interconnectedness and widely diverse material circumstances are manageable under contemporary conditions only if the behavior of sovereign states accord far greater weight than now to policy coordination and collaboration by way of internationalism, as well as exhibit concrete appreciation of the practical and principled benefits of honoring the imperatives of empathy, hospitality, and human solidarity.

Decades ago, the American poet, Robert Frost, put his prophetic gift to work on what has now become a planetary truism for those who ponder the future of the human experience. In a poem, ‘One Step Backward Taken’ these words of Frost shine:

“I felt my standpoint shaken

In the universal crisis.”

Although I was conscious of the degree to which modern history featured a series of surprises that eluded experts, I was nevertheless surprised by the ferocity and rapid planetization of the Coronavirus assault on human health, and lifechanging, and likely permanent, ramifications for economic and social normalcy. It was not only a revelation of the precariousness of our individual and collective existence, but a stark reminder of the relevance of a sphere of life not previously given the societal and global attention and resources that were warranted. One question that will not be answered for some years is whether the aftermath of the pandemic will generate ‘a new world order,’ and if so, will it be an improvement on what existed before COVID-19. From past experiences, there is little reason to be hopeful unless a revolutionary movement below unexpectedly, effectively, and creatively challenges the established order.

The rhetoric of new world order was initially fashionable as a call for global reform at the dawn of the post-colonial age with its calls in the 1970s for ‘a new international economic order’ and ‘a new international information order,’ emanating from expectations that fairness was attainable if sufficient pressure from what was then known as ‘the Third World’ was mounted. These hopes were crushed by the political and economic forces aligned with capitalist geopolitics in the North dominating the existing world order at the time.

Almost twenty years later came George H. W. Bush’s mobilization of a response to Iraq’s conquest, occupation, and annexation of Kuwait in 1990 by suggesting that ‘a new world order’ was in the making by which he meant that the UN could function to prevent ‘aggression’ in the post-Cold War atmosphere as was originally intended when the UN was established in 1945. After Kuwaiti sovereignty was restored in the First Gulf War, the U.S. Government rushed to shrink expectations about a UN-centric world security system, fearing the responsibilities of being designated as the global peacekeeper. In the words of a leading Washington official at the time this idea of a new world order reliant on the UN ‘was put back on the shelf,’ that is, it was an idea that had served its purpose with respect to Kuwait but should not be counted upon to provide guidance for the future, especially tying American foreign policy and geopolitical discretion to a prior UN authorizations. In an unpublicized talk at Princeton James Baker, the influential U.S. Secretary of State at the time, gave a different spin. In essence Baker said, “Bush was wrong to associate the new world order with the centrality of the UN with regard to peace and security. He should have identified the new world order with the triumph of the American way of life in the Cold War, accompanied by glowing references to market economies and constitutionalism, which provided the contours of what became known during the 1990s as ‘the Washington consensus’ or ‘neoliberal globalization.’

We now can ask whether today’s politicians will think differently about the prospects for a new world order after the pandemic comes under control, and the crisis mood dissipates even if doesn’t fully disappear? It seems more likely that two clashing tendencies will dominate the pandemic aftermath. The first tendency will seek to restore the pre-pandemic dynamic of economic and political order, with modifications limited to augmenting the health sector, and taking advantage of the earlier dislocations to replace workers with machines. The second worrisome tendency is for political leaders to take advantage of the emergency prerogatives of government during the pandemic to institutionalize technologies of surveillance and control, while hardening their borders against immigrants and asylum seekers.

If actualized, neither of these two tendencies will give greater weight to global cooperation, human solidarity, UN authority, empathy, hospitality, and adherence to the Precautionary Principles in dealing with menacing threats clearly visible on the horizon of near future expectations. This further intensification of an already overly politically fragmented world order may be dramatic enough to lead critics to call attention to its defects by again applying the label of ‘new world order.’

If a benign new order built on the principles of stability and justice mentioned above, it will depend on pressures from a transnational movement rooted in civil society, and probably first arising in the Asian context, where several regional government displayed their superior problem-solving skills in the course of containing the COVID-19 challenge. Such a scenario could be endorsed, and even led, by China, the country more than any other with the stature and political imagination to take over global leadership from the United States, which has by its own will and dysfunctional behavior forfeited its prior role, at least temporarily. Of course, it is possible that a post-Trump America will heed Kissinger’s plea for a resumption of U.S. global leadership in ways that take inspiration from its successful restoration of a generally peaceful phase of world order after World War II. Or alternatively, possibly join with China in establishing a collaborative geopolitical framework to address more holistically and cooperatively the currently unsatisfactory responses to ecological, social, and economic global challenges. If this scenario emerges in either form, the label of new world order may yet come to be regarded as a sign of progress and hope, yet its realization will not happen without transnational activism of unprecedented depth and perseverance.

Only then can we recover a standpoint that upholds expectations for a humane and functional response to the universal crisis, which then would allow us to speak hopefully and responsibly about a new world order.

*

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 CODEPINK

When it comes to the politics of medicine and disease, the United States has always attempted to steal the limelight, while adding the now faded colouring of universal human welfare.  In 1965, Washington pledged financial and technical support to the international effort to eradicate smallpox, though the initiative had initially been spurred by the Soviet Union at the behest of virologist and deputy health minister Victor Zhdanov in 1958.  At that point in time, the World Health Organisation was not so much a punch bag as vehicle for US foreign policy, to be cultivated rather than rebuked.

As with the eradication of smallpox, a forced language of solidarity is coming into being with efforts to find a vaccine for the novel coronavirus.  But behind it, there is backbiting and hostility, suspicion and paranoia.  Like putting the first person on the moon, the matter is one of divided political endeavours. 

One such effort of solidarity, and a not very convincing one at that, was made at this month’s Coronavirus Global Response Pledging Conference.  The European Commission gave it a deceptively united title: “Joining forces to accelerate the development, production and equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics – on-line pledging event.” Representatives from 43 countries, a range of non-profit entities and scientific groups also added to the number. 

Like fund drives that are common in the United States for public broadcasting, the efforts were billed as magisterial when they were, for the most part, modest.  7.4 million euros seems rather small fare when compared to the weighty global loss in life, limb and economy, though it looks a dream to coalface researchers.  There was also a certain niggling anomaly in the event that took away some of its lustre.  EU officials had permitted the pledging of money already spent on COVID-19 relief since January 30, making the raised amount more generous than it otherwise would have been.  The United Kingdom was a case in point, having pledged £388 million toward a total as part of a prior pledge for £744 million.  The EU bureaucrats for their part, have not been forthcoming how much in terms of new funding was pledged, making it difficult to spot the double-counters. 

The language from the donors, however, was high sounding in hope. President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen was flashily presuming in her rhetoric. 

“Today we can truly say the world is united against the coronavirus, and the world will win.”  The world, she claimed grandly, had “showed extraordinary unity for the common good … With such commitment, we are on track for developing, producing and deploying a vaccine for all.”

The British Prime Minister and COVID-19 survivor Boris Johnson was also unduly optimistic in his assessment of such a worldly effort. 

“The race to discover the vaccine to defeat this virus is not a competition between countries but the most urgent shared endeavour of our lifetimes.”

To ensure that this does take place will take more than pooled pledges with vague lines of distribution.  The entire effort to find a vaccine would need to be decentralised.  An aide to French President Emmanuel Macron described the problem to Politico as ensuring “that the production of the vaccine does not end up taking place only in the US or in a specific place, because the companies that produce vaccines are from a certain nationality”. 

But a full-blooded competition this is, spiked with considerations of self-interest.  Former commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration Scott Gottlieb saw it in terms of a sporting race with a lucrative prize at the end.  There is nothing of the cooperative or sharing spirit here, with Gottlieb seeing countries inoculating their own citizens first before sharing any supply with generous heart.  “The first country to the finish line will be the first to restore its economy and global influence.  America risks being second.”  Given that Gottlieb is himself a board member of Pfizer and the biotech company Ilumina, a bit of hearty pandemic capitalism is bound to figure in his assessments. 

The Trump administration had already signalled its intention to avoid any show of unity in the vaccine effort, which may suggest an unintentional expression of blunt honesty.  It has frozen funding to the WHO and refused to send any representatives to a meeting organised by the organisation at a meeting, conducted virtually, last month.  A spokesman for the US mission in Geneva told Reuters at the time that Washington “looked forward to learning more about this initiative in support of international cooperation to develop a vaccine for COVID-19 as soon as possible” but would not be participating in any official way.  The response was much the same to the European Commission’s pledging conference. 

For the Trump administration, finding a COVID-19 vaccine will, contrary to Johnson’s belief, be a predatory exercise in self-interest because other countries will, given the chance, treat it the same way.  A neat, if vulgar example of this was given in March, when Die Welt reported that “large sums of money” had been offered by the administration for the German biopharmaceutical company CureVac, though former CEO Dan Menichella seemed to suggest that no definite offer was made in a meeting he had with the US president.  Within that same month, Menichella had been replaced by the same man he replaced: founder Ingmar Hoerr. 

In the messy rumble, billionaire Dietmar Hopp, who has an 80 percent shareholding in CureVac via his biotech company Dievini has dismissed such ideas of exclusivity.  No German company would entrust themselves with the task of creating such a vaccine that would be merely for exclusive US use.  German health minister Jens Spahn was of like mind: any such vaccine would “not be for individual countries” but “for the whole world”. 

This is stern and admirable stuff but not particularly convincing.  The global patent system is marked by vicious rivalries rather than tea-ceremony tranquillity.  The behaviour of its participants, according to the University of Hong Kong’s Bryan Mercurio, tends towards a winner takes all approach. “The rest of the efforts will go unrewarded.”

The fractious scramble for appropriate vaccines and viral drugs, as with other scrambles of history, serves to highlight the crude, even cruel reality of power politics, which proves stubborn even in the face of the existential and costly.  This is pure Donald Trump, unilateral, instinctive and unromantic, with a reaction in keeping with previous thinking when it comes to international efforts of solidarity.  Look more closely at them and see the sham; it’s every state for itself.

*

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 and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Dostoevsky said former seminarians (which included many Russian radicals then) were “too complete, too hostile, too sharp and therefore too limited.” That is, they were limited precisely by being too complete, by fitting all the pieces together, in a tight-fitting puzzle, with no rough edges.

Einstein supposedly learned more from Dostoevsky than from any scientist.  Dostoevsky’s characters often struggle with “importunate” thoughts.  The thoughts are sensations, felt but not expressed. There is anguish. The characters must wait, even submit, to know “something new”.

It’s about development of ideas, and it’s a point made by Lenin. He said unless people are trained to feel abuses against others, no matter their class, they won’t have political consciousness. Obsession with immediate “palpable results” – with utility, completeness – is ultimately conservative.[i]

It leaves old ideas in place. In Dostoevsky’s The Idiot, Prince Myshkin says about religion that “there’s something else here that’s not that, and it will eternally be not that; … and they will eternally be talking not about that.“ He’s not saying there is something that can’t be said. It’s more interesting. The prince is saying that something is talked about, but in such a way that something else is never talked about.

You talk about something in order not to talk about something else. Importunate thoughts can be eternally not talked about.

I found an importunate thought in a comical, deeply thoughtful, new book on bee keeping.[ii] It inadvertently shows the importance of Lenin, also, of course, eternally not talked about.

Bees are “cute and fuzzy” but opening a hive is ”like a volcano – a pulsating, buzzing, confusing, bloodthirsty, single organism that, quite frankly, is a bit gross and definitely scary.” The author gets bitten, spends a lot of money, and ends up without honey. Still, he persists.

The importunate idea is motivation. His compelling reasons are not moral or material, not honey or saving the planet.  In fact, neither material nor moral reasons motivate sacrifice. This is known. It is an importunate idea because it goes against the popular (liberal) myth of the “self-made man”.

The author persists because he discovers a “195-pound man who now feels genuine compassion and sympathy toward an insect that weighs only about one tenth of a gram.” That is, he continues because bees show him what he can be, as a person. He learns to respond to bees and learns about humanness.

It is easy to miss such an opportunity when the objective is results. Bees respond to each other. The waggle dance is how one bee tells the others where the sweet nectar is. One bee knows and the others absorb her energy as she “dances”. Bees get direction from response. And they get results.

Philosophers are enthralled by instrumental rationality, or the idea that reasons are defined by ends. If I have ends, I have reasons. If I have purpose, I’m a person. Social utility.

But how do I know human ends?

It’s not talked about. And there’s a reason. Raúl Roa, brilliant Cuban philosopher and politician, explained in 1953. It’s an idea of human beings invented by philosophers who didn’t care about human ends.[iii] They didn’t need to. They defined them. Simón Bolívar, who admired European philosophers, knew they missed a crucial point. The colonized, he pointed out, are “even lower than servitude, lost or worse absent from the universe”. The “human” part of “human rights” didn’t include them.

Ho Chi Minh saw this. A new book, Hemingway and Ho Chi Minh in Paris, [iv] describes Ho as well-read, lover of arts, intelligent, open-minded, shy and compassionate.  Like Bolívar, he admired European philosophers. He admired the US constitution, citing it as prime minister. Ho read Marx and found him uninformed about colonized people. But he was elated when he read Lenin.

We’re not told why.

The subtitle of the book is “the art of resistance”. Hemingway and Ho Chi Minh were in Paris after the First World War. Hemingway was there to learn writing technique, Ho for anti-colonial resistance. By 1922, they were among the best journalists in the city. Both wanted revolution.

But Ho had found a friend in Lenin while Hemingway discussed surrealism over “boozy lunches”. This difference is not explored. Juan Marinello, Cuban intellectual of early twentieth century, warned Latin American artists of precisely the trends attracting Hemingway.[v] Abstractionist art, with its anarchistic tendencies, makes sense to those whose humanity is taken for granted. It made sense to Hemingway but not to Ho, ultimately, according to the author. But this is not explained.

Lenin said all aspects of life must be studied along with ideas explaining them. How the world is observed and experienced can’t be taken for granted because it depends on ideas, including “human”. Philosophy must start from there, with concrete details explaining deep yearning by the oppressed for real dignity. It’s messy, incomplete, not the tight-fitting jigsaw puzzles philosophy mostly offers.

Lenin’s philosophy did start there, with response to what was happening. It’s about motivation, and the energy and insight derived from such response, through feeling, to the real world, understood through careful and continuous scientific study, with sensitivity developed through art, for one thing.

Marinello wrote about culture. He was a Leninist, like Roa. Lenin said revolution must be about ideas. It can’t be just politics and economics. Otherwise, old ideas dominate, disallowing human liberation in a dehumanizing world. In Cuba, this commitment has always been there. It can’t be missed, and yet it is missed. Sympathetic books about Cuba’s startling achievements make no reference at all to Roa, Marinello, Lenin. They are eternally not talked about.

If you keep talking  as if individuals just know what it means to be human, so that all that matters is what we want, need and do, there’s no need to talk about ideas determining such wants, needs and actions. Writers comment on the “battle for ideas” in Cuba, but leave out the ideas.[vi] Or they notice the significance of the arts in Cuba, Mexico and Nicaragua, during periods of political transformation, and omit the (philosophical) explanation.[vii]

Precisely this omission was foreseen by Roa. Keep talking about results, success, action, ends, and you can eternally not talk about ideas explaining those results. It’s as if there are no such ideas.

Just utility. Some even ask about the social utility of art. They should keep bees and read Lenin.

*

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.

Susan Babbitt is author of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014). She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] E.g. “What is to be done?”

[ii] Dave Doroghy, Show me the Honey: Adventures of an accidental Apiarist (Touchwood, 2020). See review:https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/show-me-honey-adventures-accidental-apiarist

[iii] “Grandeza y servidumbre del humanismo”,Viento Sur (Havana, 2015) 44-62.

[iv] By David Crowe (Fortress Books, 2020). Review here:https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/hemingway-and-ho-chi-minh

[v] « La exposición antibiennal de la Habana », Cuba Cultura (Letras cubana 1989) 18-25

[vi] E.g.  https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/we-are-cuba

[vii] E.g.  https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/i-never-left-home

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

“Bolsonaro is not only turning a blind eye as land grabbers, illegal loggers, and miners continue to plunder Indigenous territories during the pandemic, he plans to make things easier for them.”

***

Greenpeace on Friday warned of far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro‘s attacks on environmental law in his country as new data showed that deforestation has “skyrocketed” in the Amazon rainforest this year, particularly in Indigenous territories.

A Greenpeace Brazil analysis found that deforestation on Indigenous lands within the Amazon from January to April 2020 rose by 59% compared with that same four-month period last year. Based on data from the Brazilian Space Research Institute’s DETER monitoring system, the environmental advocacy group accounted for deforestation alerts across nearly 3,259 acres of Indigenous territories so far this year.

From Jan-April, deforestation in Indigenous lands increased by 59% in Brazil. Illegal loggers, miners and land-grabbers don’t work from home, and are taking advantage of the current crisis to invade Indigenous lands, threatening to expose #covid19 to Indigenous People. pic.twitter.com/wwalZ8zKxR

— Greenpeace (@Greenpeace) May 8, 2020

Preliminary data released Friday by the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research (INPE) also revealed a surge in deforestation throughout the country’s portion of the world’s largest rainforest. The 2.7 million square mile Amazon spans nine nations, but the majority of it is in Brazil.

“Destruction in Brazil’s portion of the Amazon increased 64% in April, compared with the same month a year ago,” Reuters reported Friday, citing INPE data. “In the first four months of the year, Amazon deforestation was up 55% from a year ago to 1,202 square kilometers (464 square miles).”

Bolsonaro took office in January 2019 and immediately got to work on his agenda targeting the environment and Indigenous Brazilians. As international scientists have warned over the past year that “human activities are drying out the Amazon,” the Brazilian president has faced global condemnation for rising deforestation and his attempts to open up the Amazon to more agribusiness and mining.

According to Reuters:

The new coronavirus outbreak has complicated efforts to combat deforestation, with environmental enforcement agency IBAMA sending fewer agents into the field due to health risks. The agency has said it will scale back field agents in other areas but not the Amazon.

As deforestation soars, Bolsonaro on Thursday authorized the deployment of armed forces to combat deforestation and forest fires in the region. Environmental advocates say the measure may help in the short term but is not a lasting solution.

Last week, as reporters and activists anticipated the announcement that eventually came Thursday, Marcio Astrini of the Brazilian advocacy group Climate Observatory said that “sending the military to the Amazon is like medicating a disease of the government’s own creation.”

“It’s a medication that has a short-term effect, it will resolve the problem now,” Astrini said. “It won’t cure the disease. The disease that exists in the Amazon today is Bolsonaro.”

Greenpeace pointed out Friday that “Bolsonaro is urging the Brazilian Congress to vote on a law designed to hand illegally deforested land over to land grabbers.”

As the coronavirus pandemic eats its way into the Amazon, raising fears of a genocide of its vulnerable indigenous tribes, the government of Jair Bolsonaro and its supporters are dismantling rules shielding protected reserves. Mine for @guardian https://t.co/DgwchAgpXS

— Dom Phillips (@domphillips) May 6, 2020

Greenpeace also noted that while Indigenous groups have called for greater efforts to protect their territories from land invaders and the pandemic, the Brazilian government has taken take steps backward.

“Bolsonaro is not only turning a blind eye as land grabbers, illegal loggers, and miners continue to plunder Indigenous territories during the pandemic, he plans to make things easier for them,” said Carolina Marçal, a forest campaigner at Greenpeace Brazil.

“Whole groups and communities with no means of combating the virus are at risk of being wiped out if intruders carry Covid-19 into their territories,” Marçal added. “Bolsonaro’s actions are criminal and must be stopped. Those who best protect the forests must be protected.”

Indigenous People in Brazil are facing “an extreme threat to their very survival” with illegal loggers, miners, and other invaders potentially bringing the COVID-19 pandemic to their communities. https://t.co/3Rze6Sd9Q2

— Greenpeace (@Greenpeace) May 4, 2020

While Bolsonaro has provoked international outrage for both his attacks on environmental protections and his handling of the pandemic, Greenpeace USA forest campaigns director Daniel Brindis explained that the Brazilian president isn’t alone in shouldering the blame for the destruction of the Amazon.

“The international market is also complicit in this destruction—and profiting off this crisis,” said Brindis. “As international banks invest in high risk infrastructure in the Amazon, corporations import products like timber, minerals, and cattle products that drive deforestation.”

Those investments from large financial institutions have continued despite warnings from scientists and activists that—as Mercy for Animals managing director Sandra Lopes said last year—”the Amazon rainforest is a fundamental ecosystem for the planet and the climate.” The forest helps limit global heating by serving as a massive carbon sink.

“The alarm has been sounded about the crisis in the Brazilian Amazon for years,” Brindis said, “yet corporations purposefully ignore the fact that their profits are violating human rights and perpetuating climate disaster.”

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 COVID-19 pandemic appears to be peaking in the mostly Western countries worst affected so far, though it will continue to scythe down thousands for weeks to come. The virus could also return for a far worse second wave, and may yet break out on a large scale in more populous countries in the Third World, with unimaginable consequences.

Certainly, the lockdowns the pandemic has necessitated are unlikely to be lifted in their entirety anytime soon and, if they are, social and economic activity may still fail to return to the production and consumption levels and patterns of the recent neoliberal capitalist past. Though fatalities remain a fraction of the Spanish flu total, the public health emergency and the response to it have become profound political and economic crises of the neoliberal order, the only order of capitalism possible today, and thus a profound political crisis of capitalism itself, both domestic and international.

The Failure of Neoliberalism

There are two sure signs of this. Objectively, none of the handful of countries—China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela and New Zealand—whose governments have been able to deal decisively and effectively with COVID-19 are what we might call ‘neoliberal’. They are either Communist or left governments that have distanced themselves from the social democratic neoliberalism that emerged in the 1990s under the likes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. These countries’ exceptional performance throws the deadly incompetence of neoliberal Western governments, led by the United States and the United Kingdom, into harsh relief.

In the Western core neoliberal countries, the severity of the pandemic and associated crises cannot be overstated. These governments, particularly those of its Anglo-American heartland, are caught in a scissor crisis: there is a widening gap between the mounting challenge and limited capacities—public health, governmental and political—whittled down by four decades of neoliberalism. This scissor has required nation-wide lockdowns of indeterminate length as the only way of limiting infections and fatalities. In turn, this has accelerated a long-overdue reckoning with the neoliberal order.

Though neoliberalism was billed as the sure-fire recipe for reviving growth when the West led the world in taking this route out of the crisis of the 1970s, it never did so. Rather than addressing it, Western states exacerbated the underlying demand problem while deregulation only benefitted finance. The resulting financialization of Western economies diverted resources towards speculation and away from productive investment.

These problems were already coming to a head, with acute observers predicting that an economic, rather than merely financial, crisis was looming, when the pandemic hit. There is, therefore, no pre-pandemic normal to return to. Neoliberal capitalism is certain to emerge from the present crisis transformed. There is, however, the question of how and by whom: by left forces in a progressive direction or by those of capital and the right in an even more miserly, punitive, Kafkaesque and authoritarian direction? That is what is politically at stake in the present moment. That is what this manifesto is about.

While the enhanced legitimacy of the non-neoliberal winners of the battle against COVID-19 will not last unless they keep new outbreaks limited, if not at bay, doing so requires them to repeat their recent feats on a smaller scale. It is true that they do face an increasingly uncooperative, indeed outright obstructive, international environment in which to do so. As with the US ceasing funding to the World Health Organization or the US and India blocking the issuance of new Special Drawing Rights, essentially international money, to aid the developing world, powerful rogue states are reducing, rather than increasing, their commitment to international institutions and efforts and even stooping to hijackingshipments of critical medical supplies on the high seas. However, such antics will likely accelerate the trend, evidenced most notably by Italy, to break neoliberal ranks in accepting help from China and even Russia and Cuba, and resisting the unrelenting attacks on China that emanate particularly from the bastions of neoliberalism, the US and the UK.

There Is an Alternative, There Always Was

Those attacks are the second unmistakable sign of the political crisis of neoliberal capitalism. It is clear to its masters that the demonstration effect of China’s successful response to COVID-19 poses a great threat to their own legitimacy, not least because it is only the latest of such demonstration effects. Others include raising more millions out of poverty than any government in history, responding effectively to the 2008 crisis, whose effects still linger in the neoliberal West, and taking international financial and investment initiatives that are making or enabling much-needed productive investment in the Third World, to take just three of the more prominent examples.

All of them cast unflattering light on the neoliberal West. When former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher proclaimed that ‘There is no alternative’ to ‘free market’ and ‘free trade’ neoliberalism, she was dispatching the statist arrangements of the Western post-war Keynesian welfare state to the proverbial dustbin of history. However, after the Soviet Union disintegrated, the slogan acquired an even greater resonance. With the USSR gone, and China appearing to turn towards markets, neoliberal capitalism had, it appeared, won the day and vanquished its mortal enemy, Communism. However, the actually existing Communisms that had begun emerging in the twentieth century, starting with the Russian Revolution, were not some bolt from the blue. Their rise was deeply connected to the effect of capitalist development in some countries on others.

As the powerful capitalist countries subordinated or threatened to subordinate, other countries, many succumbed. Others, however, were not only willing but able to resist subordination and seek alternative paths, and even goals, of development. There was never any guarantee that such attempts would succeed, nor that their elites would not, as the Soviet elite did, throw in the towel after astonishing achievements, including the Soviet Union’s indispensable contribution to Allied victory in the Second World War and its ability to transform backward economies and societies into materially prosperous and culturally sophisticated rivals of the West. The only guarantee is that the nature and contradictions of capitalism, which impel it toward imperialism, ensure that its geopolitical economy will never be free of such attempts. There is a reason why the Russian Revolution was followed by a long line of such resistance to imperialist capitalism.

Moreover, like capitalism, actually existing communism also has its own history and political leaders capable of learning from it. Certainly the leadership of the Communist Party of China learned much from the fate of Russia and of the countries of Eastern Europe after the end of Communism there. ‘Shock therapy’ imposed by Western powers and their associates on the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc destroyed productive capacities and social and political institutions wholesale and even led to steep declines in life expectancy, something not witnessed in peacetime. By the time its work was done, the former Communist world, which had hitherto afforded its citizens a high standard of living, were reduced to a periphery or labour reserve for Western Europe’s industrial core if they had joined the European Union or, in the case of Russia, Ukraine and others, became the semi-periphery or periphery of the world economy.

Any reasonably competent leadership would seek to avoid that fate and, so far, at least, the leadership of the Chinese party-state has demonstrated such wisdom. Though considerable market reforms have been undertaken, China remains a planned economy and one in which its capitalists, though very rich and numerous, do not (yet?) hold the reins of state power. Though it acceded to the World Trade Organization, China has not ‘converged’ with the West as it hoped for the simple reason that such convergence would have brought subordination of the sort suffered by the former Communist countries of Europe and the post-Soviet space. Instead, China traded and exchanged financial flows with the world on its own terms and planned its way to its present relative prosperity, thereby picking up the torch of demonstrating that there is an alternative from where the former USSR had so fatefully dropped it.

Communism therefore lives, and threatens capitalism. It does not threaten with its guns. Like the former Soviet Union and even Russia today, China’s security posture is defensive, while that of the capitalist world, aggressive and offensive. The threat lies in its demonstrably superior economic performance. This was already becoming clear in the new century, when Jim O’Neill, a Goldman Sachs economist, made the prediction that the world’s economic centre of gravity was shifting away from the West. It became all the more so after 2008, when the BRICs (the acronym referred to the four major emerging national economies O’Neill focused on) avoided the slowdown in growth that plagued the neoliberal West and continued their growth, with Communist China far in the van because its policies were farthest from neoliberalism. That is not the least reason why there is a New Cold Waragainst Russia that refuses complete subordination to the West and against China. Of course, it also extends to the renewed and intensified hostility towards Cuba and towards Venezuela, which has committed the added crime of sitting on vast mineral wealth that Western capitalists slaver over.

Thus the increasingly sharp attacks on China, questioning its achievements by any means at hand, attributing the success of its coronavirus response to its ‘authoritarianism’ (while overlooking the real authoritarianism of the fascist Indian government’s response, and even praising it). Vicious as they are, such attacks may not be having their intended effect. Despite them, and the long-standing legacy of anti-communism in the US and the West, substantial minorities among Western publics languishing under over a decade of austerity, have favourable views of China.

China’s response to the novel coronavirus has the potential to further burnish its reputation in the West. In addition, the shift of the world economy’s centre of gravity away from the West, something that is feared by neoliberal leaders, but welcomed by others, has accelerated. The neoliberal West’s offensives, rhetorical and military, are at once desperate and dangerous.

The Grounds for Political Hope

These developments have given rise to unprecedented political hope for progressive change, particularly in the West where the pandemic presently centres. There are several grounds for it. Certainly, awareness of long-simmering issues in nearly all spheres of society is coming to a boil. The problems of our health systems—uneven access, inadequacy of services hollowed out by contracting out to private providers, low pay and short staffing, rising expenses of services, drugs and medical—have moved from the agendas of small campaigns to the centre of political debate, as has the scandal of elder care.

The disproportionate COVID-19 fatalities among the poor and the non-white is exposing the structural racism of our societies. The fragility of the productive systems of the world’s richest countries are revealed when, with supply lines splayed precariously around the globe by the drive to squeeze the last cent of profit, they prove unable to supply critically needed products. The complete irrationality of rising income inequality stands exposed when it turns out that the most essential of workers are also the most marginalised and low paid women and minorities. While the well-to-do seek to self-isolate in luxurious conviviality, and the middle classes discuss the joys of a slower rhythm of life with yoga and baking, homelessness and crowded homes have made nonsense of ‘self-isolation’, while domestic abuse, itself in good part a structural feature of the pressures created by steep neoliberal hierarchies, has brought out its often macabre character. While middle class parents discuss the techniques of home schooling and report on the bandwidth wars at home, their children pull farther ahead of poor children without internet access or devices. Such exposées are minting more radicals.

The pandemic has also made us all better informed. Readership of the news is at an all time high. Intellectuals across nearly the entire political spectrum appear to be outdoing one another in proposing to rectify this or that ill, sure in the knowledge that concerned publics, worn down by decades of neoliberal damage—suddenly acutely aware of it—will only lap it all up. Modern Monetary Theory, which argues that, contrary to former British Prime Minister Theresa May’s claim that ‘there is no magic money tree’, there is and that public authorities have harvested its fruit and leaves to bail out banks and can do so to finance government expenditure for popular purposes, is making the rounds. Universal Basic Income is an idea whose time has come.

Most on the left feel vindicated as the pandemic and the economic crisis force dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal governments to make previously unimaginable policy U-turns—aggressive fiscal activism, effective monetization of government debt, income support, requisitioning and even nationalising of private property, requiring private enterprises to cooperate in the production of essential medical equipment and drugs, the list is long. It is an indication of the severity of these measures, and the extent of the departure from neoliberal rules that neoliberal observers and politicians have taken to comparing the present emergency to the Second World War. Their motive, other than posing as Churchillian war leaders, is to indicate, wishfully as we shall see, that these measures are exceptional and should not be expected to continue after the public health emergency is over.

However, if that is what they wish, they are clearly playing with fire. The analogy is easily charged with the opposite political valence. Extensive and intensive government control of economies during the Second World War was as critical to victory externally as to ensuring ‘fair shares and equal sacrifices’ at home. The latter was so effective that the well-being and even life expectancy of ordinary citizens actually rose during wartime. After the war, a broad agreement emerged that if government intervention and planning could win wars, it should now be put to work curing social ills and guarding against any relapse into depression conditions. There could be “no excuse anymore for unemployment, slums and underfeeding.”

While the UK was the paradigmatic example of this development, government intervention created more equal, more fully employed and more productive economies around the world. Then, as now, actually existing communism provided the model. As one of the foremost historians of the modern world, Eric Hobsbawm, pointed out in his history of The Short Twentieth Century,

…the politicians, officials and even many of the businessmen of the post-war West [were convinced that]… a return to laissez-faire and the unreconstructed free market were out of the question. Certain policy objectives—full employment, the containment of communism, the modernization of lagging or declining or ruined economies—had absolute priority and justified the strongest government presence. Even regimes dedicated to economic and political liberalism now could, and had to, run their economies in ways which would once have been rejected as ‘socialist’.

The increased government activism amid the present crisis can surely only repeat this experience, we think wistfully. We also remember that while our politicians may invoke the Second World War to indulge in Churchillian grand-standing, he and his Conservative Party were, in fact, defeated by the ‘modest’ and ‘mouse-like’ Clement Atlee and his Labour Party in the historic 1945 General Election.

These possibilities are, moreover, being reinforced by new realizations and solidarities. The decades of environmental activism is bearing fruit in driving home the message that the pandemic is not some exogenous shock, but the result of decades of rapacious exploitation of the land narrowing wildlife habitats combined with cruel factory farming of animals. The cleaner air, bolder wildlife and louder birdsong are making people aware that if the economy can be slowed down to rescue us from a virus, surely it can also slow down to rescue us from the still-looming climate crisis. The lockdowns, more and less severe, that are breaking habits of decades seem set to reverse the consumerism, individualism and egotism heightened by neoliberalism.

‘We are all in this together’ feelings are widely shared and awaken long-neglected solidarities. Many are joining new struggles: over incomes, rent, debt or any of the myriad issues that are opening up fissures across society. Many more are realising that neglecting the health and well-being of a section of society, or of the world, is not without consequences for the rest of them and that redressing that neglect will involve action on not only the medical front but also the economic. Moreover, the relative simplicity enforced on the well-to-do by the lockdowns are leading them to discover new joys in it. They are rethinking what life is about: Ever more mindless consumption of unnecessary things that rely on keeping vast swaths of the world’s workforce in poverty? Or advancing civilization and developing human capacities at home and abroad in meaningful ways now that a modicum of prosperity has become technologically feasible for all? New priorities are surely emerging.

The Path to Realising the Political Hope

Left and progressive forces seeking to realise this new political hope face obstacles and dangers of being led astray, however. On the one hand, there are the left’s own longstanding limitations, intensified in the neoliberal era. Objectively, the strength of labour and other popular forces is diminished. Subjectively, too, the left has ebbed, reacting to the neoliberal assault with de-radicalization rather than radicalization. In particular, its understanding of actually existing communism and the historical record of revolutions against capitalist imperialism so far weakened during the neoliberal period. This also worked to the detriment, as we shall see, of its ability think about how to organise production (as opposed to redistribution) in socialist economies. This subjective weakening also clouds many left minds on contemporary China and thus on what a viable internationalism must consist of today.

On the other hand, progressive forces face a metropolitan capitalist class and a political right which may be facing its most profound crisis ever, but is not without recourse, including state, military, intelligence, media and public relations apparatuses, not to mention a long and so far successful history of ‘permanent counterrevolution’. As we shall see, it is working in the present crisis to put the Humpty Dumpty of neoliberalism back together by managing a transition to yet another phase of neoliberal capitalism (there have been at least four so far, as we shall see), what I call pseudo-philanthropic neoliberalism.

If the analysis presented here holds, the forces of capital and the right are unlikely to succeed. However, they will certainly complicate and endanger any pursuit of left objectives and hopes. It could hang on to power by authoritarian means, supplemented, as they must inevitably be in advanced capitalist societies, by vigilante forces of order, returning us to the point of choice between fascism and socialism that Karl Polanyi long ago posed and is yet to be overcome. Or it could lead to a frightening level of social, economic and political breakdown and chaos, what Karl Marx called the common ruin of the contending classes. Rosa Luxemburg called it ‘barbarism’. A sober consideration of this situation reveals that we need to think less in terms of opportunities for the left and more in terms of its responsibilities in leading humanity away from these frightening prospects and towards socialism.

This manifesto seeks to orient left and progressive forces on this complex terrain of the current crisis conjuncture. The forces it addresses are defined broadly with the understanding that their ranks are being swelled as the crisis reorients thinking and practices and that many old divisions can be overcome among those assuming our urgent responsibility.

This manifesto seeks to map the domestic and the international terrain on which the left must advance today. Since there are few unified left forces anywhere, it seeks to enable left parties, movements and groups to reinforce each other’s efforts and effectiveness by proposing a framework into which their diverse and discrete struggles can fit and which can give them a wider understanding of our purposes and struggles. It also maps the terrain on which the forces of capital and the right are organising and fighting and the strategies they are using.

The battle lines must be drawn around the false choice they offer us between lives and livelihoods, where the latter is equated with preserving the neoliberal order. This choice must be refused. To do so, any left strategy must clearly distinguish between what must be done to preserve both lives and livelihoods in the emergency and in the reconstructed economy beyond.

*

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 is the first in a seven-part, multi-week series of commentary on the COVID-19 crisis entitled WHAT IS TO BE DONE? A MANIFESTO FOR POLITICS AMID THE PANDEMIC AND BEYOND by Radhika Desai,

Radhika Desai is a professor in the Department of Political Studies at the University of Manitoba and currently serves as the director of the Geopolitical Economy Research Group.

Featured image is U.S. Air Force Graphic by Rosario “Charo” Gutierrez

United States Strategic Command, the branch of the US military responsible for the nation’s nuclear weapons, recently released an imperially misleading infographic on Twitter. The graphic is confused—not only about when to use bold typeface, but also about the facts.

.

.

“The threats we face today and in the future are real, and have not changed during the pandemic. While we continue to seek and provide for a safe and secure world, others continue to act provocatively and irresponsibly.” – ADM Richard pic.twitter.com/8RJXS10ZE9

— US Strategic Command (@US_Stratcom) May 3, 2020

The Bulletin’s editorial team has annotated the graphic as a service to readers.

The first section purports to show how China, Russia, and the United States will be upgrading their respective nuclear forces over the coming years. The graphic is hard to decipher, not least because it contains many acronyms, mixes strategic and tactical systems, and commingles NATO’s naming system with indigenous ones.

Click the image to read the annotations.

The overall impression, though, is that Russia and China will be rolling out many more new systems than the United States over the coming years, and so the danger to “America and allies” is growing.

But that’s wrong for several reasons. First, the chart is not making an apples-to-apples comparison. Although it purports to show “future capabilities,” it includes many Russian and Chinese weapons that are already partially or mostly deployed, while conveniently omitting deployed US weapons.

Second, more systems does not equate to more capabilities. Many of the systems shown, such as Russia’s Sarmat, the United States’ GBSD (Ground Based Strategic Deterrent), and China’s DF-41, are slated to replace older systems that have broadly similar capabilities. Moreover, in at least one place the chart duplicates two versions of the same system. The Pentagon has described China’s DF-31AG as simply “an enhanced version of the DF-31A,” but they appear as separate systems on the chart. Even where systems are entirely new, they will hardly alter the overall strategic balance.

Third, the chart gets the size of the pies wrong—it doesn’t say anything about how many of each system will be built. For example, it shows two icons for Chinese submarines and only one icon for US submarines. But China will likely build at most six of each type. The United States, meanwhile, plans to build 12 Columbia-class submarines.

Similarly, the United States plans to build more than 400 land-based missiles through its GBSD program, so that single icon in the pie chart will represent far more intercontinental ballistic missiles than China will have in its entire arsenal.

Overall, while all three countries are in the midst of expansive (and expensive) nuclear modernization programs, the United States has a nuclear arsenal that is more than adequate, and it will remain so over the coming decades.

Click the image to read the annotations.

The second section of the infographic juxtaposes a decrease in the US nuclear stockpile on the left with an increased threat level on the right. This section, too, is full of inaccuracies.

For instance, the assertion that the US stockpile has decreased by 85 percent in the last 30 years is slightly off. According to the authoritative Nuclear Notebook, the United States has reduced its stockpile from around 21,400 warheads in 1990 to around 3,800 in 2020, an 82 percent decrease.

More important, there’s no mention of Russia’s dramatic reductions, which have outpaced those of the United States. Since 1990, the Russian stockpile has declined from roughly 37,000 warheads to 4,310—an 88 percent decrease. So it is not as though US reductions were unilateral—quite the opposite. (China, with perhaps 300 warheads, is not likely to make any reductions until Russia and the United States reduce their own stockpiles further.)

It is true that the United States has reduced its stockpile through “deliberate choices” over the decades. Scholars and policymakers have long understood that arms racing makes all sides less safe, while arms control can make war less likely. The fact that mutual nuclear arms reductions have enjoyed bipartisan support in the United States for longer than 30 years should be a strong signal that this is sound policy.

Click the image to read the annotations.

The final section paints a picture of a law-abiding United States victimized by rogue countries that are “taking advantage of the situation.”

It suggests that China and Russia are developing new weapons that will “bypass treaty obligations.” This may be true for some of the more fanciful Russian systems under development. However, others, such as the Avangard and the Sarmat, can be incorporated into New START—the relevant existing treaty—quite smoothly. For China, none of the new systems listed above will violate or bypass any treaty, because no such agreement exists.

Meanwhile, the graphic makes no mention of agreements from which the United States has withdrawn, in some cases against the counsel of its allies. The Trump administration withdrew from the INF treaty in August 2019 and quickly began working on a weapon that the treaty would have banned. So although the Russians may have been guilty of breaking the law, the United States did one better by eliminating the law itself.

And although the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and major world powers was a political agreement rather than a legally binding treaty, it was the United States that withdrew and reimposed sweeping sanctions on Iran. So there would be little basis for claiming that Iran is “using aggressive behaviors” to “intimidate” the United States—rather, the opposite may be true.

There’s truth to the assertion that China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia have all tested weapons over the last several months, even as the entire world grapples with the COVID-19 outbreak. But so has the United States: It tested an intercontinental ballistic missile in February and a hypersonic missile glide body in March.

The final paragraph states that these countries “have shown no regard for nuclear reductions,” although by all accounts Russia, the United States’ main competitor in terms of nuclear arsenals, has abided by nuclear reduction agreements. In fact, it is the Trump administration that stands in the way of extending the only remaining agreement that would keep such reductions in place—New START. The Russians are ready to extend the treaty for five years without imposing or even discussing new conditions.

*

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.

John Krzyzaniak is the DC-based associate editor at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Before joining the Bulletin, he was an associate editor at the journal Ethics & International Affairs, based at the Carnegie Council.

Thomas Gaulkin is multimedia editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Prior to joining the Bulletin in 2018, he spent the previous decade working in communications at the University of Chicago, first with the centers for International Studies and International Social Science Research, and later as director of News and Online Content for the Division of the Social Sciences.

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

Being fat obese can double someone’s risk of going to the hospital for severe COVID-19 symptoms, a new report published by the University of Glasgow concluded this week. With that being said, a leaked document from the UK government obtained by The Sun outlines how obese people could be forced by their employer to work at home for the next year as lockdown restrictions are relaxed. 

The proposed measures, currently in draft form with the UK government, are aimed at preventing workplace transmission of the virus by protecting the most vulnerable of society. Along with overweight people, the elderly, women who are pregnant, and people with heart disease and diabetes have been profiled by the government with weak immune systems.

In a post-corona world, as restrictions are lifted, the measures will serve as a guideline for businesses to reopen their offices, as they must comply with government orders. It calls for shields around each desk to limit the virus spread. Companies will have to ban sitting back-to-back, hot-desking, and sharing of equipment. There will also be marks on the ground to instruct where people can or cannot stand. When people return to their desks, pre/post corona workspaces might be unrecognizable.

The measures also include handwashing and sanitizing stations around the office. This will allow employees to clean their hands and workstations regularly.

The proposed measures will likely limit face-to-face meetings and only allow if necessary. Employees will be forbidden from sharing pens, computers, and or any other devices. The strict rules will likely force employers to drive more staff to work at home.

The Sun was told after 6-12 months of the new measures, a review period would be seen to see if the workspace rules will stay in place.

An industry source said: “If it [COVID-19] survives the winter, these measures will have to be in place longer.”

Several company bosses told The Sun that new social distancing measures could also help to mitigate the traditional flu.

“The one positive is traditional flu cases will go down because you’re socially distancing,” the source said. 

The proposed measures, still in draft form, are not just guidelines to prepare offices for a post-corona world, the measures cover many other parts of society, as described by The Sun:

• Offices: Staggered shift times, less sharing of equipment and continued maximisation of home working are among a number of ideas listed as part of a draft government strategy to help businesses prepare for a return to work. Increased hygiene procedures and the installation of protective screens are also included in the plan. Efforts to avoid employees working face-to-face will see them working side by side or facing away from each other, according to the plans leaked to Buzzfeed News.
• Shops: There will be limits on the number of people in stores so Brits will be asked to shop alone to enable shops to be allowed to open and kick-start the economy. The advice for reopening non-essential shops such as clothes stores will be similar to the supermarket rules. Tape setting out two metre distances will have to be put on shop floors, and Brits will need to queue outside. Many shops will go cashless to stop the spread of the virus through money.
• Public Transport: In cities like London, maintaining the two-metre rule would make it impossible for workplaces to operate anywhere near full capacity. The most used Tube line for commuters is the Central Line, but in order to operate social distancing rules its usage would have to be cut by a staggering 85 per cent. Hand sanitiser will be installed on trains to protect commuters. Platforms and bus stops will contain two metre markers to maintain social distancing and one-way systems will be in place.
• Schools: A complex blueprint for schools to open in waves of different age groups is being planned. Reopening primary schools is a priority for the government in order to minimise the threat to early years development and help parents return to work. But Year 6 pupils will be first back if they are forced to stagger the reopening dates as they are at the most crucial stage of their learning. PM Boris Johnson wants the first schools to reopen on June 1. Year 10 and 12 pupils are expected to be the first wave of secondary schools to open. No firm date has been set for reopening workplaces but The Sun revealed last week that May 26 has been pencilled in as a target date as long as the government’s five tests for lifting the lockdown measures are met by then.

As to everyone who is overweight and wants to return to an office setting because their 550 sq. ft. flat in London is a jail cell — well, now might be the time to hop on a Peloton or an exercise bike. What’s baffling to us, is at what weight will the government determine if someone is too fat to work in an office? 

*

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: China sends an expert team and a large shipment of medical equipment to the United Kingdom on Saturday to help in the fight against COVID-19. [Photo provided to chinadaily.com.cn]

Yesterday, the US Labor Department released its April unemployment report, revealing a level of joblessness that is without historical precedent. On the same day, the stock market rose sharply, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average finishing up more than 450 points, or nearly two percent. Wall Street continues not only to feast on death, as the toll from the coronavirus continues to grow, but to profit from the mass social misery that the pandemic has produced.

The Labor Department report recorded a drop of employment of 20.5 million people. Not only is this the largest monthly collapse in history, it exceeds the previous record more than 10 times over. The official unemployment rate increased from under 4 percent to 14.7 percent, far above anything seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

As bad as these numbers are, they significantly underestimate the scale of the social dislocation. The April report is based on estimates calculated during the middle of last month, so they do not take into account the millions of people who have lost their jobs over the last three weeks. Some 33.5 million have filed for unemployment claims since the beginning of state and federal lockdowns seven weeks ago.

According to the report, moreover, 6.4 million additional workers have left the labor force entirely and are not counted as unemployed, bringing the labor force participation rate to its lowest level since 1973. Another 11 million workers reported that they were working part time because they could not find full-time work, an increase of 7 million people since before the pandemic.

When all factors are taken into account, something in the area of one third of the work force is out of work.

Mass joblessness is impacting nearly every sector of the working class. Employment in the leisure and hospitality sector was the most extreme, falling by nearly 50 percent, or 7.7 million people. There were 2.1 million job losses in business and professional services, 2.1 million in retail, 1.3 million in manufacturing and 1 million in construction.

Stunningly, amidst an expanding pandemic, there were 1.4 million job cuts in health care. And under conditions of an enormous social crisis, there were 650,000 job cuts in the social assistance sector.

The report notes, moreover, that mass unemployment has impacted workers of all races and genders. The unemployment rate among adult men soared to 13.0 percent, adult women to 15.5 percent, and teenagers to 31.9 percent. The rate was 14.2 percent for whites, 16.7 percent for blacks, 14.5 percent for Asians and 18.9 percent for Hispanics.

While a large number of the job cuts are categorized as “temporary,” a growing proportion are permanent, as corporations begin to implement mass layoffs. Indeed, there were two million permanent job losses in April. This, taken by itself, would be the largest increase in unemployment in post-World War II American history.

Tens of millions of workers live paycheck to paycheck and rely on credit cards and other forms of debt to make up for the difference between their income and their expenses. Household debt rose by 1.1 percent in the quarter ending March 31, to $14.3 trillion, a new record. This does not take into account the piling on of debt by tens of millions of people as the economic crisis intensified in April and into May.

With no savings and no government assistance, workers are turning in record numbers to food banks, which are running out of basic goods. A report by the Hamilton Project earlier this week found that 41 percent of families with children under the age of 12 are experiencing food insecurity—that is, they are unable to afford enough to eat.

The ruling class has no policy to deal with the social catastrophe. On Friday, the Trump administration declared that the jobs that have been destroyed “will be back and they’ll be back soon.” He added that “we’re in no rush” to pass a bill that would provide some assistance. The administration’s top economic advisor, Larry Kudlow, said that talks over further “stimulus” measures are “in a lull right now.”

As for the Democrats, while mouthing phrases about additional aid, they are haggling over minor measures that they know will never be passed by Congress. Both parties display a combination of indifference, bewilderment and reaction in the face of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Their proposals in response to this crisis make the US in the era of Herbert Hoover appear almost philanthropic.

Mass social immiseration is, in fact, a deliberate policy, supported by the entire political establishment. It is aimed at creating conditions in which: 1) the ruling class can force a return to work even as the pandemic continues to spread throughout the United States; and 2) workers will be compelled to accept sharp reductions in wages and benefits and an increase in exploitation to pay for the massive handout to the super-rich.

To pressure workers to endanger their lives by returning to work, the majority of the population is being systematically starved of resources. Six weeks after the passage of the CARES Act—the massive boondoggle to the corporations adopted unanimously by the Democrats and the Republicans—the majority of Americans have not received their $1,200 “stimulus” check.

States are going bankrupt and beginning to implement brutal austerity measures. A report from the Economic Policy Institute earlier this month found that 50 percent more people are unemployed than have even been able to file for unemployment benefits—the result of overburdened application systems and onerous restrictions. Millions who have filed for benefits have not received anything.

The approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States are excluded from receiving any benefits. Millions of workers in the “gig economy,” while supposedly able to qualify for federal assistance, face impossible barriers to obtaining it. In the state of Illinois, for example, these workers will be able to start applying only on May 11, and they will not have any possibility of getting assistance for several weeks thereafter.

At the same time, the ruling class has utilized the pandemic to organize a transfer of trillions of dollars to the financial markets through the Federal Reserve. The total assets on the balance sheet of the US central bank rose this week to more than $6.7 trillion, up from less than $4 trillion before the pandemic hit. Every day, the Fed is spending $80 billion to buy up assets from banks and corporations to fuel the market rise.

The enrichment of the oligarchy through rising share values is premised on mass impoverishment and an intensification of the exploitation of the working class. The profits and wealth of the corporate-financial elite have been saved at the expense of society.

Two agendas stand opposed to each other. One is the defense of the financial oligarchy, which means both an expansion of the pandemic, with all the horrific consequences this will bring, and a further immiseration of the population. The other agenda is that of the working class, which wants to fight the pandemic, save lives and defend the interests of the vast majority of the population.

The fight against the pandemic is not just a medical question. It is a political struggle to mobilize the working class against the Trump administration, the entire political establishment and the capitalist system it defends.

This is the political basis upon which the Socialist Equality Party is conducting our work and waging our election campaign. We call on all those who agree with this perspective to join and build the SEP today.

*

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.

Joseph Kishore is SEP candidate for US president.

On GlobalResearch.ca, the view points we put forth are not selected in the interest of pushing a specific narrative, but rather in breaking down divisions and building a dialogue. We publish pieces by a wide variety of specialists including journalists and scholars, political analysts and historians, ex-military and intelligence personnel, scientists and environmental experts, to name but a few.

To ensure the longevity of Global Research, we need your help! Our content will always be free, but your donations and membership subscriptions are essential to the functioning of our website. Free content involves some very real costs. We cannot meet these costs without your support. Please click below to make a donation or become a member now.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

---

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

Why are the world’s top vaccine promoters, like Paul Offit and Peter Hotez, frantically warning us about the unique and frightening dangers inherent in developing a coronavirus vaccine?

Scientists first attempted to develop coronavirus vaccines after China’s 2002 SARS-CoV outbreak. Teams of US & foreign scientists vaccinated animals with the four most promising vaccines.

At first, the experiment seemed successful as all the animals developed a robust antibody response to coronavirus. However, when the scientists exposed the vaccinated animals to the wild virus, the results were horrifying.

Vaccinated animals suffered hyper-immune responses including inflammation throughout their bodies terminating with fatal lung infections. Researchers had seen this same “enhanced immune response” during human testing of the failed RSV vaccine tests in the 1960s. Two children died.

Offit, Hotez and even Anthony Fauci (in an unguarded moment), have warned that any new coronavirus vaccine could trigger lethal immune reactions when vaccinated people come in contact with the wild virus. Instead of proceeding with caution, Fauci has made the reckless choice to fast track vaccines, partially funded by Gates, without animal studies (that could provide early warning of runaway immune response).

Gates is so worried about the danger that he says he won’t distribute his vaccines until governments agree to indemnify him against lawsuits.

On Feb 4th 2020, when there were only 11 active CV cases in the USA, the U.S. quietly pushed through Federal regulations giving coronavirus vaccine makers full immunity from liability. Are you willing to take the risk?

*

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 US is the only developed nation without some form of universal healthcare coverage.

The world’s richest country is indifferent toward the rights, needs, and welfare of its ordinary people in more normal times.

It’s much the same at times like now. Economic collapse combined with spreading coronavirus outbreaks finds tens of millions of Americans with health insurance because they’re out of work and it’s unaffordable for low and many middle-income households.

US healthcare costs double or more the amount in other developed countries — because profits are prioritized over human health and welfare, combined lack of some form of universal coverage.

In 2018, official US data showed around 28 million Americans were uninsured.

The number of underinsured is off the charts because coverage the way it should be is unaffordable for most US households so they settle for what’s inadequate or go uninsured.

Since taking office, the Trump regime took steps to undermine Obamacare marketplaces and Medicaid, including efforts to keep immigrants off its rolls.

America’s poor and low-income are most vulnerable to lack coverage or enough of it to cover major expenses if arise, Blacks and Latinos most affected.

All of the above was pre-economic collapse/spreading COVID-19 outbreaks — things much worse now than over the past decade.

Since March, applications for unemployment benefits were processed for over 26 million laid off or furloughed US workers, millions more coming, their applications for help backlogged.

By late May or June, around 47 million Americans may be laid off, many losing healthcare coverage along with income.

Shadowstats economist John Williams believes US unemployment could surge to 43% because “secondary furloughs are on the rise.”

Dr. Margaret Flowers is a  Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) national board adviser, a staunch advocate of Medicare for all.

At times like now when public duress is at a fever pitch because of rising unemployment, causing loss of income, coupled with loss of healthcare coverage for millions, the need is greater for universal coverage than any time since the 1930s Great Depression.

The world’s richest country and Wall Street owned Fed handed trillions of dollars in free money to bankers and other politically-connected corporate interests.

Ordinary Americans got peanuts, notably no help to deal with healthcare issues at a time of economic collapse with growing millions out of work and largely on their own to get by.

Flowers noted that even before the current dual crises emerged, the US “had the highest number of preventable deaths compared to other wealthy nations and a declining life expectancy.”

The leading cause of personal bankruptcies in the US is over inability to pay exorbitant healthcare costs that are rising much faster annually than average personal income.

By June, Flowers estimates the number of Americans without healthcare insurance will increase by over 13 million.

In early April, an analysis by PNHP co-founders Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein highlighted a growing lack of healthcare coverage in the US nationwide because of a surge in unemployment.

US legislation enacted into law covers COVID-19 testing, not treatment for any illnesses, “no new healthcare insurance subsidies or coverage.”

Growing numbers of uninsured individuals exclude affected family members, raising official numbers much higher with them inclouded.

Residents of states that rejected Medicaid expansion are most likely to lack coverage at a time when it’s most needed.

When employed, most Americans live from paycheck to paycheck with scant savings or none at all.

They’re unprepared to deal with what’s happening in real time. For lack of income and health insurance, they’re most likely to skip doctor visits and medications, greatly endangering themselves if illness becomes more serious.

At times like now, the urgency for universal coverage is self-evident — government sponsored, not connected to employment that in the best of times is way inadequate for most people.

At times like now, it’s gone for growing millions of unemployed and too expensive for many others.

Food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare are fundamental human rights.

Woolhandler and Himmelstein quoted economist and health research policy expert Victor Fuchs a decade ago saying:

“National health insurance will probably come to the United States after a major change in the political climate—the kind of change that often accompanies a war, a depression, or large-scale civil unrest.”

The time is now in the form economic duress that may be more severe for countless millions of Americans than any time since the 1930s.

Back then, vital social programs were established to get people back to work and help the unemployed.

Today, government under both right wings of the one-party state serves privileged interests exclusively at the expense of most others — a let ‘em eat cake agenda.

*

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 power of endlessly repeated propaganda gets most people to believe almost anything — especially when pounded into the public consciousness by press agent establishment media.

In the US, they’re mouthpieces for monied interests and the imperial state. Following government pronouncements and their reports assures unawareness of reality.

China is in the eye of the storm. Over the weekend, Pompeo was at it again, diverting attention from Trump regime indifference toward public health and welfare by falsely blaming Beijing for spreading COVID-19 outbreaks and deaths.

“We have got an economy now that is really struggling and it is all a direct result of the Chinese Communist Party covering up, hiding information, having doctors who wanted to tell the story about where this began, how patient zero was formed and how it emanated from that person, and yet we cannot get those answers,” Pompeo roared, adding:

“Even now, 120-plus days on from the Chinese Communist Party knowing about this virus, they continue to hide and obfuscate the data from the American people and from the world’s best scientists.”

Reality is vastly different from Pompeo’s reinvented history, discussed in a same-day article.

Trump regime Iran bashing continues without letup. On Saturday, Pompeo ignored its breach of international and US constitutional law by abandoning the landmark Security Council adopted JCPOA by reinventing history again, saying:

Trump’s “bold decision…protect(ed) the world from Iran’s violence and…nuclear threats…”

Reality is polar opposite. If the world community followed Iran’s geopolitical example, global peace, stability and security would triumph over endless wars of aggression — the US, NATO and Israel the main offenders.

The same goes for state terrorism, the US its main backer and proliferator.

On the 75th anniversary of victory over the scourge of Nazism, the Trump regime ignored the indispensable contribution of Soviet Russia without which the war’s outcome might have been vastly different.

Pompeo’s joint statement with foreign minister counterparts from former Soviet Russian bloc states was a thumb in the eye to heroic Red Army efforts in defeating Nazi Germany.

Instead of praising its lead role in achieving victory in Europe, Pompeo slammed what he called Soviet Russia’s “iron grip over (Eastern European) captive nations (by) overwhelming military force, repression, and ideological control,” adding:

“For many decades, numerous Europeans from the central and eastern part of the continent sacrificed their lives striving for freedom, as millions were deprived of their rights and fundamental freedoms, subjected to torture and forced displacement.”

“Societies behind the Iron Curtain desperately sought a path to democracy and independence.”

“Today, we are working together toward a strong and free Europe, where human rights, democracy and the rule of law prevail.”

Fact: Democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are abhorrent notions in the US dominated West.

Fact: Pompeo’s hostile remarks ignored the Red Army’s lead role in defeating Nazi Germany, ignored 27 million lost Russian lives, ignored the immense suffering of its entire population and devastation to its cities and towns.

He willfully pretended that victory in Europe was US-led West achievement.

Occupied France was out of the war. The US and Britain were junior partners to Soviet Russia’s war effort that enabled the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry responded strongly to Pompeo’s reinvented WW II history, a statement saying the following:

“Attempts to distort the results of the defeat of Nazism and the decisive contribution of our country, which do not stop in Washington even on the solemn days of the general celebration of the 75th anniversary of Victory, are extremely outrageous.”

“In this regard, we cannot pass by the comment posted on the pages of the White House in social networks, where the victory over Hitler’s Germany is attributed exclusively to America and Great Britain.”

“On the eve of the holy holiday, American officials did not have the courage and desire to pay at least a half-word tribute to the undeniable role and enormous disproportionate sacrifices that the Red Army and the Soviet people suffered then for the sake of all humanity.”

“US officials have also been extremely stingy in this regard.”

“Unfortunately, this attitude clearly dissonates with the statement adopted on April 25 by Presidents Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Trump on the anniversary of the historic meeting of Soviet and American soldiers on the Elbe in 1945.”

“The document highlights the joint efforts of our countries in the fight against the common enemy.”

“(T)he real facts of history cannot be ignored – regardless of the sympathies or antipathies that arise both in relation to the Soviet Union, which liberated the world from the brown plague in those years, and in relation to our country today.”

“This is evidenced by the numerous well-founded responses to Belodomov’s tweets not only from Russians, but also from Americans who know American history, as well as people from all corners of the world.”

“It is noteworthy that their correct and based on historical facts comments are systematically removed.”

“And this is done (by a nation) which tirelessly declares its ‘commitment to freedom of speech!’ ”

“The theme of the sacred exploit of the older generation in war should not become yet another problem in bilateral relations, which are already going through difficult times.”

“Russia and the United States, despite their differences, can, on the basis of trust, mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests, jointly respond to the increasing challenges of modern times.”

“We intend to have a serious conversation on this issue with (Trump regime) officials.”

On Saturday, Russia’s US envoy Anatoly Antonov slammed the Trump regime’s reinvented history of WW II.

Calling its belittling unacceptable, he said the following:

“The unleashed misinformation campaign in a number of countries and, unfortunately, in the United States, when they try to belittle the role of the Soviet Union or even, moreover, to say that the Soviet Union has started World War II, is simply unacceptable.”

“I can’t even imagine how people can speak such blasphemous words today, knowing that the Soviets lost 27 million people.”

“(W)e should not stay silent. We should talk about it, but speak calmly, reasonably, try to convey to ordinary Americans, to ordinary people in Europe and all over the world, that it was Soviet soldiers who liberated Europe” — not the Americans, British or anyone else

The Red Army “defended the independence of Europe and the Soviet Union, and no one will ever make us forget those times, and no one will ever be able to shake our confidence that the most important thing is to be together in the fight against new challenges and threats. Today it is more important than ever.”

Moscow is justifiably furious over the Trump regime’s reinvented WW II history, including the White House tweeting:

“On May 8, 1945, America and Great Britain had victory over the Nazis!”

“America’s spirit will always win. In the end, that’s what happens.”

Moscow urged the Trump regime to commemorate the Soviet Union’s indispensable contribution to defeating the scourge of Nazism – and not rewrite history.

The request that should have been respected and honored fell on deaf ears.

Note: In cahoots with US dark forces, Facebook banned from its platform a colorized iconic photo of Red Army soldier Yevgeny Khaldei’s raising Soviet Russia’s flag over the Reichstag in Berlin on May 2, 1945 — because it marked Moscow’s defeat of Nazi Germany in living color.

*

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: CIA reference photograph of Soviet medium-range ballistic missile (SS-4 in U.S. documents, R-12 in Soviet documents) in Red Square, Moscow. (Source: Public Domain)

The recent political crisis that exploded between Iran and Afghanistan after the former’s security forces were accused of forcing over 50 of the latter’s illegal immigrants into a river on their shared border (where the majority of them are thought to have perished) further threatens the viability of India’s Chabahar Corridor, which might put the final nail in the coffin of this already seemingly doomed trans-regional connectivity project.

Why is the UK government refusing to release details of its ‘unprecedented’ data transfer to US tech giants? If we don’t get answers, we may seek them in the courts.

***

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,¹ son of Sen. and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, both of whom were tragically murdered, has continued in the footsteps of these famously courageous men by standing up for the truth.

He co-founded Waterkeeper Alliance — the world’s largest clean water advocacy group — and provides legal counsel for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which help protect organic producers. He has also fought legal battles on behalf of the Informed Consent Action Network, founded by Del Bigtree, and chairs the board of directors of the Children’s Health Defense.²

Kennedy wrote a brilliant foreword to Judy Mikovits’ book “Plague of Corruption,” in which he quotes his father saying, “Moral courage is the rarest species of bravery … rarer than the physical courage of soldiers in battle or great intelligence.” His father believed “moral courage was one of the most vital qualities required to change the world,” Kennedy says.

While Kennedy was referring to Mikovits’ moral courage, the same can be said for Kennedy himself, whose career as an environmental attorney and activist is built on defending those who cannot defend themselves.

This includes children who are being harmed by vaccines that have yet to be tested for safety, especially when given in combination with other vaccines. In September 2018, Kennedy proved the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) violated its mandate for safer childhood vaccines as stipulated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act.³

What Happened to Trump’s Vaccine Safety Commission?

When President Trump was elected, he contacted Kennedy and asked him to run his Vaccine Safety Commission. Unfortunately, the Safety Commission never got off the ground:

“I agreed to do it, but immediately after that, Pfizer wrote a $1 million check to his inauguration committee. He then appointed a Pfizer lobbyist, Alex Azar, to run the HHS, and he handpicked a Pfizer insider, Scott Gottlieb, to run the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As soon as they got in there, they shut down the Vaccine Safety Commission and any other questioning of vaccines,” Kennedy says.

“I think a lot of people were telling him, ‘You shouldn’t be doing this,’ and [Bill] Gates was one of them. But I think once he took the money from Pfizer and put in their guys, [the commission] was dead in the water.”

Coronavirus Vaccine Development Has Failed for Decades

Kennedy goes on to share some of his insights and take on what Judy discusses in her book, the potential relationship between the flu vaccine and COVID-19, and his views on the COVID-19 vaccines currently being fast-tracked. With regard to the COVID-19 vaccine, he says:

“We’re all waiting for a vaccine, and if they come up with a vaccine and they’ve actually done real safety testing on it, and the vaccine works, I would be happy to have the vaccine. But the problem is they’re not [safety] testing it at this point …

People have tried for many years — for three decades — to create a coronavirus vaccine. The coronavirus can be super virulent, super deadly and super transmissible, or it can be mild, like a cold. The Chinese have been trying to [develop a vaccine] … and when you try to create a vaccine, what you do is you accelerate evolution.”

How to Accelerate the Evolution of a Virus

As explained by Kennedy, the way they accelerate evolution is by taking the coronavirus from the anus of the bat and replicate it in animal tissue such as pangolin kidney tissue. Next, the grown viruses are placed on feral monkey kidney cells, followed by mouse brain tissue.

Each time you transfer the virus to another animal tissue, you increase the risk of zoonotic animal virus contamination in addition to mutations. According to Kennedy, six years of evolution can be accomplished in a matter of days using this accelerated evolution process. Through this process, extremely viral forms of the virus can be rapidly created. Typically, milder forms are used to create a vaccine. As explained by Kennedy:

“You can take a mild form and give a person that mild form, and they don’t really get sick. They develop the antibodies, and that’s the theory [behind vaccination]. But there are reasons that they like to create those super viral forms. One is, most of the labs where they do it, like Fort Detrick in [the U.S.] and Wuhan lab in China, are not only vaccine labs but they’re also military labs.

“So, they want to mess around and look at these viruses that they may be able to weaponize. Not only that, the people who are creating vaccines like to create super viral forms. They give them to mice who have been genetically engineered to have a human immune system, essentially. Then they try to cure them.

“Those experiments were going on in the United States until 2014. They were Dr. Anthony Fauci’s projects. President Obama ordered that to stop because they had a lot of lab escape problems in 2014 from three different labs …

“Instead of stopping as he was ordered, Fauci moved those operations to the Wuhan lab in China and continued to do those experiments right up until the time that the coronavirus [pandemic occurred]. In fact, [infectious disease expert] Ian Lipkin was doing those experiments over there when [COVID-19] exploded. And I’ll tell you exactly what happened because it’s very suspicious.”

Was SARS-CoV-2 Released to Safeguard Continued Research?

Kennedy continues telling the story of how the COVID-19 epidemic may have been generated — by releasing the virus — to ensure that dangerous coronavirus research would continue and receive fresh funding:

“When President Trump came in, Obama had an office in the White House for pandemic defense, for pandemic security. They were involved in funding [coronavirus research projects in Wuhan] through Fauci. President Trump ended all funding for that office September 20, 2019. So that was the last paycheck any of those scientists got.

“On September 30 [2019], a whole lot of scientists were laid off in Wuhan. October 1 is when the first case of [COVID-19 was reported]. So, it’s suspicious because it looks like there’s a possibility — and I’m speculating here; I want to make that clear — but there’s a possibility that somebody who lost their job in that lab … could have released the virus.

“Because, immediately, it created an instantaneous market for people with that particular skillset, which is to study how to make a coronavirus vaccine. So, you could go from unemployed to highly employed almost overnight if you released one of those microorganisms they were creating in that lab. I don’t know if that happened, but that’s something that needs to be [investigated].”

Most Journalists Now Act as Pharmaceutical Reps

An even broader agenda appears to be the introduction of a far more authoritarian regime, along with the transfer of wealth from average people to the richest through a planned economic collapse.

“Of course, that’s speculation,” Kennedy says, “and it’s stuff that if we were living in a true democracy where there was a free press that was actually permitted to ask those questions and speculate on that, then we would be doing an investigation of those questions. We have a right to know and we all ought to know the answer.

“Unfortunately, journalists today are no longer journalists, they’re pharmaceutical reps … You’re a huge threat to them because you are not part of the pharmaceutical [establishment].

“You’re telling people the truth, which is that there are problems with germ theory, and that the [first line of defense] we have against illness of all kinds, including infectious disease, is a really strong immune system. And that our immune system functions in an evolution-intended [way], which is to fend off billions, hundreds of billions of infectious viruses every single day.”

Coronavirus Vaccine May Be a Disaster Waiting to Happen

Kennedy goes on to summarize the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began after three SARS epidemics had broken out, starting in early 2002.

“The first one was a natural epidemic that had moved from bats to human beings. The second two were lab-created organisms where people were experimenting with the coronavirus … That’s noncontroversial. Everybody accepts that.

“The Chinese, the Americans, the Europeans all got together and said, ‘We need to develop a vaccine against coronavirus.’ Around 2012, they had about 30 vaccines that looked promising. They took the four best of those and … manufactured the vaccines. They gave those vaccines to ferrets, which are the closest analogy when you’re looking at lung infections in human beings.

“The ferrets had an extraordinarily good antibody response, and that is the metric by which FDA licenses vaccines. Vaccines, as you know, are never tested in the field. They never give 5,000 people the vaccine, 5,000 people a placebo vaccine, and then tell them to go out and live life and watch what happens to those people. That never happens.

“The way that vaccines get licensed is that FDA gives people a vaccine or the industry gives them the vaccines, and then they do a serological response [test to] see ‘Did you develop in your blood antibodies to that target virus?’ The ferrets developed very strong antibodies, so they thought, ‘We hit the jackpot.’ All four of these vaccines … worked like a charm.

“Then something terrible happened. Those ferrets were then exposed to the wild virus, and they all died. [They developed] inflammation in all their organs, their lungs stopped functioning and they died.

“Then those scientists remembered that the same thing had happened in the 1960s when they tried to develop an RSV vaccine, which is an upper respiratory illness very similar to coronavirus.

“At the time, they did not test it on animals. They went right to human testing. They tested it on I think about 35 children, and the same thing happened. The children developed a champion antibody response, robust, durable. It looked perfect, and then the children were exposed to the wild virus and they all became sick. Two of them died. They abandoned the vaccine. It was a big embarrassment to FDA and NIH …

“Those scientists in 2012 remembered that, and they said, ‘This is the same thing that happened [back then].’ So, they look closer and they realize that there are two kinds of antibodies that were being produced by the coronavirus. There are neutralizing antibodies, which are the kind you want, which fight the disease, and then there are binding antibodies.

The binding antibodies actually create a pathway for the disease in your body, and they trigger something called … a paradoxical immune response or paradoxical immune enhancement. What that means is that it looks good until you get the disease, and then it makes the disease much, much worse …

“Coronavirus vaccines can be very dangerous, and that’s why even our enemies, people who hate you and me — Peter Hotez, Paul Offit, Ian Lipkin — are all saying, ‘You got to be really, really careful with this vaccine.’”

Dengue Vaccine Led to Criminal Prosecution

According to Kennedy, the same thing happened in 2014 with the dengue vaccine DENVax, which Fauci owns the patent on. “They knew from the clinical trials that there was a problem with paradoxical immune response,” Kennedy says, but they gave it to several hundred thousand Filipino kids anyway.

They got a great immune response from the vaccine, but those exposed to wild dengue got horribly sick and 600 of the children died. “Today, the Philippine government is prosecuting criminally a bunch of the people locally who were involved in that decision,” Kennedy says.

Coronavirus Mutates Rapidly

Another problem with coronavirus vaccines is that coronaviruses mutate very rapidly. Kennedy cites a recent Chinese study⁴ — “Patent-Derived Mutations Impact Pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2” — which was also reported in the New York Post⁵ April 21, 2020, in which they looked at the coronavirus strains found in hundreds of patients. They identified more than 30 different strains, 19 of which had previously not been seen. According to the authors:⁶

“Current genomic survey data suggest that single nucleotide variants (SNVs) are abundant … Here we report functional characterizations of 11 patient-derived viral isolates, all of which have at least one mutation. Importantly, these viral isolates show significant variation in cytopathic effects and viral load, up to 270-fold differences, when infecting Vero-E6 cells.

“We observed intrapersonal variation and 6 different mutations in the spike glycoprotein (S protein), including 2 different SNVs that led to the same missense mutation. Therefore, we provide direct evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 has acquired mutations capable of substantially changing its pathogenicity.”

As noted by Kennedy, the question is, if you vaccinate against one of those strains, will it protect against the rest? Or might the coronavirus act more like the influenza virus, where the vaccine will only give you a narrow band of immune response and/or might actually enhance injury from other strains?

“The World Health Organization and the British Medical Services are now saying there is no evidence that even getting an infection from the coronavirus equips you with antibodies that will protect you in the future.

“They’re seeing a lot of reinfection of people who got COVID-19, got better, and then got [sick from] coronavirus again. If that’s true, then it’s unlikely that any vaccine will work because natural infection always [gives you] a wider band immune response than a vaccine.”

Flu Vaccination Increases Risk of Coronavirus Infection

Mikovits has strong beliefs on this issue, as she doesn’t believe COVID-19 is due to SARS-CoV-2 alone but, rather, that the virus may serve to activate latent XMRV retroviral infection. She points out that retroviruses, not coronaviruses, are what cause the characteristic cytokine storm signature observed in COVID-19. Mikovits suspects that in people who do not have retroviral infections, SARS-CoV-2 causes no or only mild symptoms.

Like Mikovits, Kennedy cites a Pentagon study⁷ published in the January 10, 2020, issue of the Vaccine journal, which found you’re 36% more likely to get coronavirus infection if you got the influenza vaccine in 2017 or 2018. As noted in this study, titled “Influenza Vaccination and Respiratory Virus Interference Among Department of Defense Personnel During the 2017-2018 Influenza Season”:

“Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference. Test-negative study designs are often utilized to calculate influenza vaccine effectiveness.

“The virus interference phenomenon goes against the basic assumption of the test-negative vaccine effectiveness study that vaccination does not change the risk of infection with other respiratory illness, thus potentially biasing vaccine effectiveness results in the positive direction.

“This study aimed to investigate virus interference by comparing respiratory virus status among Department of Defense personnel based on their influenza vaccination status. Furthermore, individual respiratory viruses and their association with influenza vaccination were examined.”

Results were mixed. Interestingly enough, while seasonal influenza vaccination did not raise the risk of all respiratory infections, it was in fact “significantly associated with unspecified coronavirus (meaning it did not specifically mention SARS-CoV-2) and human metapneumovirus” (hMPV).

Those who had received a seasonal flu shot were 36% more likely to contract coronavirus infection and 51% more likely to contract hMPV infection than unvaccinated individuals.⁸

Looking at the symptoms list for hMPV⁹ is also telling, as the main symptoms include fever, sore throat and cough. The elderly and immunocompromised are at heightened risk for severe hMPV illness, the symptoms of which include difficulty breathing and pneumonia. All of these symptoms also apply for COVID-19. Again, while this study did not look at SARS-CoV-2 specifically, it did look at coronaviruses, so “It’s a red flag,” Kennedy says, adding:

“That study is not alone. We’ve found — and I’ve posted these on my Instagram — at least 10 other studies that say, ‘If you get the flu vaccine, you’re much more likely to get a non-flu respiratory viral infection.’ The risk goes up, in some of those studies, about 600%. In some other of those studies, less than that — 200%, 300%, 400%.

“But virtually all of these studies show that the flu vaccine actually makes you more susceptible to coronavirus, and there may be reasons for that. It’s been speculated that there may be coronavirus contamination in the flu vaccines … [or] it could be the XMRV.

“You’re getting that paradoxical immune response because you’ve been inadvertently inoculated with the coronavirus when you get the flu vaccine. So, we don’t know, but the observed effect is very well documented …

“In Northern Italy, right before the outbreak of [COVID-19], there was a mass vaccination [using] a very powerful flu vaccine … But it’s anecdotal. There’s no proof of [a correlation].”

Mikovits believes one of the reasons older Italians got hit so hard in northern Italy is because the vaccine given there was grown in dog kidney cells, which she claims are contaminated with coronaviruses.

Can Flu Vaccination Trigger a Positive SARS-CoV-2 Test?

What’s more, Mikovits claims that anyone who has received a flu vaccine is likely to register as positive for SARS-Co-V-2 using a PCR test, for the fact that most flu vaccines in the U.S. are made in chicken cells or dog kidney cells, which her research shows are contaminated with coronaviruses. In our interview, she explained:

“[The vaccines] are grown in animal cells and … have some of the same host viral proteins and lock and keys. As they’re floating through the laboratory where they’re growing large stocks of these cells, aerosolizing them, it contaminates and cross contaminates through the air …

“This is what we found in 2011. The big ‘Oh my God,’ was, we can’t afford to retrofit our laboratories and manufacturing facilities toward biosafety level 3 and 4 to protect the lab workers who are spreading these viruses and getting infected. And now the [retroviruses] are aerosolized … All the cell lines are contaminated …”

Mikovits’ research showed that the contamination occurred during the original creation of the cultured cell lines used to then grow the vaccine in. In other words, the cells in which many vaccines are grown are already infected. That’s how the retroviruses get into the vaccine, and is then spread via injection. She doesn’t believe the contamination of vaccines with retroviruses was an intentional act. But the cover-up certainly is.

“The message of ‘Plague of Corruption’ is that we cannot mix animal and human tissues. Not just coronaviruses, but the infectious retroviruses [are spread this way]. We are injecting lots of animal tissue, fetal tissue, into humans, and we’re creating novel viruses all the time, even within the individual or family,” she says.

Could Type 1 Interferon Be Used Against SARS-CoV-2?

According to Mikovits, the existence and function of XMRVs is highly relevant as it pertains to COVID-19. There are many coronaviruses in the natural world, but according to Mikovits, they’re not highly pathogenic because they don’t cause this inflammatory signature of disease that suggests the immune system is out of control and causing massive cytokine storms.

“This was our work for the last four decades … We were led down a path where we learned in 1991 that you could have HIV and never get AIDS.

“If you employ the right treatment at the right time, then you stop the replication of the virus, you stop the reservoirs, you stop the immune destruction, and that could easily have been done in the case of SARS-CoV-2 with simple Type 1 interferon at a very low dose, which has 40 years of research [behind it].

“I was part of the team that first used the immune therapy, a purified Type 1 interferon alpha, as a curative therapy for a leukemia. That research has proceeded for decades, [yet] the Food and Drug Administration said, ‘You can’t use that in preventing coronaviruses from jumping from animals [to humans].’

“[Type 1 interferon] is a simple food. It’s a simple spray. We have it on the shelf now, made by Merck, [yet] Merck discontinued its use. Why would you do that if that was the frontline … prevention? Interferon alpha is your body’s own best antiviral against coronaviruses and retroviruses.”

Understanding Interferons

One of Mikovits’ primary treatment recommendations is interferon 1 alpha, sold under brand names such as Alferon and Roferon, to shut down the replication of RNA viruses, including retroviruses and coronaviruses. She believes it might be beneficial to take twice a day for the duration of known exposure. Although a bottle costs around $600, one only needs small amounts and a bottle can treat 1,000 people for a week.

Interferon alpha Type 1^10,11 is a type of beneficial cytokine released by your body as one of its first line of defense against viral infections. In a nutshell, it interferes with viral replication. It’s also been shown to suppress certain types of tumors. As part of your immune system, it stimulates the infected cells and those nearby to produce proteins that prevent the virus from replicating within them.

Interferon alpha and beta also help regulate your immune response. As noted in a 2018 paper¹² on the dual nature of Type 1 and Type 2 interferons, “both antiviral and immunomodulatory functions are critical during virus infection to not only limit virus replication and initiate an appropriate antiviral immune response, but to also negatively regulate this response to minimize tissue damage.”

Like Mikovits, Dominic Chan, a Doctor of Pharmacy who recently updated an article on interferon on Medicinenet.com., proposes using interferons against COVID-19. The earlier article, written by Eni Williams, Pharm.D. and Ph.D., before she died in 2017,¹³ says:¹⁴

“Interferons modulate the response of the immune system to viruses, bacteria, cancer, and other foreign substances that invade the body. Interferons do not directly kill viral or cancerous cells; they boost the immune system response and reduce the growth of cancer cells by regulating the action of several genes that control the secretion of numerous cellular proteins that affect growth …”

She goes on to list a number of interferons that are commercially available, including Intron-A (interferon alfa-2b), Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) and many more. In April 2020, Chan added:

“Interferon beta-1a, currently in use to treat multiple sclerosis, and interferon alfa-2b are both under investigation as potential treatments for people with COVID-19 coronavirus disease …

“Interferon Beta 1a, specifically, activates macrophages that engulf antigens and natural killer cells (NK cells), a type of immune T-Cell … The theory is, interferon may be able to make the immune system stronger by turning on dormant parts and directing them toward the defense against SARS-CoV-2’s assault.”

It’s worth noting the warnings, however. According to Chan, if you already have flu-like symptoms and take interferons, the symptoms are likely to get worse before they get better, as your immune system ramps up. “If someone is already on a ventilator and symptoms are about to overwhelm them, giving them an interferon-based medicine could be catastrophic,” he says.

How to Make a Safe Vaccine

Mikovits also proposes a novel vaccine for weaponized viruses like this that involves the alpha interferon, small amounts of the virus and peptide T, which will block the interaction of the virus and keep your T cells from getting infected.

Unlike conventional vaccines, which are mostly injected, this would be oral and would only stimulate antibody humoral responses. Her version would also cause innate cellular immunity from the T cells.

To learn more about Mikovits’ research and conclusions, see “Could Retroviruses Play a Role in COVID-19?” You’ll find the full interview with her at the bottom of that article. To summarize some of the key take-home messages Mikovits delivers in that interview:

• She believes COVID-19 — the disease — is not caused by SARS-CoV-2 alone, but rather that it’s the result of a combination of SARS-CoV-2 (which appears to have been manipulated to include components of HIV that destroys immune function). Previous XMRV (human gammaretroviruses) infection may facilitate SARS-CoV-2 to express the COVID-19 illness.

Put another way, COVID-19 may be initiated by SARS-CoV-2, but dependent upon a preexisting infection with and awakening of other viruses such as XMRV, gamma retroviruses, possibly Lyme and other coinfections, including parasites, and this is why antiparasitic medications like hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin help.

• Blood products and vaccines are contaminated with XMRVs that can damage your immune system and cause CFS, cancer and other chronic diseases. The viruses spread within laboratories as they have adapted to become aerosolized and contaminate cell lines used in vaccine production and other viral research, including research on coronaviruses.
• Flu vaccines have spread a host of dangerous viruses around the world, which can then interact with SARS COV-2.
• It is possible to develop safer oral vaccines, and interferon alpha could be a valuable treatment alternative against COVID-19. Aside from interferons, other treatment strategies discussed in our interview include hyperbaric oxygen therapy, cannabinoids (CBD), peptide T and antioxidant support.
• SARS-CoV-2 is more dangerous and virulent than typical coronaviruses because it includes sequences of HIV, SARS and another virus, which enable it to infect more than just your respiratory epithelium. It can also infect blood cells and hematopoeitic organs such as the spleen.

*

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 South Front

There are certain basic freedoms to which all people are entitled. Foundational to all of them is self-determination. Once that principle is enshrined in any nation, such freedoms as speech, press, movement, etc. follow. People who live under any system in which the concept of self-determination is at least minimally respected enjoy these benefits to a greater or lesser degree.

I first became interested in Kashmir because of my work on freedom for the Palestinians. The oppression of both nations is strikingly similar. Both peoples suffer due to United Nations decisions dating back over seventy years, and both have suffered for that length of time. Both are victimized brutally by powerful nations, Palestinians by Israel and Kashmiris by India. The Kashmiri suffering, like the suffering and oppression of the Palestinians, has mainly been ignored by the international community. India’s own actions in August of last year caused that to change, although not to the degree necessary, by suspending Kashmir’s constitutional autonomy, closing Kashmir’s borders and sealing that nation off even from social media contacts.

Palestinians and Kashmiris, under the occupying governments, are considered second-class citizens at best, and less than human at worst. Israel has declared itself the nation-state of the Jewish people and only the Jewish people, thus completely discounting the 20% of Israeli residents who are Arab, most of whom are Muslim. India’s revocation of Article 370 of its constitution opened the doors to additional repression of the Kashmiri people.

Opportunities that we all take for granted – the ability to find and hold gainful employment, keep our families safe, and live relatively free from government-sponsored terrorism – are completely lacking for Kashmiris and Palestinians.

There can be no doubt about India’s intentions in Kashmir: the Indian government simply seeks to render it non-existent. In mid-November of last year, three months after Article 370 was revoked, Sandeep Chakravorty, India‘s consul general in New York, made this clear. In the quotation I’m going to read, the refugees he refers to were Kashmiri Hindus who fled in 1989 after a rebellion: “I believe the security situation will improve, it will allow the refugees to go back, and in your lifetime, you will be able to go back … and you will be able to find security, because we already have a model in the world.” He further said, “I don’t know why we don’t follow it. It has happened in the Middle East. If the Israeli people can do it, we can also do it.” He then said that the Indian government is determined to do so. He was referring, of course, to colonization.

One might reasonably wonder why the global community doesn’t act. It seems that many nations, often at the behest of the United States, are forever rushing into various countries for ‘humanitarian assistance’. Why not Kashmir? Why not Palestine?

As with most of its foreign policy, the U.S. is more concerned with profits than with people. The U.S is now India’s largest trading partner, and while it could use this as leverage to obtain significant concessions from India, including, perhaps, even a complete end to the occupation of Kashmir, it is simply easier to maintain the status quo, and count profits rather than Kashmiri victims. This may appear to be a harsh view, but again, the parallels between the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the Indian treatment of Kashmir are clear. The U.S. gives $4 billion annually to Israel in foreign aid; it would be interesting to see how quickly Israeli policies would change if that funding were to be withheld. Similarly, how long would India continue its colonization of Kashmir, if U.S. trade dollars were not flowing so freely?

In February of this year, U.S. President Donald Trump met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and received a very warm reception, mainly because he didn’t bother to bring up the subject of Kashmir. There is much that the U.S. president could have done, as I mentioned earlier, but Trump has shown an affinity for what he calls ‘strong’ leaders, expressing admiration for Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, each of whom runs a nation with dismal human rights records. And since Modi is cut from the same mold, as demonstrated by his actions toward Kashmir, he has no reason to fear censure from the U.S. president.

Following the 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001, the U.S. launched the so-called ‘war on terror’, mainly by unleashing horrific terror against other nations. It referred to Iraqi freedom fighters as ‘insurgents’, and India is now taking a page out of the U.S. terrorism handbook. Resistance against the occupation of Kashmir is ‘terrorism’, we are told, and the Indian government has no choice but to repress it. We should remember that resistance to occupation is a right under international law. Here we see another parallel with Palestine. Any acts of resistance to that occupation are considered by Israel to be acts of terrorism, leaving that apartheid nation with ‘no choice’ but to bomb Palestine and arrest and kill its citizens, all in the name of ‘national security’.

In 2012, then U.S. Secretary of State (and later Democratic presidential candidate) Hillary Clinton said this “We reject any equivalence between premeditated murders by a government’s military machine and the actions of civilians under siege driven to self-defence”. Is it not unrealistic to consider a brutally occupied nation to be ‘under siege’? Would not such a people, as Clinton expressed, be ‘driven to self-defence’? One might think so.

The reason we have gathered today is because of our shared concern about the people of Kashmir, their brutal repression and the unspeakable suffering they are experiencing. But our goal is not simply to learn, but to be part of the solution. We know about the suffering, and because of that, we are obligated to help resolve it. What can we do? I have a few suggestions:

1. Don’t allow the Kashmiri oppression and suffering to be ignored. Use whatever platform you have to publicize it. Repost articles you see on your social media accounts, including LinkedIn. For a long time that was almost exclusively used for employment networking, but every avenue available must be used to inform the world about Kashmir.
2. Contact your elected officials. I hesitate to refer to them as ‘representatives’, because so few of them truly represent me. Meet with them when you can, politely and cordially, but clearly let them know your stand on the issue. For those of us in Canada, we must let our elected officials know our expectation that Canada will stand for human rights around the world. They can do this by working with member states of the United Nations Security Council to keep Kashmir on its agenda. Remind those officials that Canada seeks a temporary seat on the Security Council, and has vowed to “stand up for things that matter”. Let them know that Kashmir matters.

When you cannot meet with them, write to them. All officials have emails. In most cases, you will receive a form letter in response. Those that I have receive generally thank me for my email, and say that the official is ‘carefully monitoring the situation’, or some such meaningless tripe. Don’t be discouraged! It only takes a minute to send an email, so keep on sending them. Eventually, the people you send them to will begin to understand the importance of this issue to you, and to their re-election chances.  Email addresses of all officials are available online.

3. Keep informed. Through forums like this one, or contact with people in Kashmir, when that is available, or through any means possible, keep updated on the situation in the country. Know the stories of deprivation, cruelty and suffering. This will make your publicizing of the issue, and your contacts with elected officials, more effective.
4. Finally, do not despair. There is a quotation attributed to the late anthropologist Margaret Mead that you have probably heard, and that I like very much: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, organized citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” We may, at present, be a small group, but we are growing, and we are committed and increasingly well-organized. We don’t need to change the entire world right now: just India’s oppression of Kashmir. It’s a tall order, but we must be up to the challenge; too many suffering people are relying on us for us not to do everything in our power to assist 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.

While small and independent businesses are struggling to survive, the Bank of England is creating billions in new money to bail out Britain’s biggest companies – in secret. As public money, we deserve to know where this is being spent, and which companies are receiving it.

As part of their activities to combat the economic fallout of Covid-19, the Bank of England has created a new scheme called the Covid Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF), to specifically support the UK’s biggest companies impacted by the crisis.

The Bank of England specifically said companies receiving or eligible for funds “will not be made public” and businesses are being made to sign confidentiality agreements. Campaign Group Positive Money reports that –

“By the first week of April they had handed out more than £11 billion in bailouts with another £30 billion agreed – almost all of it hidden from public view. We’ve only learnt about a handful of company bailouts (such as EasyJet, Greggs, Redrow Homes and First Group) backhandedly through the press. And, to access the scheme, companies must be deemed to make a material contribution to the UK economy and have an investment-grade or sound long-term rating from a big credit rating agency – making the CCFF a highly exclusive facility.”

If a company meets these requirements, the Bank then purchases an amount of short-term debt from the company with brand new money it creates entirely for this purpose. This is public money pure and simple. To be clear, we are not publishing this because the CCFF is somehow wrong – only that the general public should know exactly what taxpayers are on the hook for and to whom.

During this time of crisis, the Bank of England must lift its veil of secrecy and make all it’s business bailouts public now. It is only right and proper that any company that has used sophisticated and ‘creative’ accountancy methods and devices to offshore profits be excluded from any bailout, no matter what the consequence.

Source: Bank of England

As at last week, the Bank of England have issued £51billion drawing capacity to 105 businesses. Of this 52 have received taxpayer support and 53 are soon to get their bailout. A further 104 businesses have applied in addition and one could assume from that, that well over £100bn would have been given the businesses for bailouts – all in total secrecy by the end of May.

Should we be suspicious? Yes. It is another scandal but also a shameful fact that almost three-quarters of companies who have been given major government contracts have operations based via tax havens. So big are these operations they account for something like 20 per cent of total government procurement spending and as they are secretive operations by the nature of their tax haven status, one wonders who exactly is profiting from them.

In the meantime, as I’m sure many readers are aware, Tesco has paid out £900 million in dividends to investors despite securing a £585 million tax break from the Government. Irrespective of the arguments here, Tesco, who by their own admission, has a strong balance sheet, has taken nearly £600m from the taxpayer in a desperate moment to the benefit of its shareholders. Tesco biggest shareholders are the American giant Blackrock with Norges Bank and Schroders Bank close behind.

*

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.

Over the past three years, Facebook has been removing accounts for participating in what they call “coordinated inauthentic behavior” (CIB). According to Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy, the Orwellian term refers to when “groups of pages or people work together to mislead others about who they are or what they’re doing.” Facebook takes down accounts for CIB due to “deceptive behavior” not for sharing false information. In the latest purge, Facebook removed accounts from two news outlets, SouthFront and News Front.

The two outlets have no affiliation; the only thing they share besides the word “Front” in their names is content that does not toe the Western mainstream media line. In its effort to remove CIB and limit “disinformation,” Facebook partners with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab (DFRLab). The Atlantic Council is a Washington-based think-tank that receives funding from Western and Gulf State governments, defense contractors, and social media outlets. Some of its top contributors for the 2018 fiscal year include the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Embassy of the UAE to the US, the US State Department, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon.

Facebook started releasing monthly CIB reports in March that detail the networks and accounts they take down. On May 5^th, Facebook released its CIB report for April 2020. The report says Facebook removed eight networks of accounts, pages, and groups engaging in CIB. SouthFront and News Front are included in the first network covered in the report. “We removed 46 Pages, 91 Facebook accounts, 2 Groups, and 1 Instagram account for violating our policy against foreign interference which is coordinated inauthentic behavior on behalf of a foreign entity,” the report reads.

Facebook claims they linked this activity to “individuals in Russia and Donbass, and two media organizations in Crimea – NewsFront and SouthFront.” In a response to the report, SouthFront says the claim that they are based in Crimea is a “blatant lie” that they are willing to “defend in court.” SouthFront says the organization is made up of “an international team of independent authors and experts,” some of whom are from Russia and post-USSR states. News Front, on the other hand, is based in Crimea, but the organization does not try to hide its pro-Russia bias.

In a press release, the Atlantic Council’s DFRLab announced Facebook’s removal of the two organizations. The DFRLab refers to News Front and SouthFront as “two Crimea-based media organizations with ties to the FSB.” The FSB is a Russian security and intelligence agency, a successor to the Soviet Union’s KGB. In its independent analysis of the two outlets, the DFRLab offers little evidence to back up the claim of FSB ties. The analysis only uses a 2017 story from the German outlet Zeit, where a former News Front staffer claims the organization receives funding from the FSB. The DFRLab offers no evidence to link the FSB with SouthFront.

The DFRLab does not make a strong case for Facebook’s removal of the news outlets. The press release says, “While the DFRLab could not corroborate Facebook’s finding of CIB, it also found no evidence to contradict it.”

But using Facebook’s definition of CIB, the DFRLab’s analysis of the two outlets does seem to contradict Facebook’s findings. The pages and users analyzed do not seem to be misleading others or hiding who they are. “Most of the assets that DFRLab had access to did not hide their connection to South Front or News Front. Many of the pages wore their connections on their sleeves, naming themselves as different language versions of the websites,” the analysis reads. News Front is an international news organization with websites in English, Russian, German, Spanish, French, and Georgian and had Facebook pages to reflect that.

The analysis finds what they call “suspicious links” between News Front and ANNA News, another pro-Russia news outlet. But those “suspicious links” are just two former ANNA News anchors who now work for News Front. Facebook removed pages dedicated to the two anchors.

The analysis goes on to address the only connection between SouthFront and News Front, and probably, the real reason why they were removed from Facebook. Both outlets share stories that go against the Western narrative. The example the analysis seems to take the greatest issue with is stories that take into account Russia’s denial in the role in the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine in 2014. The analysis also points out that News Front accounts shared news stories from Russian-state funded media outlets like RT and Sputnik.

Ultimately, the DFRLab does not provide any information linking SouthFront or News Front’s social media activity to the Russian government and does not give examples of the accounts intentionally hiding their identity. The best they can do is mention some connections to the Russian government the founders of News Front have, but it is nothing they are trying to hide.

The Covid-19 pandemic has caused an increase in internet censorship. YouTube’s CEO recently said they would remove any videos that go against the World Health Organization’s guidelines for the virus. On top of the Facebook ban, SouthFront’s YouTube channel has also been removed without any explanation. Although most of SouthFront’s content is military analysis, some stories they published on Covid-19 were flagged as “disinformation” by a ministry of the European Union. SouthFront published a detailed response to those accusations, pointing out that only three of the 3,000 stories they published this year were found to be “disinformation” by what they call “pro-NATO propagandists.”

SouthFront posted a video asking their readers for support in the wake of the social media bans. For independent news outlets, reach on social media is vital for their survival. SouthFront’s Facebook page had around 100,000 subscribers, and the YouTube channel had about 170,000. SouthFrontpublishes multiple news stories each day, mostly following updates on wars in the Middle East. One of the website’s best resources is its frequently updated maps.

Other networks removed by Facebook in April include accounts in Iran, Georgia, Mauritania, the US, and Myanmar. Facebook claims they took down a network of accounts connected to Iran’s state broadcasting company, although they provide no evidence to support the claim. Content credited to this network includes a post promoting former presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul from 2012. Another example from 2014 is just a news story about Israeli forces preventing Palestinians from praying in al-Aqsa Mosque.

Facebook and its Western government-backed partners will continue to remove accounts each month for engaging in CIB. It will be hard to know if the connections they make to the accounts are genuine. But if the sloppy work they did on SouthFront and News Front is any indication, claims from Facebook and the Atlantic Council’s DFRLab should always be met with skepticism.

*

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.

Dave DeCamp is assistant editor at Antiwar.com and a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn NY, focusing on US foreign policy and wars. He is on Twitter at @decampdave.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

Recently, some US politicians and media outlets have been fabricating preposterous allegations and lies of one kind or another in order to shift the blame to China for their inadequate response to COVID-19.

However, as Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time”.

Lies evaporate in the light of truth. It is time to let facts speak for themselves.

In future, we will continue to reveal the truth to the world whenever new lies appear.

1. Allegation: COVID-19 is “Chinese virus” or “Wuhan virus”.

Reality Check: WHO has made it clear that the naming of a disease should not be associated with a particular country or place.

• Drawing on the lessons about naming infectious diseases in the past, especially the huge negative impacts caused by the naming of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in 2012, WHO, in collaboration with the World Organization for Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, identified the Best Practices for the Naming of New Human Infectious Diseases on 8 May 2015. According to these guidelines, the naming of a disease should avoid geographic locations, people’s names, class of animal or food, cultural, population, industry or occupational references (for example legionnaires) and terms that incite undue fear. See this
• On 11 February 2020, WHO, on the basis of the 2015 Best Practices for the Naming of New Human Infectious Diseases as well as international public health practices, officially named the pneumonia caused by novel coronavirus the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). See this
• Last April, the British science journal Nature, published three editorials, apologizing for connecting COVID-19 with Wuhan and China. It called for an immediate stop to coronavirus stigma and the irresponsible act of associating a virus with a specific place. See this
• The New York Times, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and other mainstream media in the West all reported that the wrongful connection of Asian communities with COVID-19 stoked serious xenophobia, and frequent occurrences of racist discrimination and harassment against these communities in the US. 

2. Allegation: Wuhan is the origin of the virus.

Reality Check: Being the first to report the virus does not mean that Wuhan is its origin. In fact, the origin is still not identified. Source tracing is a serious scientific matter, which should be based on science and should be studied by scientists and medical experts.

• Historically, the place that first reported a virus were often not its origin. For example, HIV infection was first reported by the US, yet it might also be possible that the virus did not originally come from the US. And more and more evidence proves that the Spanish Flu did not originate from Spain.
• Source tracing is a scientific matter. Its main purpose is to prevent similar epidemics from happening again and causing damage to the human society. At the moment, scientists around the world are searching for the source of the virus, and have presented many academic views on it. Chinese scientists are also earnestly conducting studies in order to provide the scientific basis for identifying the origin at an early date and dealing with the virus with targeted measures.
• On 24 January, The Lancet, an authoritative British medical journal, published an article co-authored by Cao Bin, Director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Department of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Huang Chaolin, Vice President and Chief Physician of Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital, Professor Li Xingwang, an expert with the Clinical and Research Center of Infectious Diseases of Beijing Ditan Hospital, Professor Ren Lili, an expert at the Institute of Pathogen Biology of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Zhao Jianping, Director of Department of Respiratory Medicine of Wuhan Tongji Hospital, etc.

The article reviews and analyzes the first 41 confirmed cases of COVID-19 admitted to hospital in Wuhan between 16 December 2019 and 2 January 2020. It has found that 27 of the 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market, while the rest 14 had not. The symptom onset date of the first patient identified was 1 December 2019. None of his family members developed fever or any respiratory symptoms. This patient had no exposure to Huanan seafood market. No epidemiological link was found between him and later cases.

• Viruses are the common enemy of mankind, which may appear at any time and in any place. Epidemics are natural in origin, not man-made. The origin of a virus or epidemic is a victim, not a culprit. It is unfair and unacceptable to blame it or hold it accountable.
• On 1 May, Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, said that science needs to be at the center of the exploration of the source of the virus, and they would like to see scientists at the center. He also stated that the WHO had not received any data or specific evidence from the US Government relating to the purported origin of the virus. See this
• Michael Melham, Mayor of Belleville of New Jersey, said that he has tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, and thinks he may have been sick with the virus back in November 2019. That is over two months before the first reported case in the US on 20 January 2020. See this
• On 6 May, USA Today reported that 171 people in Florida showed symptoms of COVID-19 as early as in January 2020, and none reported traveling to China. That was several months before officials announced it had come to Florida. See this

On 3 May, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents published an article entitled “SARS-COV-2 was already spreading in France in late December 2019”. According to the article, researchers reviewed the medical record of 14 selected ICU patients admitted for influenza-like illness between December 2, 2019 and January 16, 2020, and retrospectively performed COVID-19 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on them between April 6 and 9, 2020. It was found that one sample was positive taken from a 42-year-old man. The absence of a link with China and the lack of recent travel abroad suggest that the disease was already spreading among the French population at the end of December 2019. See this

3. Allegation: The virus was constructed by the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Reality Check: All available evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is natural in origin, not man-made.

• On 30 January, the prestigious UK medical journal, The Lancet, published an article on COVID-19 by research teams including China CDC, which considered the virus a new human-infecting coronavirus, based on the phylogenetic analysis of the ten 2019-nCoV genome sequences from nine confirmed patients from Wuhan. The article pointed out that compared with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, 2019-nCoV was more closely related to two bat-derived severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronaviruses. The analysis suggests that bats might be the original host of this virus. See this
• On 19 February, The Lancet published a joint statement by 27 leading medical experts from eight countries, indicating that scientists from multiple countries have published and analyzed genomes of SARS-CoV-2, and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens. See this
• On 17 March, five prominent scholars from the US, the UK and Australia pointed out on Nature Medicine that the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus. See this
• In his blog article posted on 26 March, Francis Collins, Director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), pointed out that this novel coronavirus arose naturally. Researchers discovered that the virus could not have been man-made for it does not have the backbones of known coronaviruses. Instead, it probably evolved from a bat coronavirus and a novel virus found in pangolins. It is not the product of purposeful manipulation in a lab. See this
• On 21 April, WHO spokesperson Fadela Chaib said at a news briefing that all available evidence suggests the virus has an animal origin and is not manipulated or constructed in a lab or somewhere else. It most likely has its ecological reservoir in bats but how the virus came from bats to humans is still to be seen and discovered. See this
• On 30 April, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence of the US issued a statement on its official website making clear that the Intelligence Community concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not man-made or genetically modified. See this
• Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme Michael Ryan said on 1 May that numerous scientists have looked at the genome sequence of this virus and we are assured that this virus is natural in origin. See this
• WHO Representative in China Dr. Gauden Galea said on 5 May that all available evidence to date suggests that the virus has a natural animal origin and is not a manipulated or constructed virus. Many researchers have been able to look at the genomic features of the virus and have found that evidence does not support that it is a laboratory construct. See this
• The French news weekly, Valeur Actuelle, cited information from the country’s intelligence authorities to state that it is absolutely certain that the novel coronavirus is not a leak from a P4 lab in Wuhan.

4. Allegation: COVID-19 was caused by an accidental leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Reality Check: The Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory (Wuhan P4 Laboratory) in the WIV is a government cooperation program between China and France. The Institute does not have the capability to design or synthesize a new coronavirus, and there is no evidence of pathogen leaks or staff infections in the Institute.

• The Wuhan P4 Laboratory is a government cooperation program between China and France, with its design, construction and management all following international standards, and operations protected by special facilities and strict protocols. All lab staff must pass relevant tests to obtain qualification, and the first group had received training in other P4 labs in France and America. The Lab must have its facilities and equipment examined on an annual basis by a government-accredited third-party agency, and can continue to operate only after it passes such annual inspections.
• The WIV is committed to timely and open sharing of research information through sharing data, publishing papers, attending seminars and conferences, and promoting science among the general public. Over the past year, the Institute has received visits by over 70 researchers and scholars from other parts of the world. As one of the dozens of P4 labs in the world, the Institute pursues a global vision of development, upholds the principles of being open and transparent to all, and promotes exchange and cooperation with all countries in an active and pragmatic way. The “2019 Novel Coronavirus Resource (2019nCoVR)”, an information sharing platform of the WIV, has so far registered over 600,000 visits and 21 million downloads.
• Operations of the Wuhan P4 Laboratory have all along been safe and stable. There had been no SARS-CoV-2 in the lab until 30 December 2019 when the first COVID-19 patient specimens were delivered there for testing three days after the local government received first reports of the virus. No one in the WIV has so far been infected by COVID-19.
• An official at French President’s office said in mid-April that “there is to this day no factual evidence … linking the origins of COVID-19 and the work of the P4 laboratory of Wuhan, China.” See this
• According to a recent article posted by NPR on its website, many US leading virus researchers have concluded based on their studies that there is virtually no chance that the new coronavirus was released as result of a laboratory accident in China or anywhere else. Rather, they believe that this new coronavirus reached humans in the same way that other coronaviruses have. See this
• Peter Daszak, President of the US EcoHealth Alliance and a virus expert who has been working with the WIV for the past 15 years, said during his interview with CNN on 26 April that the Wuhan P4 Laboratory didn’t have the virus that led to COVID-19, and what has been found now are close relatives, not the same virus. So it’s not a possibility that the virus could have come from that lab. See this
• Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in an interview with National Geographic published on 4 May that the best evidence shows the virus was not made in a lab in China. If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what’s out there now, the virus could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated. This virus evolved in nature and then jumped species. Based on the scientific evidence, he doesn’t entertain the theory that someone found the coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab, and then it accidentally escaped. See this
• According to The Independent, British Health Secretary Matt Hancock said in an interview with Sky News on 6 May that the British government has not seen any evidence to suggest that the novel coronavirus was man-made. He added that “we haven’t seen any evidence of a link (between the virus and laboratories researching virus in Wuhan).” See this
• The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced on 24 April that it would terminate a joint study on bat-to-human virus transmission between the non-profit agency EcoHealth Alliance and the WIV, and withdraw all future funding. The NIH made this decision only seven days after President Trump demanded an end to a grant to the WIV during his 17 April press conference, based on allegations that “the virus escaped the lab”. This decision has been widely questioned and criticized by US science community. Gerald Keusch, deputy head of the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory at Boston University, called it “a horrible precedent” and “the worst kind of thing that political interference can cause”, while Dennis Carroll, chair of the Global Virome Project, described it as an attempt by the Trump Administration to “attack really critical science for cheap political gain”.

5. Allegation: China could have contained the virus within Wuhan in the first place. However, it allowed many of its nationals to fly to Milan, New York and other places, spreading the virus to the rest of the world.

Reality Check: China took the most stringent measures within the shortest possible time, which has largely kept the virus within Wuhan. Statistics show that very few cases were exported from China.

• The Chinese government took the most comprehensive, rigorous and thorough measures in a timely fashion, and effectively broke the chain of transmission. According to a Science report, thanks to these measures, the number of infections in China was reduced by more than 700,000.
• China put Wuhan under a temporary lockdown as of 23 January, meaning that there were no outbound commercial flights or train services from 24 January through 8 April. So it was impossible for Wuhan residents to travel overseas during this period of time.
• When Wuhan was shut down on 23 January, only one case was publicly confirmed in the US. When the US closed its borders on 2 February to all Chinese citizens and foreigners who had been to China within the previous 14 days, there were only eight confirmed cases in the US according to its official data. When the US declared a national emergency on 13 March, the number of its confirmed cases was 1,896. When China lifted the lockdown on Wuhan on 8 April, the number of confirmed cases in the US rose to 400,000. At present, confirmed cases in the US have exceeded 1.2 million, with as many as over 70,000 deaths so far. Looking back, it took less than 100 days for the number of confirmed cases to surge from one to one million in the United States.
• New York Governor Andrew Cuomo pointed to a research by the Northeastern University showing that strains of the novel coronavirus entered his state were not from China. The New York Times cited US research that most New York coronavirus cases did not come from Asia.
• Data from Canada’s major provinces show that the virus was brought into the country by US visitors. The French research institute Institut Pasteur found that the virus strain circulating locally in France is of unknown origin. None of the imported cases in Russia was from China. The Australian Department of Health noted that only a very small portion of imported cases came from Northeast Asia. In Singapore, cases imported from China were less than one-tenth of those from other countries. The Japanese National Institute of Infectious Diseases believed that the strain confirmed in Japan since early March was not from China.

6. Allegation: The Chinese contracted the novel coronavirus while eating bats.

Reality Check: Bats are never part of the Chinese diet.  

• The Internet video clip in which a Chinese female tour guide drinks bat soup was part of a travel promotion show filmed by her team on a small Pacific island in 2016 and was posted online that year. Bat soup was a local specialty.
• Bats are never part of the Chinese dishes. Wuhan Huanan seafood market, where cluster cases were identified in the early days of the epidemic, does not sell bats.

7. Allegation: China is reopening wildlife markets. It should immediately close all “wet markets”.

Reality Check: There are no so-called “wildlife wet markets” in China. China has passed legislation banning all illegal hunting and trade of wild animals.

• On 24 February 2020, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China adopted a decision on thoroughly banning illegal wildlife trade and eliminating consumption of wild animals to safeguard people’s lives and health. This has further established the regime of complete prohibition of hunting, trading and transportation of terrestrial wild animals for the purpose of consumption. The legislative decision was welcomed by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). See this
• Selling wild animals is illegal in China. Such an act will be immediately stopped once discovered, and will be punished in accordance with law.
• There are no so-called “wildlife wet markets” in China. And in fact, China does not even have the concept of “wet markets”. What we have in China are farmers’ markets and live poultry and seafood markets. They sell fresh fish, meat, vegetables, seafood and other farm produce. A few of them sell live poultry. Basically, they are no different from the fish markets or fruit and vegetables markets in Western countries. Such markets exist not only in China, but also in many other countries. They are an important part of local life. No international law restricts the opening or operation of such markets. What were reopened in Wuhan are these traditional farmers’ markets.
• Research has shown extremely low homology between COVID-19 and the known coronaviruses in livestock and poultry. Based on such scientific understanding and taking into account people’s need for live poultry and seafood products, China has allowed the reopening of such markets in places where sound containment measures are in place as a prerequisite. China attaches high importance to epidemic prevention. As safeguards, competent authorities and sub-national governments have taken a host of stringent measures to strengthen the management of such markets. Sub-national governments, market operators and vendors are required to earnestly fulfill their respective responsibilities and ensure that strict anti-epidemic protocols are duly enforced in these markets.

Relevant authorities will also, in accordance with China’s law on animal epidemic prevention, perform quarantine and checkup on live poultry and seafood products, and rigorously implement all prevention and control measures against animal epidemics.

Given the current situation in Wuhan, Hubei, the Huanan seafood market remains closed.

8. Allegation: China’s initial cover-up and delayed release of information resulted in the spread of the virus.

Reality Check: What has happened is an unexpected attack by an unknown virus against human beings. It takes time to study and understand it. China has provided timely information to the world in an open, transparent and responsible manner. 

• On 27 December 2019, Dr. Zhang Jixian, director of the respiratory and critical care medicine department of Hubei Provincial Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, reported three cases of pneumonia of unknown cause immediately after receiving the patients. This was the first reporting of suspected cases of a new disease by local authorities of China. On the same day, the Wuhan CDC conducted epidemiological investigation and testing on the patients concerned.
• On 30 December 2019, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission issued two emergency notices on the reporting and treatment of pneumonia of unknown cause.
• On 31 December 2019, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released a situation report on pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan. On the same day, China informed the WHO China Country Office of cases of pneumonia of unknown cause detected in Wuhan.
• On 3 January 2020, China began sending regular, timely updates about the novel coronavirus to WHO, other countries including the United States, and China’s Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan regions. Between 3 January and 3 February, China updated the US 30 times on the epidemic situation and its response measures.
• Following the first public reporting of the pneumonia by the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission on 31 December 2019, China completed the identification and sequencing of the virus as early as on 7 January 2020, and shared the genome sequence information with WHO and other countries on 11 January. On 10 January, the Wuhan Institute of Virology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and other professional institutions developed preliminary testing kits, and stepped up research on vaccines and effective medication. On 20 January, the National Health Commission designated the new coronavirus pneumonia as a statutory infectious disease. On 24 January, COVID-19 cases began to be directly reported online.
• In contrast to China’s response measures, the US government had not declared a national emergency until 13 March, 70 days after it was notified by China of the new virus on 3 January 2020, 40 days after it closed its borders on 2 February to all Chinese citizens and foreign nationals who had traveled in China within 14 days.
• On 1 May, the US CDC posted on its website a report drafted by its Principal Deputy Director Dr. Anne Schuchat and COVID-19 Response Team.

According to the report, after “the first confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case in the United States was reported on January 21, 2020”, the “outbreak appeared contained through February, and then accelerated rapidly.” It notes that “various factors contributed to accelerated spread during February — March 2020, including continued travel-associated importations, large gatherings, introductions into high-risk workplaces and densely populated areas, and cryptic transmission resulting from limited testing and asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread.”

9. Allegation: China arrested Dr. Li Wenliang, a whistle-blower, to cover up the spread of the virus.

Reality Check: Dr. Li Wenliang was not a whistle-blower, and he was not arrested.

• All countries have strict rules on the confirmation of infectious diseases. This is a common practice.
• China’s Law on Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases has established strict approval procedures and rules for the reporting, verification and information release of an infectious disease.
• Dr. Zhang Jixian, a respiratory doctor, was the first to report COVID-19 cases, and was awarded for this contribution.
• On the afternoon of 30 December 2019 (three days after Dr. Zhang Jixian reported cases of unknown infection and one day before Wuhan released the relevant information), Dr. Li Wenliang, an ophthalmologist, sent a message to his alumni WeChat group. He claimed that there were “seven confirmed SARS cases”, and asked the group not to spread the information. However, leaked screenshots of the conversation spread quickly on the Internet and caused panic.

On 3 January 2020, Wuhan’s local police authorities asked Dr. Li to a police station for inquiry, and urged him to stop spreading unconfirmed information by issuing him a letter of reprimand.

In mid-January, Dr. Li started to show symptoms of infection. And on 31 January, he was confirmed to be infected by COVID-19.

On 7 February, Dr. Li passed away after all rescue measures were exhausted. On the same day, the National Health Commission publicly expressed condolences over his death. The National Supervisory Commission decided to send an inspection group to Wuhan to investigate issues related to Dr. Li.

On 19 March, the inspection group released its findings and held a press briefing. Wuhan’s Public Security Bureau announced the decision on the matter, pointing to the misapplication of relevant legal provisions in Dr. Li’s case, and revoked the reprimand letter.

• Dr. Li Wenliang was a good doctor. He was a member of the Communist Party of China, not a so-called “anti-establishment figure”. On 5 March, he was named a “national model healthcare worker in fighting COVID-19”. On 2 April, he was honored as a martyr.

Labeling Dr. Li Wenliang as an “anti-establishment hero” or “awakener” is very disrespectful to Dr. Li and his family. It is purely political manipulation with no sense of decency. On 28 April, the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League of China and the All-China Youth Federation jointly issued the 24th “May Fourth Medals” to honor outstanding representatives and role models of Chinese youths, and Dr. Li Wenliang was among the honorees. The Independent Media Institute conducted a thorough investigation on how the media made unjust reporting about Dr. Li, and concluded that the attempt of Western media to describe what happened to Dr. Li as evidence of the Chinese government’s suppression of information about the virus is simply not logical. See this

10. Allegation: China was too late in disclosing information about human-to-human transmission. As a result, the US and the rest of the world had not gained enough knowledge about how contagious and deadly the virus was and therefore failed to respond quickly enough.

Reality Check: The messages from China and the World Health Organization have been timely and strong. The US knows about the danger of the virus all along.

• It takes a rigorous scientific process to determine whether a new virus can be transmitted from person to person.

On 9 January, a Chinese expert group had already confirmed on the media that the pathogen was preliminarily determined as a novel coronavirus.

On 20 January, the high-level expert group of the National Health Commission informed the media that the novel coronavirus could be transmitted from person to person. On that day, the US reported no confirmed case.

On 23 January, China sent a powerful warning to the world by putting Wuhan, a city of 12 million people, under lockdown. On that day, the US reported only one case.

• On 22 January, WHO issued a warning about the potential risk of human-to-human transmission on its website.

On 27 January, WHO raised the level of risk posed by COVID-19 at a global level from moderate to high, noting the risk to be very high in China and high at a regional level.

On 30 January, the WHO International Health Regulations Emergency Committee held a meeting and declared the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

• The US was the first country to pull out personnel from its consulate-general in Wuhan and the first to announce entry restrictions on all Chinese citizens:

As early as on 25 January, the US announced the decision to close its consulate-general in Wuhan and pull out its staff;

On 2 February, the US announced the decision to close borders to all Chinese citizens and foreign nationals who had been to China within the prior 14 days, while it only had eight reported cases on that day.

• It was not until early March that the US government seriously acknowledged the danger and severity of the spread of the virus in the country.
• In an opinion article, Jeffrey Sachs, a renowned US economist and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, criticized the US government for making reckless charges against China, calling them illogical and dangerous. He said that the US government’s claim that China is the cause of America’s problems is a big lie and recalls the end of McCarthy era. See this
• The Taiwan authorities claimed that its CDC had warned WHO of the existence of human-to-human transmission of COVID-19 in an email at the end of December 2019, but WHO withheld this information from the world. In response to this allegation, Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, clarified on 4 May that the email sent from Taiwan on 31 December 2019 was not a warning, but a request for more information on cases of atypical pneumonia reported by news sources. See this

11. Allegation: China is not transparent in data releasing. Its official numbers of confirmed cases and fatalities are too low to be true, and the real figures are at least 50 times more.

Reality Check: China has been fully open and transparent about its COVID-19 data. The figures can well stand the test of history.

• As of 21 January, China’s National Health Commission (NHC) started to update the public on a daily basis on the COVID-19 situation of the previous day on its official website and through its social media accounts. Starting from 27 January, the State Council inter-agency task force on COVID-19 has been holding daily press briefings to release key information and respond to questions from domestic and foreign media. More than 3,000 press conferences have been held at national and sub-national levels. Government officials, medical workers, experts and recovered patients engaged the media face-to-face without dodging any questions. See this
• These COVID-19 data are an important basis for China’s decision to pursue all-round reopening of the economy with necessary containment measures in place and to restore the normal economic and social order. One case in point is the lifting of the 76-day lockdown of Wuhan after a continuous drop in infections.
• China’s relatively low number of confirmed cases and fatalities was attributable to the most comprehensive, rigorous and thorough measures taken promptly by the Chinese government, such as completely shutting down the transportation out of Wuhan. The Science magazine estimated in one of its reports that these measures helped prevent at least 700,000 infections in China.
• The Chinese government always puts people first. In its fight against COVID-19, saving lives is the government’s number-one priority. China has expanded hospital admission and treatment to cover all those in need to cure and save as many patients as possible. All suspected cases and close contacts have been placed under quarantine at designated places to cut off the chain of transmission and stem the further spread of the virus. That is why China’s nationwide infection rate has stayed relatively low. In Hubei Province alone, over 3,600 patients aged 80 and above have been cured, including seven centenarians.
• On the evening of 22 January, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted in Geneva that China’s “cooperation and transparency is very, very commendable”. In an interview with US media in March, Dr. Bruce Aylward, Team Leader of the WHO-China Joint Mission on COVID-19, responded to questions about China’s official data by saying that he “didn’t see anything that suggested manipulation of numbers”.
• On 3 March, Dr. Bruce Aylward, a senior advisor to the WHO Director-General, noted in an interview with US media VOX that China is not hiding anything. And the data he collected through talks with physicians from various hospitals and other stakeholders could help corroborate China’s data. See this
• On 28 April, Christoffer Koch and Ken Okamura, two economists from the US and the UK, jointly published a paper based on studies of the data from China, Italy and the US. They found that the confirmed infections in China match the distribution expected in Benford’s Law and are similar to those in the US and Italy. They thus concluded that there is no possibility of manipulation of figures.
• On 29 April, Yale Professor Nicholas A Christakis, co-author of the Nature magazine paper entitled Population Flow Drives Spatio-temporal Distribution of COVID-19 in China, tweeted that “Incidentally, this result sheds light on accuracy of Chinese COVID-19 reporting, because a totally different source of info (telco mobility) obtained from different source predicts case counts so well, in keeping with epidemiological expectations.” See this
• On 5 May, Dr. Gauden Galea, WHO representative in China, said that “The WHO has been in constant technical communication with China since January 3 on the severity, transmission dynamics and the possibility of sustained human-to-human transmission, the clinical course, and effectiveness of treatments, and the WHO has provided detailed information to the international community under the framework of the International Health Regulations (IHR).” See this

12. Allegation: Wuhan’s revision of the numbers of confirmed cases and fatalities shows again that China covered up a large number of cases in the early days of COVID-19.

Reality Check: The data revision by Wuhan is a common international practice. As a matter of fact, it proves that China is open, transparent and responsible.

• On 17 April, in accordance with the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, the Regulations on Preparedness for and Response to Emergent Public Health Hazards, the Regulations on the Implementation of the Statistics Law of the People’s Republic of China, and the Rules on the Administration of Death Information Registration (for Trial Implementation), Wuhan issued a notification, revising up confirmed cases by 325 to a total of 50,333, and fatal cases by 1,290 to a total of 3,869.
• It was out of a high sense of responsibility to history, to the people and to the lives lost to the coronavirus that Wuhan took the initiative to revise the numbers to reflect the facts it had gathered. The reason that caused the gap between the figures was four-fold:

First, when the city was first hit by the virus, hospitals were swamped due to the surge of patients. Some patients were thus unable to be hospitalized and passed away at home.

Second, during the peak of COVID-19, hospitals were running overloaded, and medical workers were preoccupied with providing treatment, which resulted in delayed, inadequate or inaccurate reporting of relevant cases.

Third, due to a subsequent rapid increase in medical institutions designated to treat COVID-19 patients, including both hospitals under the central, provincial, municipal and district governments, as well as hospitals run by companies, private hospitals and mobile hospitals, a small number of these institutions did not register with or report cases timely to the established information network.

Fourth, the information of some fatal cases was incomplete. Some of them were reported repeatedly or inaccurately.

• To ensure the accuracy of the revised numbers, Wuhan set up a task force to look into the big data and epidemiology of the epidemic. Through on-line means, it carefully compared the number of confirmed and fatal cases to de-duplicate and complete the information by making full use of the city’s epidemic big data system, funeral service information system, medical administration information system, and nucleic acid testing system for COVID-19. Through off-line means, it collected the full data from all places related to the disease without missing anyone, including fever clinics, hospitals, mobile hospitals, quarantine stations, communities having confirmed cases, as well as prisons, detention facilities, nursing homes and other special sites administered by government agencies of public security, judiciary and civil affairs. The information of every case was collected, and it was cross-checked with medical institutions, communities, community-level police stations, and patients’ employers and families to ensure that the information of every individual case is accurate.
• Revising statistical standards is a common international practice. For example, on 29 April, the UK government began to count fatal cases outside hospitals, and revised their figures accordingly. On 17 April, the Spanish government published an order for its autonomous regions to harmonize how they collect data and stated that the published numbers would be revised.

13. Allegation: China has been spreading disinformation about COVID-19.

Reality Check: China has all along been open and transparent in information release. On the contrary, some US politicians, scholars and media outlets that are hostile to China have kept slandering and attacking China. China is a victim of disinformation.

• The Chinese government, in an open, transparent and responsible manner, has shared with the world updates on the disease and its response experience, and has pursued international cooperation. What China has done is highly commended by the international community.

As of 8 May, President Xi Jinping has attended the Extraordinary G20 Leaders’ Summit on COVID-19 and has had 49 phone calls with 39 heads of state and government and leaders of international organizations; Premier Li Keqiang has had 13 phone calls with 11 foreign leaders and heads of international organizations, and attended the Special ASEAN Plus Three Summit on COVID-19; State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi has spoken with 48 foreign ministers and heads of international organizations through 80 phone calls.

China’s openness in sharing its response experience and its important contribution to the international cooperation against COVID-19 have been applauded and fully recognized internationally.

• On 27 April, Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the medical journal The Lancet, said in an online interview with CNN that when China got the information of the coronavirus, it immediately informed the World Health Organization on 31 December 2019. Mr. Horton also added that, “we should be grateful to the authorities in China and we should be grateful to the World Health Organization, because they did all they could to alert the world as to the seriousness of this pandemic.”
• Tijjani Muhammad-Bande, President of the 74th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, when attending the 33rd African Union Summit in Ethiopia, told the press that China’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations had provided a well-covered briefing to the UN on COVID-19. President Bande went further to point out that the timely and transparent COVID-19 information release by the Chinese government has helped the world be informed about the situation in China and facilitated multilateral cooperation against the virus.
• On 20 April, The Grayzone, an independent news website based in the US, disclosed how the conservative journalists were collaborating with the US administration in a disinformation campaign against China: The Washington Post journalist Josh Rogin, who has made a career out of making fake news, fabricated a dubious article on 14 April. In the article, he cherry-picked a cable from the US embassy in Beijing and deceptively identified an anti-China element as “research scientist”. On the evening of 15 April, Republican Senator Tom Cotton floated the conspiracy theory, and claimed that the Chinese government must be made to pay the price for all the losses caused by COVID-19. On 17 April, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took the baseless theory to the global stage, demanding access to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for investigation. See this

14. Allegation: The Chinese political system is the root cause of the problem.

Reality Check: Virus does not distinguish between ideology or social system. The Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Chinese government have played a decisive and critical role in leading the Chinese people in the successful fight against COVID-19. China’s political system, which has effectively united and mobilized 1.4 billion people on a vast land of 9.6 million square kilometers, provided a strong political guarantee for China to overcome the difficulties faced by a developing country and pool all available strengths and resources in winning the battle against the virus. What has happened shows that the social system and development path chosen by the Chinese people suit China’s national conditions and that the CPC enjoys firm and broad support of the Chinese people. And China has no intention to export its political system.

• On 23 January, Wuhan municipal command on COVID-19 response announced the temporary suspension of outbound travel from the city of Wuhan. Two days later, 30 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities of China activated the highest-level disease response. Starting from 24 January, 42,000 medical workers from across China, rallying in over 330 medical teams, set out to the front line in Hubei Province. On the eve of 25 January, three medical teams from the People’s Liberation Army flew to Wuhan from Shanghai, Chongqing and Xi’an. Nineteen provinces were paired up with 16 Hubei cities and prefectures except Wuhan in the battle against the virus. From across the country, key medical supplies and daily necessities were delivered to Hubei steadily.
• China pooled massive human and material resources to build the 1,000-bed Huoshenshan Hospital in 10 days and the 1,600-bed Leishenshan Hospital in 15 days. At an average speed of building one hospital at one day and a half, a total of 16 mobile hospitals were put in place to accommodate over 13,000 patients.
• Right from the early stage of its COVID-19 response, China has managed to ensure early detection, reporting, quarantine and treatment for COVID-19 cases. The best human and material resources were concentrated on treating patients with severe conditions. Blanket case screening was implemented at each and every residential communities, and grid-based management was adopted to ensure that all in need had access to testing, quarantine, and hospital treatment.
• In COVID-19 response in Wuhan, over 44,500 primary-level Party officials were sent to 13,800 residential communities, building up a strong line of defense against the virus. Social distancing measures have been supported and strictly observed nationwide, effectively curbing the spread of the virus.
• China’s COVID-19 response efforts have been highly commended by the international community. When meeting with President Xi Jinping on 28 January, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros noted that the high speed and massive scale of China’s response have been rarely seen in the world, demonstrating China’s speed, scale and efficiency. China’s experience is worth learning for other countries. During the press conference at the AU headquarters on 8 February, UN Secretary-General António Guterres also commended China for its “remarkable” efforts to contain the virus.
• At the press conference of WHO-China Joint Mission on COVID-19 on 24 February, Dr. Bruce Aylward, Senior Advisor to WHO Director-General, said that China has rolled out probably the most ambitious, agile and aggressive disease containment effort in history. China’s bold approach has changed the course of the disease and is the only successful measures we know so far to contain COVID-19.
• On 6 May, a Singapore-based insights agency, Blackbox Research, released a joint online survey it conducted together with the market research agency Toluna on 12,500 people across 23 economies. The respondents were asked to rate their governments’ coronavirus containment measures on four key indicators: political leadership, corporate leadership, community and media. The Chinese mainland ranked the highest in the survey with a score of 85 out of 100. Eighty-five percent of respondents in the Chinese mainland expressed confidence that China will emerge stronger from the crisis. See this

15. Allegation: China expelled US journalists to hide the truth about COVID-19.

Reality Check: China’s measure was a response to the US long-term oppression of Chinese media in the US, especially the recent expulsion of 60 Chinese journalists. China has released information in an open, transparent, responsible and timely manner.  

• The US has been escalating its political bashing against Chinese media outlets in the US. In December 2018, the US Department of Justice required CGTN America to register as a “foreign agent”. On 18 February 2020, the US State Department designated five Chinese media entities in the US, including Xinhua News Agency, as “foreign missions”.
• The US has adopted a discriminatory visa policy toward Chinese journalists. For example, it gives only single-entry visas to Chinese journalists based in the US. Since 2018, the visa applications of over 30 Chinese journalists have been indefinitely delayed or even denied by the US.
• On 2 March 2020, the US State Department instituted a personnel cap on the five Chinese media organizations designated as “foreign missions”, intending to slash the number of Chinese staff by about 40 percent by 13 March. This amounts to the de facto expulsion of 60 Chinese journalists.
• Since COVID-19 began, China has been updating relevant data online on a daily basis in an open, transparent and responsible manner. Every workday, foreign journalists based in China can attend press conferences held by the State Council inter-agency task force, the State Council Information Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where they can raise any virus-related questions of their interest. They have had interviews with officials from both central and local governments as well as experts and scholars. Many foreign journalists went to Wuhan to gather first-hand information and have published many reports. All these facts show that the world has unimpeded access to information about the situation in China.
• China always welcomes interviews and reporting conducted by foreign media and journalists in the country in accordance with laws and regulations. We will continue to provide them with facilitation and assistance. What we oppose is ideological bias against China, fake news fabricated under the pretext of freedom of press, and acts that violate the ethics of journalism.

16. Allegation: China controls and bribes WHO.

Reality Check: China firmly supports multilateralism. We have all along been in good communication and cooperation with WHO. But we have never attempted to manipulate the organization. The suspension of funding by the US, the largest contributor to WHO, has been widely opposed by the international community.

• WHO is a specialized UN agency responsible for public health security. It has 194 member states. Eleven members on its 21-strong headquarters leadership team are from the US, the EU, Canada and Australia, and only one is from China. They are all trained or practicing doctors, epidemiologists, rescue workers and public health experts. See this
• In 2018 and 2019, China was the third biggest donor to WHO’s assessed contributions, after the US and Japan. According to WHO, assessed contributions only account for less than a quarter of its total funding, with the rest being voluntary contributions. With both sources of funding counted, China is the ninth biggest contributor. And if donations from businesses and NGOs are also factored in, China’s ranking would be even lower.

17. Allegation: Taiwan gave warning to WHO about human-to-human transmission of COVID-19 as early as 31 December 2019, but it was not taken seriously.

Reality Check: The Taiwan region of China did not send any warning to WHO. What it did was asking for more information from the organization after the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission reported the disease.  

• After Wuhan reported cases of pneumonia of unknown cause on 31 December 2019, the local health department in Taiwan sent a letter to the National Health Commission (NHC) inquiring about the information released by the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission. The NHC promptly made a written reply through the designated contact points specified in the Cross-Strait Cooperation Agreement on Medicine and Public Health Affairs. On the same day, the health department in Taiwan sent the so-called “warning email” to WHO. The email made no reference to human-to-human transmission. It was primarily an inquiry about information from WHO. The facts are clear. It was the mainland of China who first released the information, and the health department in Taiwan merely relayed the message. There is no such thing as “Taiwan reported to WHO first”.

• WHO has made it clear time and again that the Taiwan region of China did not give it “warning”, but was purely requesting relevant information. WHO had already received multiple inquiry emails from other sides before Taiwan sent the email. On 20 April, WHO again clarified the matter at its press briefing, noting that it was not until 21 January that the first COVID-19 case was confirmed in China’s Taiwan region. Prior to that, Taiwan did not have any first-hand information on clinical cases, let alone the ability to determine whether there was human-to-human transmission.

18. Allegation: China has blocked Taiwan’s bid to join WHO, putting the health of the people in Taiwan at risk.

Reality Check: Taiwan, being part of China, has no right to join WHO, whose membership requires sovereign statehood. The technical cooperation channel between China’s Taiwan and WHO is unimpeded. 

• Only UN Member States are eligible to join WHO, a specialized UN agency composed of sovereign states. Taiwan, being part of China, has no right to apply for WHO membership.
• Upon its accession to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), China stated that the IHR applies to the entire territory of the People’s Republic of China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Macao Special Administrative Region and the Taiwan Province.
• As agreed upon by the Chinese government and WHO, a WHO IHR Contact Point has been set up in China’s Taiwan and the region has an account to access the WHO Event Information Site for the timely updates on global public health emergencies released by WHO. There is no barrier to technical cooperation between China’s Taiwan and WHO. Between early 2019 and early May 2020, 24 person times from 16 expert groups of Taiwan attended the technical conferences held by WHO.
• Since the start of COVID-19, China’s National Health Commission has provided timely information to the Taiwan region. As of 6 May, China’s mainland had updated Taiwan on the situation 148 times. In mid-January, the mainland arranged a field visit to Wuhan for experts from Taiwan to help them learn more about the diagnosis and treatment of confirmed cases and COVID-19 response measures.

19. Allegation: China is responsible for the global spread of COVID-19. There must be investigations and lawsuits against China to hold it accountable and make it pay for COVID-19.

Reality Check: There is zero legal basis for holding China accountable and making it pay for COVID-19. Essentially, some US politicians are trying to shift the blame out of domestic political agenda.

• COVID-19 is a natural, not man-made, disaster. China, like other countries, is a victim, not a culprit.
• A pandemic is a global public health emergency. There is no such a thing as “state responsibility” of the first country to report cases. HIV/AIDS was first detected in the US in the 1980s and has since spread to the whole world, but the international community has never demanded that the US take responsibility or pay reparations.
• The US has no legal ground to demand that China be held accountable and pay for COVID-19. According to international law, state responsibility occurs when acts of the responsible state constitute a breach of international law and there is a causal link between such acts and losses suffered by the injured state. China’s COVID-19 response does not breach any international law, nor does it have any causal relationship with any losses the US may suffer due to the massive outbreak of the virus. The US attempt at the so-called investigations into China’s response is based on the presumption of guilt.
• There is no bilateral treaty or agreement between China and the US on public health and emergency events. As such, there can be no breach of any bilateral obligation. Although the International Health Regulations (IHR) only requires the state party to notify WHO of a public health event, China still provided the US with timely and continuous updates on the virus. The US was among the first countries to be informed about the virus in China and has since received continuous updates. In the face of COVID-19, China has all along acted with openness, transparency and a sense of responsibility. It has promptly released information and notified WHO of the virus, taken the most comprehensive, rigorous and thorough measures, and faithfully fulfilled its duties and obligations under the IHR.
• The so-called lawsuits in the US are ill-intended and groundless. They are also against general principles of law. According to the principle of sovereign equality under international law, sovereign acts by governments at all levels in China in response to COVID-19 are not subject to the jurisdiction of US courts. Those unwarranted lawsuits not only undermine the US response to the disease, but also run counter to international cooperation on fighting COVID-19.
• On 4 May, one of the world’s top magazines, Nature, published a study by experts from China, the US, and the UK, according to whose modeling framework that the three major groups of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) (inter-city travel restrictions, early identification and isolation of cases, and contact restrictions and social distancing) taken by China not only contained the spread of COVID-19 in China, but also bought precious time for the world. The study points out that without the combined NPIs, the COVID-19 cases in China would likely have shown a 67-fold increase to over 7 million.

20. Allegation: China has been hoarding medical supplies and profiteering from COVID-19. It has increased screening of medical exports and restricted export of supplies, especially ventilators, causing a shortage of supplies in the US.

Reality Check: Despite a still formidable task of combating COVID-19 at home, China has been providing medical supplies to other countries to the best of its ability.

• The Chinese government and people have provided many shipments of much-needed medical supplies to over 150 countries and international organizations, and these efforts are still ongoing. China has also leveraged its strong production capacity and promptly opened up its medical supplies market and export channels.
• According to the Ministry of Commerce of China, between 1 March and 6 May, China has met export orders for anti-epidemic supplies from 194 countries and regions. Among them, 77 countries and regions as well as six international organizations have signed commercial procurement agreements with China through official channels for 216 shipments of medical supplies. Discussions are under way between Chinese companies and 71 countries and regions as well as eight international organizations to procure 128 shipments of supplies.
• According to statistics from the General Administration of Customs, from 1 March to 30 April, China exported 71.2 billion yuan worth of anti-epidemic supplies, including 27.8 billion masks, 130 million protective suits, 73.41 million nucleic acid testing kits, 12.57 million infrared thermometers, 49,100 ventilators, 124,000 patient monitors, 43.63 million goggles and 854 million surgical gloves.
• Statistics from China’s General Administration of Customs show that between 1 March and 5 May, China exported to the US 6.6 billion masks, 344 million pairs of surgical gloves, 44.09 million protective suits, 6.75 million goggles, and nearly 7,500 ventilators.
• Preliminary statistics indicate that by 6 May, Chinese provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities, institutions and companies donated, to 30 US states and 55 cities, more than 9.6 million masks, 500,000 testing kits, 305,900 pairs of medical and other gloves, and 133,500 goggles.
• China has no restrictions on the export of medical supplies. Policy measures such as the announcement on further strengthening quality control of anti-epidemic supplies are introduced not to limit export, but to further strengthen quality control of medical supplies and ensure orderly and well-regulated export.
• China’s capacity to produce invasive ventilators is not unlimited, and some parts have to be imported and are under-supplied. That said, companies are still in discussion with importers in a market-based manner, and the Chinese government has never restricted the export of these ventilators.

21. Allegation: China’s anti-epidemic assistance to other countries is to serve its political and propaganda purposes.

Reality Check: China’s assistance to other countries is a return of their kindness in helping China with COVID-19 response. It is also a concrete step to put into action the vision of building a community with a shared future for mankind. 

• China has been sharing its control experience extensively, providing medical and protective supplies and sending medical teams to other countries. As of mid-May, China has launched an online knowledge center, published seven editions of diagnostic and therapeutic protocols and six editions of containment plans, and set up a two-billion-yuan fund for COVID-19 cooperation. Chinese medical experts have had over 120 video conferences with their counterparts from more than 160 countries and international organizations. China has sent medical supplies to over 150 countries and international organizations and 21 medical teams to 19 countries. It has established a joint expert team with the EU and a joint response and cooperation mechanism with the Republic of Korea. China has donated US$50 million in cash to WHO. And in response to the debt service suspension initiative for the poorest countries adopted at a recent G20 meeting, China has agreed to suspend principal and interest repayment for 77 developing countries’ debts due between 1 May and the end of 2020. These actions of support and assistance have been widely recognized by the international community, as they displayed China’s spirit of solidarity and mutual help in difficult times and highlighted the importance of building a community with a shared future for mankind.

22. Allegation: China is interfering in the US election and is trying every means to stop Trump from being re-elected.

Reality Check: China follows the principle of not interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. If anything, it is some US politicians that capitalize on China-bashing as their election tactics.

• China pursues an independent foreign policy of peace, and adheres to the principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs. The US election is its internal matter. China has never meddled in it, and has no interest in doing so.
• The Politico disclosed that the National Republican Senatorial Committee has sent campaigns a 57-page memo, advising GOP candidates to address the coronavirus crisis by aggressively attacking China. The memo stresses three main lines of assault: that China caused the virus “by covering it up”, that Democrats are “soft on China”, and that Republicans will “push for sanctions on China for its role in spreading this pandemic”. Republicans have indicated in the memo that they plan to make China a centerpiece of the 2020 campaign. All these show that framing and attacking China has become a “whole-of-government approach” of the Republican campaign. See this

23. Allegation: By requiring exporters of masks, testing kits and ventilators to submit a statement upon customs declaration, China is in effect banning export of supplies for COVID-19.

Reality Check: The purpose of this requirement is for better quality control.

• Strict quality control is of vital importance in the production and supply of anti-epidemic items, as the lives of people in affected countries and regions are at stake.
• The Chinese government attaches great importance to the quality and safety of medical supplies. The relevant authorities have stepped up joint actions to tighten quality control over medical exports and ensure proper export procedures. By cracking down on sub-standard goods and bad faith and illicit behaviors, China has ensured the quality of medical exports to better support the global response to the virus.
• These measures have produced good results and received positive comments from the international community. China does not impose restriction on its exports, and has no intention to do so. While ensuring the quality of these exports, China’s customs authorities have taken steps to speed up customs clearance and further improve facilitation.

24. Allegation: China’s Guangdong Province took discriminatory measures against Africans there.

Reality Check: China’s COVID-19 response measures apply to both Chinese and foreigners without discrimination. China follows a zero-tolerance policy on discriminatory words and actions.

• Despite its own difficulties, China has given care and protection to all Africans in China, especially African students. The more than 3,000 African students in Hubei Province including Wuhan are all safe and sound, except for one student who contracted the virus but was quickly cured.
• As of 13 April, Guangzhou had reported a total of 26 imported cases among foreign nationals, including 19 Africans. The enhanced testing and control measures taken by China are for both Chinese citizens and all foreign nationals in China. They are not targeted at any nationality or race. Their purpose is to protect public health and people’s wellbeing. A few isolated incidents that occurred in this process due to miscommunications or misunderstanding have been timely and properly handled through close communication between the relevant Chinese authorities and government officials of the African countries concerned. On 18 April, the dean of the African Consulate Corps in Guangzhou confirmed that Guangdong Province and Guangzhou City have taken multiple steps to protect the rights and interests of African expatriates there.
• On 13 April, Chairperson of the AU Commission Moussa Faki Mahamat said that Africa and China are friends and, more importantly, comrades-in-arms whose destinies are closely linked. He believes that China is not a country that would take discriminatory actions. Some African envoys in China have noted that the profound friendship between Africa and China has stood the test of vicissitudes and that no external force can stop it from growing further.
• According to a BBC report on 17 April, a video widely shared on social media showing a Kenyan couple being attacked in the streets of Wuhan as a result of COVID-19 stigma was actually taken in New York.

*

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: Chaoyang District in Beijing has been classified as a high-risk area for the COVID-19 pandemic as a novel coronavirus cluster occurred there within the last 14 days, Pang Xinghuo, deputy director of the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control, said on Monday at a news conference held by the Beijing municipal government.Photo:Xinhua

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.

*     *     *

Three Cardinals Join Global Appeal Decrying Crackdown on Basic Freedoms Over Coronavirus

By Paul Smeaton, May 11, 2020

Catholic clergy led by former papal nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Cardinals Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Joseph Zen, and Janis Pujats have joined an appeal “for the Church and the world” that warns that the COVID-19 pandemic is being used as a “pretext” by world leaders to “control” people, strip them of their fundamental rights, while providing a “disturbing prelude to the realization of a world government beyond all control”.

Federal Appeals Court Allows US Military Base Construction in Okinawa Despite Environmental Concerns

By Rebecca Salamacha, May 11, 2020

Under the NHPA, the government entity must take into account the affects of its construction. Contrary to the court’s decision, environmental activists claimed that the US Department of Defense failed to adequately consult local entities required and rationally base its determination on available evidence.

China Forges Ahead Through Chaos and US Threats

By Pepe Escobar, May 10, 2020

Amid the deepest economic contraction in nearly a century, President Xi Jinping had already made it very clear, last month, that China should be ready for unprecedented, relentless foreign challenges.

He was not referring only to the possible decoupling of global supply chains and the non-stop demonization of every project related to the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative.

Trump Regime Blocks UN Security Council Resolution for “Global Ceasefire” During COVID-19 Epidemic

By Stephen Lendman, May 10, 2020

Run by warlord members from both right wings of the one-party state, the US geopolitical agenda prioritizes permanent wars against invented enemies to enforce their will on humanity by brute force and other hostile actions.

At a time when containing COVID-19 outbreaks and combatting the severest economic collapse in modern memory matter most, the Trump regime blocked a proposed global ceasefire Security Council  resolution to assure no interference in its imperial wars on humanity.

The Fed’s Historic Gamble: Pre-Bailing Out the Banking System

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, May 10, 2020

The Fed has introduced at least $9T in liquidity (money) injections into the system in the goal of heading off a massive wave of potential and forthcoming debt defaults, deflation, and bankruptcies via various measures: new QE, trillions of $ to Repo markets, funneling trillions more via recent bailout funds for large, medium and small businesses through the private banks, ending financial regulations on the banks, liabilities for corporations, guaranteed loans, and so on. It’s all about fattening bank and non-bank balance sheets to weather the loss of revenues required to keep paying interest and principal on the tens of trillions of excess business and household debt (latter held by investors). The continuing payments on that debt is necessary to prevent a massive historic wave of debt defaults that will eventually sink bank balance sheets, creating a credit crash and a further and deeper collapse of the real economy–i.e. a depression.

Can We Trust the World Health Organization (WHO)?

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, May 10, 2020

Most people assume the WHO acts independently from private commercial and national government interests for the welfare of the world’s population. However, at best this is an assumption. Moreover, the very legitimacy of the WHO as a gold standard of health is questionable. The organization has been accused of conflicts of interests with private pharmaceutical companies and mega-philanthropic organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as being riddled with political alliances, ideologies, and profiteering motives.

Mass Joblessness Deepens in US as Corporations Move to Implement Permanent Layoffs. 40.6 Million Unemployed

By Shannon Jones, May 08, 2020

US government figures to be released today are expected to show mass unemployment in April unlike anything seen since the Great Depression. In numbers released Wednesday, ADP Research said that US payrolls in April fell by an astounding 20,236,000, a number far larger than anything ever previously recorded.

Looked at another way, the number of jobs lost so far is equal to the total combined workforce of 25 US states. It is 41 times worse than the 533,000 jobs lost in November 2008 at the time of the last economic crash.

*

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.