Global Research

By now, everyone has seen the stories about the “refrigerated morgue trucks” and “ice rink morgues in Madrid.” If you dig down into some of those stories, you will discover a rather mundane, but perfectly understandable explanation for these improvised morgues, namely … bodies that would normally have been picked up by funeral parlors are not being picked up (because many funeral parlors are not operating normally due to the lockdown, or because it is difficult for grieving families to make arrangements given the current level of hysteria), and so these bodies are accumulating at hospitals.

A Saudi-led coalition has rejected the enforcement of a “self-administration rule” by the Southern Transitional Council (STC) in Yemen and called on all the parties to honor the Riyadh Agreement that includes the formation of a technocrat government with equal representation.

Abu Dhabi-backed separatist group earlier scrapped a peace deal with Riyadh-backed government of President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi and declared a state of emergency in its controlled areas including the port city of Aden. For some time, both sides were building up their forces to resume infighting.

Council rationalized the move in the face of government’s “mismanagement, misgovernance, especially in south Yemen, which has been Houthi-less for four years now.”

It additionally accused the Hadi administration for shirking its responsibilities to implement the peace deal however welcomed Saudi Arabia’s role and pledged on “responding to any initiatives it may propose.”

STC withdrawal from the pact is a crippling blow to Riyadh peace deal that was signed in November and hailed by the Kingdom as a major step towards a wider political solution.

Though the treaty drew the two warring parties on a consensus agreement of establishing a unity government, STC’s dissolution of the accord before its implementation could lead into a collapse of the Riyadh Agreement.

At least the anguish in the ranks of internationally recognized Hadi administration tells that the deal might come to a tragic end.

Decrying the violation, the Yemeni foreign minister Muhammad Al-Hadhrami threatened “The so-called transitional council will bear alone the dangerous and catastrophic consequences for such an announcement.”

With the latest wearisome rows between the two ostensible allies, one of the world’s poorest countries can drift into a deeper and shaper chaos. But it wasn’t unexpected.

In January, the STC had pulled out of the committees that were responsible for the implementation of the November peace deal, protesting against the violence in Shabwa province linked with the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Hadi’s al-Islah party.

The government dismisses the allegation but separatists’ complaints grind on, making the route of negotiations bumpy and obscuring the fate of arrangement.

All this ensues as Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) battle out with the Houthis in a separate conflict who in early 2015 overran and captured the capital Sana’a – ousting the Hadi administration and forcing it to declare Aden its de facto capital.

It was the moment that herded Riyadh for military intervention, which didn’t do anything good for the battle-weary country as it continued to grip into further dissent and discord.

After years-long intense shelling, bombardment and fierce fighting that brought no significant change on the ground, Saudi Arabia is exhausted. It now seeks a safe exit from the enervating Yemen war to focus on its fast-flagging economy, being hit hard by plunging oil prices and the Covid-19.

The coronavirus outbreak unbridled a sporadic opportunity to the Kingdom to move away from military adventurism to a political solution. Mining some good out of the evil, the war-tired Saudi-led coalition last month announced a unilateral ceasefire of two weeks in Yemen.

Saudi peddling of the proclamation in a comeback to UN Secretary General’s call and to “reaching a political settlement” and “comprehensive and lasting ceasefire agreement” with Houthis – implied about its remodeled strategy in its neighborhood.

The Coalition to Restore Legitimacy in Yemen on April 24 extended ceasefire in Yemen by one month to bolster its efforts of containing coronavirus and renew commitment for “to reach a comprehensive and permanent ceasefire in Yemen.”

As the Houthis has rejected the extension and exacted to lift the air and sea blockades of their controlled areas before agreeing to a truce, the dismissal multiplies the risks of increased violence and the fears that the war is going to reoccupy the nation.

While the armed faction should carefully observe the country’s vulnerability to the coronavirus and forge ahead for a ceasefire and political dialogue – the Coalition must also preclude stage-managing the crisis by apparently withdrawing the troops but firing the conflict by hinging more on the proxies.

UAE, the key Coalition member, in July last year formally announced its exit from the Yemeni riddle and started to hand over responsibilities to its domestic ally STC.

Riyadh would most likely follow the footsteps of Abu Dhabi and withdraw from the devastated state by delegating the task of confronting Houthis to the STC and forces loyal to Hadi administration and engage itself as a political negotiator in the Yemeni conundrum.

The strategy, if pursued, won’t provide any respite to the peace and stability in Yemen, expressly when there is obstinate spat between the two disparate allies, STC and Hadi government.

Last year, the sky-high tensions pressed the latter to accuse UAE of backing a “coup” after new skirmishes flared in August 2019. Following that, Abu Dhabi had to relinquish some key positions in Aden to Riyadh to pave the way for a dialogue between the government and separatists.

Talking about the legitimacy of the Hadi government, Head of the Yemen Department at the London-based Next Century Foundation Catherine Shakdam said “There was an understanding that if he wasn’t supported by the international community, then de facto sovereignty would fall onto the Houthi movement.”

It is hence in the best interest of all the stakeholders to put a stop to this deadly conflict – which has swiped the lives of more than 100,000 human lives and pushed millions to the brink of famine – and settle their disputes through consultation and political dialogue.

*

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.

Featured image is from Another Day in the Empire

The region of Greater Idlib remains the main source of tensions in Syria.

The March 5th ceasefire deal reached by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow allowed an end to be made to the open military confrontation between the Turkish Armed Forces and the Syrian Army. However, as of mid-April, the main provisions of the deal have yet to be implemented. Members of al-Qaeda-linked groups still enjoy freedom of movement across Greater Idlib and keep their positions with weapons and heavy equipment in southern Idlib.

The safe zone along the M4 highway, the creation of which was agreed, has not been created. All Russian-Turkish joint patrols have been conducted in a limited area west of Saraqib and have just been a public move needed to demonstrate that the de-escalation deal is still in force.

Ankara turns a blind eye to regular ceasefire violations and other provocative actions by militant groups and their supporters. Additionally, it has continued its military buildup in Idlib. The number of Turkish troops in the region reportedly reached 7,000, while the number of so-called ‘observation posts’ exceeded 50. Meanwhile, Turkish-affiliated media outlets ramped up a propaganda campaign accusing the Assad government of killing civilians, of ceasefire violations, of using chemical weapons and of discrediting the de-escalation agreement by calling it the surrender of the goals of the so-called Syrian revolution.

On the diplomatic level, neither Turkey nor Russia demonstrate open antagonism, but statements coming from the  top military and political leadership of Turkey regarding the conflict in Syria demonstrate that Ankara is not planning to abandon its expansionist plans or aggressive posture towards the country.

These factors set up a pretext for and increase the chances of a new military escalation in Idlib. However, this time the conflict is likely to lead to at least a limited military confrontation between the Turkish and Russian militaries. Both sides have troops deployed in close proximity to the frontline, including the expected hot point of the future escalation – Saraqib.

Possible phases of escalation are the following:

1. Without the full implementation of the Moscow de-escalation deal and neutralization of radicals, the military situation in southern and eastern Idlib will continue to deteriorate. Militants, inspired by their impunity and the direct protection of the Turkish Army, will increase their attacks on the positions of Syrian forces and their Russian and Iranian allies. These attacks will gradually increase in scale until they provoke a painful military response from the Syrian Armed Forces. Militants, surprised at this blatant ceasefire violation by the bloody Assad regime, will continue their attacks, now justifying them by the right of self-defense. G_4 (A) Turkish diplomats and media outlets will immediately accuse the Assad government of violating the word and spirit of the de-escalation deal and will claim that the “unjustified aggression of the regime”, which is supported by the Russians, led to the killing of dozens of civilians and will film several staged tear-jerkers from Idlib to support this. The so-called ‘international community’ led by the Washington establishment and EU bureaucrats will denounce the aggression of the Assad regime and its backers.
2. In the face of the continued and increased attacks from Idlib armed groups, the Syrian Army will have two options:

• To retreat from their positions and leave the hard-won, liberated areas to the mercy of Turkey and its al-Qaeda-affiliated groups;
• To answer the increased attacks with overwhelming force and put an end to the ceasefire violations by radicals.

It’s likely that the Syrians will choose the second option. The military standoff in Idlib will officially re-enter a hot phase. The previous years of conflict have demonstrated that militants cannot match Syrian troops in open battle. Therefore, if the Turkish leadership wants to hold on to its expansionist plans, it will have no choice but to intervene in the battle to rescue its proteges. Syria and Turkey will once again find themselves in a state of open military confrontation.

1. As in previous escalations, the Turkish military will likely opt to start its military campaign with massive artillery and drone strikes on positions of the Syrian Army along the contact line in southeastern Idlib and western Aleppo. Special attention will be paid to the area of the expected confrontation between Syrian troops and Turkish proxies: the countryside of Saraqib, Maarat al-Numan and Kafr Nabel. Turkish forces will not be able to stop the Syrian Army advance without taking massive fire damage to their infrastructure and to the forces deployed in these areas. Such strikes will also result in  further escalation because they will pose a direct danger to the Russian Military Police in Saraqib and Maarat al-Numan, and to Russian military advisers embedded with the Syrian units, which are deployed in southeastern Idlib.
2. If Turkish strikes target Russian positions and lead to notable losses among Russian personnel, Moscow will be put in a situation where they will be forced to retaliate. Since the start of the military operation in Syria in September 2015, the Russian Armed Forces have concentrated a capable military group in the country protected by short- and long-range air defense systems and reinforced by Bastion-P coastal defense and Iskander-M ballistic missile systems. Additionally, the Russian Black Sea and Caspian Fleets and Russian long-range aviation have repeatedly demonstrated that they are capable of destroying any target on the Syrian battleground and thus also in any nearby areas.

The Russian retaliatory strike will likely target Turkish military columns in close proximity to the frontline as well as Turkish depots, positions of artillery, armoured vehicles, and material and technical support points in Greater Idlib.

If, after the Russian strike, the Turkish leadership does not halt its aggressive actions and its forces continue attacks on Russian and Syrian positions in Syria, the escalation will develop further.

The second wave of Russian retaliatory strikes will target Turkish military infrastructure along the border with Syria. HQs and logistical hubs in the province of Hatay, which were used to command and supply its Operation Spring Shield, will immediately be destroyed. The decision to deliver strikes on other targets along the border will depend on the success of Turkish forces in their expected attempt to attack Russia’s Hmeimim airbase and put it out of service.

Another factor to consider is that should Turkey appear to be too successful in their attack on the Hmeimim airbase, they risk losing their entire Black Sea fleet. While theoretically the Turkish naval forces deployed in the Black Sea are superior to the Russian ones in numbers, the real balance of power there tells a different story. The combined means and facilities of the Russian Black Sea fleet, the Caspian Sea fleet, air forces and coastal defense forces deployed in the region would allow Moscow to overwhelm and sink the entire Turkish Navy. On top of this, Russia, unlike Turkey, is a nuclear power.

Turkey’s NATO allies have already demonstrated that they are not planning to risk their equipment or personnel in order to support Erdogan’s Syrian adventure. Furthermore, a new round of complaints to the UN or demonstrative sanctions will be no help to any destroyed Turkish airbases or to a fleet resting deep underwater.

Ankara will have to find a diplomatic way to de-escalate the confrontation before it gets to this point. The format of this diplomatic solution and the consequences, which Turkey will have to suffer for its military adventure, will depend only on the moment, when the Erdogan government understands that it’s time to stop.

*

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

The sudden collapse of Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the presidency comes amidst what official sources are calling the worst viral pandemic to hit the United States and much of the world since the misnamed ‘Spanish Flu’ in 1918.  Sensational news coverage of the resulting health crisis and the daily exigencies of life under state mandated lockdown have dramatically shifted public attention away from conventional politics thereby eclipsing the announcement in early April by Sanders that he is suspending his campaign and endorsing the utterly corrupt Joseph Biden as the nominee of the corporatist Democratic party.

Sanders’ decision to withdraw from the race represents an anti-climactic end to his “political revolution.”  His endorsement of Biden constitutes a betrayal of his many youthful, idealistic and passionate supporters.  Sanders’ political treachery is not without precedent.

In 2016, after having been robbed of the nomination by Hilary Clinton and the DNC, Sanders capitulated to the party establishment and threw his support behind a politician he rightly attacked as a Wall Street shill during the primary campaign.  Sanders’ nauseating subservience to the political establishment of the Democratic party should not have come as a surprise in 2020 given his prior endorsement of a war criminal and racketeer for president during the last election cycle.

Without a doubt the political and media establishment worked tirelessly to deny Sanders the nomination this time around by relentlessly attacking him as “unelectable,” “unaccomplished,” “disagreeable,” “unrealistic” and “too radical.”  All of the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination lined up against Sanders during the primary elections.  Several withdrew from the race and endorsed Biden on the eve of the ‘Super Tuesday’ contests.  The attack was well coordinated by the DNC.  The Democratic party and its puppet politicians are firmly committed to neoliberal economics on behalf of their corporate masters and have absolutely no use for the ‘New Deal’ reforms that were championed by Sanders.

The attack on Sanders was also well orchestrated by the corporate media judging by the tenor of the interviews its journalistic propagandists conducted with the candidate, the questions its moderators asked him during presidential debates and the overall coverage of his campaign.  As could be expected in the land of the free press, the media presented the policy choices advocated by Sanders as being idealistic, unaffordable and unachievable, in other words, as being the politically irrelevant ravings of an impotent politician.

Faced by the overwhelmingly negative impact on his public image that was intentionally manufactured by an unrelenting, undisguised and exceedingly hostile pattern of attacks on his candidacy by the political and media establishment, Sanders fell behind in the delegate count and withdrew from the race without continuing the fight to the convention.

The Democratic party rewarded Sanders for his capitulation by removing him from the New York State ballot and canceling the primary election that was slated to take place in June asserting the Joseph Biden was an uncontested candidate and it is in the best interests of public health not to hold the election.  Although he had suspended his campaign, Sanders wanted to accumulate enough delegates to influence the platform of the Democratic party, truly an exercise in political futility.  This may be news to Sanders, but after he endorsed Biden, he lost any leverage he may have had within the party and will be promptly discarded like an old shoe after he campaigns for the Democrats in the upcoming general election.

There are several lessons to be learned from the Sanders defeat and capitulation.

Firstly, the idea, tirelessly advanced by the Vermont Senator, that it is possible to wage a grass roots “political revolution” from within the Democratic party of American imperialism is an illusion.  The Democratic party of U.S. imperialism, like its Republican counterpart, cannot be reformed from within and must be defeated from without by a viable third party committed to fighting for the needs and aspirations of America’s working people.  Sanders could easily have laid the foundation of a populist party in both 2016 and 2020 by running as an insurgent candidate outside of the Democratic party.  He chose not to do so.  He unwilling to pay the price of being treated like a political pariah while openly challenging the corporatist system from outside of an established party.  Sanders is a consummate insider.  And that is a lethal  strategic failure.

Despite the open hostility he faced from the entire political and media establishment, Sanders played directly into the hands of his enemies by not vociferously attacking the deplorable syndicate known as the Democratic National Committee, his opportunistic and servile campaign opponents led by Joseph Biden and the corporate media.

Temperamentally, Sanders is too polite.  He tried to beat his opponents by treating his rivals with kindness, repeatedly referring to “my friend Joe” in reference to Biden while simultaneously indicating that the former Vice-President would beat Trump if nominated.  Why then risk a vote for Sanders?  That question was answered definitively by many rank and file democratic voters in South Carolina and beyond.

Programmatically, Sanders is a reformist, not a revolutionary.  He is politically housebroken.  He has cooperated with the Democratic party for so long that he could not truly oppose its fundamental precepts, particularly in the realm of foreign policy, aside from demanding a more diplomatic and sanction based approach to U.S. interventionism.  Ditto for domestic policy.  His advocacy of Medicare for all, free public higher education, higher taxes on the rich and tighter regulations on corporations would restrain certain excesses of capital accumulation but would not impede its essential parasitism.

The second lesson to be drawn from the Sanders’ debacle teaches a very hard fact of political life, namely, that it is impossible to lead a political revolution without clashing with the American empire.  Joseph Biden is a representative of that empire in all of its ugliness.  Sanders never took Biden to task for supporting imperialist adventures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Palestine aside from pointing out that Biden voted for the Iraq war.  As to the consequences of that horrific war, particularly for the Iraqi people, not a word was said by either candidate. Furthermore, the United States has a much larger imperialist agenda in the Middle East that Sanders does not effectively challenge.

Additionally, Sanders never confronted Biden for his behavior in Ukraine although that behavior is the Achilles heel of the former Vice President.  Sanders never acknowledged the fact that what Obama and Biden did in Ukraine, namely foment a coup d’état, was a criminal act.  Furthermore, Biden’s nepotistic behavior in Ukraine constitutes a dramatic case of venal political corruption.  It is a legitimate political issue.  Yet, Sanders said nothing to overtly condemn Biden’s corruption.  These are issues Sanders could not address because he toes the line of humanitarian interventionism touted by the Democratic imperialists, particularly as it involves U.S. policy in Ukraine, Russia, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America.

The failure of the American left to call Sanders out as a political opportunist demonstrates the bankruptcy of both identity and lesser evil politics.  Much of the American reformist left abandoned class politics and for the lesser evil politics of identity after the overthrow of the Soviet Union.  Some of the most visible and highly respected representatives of the liberal left relentlessly point to the prospect of nuclear war as being one of the two greatest dangers facing humanity, the other being climate change.   Trump is accused of accelerating both potential catastrophes, charges that are not without merit.

Nevertheless, the consistent political orientation of these activists and intellectuals entails an unwavering commitment to a lesser evil politics that shamelessly advocates support for Joseph Biden and the Democrats now that Sanders has suspended his campaign.  The point they argue, is to stop Trump at all costs.

A brief review of history reveals that the same proponents of voting for the lesser of two evils in 2020, advocated support for Hilary Clinton and the Democrats in 2016 as they did for Barak Obama and the Democrats in 2008 and 2012 and Bill Clinton before that.  They do so in the name of political realism.  The reformist left is willfully blind to the perfidy and danger of the Democrats.  They consider support for the Democrats as being the only realistic alternative to the ultra-right wing Republican party.  As such, they are, what the irreverent American sociologist and critic of oligarchic power C. Wright Mills, once referred to as “crackpot realists.”

With regard to advancing the possibility of nuclear war, it should be noted that the Democrats are just as dangerous as the Republicans.  After all, it was a Democratic president who first used nuclear weapons in 1945.  It was also a Democratic president that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

More recently, the Democrats and the Republicans have alternated in prosecuting a ‘New Cold War’ with Russia.  Bill Clinton advocated expansion of NATO to include the former Warsaw Pact countries of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic as early as 1994 thereby betraying George Herbert Walker Bush’s promise not to extend NATO “one inch to the east” if the Soviet Union allowed the reunification of Germany, which it did.   It was Bill Clinton’s administration that engineered the breakup and privatization of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and bombed Serbia in 1999, a war that was opposed by the USSR.

Barak Obama ordered a massive deployment of battle tanks and heavy weapons as part of a NATO military buildup in Eastern Europe along the Russian border; imposed sanctions on Russia in response to the unfounded allegation of ‘Russian hacking’ of the 2016 U.S. election; and allocated $1 Trillion in 2016 for the modernization of nuclear weapons to take place over a ten year period thereby provoking a new arms race with Russia.

Obama disingenuously justified the unprecedented nuclear arms build-up as a response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  That no invasion actually took place is of no consequence to imperialists who lie without remorse.  In point of fact, it was the Obama/Biden regime that fomented a coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014 thereby deposing the democratically elected Yanukovych government and replacing it with a pro-IMF regime handpicked by the United States thereupon provoking a civil war in that beleaguered country.

The Republicans have done their part in pushing the world toward nuclear catastrophe as Bush Junior withdrew from the ABM treaty in June of 2002 and began deploying missile defense systems in Poland and Romania that same year.  Trump withdrew from the INF Treaty in 2019 and seeks $46 Billion for nuclear weapons for the 2021 defense budget.

For his part, Bernie Sanders supports the policy of a ‘New Cold War’ with Russia and does not propose meaningful nuclear disarmament in any form.  He supported Obama’s actions to freeze Russian assets and impose sanctions on Russia as the result of ‘Russian aggression’ in Ukraine and ‘Russian interference’ in the 2016 elections.  These Russophobic allegations are political myths used to justify American aggression.

Sanders also supported the impeachment of Trump.  The unrelenting ‘Russiagate’ and ‘Ukrainegate’ attacks on Trump that were launched by the Democrats, the National Security State and the corporate media have made it impossible for Trump to pursue détente with Russia thereby increasing the chances of a nuclear war that supporters of lesser evil politics, like Bernie Sanders and the liberal left insist would increase if Trump were to beat Biden in 2020.

The logic is convoluted and treacherous. The Democrats have simply alternated with the Republicans to wage a ‘New Cold War’ against Russia as part of the neoconservative doctrine of global domination to which both parties are deeply committed.  The Democrats have become the party of war and Wall Street no less so than the Republicans. Nothing less than a genuine political revolution will stay the hand of these mad dogs.

Political revolutions are not led by opportunists.  Nor are they led by ‘nice guys’ who consider their class enemies to be their “friends.”  Class warfare is animated by hatred.  Hatred of oppression, hatred of exploitation, hatred of war, hatred of human degradation and suffering, hatred of lies and hatred of liars.  Political revolutions are principled, determined, militant and uncompromising.  They demand the political guillotine for opponents of the revolution.  They take no hostages.  And their leaders certainly do not capitulate to the enemies of the revolution.

Until progressives learn this final lesson and fight under the genuinely revolutionary banner of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism, the twin parties of the American plutocracy will continue to decimate their class enemies in this country and around 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.

Donald Monaco is a political analyst who lives in Brooklyn, New York.  He received his Master’s Degree in Education from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1979 and was radicalized by the Vietnam War.  He writes from an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist perspective.  His recent book is titled, The Politics ofTerrorism, and is available at amazon.com

Hegemons aren’t like other nations. They operate extrajudicially on the world stage by their own rules — in pursuit of their aims, exploiting their own people at the same time.

The US is waging undeclared war by other means against all sovereign independent countries it doesn’t control, wanting them transformed into subservient client states.

It’s been a largely losing strategy throughout the post-WW II period.

Most targeted nations remain free from US control — notably Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela.

At a time of US economic collapse with around 38% of its workforce unemployed, conditions worsening, not improving, for ordinary Americans, compounded by the Trump regime’s indifference toward public health and welfare, its hardliners are escalating an anti-China blame game to shift responsibility for its mismanagement onto a favorite target.

According to establishment media reports, they’re weighing greater get tough on China policies.

The Washington Post quoted an unnamed Trump regime “senior advisor,” saying “(p)unishing China is definitely where (DJT’s) head is at right now,” WaPo adding:

“Senior US officials are beginning to explore proposals for punishing or demanding financial compensation from China for its handling of the coronavirus pandemic…”

Schemes reportedly floated include unlawfully stripping China of sovereign immunity so Washington, US states, entities, and individuals can sue its government for damages related to spreading COVID-19 outbreaks — what Beijing had nothing to do with, lawsuits to go nowhere if filed.

Commenting on this possibility, foreign policy analyst Scott Kennedy stressed that “(t)he  chances of getting the Chinese to pay reparations is somewhere between zero and none.”

Yet Trump suggested that the US may seek hundreds of billions of dollars in damages from China, the notion alone more greatly straining already troubled bilateral relations.

Another possible tactic could be reneging on a portion of US debt obligations to China. It owns over a trillion dollars worth of US Treasuries.

Taking this step against any nation, entities, or individuals would damage the full faith and credit soundness of US debt obligations.

Reducing Chinese imports by pushing US firms to return their operations there to the US and/or raising tariffs on Chinese exports to America might be more likely options if any are taken.

At a time of the severest US economic crisis since the Great Depression — in an election year — Trump seeks ways to shift blame from himself onto others for what’s going on.

The strategy is widening the rift with China and most likely is doomed to fail.

Hardliners Pompeo and deputy national security advisor Matthew Pottinger are pushing the get tough on China policy.

Reportedly the CIA has been unable to find credible evidence of COVID-19’s origin in a Chinese biolab.

Beijing strongly denies it, calling claims otherwise US disinformation, maintaining that America is the source of the coronavirus.

On Thursday, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) said the US intelligence community “will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.”

Current DNI Richard Grenell earlier stirred controversy as Trump regime envoy to Germany for breaching diplomatic protocol by suggesting that he’d work against European governments not meeting his hardline standards, including host country Germany.

As DNI director, he seeks to blame spreading COVID-19 outbreaks on China.

What’s going on in the White House and by DNI against Beijing is similar to falsely blaming Iraq’s Saddam Hussein by the Bush/Cheney regime for WMDs that didn’t exist.

Despite no evidence suggesting it, claiming China is withholding information about the coronavirus is part of the scheme.

Pompeo is in the lead, calling China the origin of COVID-19, Trump and other regime hardliners playing the same China blame game.

When US officials say they have a “high confidence” about something related to a nation on its target list for regime change, it’s highly likely their claim is fabricated.

Accusations without solid evidence backing them are groundless.

US bashing of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and other sovereign independent countries is all about wanting them demonized, weakened, and isolated, part of US global dominance strategy.

The State Department deceptively claims that the US “seeks a constructive, results-oriented relationship with China.”

Reality is polar opposite. US war on China by other means rages.

Falsely blaming the country for spreading COVID-19 outbreaks and threatening retaliatory actions are the latest shoes to drop.

Bilateral relations hang in the balance. If Trump regime anti-China actions go too far, a major rupture may follow with unpredictable consequences.

*

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 OneWorld

Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans, a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America. This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement’s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It’s too little, too late.

Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption. Why is this not THE issue? Because that would be bad for profits, bad for business. Have we environmentalists fallen for illusions, “green” illusions, that are anything but green, because we’re scared that this is the end—and we’ve pinned all our hopes on biomass, wind turbines, and electric cars?

No amount of batteries are going to save us, warns director Jeff Gibbs (lifelong environmentalist and co-producer of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “Bowling for Columbine”). This urgent, must-see movie, a full-frontal assault on our sacred cows, is guaranteed to generate anger, debate, and, hopefully, a willingness to see our survival in a new way—before it’s too late.

Featuring: Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Richard Branson, Robert F Kennedy Jr., Michael Bloomberg, Van Jones, Vinod Khosla, Koch Brothers, Vandana Shiva, General Motors, 350.org, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature Conservancy, Elon Musk, Tesla.

*

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 Julia Hawkins/Flickr

More than 3.8 million workers in the US filed for unemployment benefits last week as the country faced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. More than 30 million American workers have filed unemployment claims since the beginning of statewide lockdowns in response to the coronavirus pandemic in March. That number far exceeds the 22.4 million new jobs created since November 2009 at the end of the last recession.

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is continuing to spiral upwards even as deaths related to the deadly virus are still averaging well over 2,000 a day. To date some 62,000 people have died in the US because of the pandemic, about 27 percent of the global total.

The crisis has seen the largest number of workers filing unemployment claims in US history, about one sixth of the total workforce. Millions more workers have lost their employment but have not filed claims because of their immigration status or because they were self-employed, contract workers or others who typically are not eligible. In addition, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimated 12 million workers did not file claims because state unemployment claims systems were overwhelmed making it too difficult.

A childcare worker in Washington state who had her hours cut and applied for benefits was denied after weeks of futile attempts. “When I called, there was a voice recording stating that they were experiencing extremely high call volumes and I had to call back later,” she told the WSWS. “I heard that same voice recording for three weeks straight, during which I called the technical support number and the claims number at least four times per week.” She added, “without unemployment benefits, I’m not sure we will be able to make it past May.”

Her friend said he had not been able to collect benefits because of a lack of sufficient hours. “There is a pressure for me to go back to work, but I have been terrified to go back because of the risk to my health and those around me.”

A Ford worker in Michigan who was laid off in March said, “So far I have only gotten one check. The month is almost up, and I have to make decisions about rent.”

Economists believe the real jobless rate is rapidly nearing the record 25.6 percent reached during the height of the Great Depression.

Underscoring the irrationality of the capitalist profit system, health systems across the US have furloughed tens of thousands of medical workers, including doctors and nurses in the midst of the massive health crisis.

According to a US government estimate, the economy shrank by a 4.8 percent annual rate in the first quarter of this year. According to one estimate it may shrink at a 40 percent annual rate in the second quarter, a collapse without precedent.

Of those who have applied for benefits, only 18 million claims have been approved, meaning millions face destitution. Consumer spending fell 7.5 percent in March, the worst monthly figure ever recorded. April’s fall will likely be far worse.

In California alone, 3.78 million workers or 19.6 percent of the workforce have submitted unemployment claims. This week the state for the first time allowed so-called gig workers, independent contractors and the self-employed to file as well.

Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, more than 131,000 workers filed a claim in the week ending April 25. That brings the state’s total in six weeks to more than 1.6 million, 24.7 percent of the state’s workforce.

Michigan has been one of the states hardest hit by layoffs in proportion to the size of its workforce. There have been well over 1.2 million claims for unemployment benefits, representing almost a quarter of the state’s workers.

Compounding the crisis, EPI estimates 12.7 million workers have lost employer-paid medical insurance in the midst of the pandemic, the worst health crisis in 100 years. Countless families face the impossible choice of forgoing treatment or facing crippling debts.

Corporations are using the pandemic to carry out further downsizing. Aircraft manufacturer Boeing, beset by crisis over the 737 MAX, has announced the layoff of 10 percent of its workforce. The company restarted production at its Seattle, Washington area factories last week. Ride hailing service Lyft says it will lay off 1,000 employees, 17 percent of its workforce.

In an effort to blackmail workers to return to work even as the deadly disease continues to spread, several states are announcing measures to deny unemployment benefits to those who refuse to return because of health concerns. The state of Tennessee said it may “potentially disqualify claimants from receiving unemployment insurance benefits” if they refuse to return to a job where they have been temporarily laid off. In Iowa, where more than 1,000 COVID-19 cases are tied to one Tyson pork processing plant in Waterloo, state officials posted a notice saying: “ATTENTION EMPLOYERS: If you have offered work to employees and your employee refuses to return to work, you must notify Iowa Workforce Development.”

On Tuesday, the Trump administration issued an executive order forcing meat processing facilities to stay open, including the Smithfield Foods pork plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, were at least two workers have died. The administration is also moving to protect the giant food processing companies from any legal liabilities for sickening and killing workers.

The US Labor Department also declared, “Barring unusual circumstances a request that a furloughed employee return to his or her job very likely constitutes an offer of suitable employment that the employee must accept.”

Archaic state unemployment filing systems have been overwhelmed by the mass of claimants.

Florida had the largest increase in new claims this month, a 7,330 percent increase over April 2019. During the week of April 20, 432,465 filed for unemployment benefits in Florida compared to 5,900 for the same week last year. Overall there have been 1,592,236 new claims since the start of the lockdowns compared to 35,215 in the same period last year, a 4,521 percent increase

The state’s website has been unable to handle the huge increase, forcing those seeking assistance to try again and again to process their claims. Some give up. Last week, according to a report in the Associated Press, 7 of 8 Florida claimants from mid-March to early April were waiting to have their unemployment applications processed. California had two-thirds of its claims waiting and New York, 30 percent.

Tens of millions have not gotten the meager $1,200 federal stimulus payments authorized by Congress. Only a little over half of the money allocated has been disbursed, and there appears to be little explanation of what is holding up the rest of money needed by desperate households. According to the House Ways and Means Committee the government began doling out paper checks on April 20 to 5 million households a week to be spread over the next 20 weeks. Nothing in the stimulus bill prevents creditors from garnishing the payments, though a few states have said they will block that.

Meanwhile, many family-owned small businesses have found themselves shut out from receiving loans under the Paycheck Protection Program as big businesses gobble up the money. Many who do get help find out it comes with multiple strings attached.

Capitalism has demonstrated its inability to respond in a rational and humane manner to the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead of providing the billions needed to meet the health care crisis and provide relief for the unemployed and small businesses, virtually unlimited resources have been made available for Wall Street. The corporations have seized on the pandemic to force through a further restructuring of social relations in the interests of the wealthy, including demands for the slashing of public pensions and a further driving down of wages.

As the death toll rose and unemployment levels reached depression levels, the stock market continued its unprecedented rise this week, assured by the Federal Reserve that it will continue to receive injections of trillions of dollars, and by the concert efforted by both parties to force workers back into the factories and other workplaces.

The only answer to the reckless and homicidal policies of the ruling class is the independent mobilization of the working class against capitalism. This requires that workers break with the political parties of big business and the pro-corporate unions and advance a socialist program based on the reorganization of society in the interests of the working class.

*

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

In order to survive the plague of global capitalism and prosper, working people must join hands nationally and internationally.

As the indisputable producers, they must become the new owners of the means of production.

There is no other solution.

.

.

.

*

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.

Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

How is it possible that all of the coronavirus models could have been so completely and utterly wrong about what was going to happen?  Very early in this pandemic, some models that were predicting millions of deaths caused quite a bit of panic all over the globe.  In fact, a projection done by researchers at the Imperial College of London warned that 40 million people could die from COVID-19 this year alone.  Obviously that estimate was dead wrong, and it has become quite clear that this pandemic is not an “end of the world” scenario.  But on the other extreme, there have been a lot of models that were forecasting a relatively low death toll, and those models have been proven to be completely wrong as well.

For example, the Los Angeles Times just published a story that discussed the fact that a number of models had projected that the U.S. would not reach 60,000 deaths until “late summer”…

The death toll from COVID-19 reached nearly 60,200 in the United States on Wednesday, and confirmed cases surpassed 1 million, according to Johns Hopkins University. Some models had suggested the U.S. would not reach this milestone until late summer.

Well, we just blew by that figure and we are rapidly moving up toward 70,000 deaths.

During the 24 hour period that just ended, another 2,390 Americans died from COVID-19, and the number of daily deaths is likely to escalate as some states attempt to “reopen” in the weeks ahead.

But a prominent model that the Trump administration has been relying on very heavily had been projecting that there would not be a single U.S. death from the coronavirus after June 21st…

An influential model cited by the White House predicts that coronavirus deaths will come to a halt this summer, with zero deaths projected in the United States after June 21.

Not a single person will die in the ensuing month and a half, according to the model, which makes predictions until August.

Obviously some U.S. officials must strongly disagree with that sort of a projection, because the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the federal government just ordered 100,000 more body bags…

The federal government ordered 100,000 new Covid-19 body bags, in what officials described as preparations for a “worst case” scenario.

The giant order last week for “human remains pouches” comes as more than 58,000 Americans have died from Covid-19, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

That would seem to be a tremendous waste of money if this pandemic is essentially going to be over in June.

Of course the truth is that this pandemic is not going to end any time soon, and every day we continue to get more indications that it is going to be much more grisly than many had originally anticipated.  For instance, on Wednesday police in New York found dozens of dead bodies stored in trucks outside a funeral home…

Police found dozens of bodies being stored in unrefrigerated trucks outside a Brooklyn funeral home and lying on the facility’s floor Wednesday, law enforcement sources told The Post.

Between 40 to 60 bodies were discovered either stacked up in U-Haul box trucks outside Andrew Cleckley Funeral Services in Flatlands or on the building’s floor, after neighbors reported a foul odor around the property, sources said.

And the entire nation was stunned to learn that almost 70 people have died at a home for aging veterans in Massachusetts…

Nearly 70 residents sickened with the coronavirus have died at a Massachusetts home for aging veterans, as state and federal officials try to figure out what went wrong in the deadliest known outbreak at a long-term care facility in the U.S.

While the death toll at the state-run Holyoke Soldiers’ Home continues to climb, federal officials are investigating whether residents were denied proper medical care and the state’s top prosecutor is deciding whether to bring legal action.

While it is true that this pandemic is not “the end of the world”, nobody out there should be attempting to claim that it is a “nothingburger” either.  Just check the carnage that authorities in Ecuador have been dealing with…

Front line medics in one of Latin America’s coronavirus epicenters are lifting the lid on the daily horrors they face in an Ecuadoran city whose health system has collapsed.

In one hospital in Guayaquil overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients, staff have had to pile up bodies in bathrooms because the morgues are full, health workers say.

In another, a medic told AFP that doctors have been forced to wrap up and store corpses to be able to reuse the beds they died on.

The only reason why we haven’t seen a lot of other health systems around the world get overwhelmed is because most of the planet is shut down right now.

As some parts of the globe attempt to “reopen”, it is inevitable that cases will start to surge again in those areas.  In fact, that is precisely what is starting to happen in Germany.

This is a high-stakes time, because of the pandemic. But this is also a really high-stakes election. And every form of health care should continue to be available, including reproductive health care for every woman in this country. And then it needs to be part of a much larger system that eventually — and quickly, I hope — gets us to universal health care. [Biden nods] So I can only say, “Amen,” to everything you’re saying, but also to, again, enlist people that this would be a terrible crisis to waste, as the old saying goes. [Biden nods] We’ve learned a lot about what our absolute frailties are in our country when it comes to health justice and economic justice.

Instead of dividing us even more deeply as a nation, this pandemic should be bringing us together.  And hopefully that will happen, because even greater challenges are in our future.

But for now, we still have a very long battle with this virus ahead of us.

Many more Americans are going to get sick and many more Americans are going to die, and we really don’t have any idea what the final numbers are going to look like because all of the “scientific models” have been dead wrong so far.

*

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, and the articles that I publish on those sites 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. 

Featured image is from EAD

In a highly significant development, Professor Luc Montagnier, the French scientist who shared the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), has added his voice to those who believe the new coronavirus was created in a laboratory. Interviewed on the CNews channel in France, Montagnier asserted that the virus had been designed by molecular biologists. Stating that it contains genetic elements of HIV, he insisted its characteristics could not have arisen naturally.

Asked by the CNews interviewer what the goal of these molecular biologists was, Montagnier said it wasn’t clear. “My job,” he said, “is to expose the facts.” While stressing that he didn’t know who had done it, or why, Montagnier suggested that possibly the goal had been to make an AIDS vaccine. Labeling the virus as “a professional job…a very meticulous job,” he described its genome as being a “clockwork of sequences.”

“There’s a part which is obviously the classic virus, and there’s another mainly coming from the bat, but that part has added sequences, particularly from HIV – the AIDS virus,” he said.

Growing evidence that the virus was ‘designed’

Montagnier also pointed out that he wasn’t the first scientist to assert that the coronavirus was created in a laboratory. Previously, on 31 January 2020, a research group from India had published a paper suggesting that aspects of the virus bore an “uncanny similarity” to HIV. Taken together, the researchers said their findings suggested the virus had an “unconventional evolution” and that further investigation was warranted. While the researchers subsequently retracted their paper, Montagnier said they had been “forced” to do so.

In February 2020, a separate research paper published by scientists from South China University of Technology suggested the virus “probably” came from a laboratory in Wuhan, the city where it was first identified. Significantly, one of the research facilities cited in this paper, the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory, is said to be the only lab in China that is designated for the study of highly dangerous pathogens such as Ebola and SARS. Prior to the opening of this laboratory in 2018, biosafety experts and scientists from the United States had expressed concerns that a virus could escape from it. As with the paper published by the Indian researchers, however, the Chinese scientists’ paper has similarly been withdrawn.

Involvement of the pharma industry

Professor Montagnier has long demonstrated that he is not afraid to challenge the prevailing views of the scientific establishment. Previously, in an interview recorded for the 2009 AIDS documentary ‘House of Numbers’, he had spoken out in favor of nutrition and antioxidants in the fight against HIV/AIDS. As the co-discoverer of HIV and a Nobel prize winner, Montagnier’s statements in this interview gave valuable support to Dr. Rath and other scientists who, for years beforehand, had been warning the world about the pharmaceutical business with the AIDS epidemic.

In a similar way, his assertion today that the coronavirus was designed by molecular biologists raises serious questions about the possible involvement of the pharmaceutical industry. As Montagnier infers, a manmade virus whose genome consists of a “clockwork of sequences” and includes elements of HIV could not have been assembled by amateurs. With estimates of the total global economic cost of the coronavirus varying from $4.1 trillion to $20 trillion or more, the ongoing questions about its origins are unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

*

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.

Journalist Laura Hunter published an article in the Swiss newspaper Le Courrier denouncing that the companies IMT Medical AG and Acutronic Medical Systems AG were ordered not to sell high-tech respirators to Cuba.

Claiming that they do not wish to subvert the U.S. unilateral sanctions, those companies, which were acquired by Vyaire Medical two years ago, refused to deliver their products, as the Cuban Foreign Minister confirmed.

“The U.S. blockade against Cuba ignores all moral limits. At this point, nothing Washington does to attack the Island should surprise us. However, the crime of Swiss respirators opens a chapter of unprecedented cruelty,” journalist Waldo Mendiluza said from France.

Despite all the adversities, Cuba’s Health Ministry Wednesday reported that the number of COVID-19-related deaths remains at 58 since no person has died from this disease over the last 24 hours in a country that has 1,467 positive cases so far.

Help Cuba fight the coronavirus and the US blockade. Sign the open letter calling on the US government to lift its inhuman blockade and allow Cuba to fight COVID-19 at home and abroad.
Sign your name here https://t.co/QspOthUbni #CubaVScor onavirUS blockade

— Andreas Bieler (@Andreas_Bieler) April 29, 2020

Authorities also reported that 25 of the 30 new cases registered on the last day are in Havana, a city concentrating more than a third of the total number of confirmed patients.

In the group of newly infected citizens, 11 people emerged as asymptomatic when the COVID-19 test was performed, the Health Ministry Epidemiology director Francisco Duran reported, adding that the source of contagion has not been specified even in 7 cases.

Cuba has carried out 45,344 PCR tests and has achieved the recovery of 44 percent of the COVID-19 patients, 42 of whom were discharged on the last day while 775 people remain in a stable situation. ​​​​​​​

*

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: Cuban doctors and nurses getting ready to travel abroad, Havana, Cuba, April 2020. | Photo: Twitter/ @AlmaCubanita

Based on how it was calculated pre-1990s, Shadowstats economist John Williams has the real US unemployment rate at around 38%, heading higher.

According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), “millions” of jobless US workers aren’t getting benefits because applications they filed, or were unable to because of a “buckle(d)” system, weren’t processed.

EPI: “For every 10 people who said they successfully filed for unemployment benefits during the previous four weeks:

Three to four additional people tried to apply but could not get through the system to make a claim.

Two additional people did not try to apply because it was too difficult to do so.”

This disturbing reality shows that the official US unemployment rate is way understated.

It’s also evidence that millions of US jobless workers aren’t getting entitled to benefits.

EPI estimates that up to 13.9 million Americans haven’t filed for benefits or their applications weren’t processed because of a clogged system too hard to navigate.

“(A)bout half of potential UI (unemployment insurance) applicants are actually receiving benefits,” said EPI.

According to official numbers from mid-March through April 23, over 26 million newly unemployed US workers had their UI applications processed.

If nearly another near-14 million Americans laid off or furloughed aren’t included in official numbers for the above five-week period, it means up to 41 million US workers lost jobs since mid-March.

Because of a dysfunctional US UI application system, EPI estimates that benefits for America’s newly unemployed since mid-March may only be going to from “45% to 52%” of qualified individuals so far.

EPI’s data is from “a single-question survey (of) 25,000 respondents through Google Surveys, beginning April 14.”

“The survey was about 98% complete and had 24,607 respondents as of April 24.

It asked: “Did you apply for unemployment benefits in the last 4 weeks?”

Respondents could choose from one of six answers:

“I did not apply because I did not lose a job.

I did not apply because I am not eligible.

I did not apply because it was too difficult.

I tried but my application was rejected.

I tried but I could not get through.

I applied successfully.”

The above data indicate a much more dismal US jobs market reality than official numbers explain.

Economist Nouriel Roubini explained that COVID-19 arrived when “(t)he world (was already) drifting into a perfect storm of financial, political, socioeconomic, and environmental risks, all of which are now growing even more acute,” adding:

Policy blunders by the Fed, along with mismanagement by the Obama and Trump regimes, “made another crisis inevitable.”

“(N)ow that it has arrived, the risks are growing even more acute.”

Even if recovery occurs this year, a “Greater Depression will follow (because of mounting public) debts…(large-scale) defaults…loss of income for many households…unsustainable private-sector debt…(weakened demand because of) mass unemployment…downward pressure on wages…de-globalization,” and other factors.

Will Washington’s imperial fist make a bad situation worse?

Will US policymakers divert attention from economic duress for ordinary Americans by waging wars against invented enemies?

Will tyranny arrive in the US full-blown on the pretext of protecting national security at a time when Washington’s only enemies are invented?

Are the worst of times ahead? Or will enough fed up Americans no longer put up with how they’re harmed by the nation’s ruling class?

When governments fail their people, the way things are in the US, they forfeit the right to rule.

Civil disobedience and other forms of resistance become essential tactics for change.

The time is now to go big for a nation safe and fit to live in — polar opposite how things are now in the US and West.

*

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.

Fifty five years ago, March 8 1965 marks the commencement of the Vietnam war.

30 April 1975 marks the official end of the Vietnam War. 

Yet today, 45 year later Vietnam is an impoverished country.  The Hanoi government is a US proxy regime. Vietnam has become a new cheap labor frontier of the global economy. Neoliberalism prevails.

In a bitter irony, Vietnam which was a victim of US war crimes has become a staunch military ally of the US under Washington’s  “Pivot to Asia” which threatens China. 

And now The Trump administration has been pressuring North Korea to adopt the “Vietnam Model” as a prerequisite to “normalization” and the lifting of economic sanctions.

The Vietnam Model is not a Solution for Vietnam, or any other country for that matter.

In 2019, the minimum hourly wage in Vietnam’s export manufacturing sector is of the order 20 cents an hour.

Health services have in large part been privatized. Education is grossly underfunded. Poverty is rampant.

Al Jazeera, April 17, 2013 

In 1994 following the lifting of US sanctions, I undertook field research in Vietnam with the support of Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture, which enabled me to visit and conduct interviews in rural areas in both the North and the South. 

This article was written more than twenty five years ago, initially published on April 30th 1995 in the context of the 20th anniversary of the Liberation of Saigon. A more in-depth analysis focusing on Hanoi’s neoliberal reforms was subsequently published as a chapter in my book, The Globalization of Poverty, first edition 1997, second edition, 2003.

Michel Chossudovsky, April 30, 2020

***

Who Won the Vietnam War

by Michel Chossudovsky

Peace Magazine, July 15,  1994

On April 30, 1975, the Vietnam War ended with the capture of Saigon by Communist forces and the surrender of General Duong Vanh Minh and his cabinet in the Presidential palace. As troops of the People’s Army of Vietnam marched into Saigon, U.S. personnel and the last American marines were hastily evacuated from the roof of the U.S. embassy. Twenty years later a fundamental question still remains unanswered: Who won the Vietnam War?

Vietnam never received war reparations payments from the U.S. for the massive loss of life and destruction, yet an agreement reached in Paris in 1993 required Hanoi to recognize the debts of the defunct Saigon regime of General Thieu. This agreement is in many regards tantamount to obliging Vietnam to compensate Washington for the costs of war.

Moreover, the adoption of sweeping macro-economic reforms under the supervision of the Bretton Woods institutions was also a condition for the lifting of the U.S. embargo. These free market reforms now constitute the Communist Party’s official doctrine. With the normalization of diplomatic relations with Washington in 1994, reference to America’s brutal role in the war is increasingly considered untimely and improper. Not surprisingly, Hanoi had decided to tone down the commemoration of the Saigon surrender so as not to offend its former wartime enemy. The Communist Party leadership has recently underscored the “historic role” of the United States in “liberating” Vietnam from Vichy regime and Japanese occupation during World War II.

On September 2, 1945 at the Declaration of Independence of Ba Dinh Square in Hanoi proclaiming the founding of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, American agents of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS, the predecessor of today’s CIA) were present at the side of Ho Chi Minh. While Washington had provided the Viet Minh resistance with weapons and token financial support, this strategy had largely been designed to weaken Japan in the final stages of World War II without committing large numbers of U.S. ground troops.

In contrast to the subdued and restrained atmosphere of the commemoration marking the end of the Vietnam War, the 50th anniversary of independence is to be amply celebrated in a series of official ceremonies and activities commencing in September and extending to the Chinese NewYear.

Vietnam Pays War Reparations

Prior to the “normalization” of relations with Washington, Hanoi was compelled to foot the bill of the bad debts incurred by the U.S.-backed Saigon regime. At the donor conference held in Paris in November 1993, a total of nearly $2 billion of loans and aid money was generously pledged in support of Vietnam’s free market reforms.

Yet immediately after the conference, a secret meeting was held under the auspices of the Paris Club. Present at this meeting were representatives of Western governments. On the Vietnamese side, Dr. Nguyen Xian Oanh, economic advisor to the prime minister, played a key role in the negotiations. Dr. Oanh, a former IMF official, had been Minister of Finance and later Acting Prime Minister in the military government of General Duong Van Minh, which the U.S. installed 1963 after the assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother(f.2). Dr. Oanh, while formally mediating on behalf of the Communist government, was nonetheless responsive to the demands of Western creditors.

The deal signed with the IMF (which was made public) was largely symbolic. The amount was not substantial: Hanoi was obliged to pay the IMF $140 million (owned by the defunct Saigon regime) as a condition for the resumption of new loans. Japan and France, Vietnam’s former colonial masters of the Vichy period, formed a so-called “Friends of Vietnam” committee to lend to Hanoi” the money needed to reimburse the IMF.

The substantive arrangement on the rescheduling of bilateral debts (with the Saigon regime), however, was never revealed. Yet it was ultimately this secret agreement (reached under the auspices of the Paris Club) which was instrumental in Washington’s decision to lift the embargo and normalize diplomatic relations. This arrangement was also decisive in the release of the loans pledged at the 1993 donor conference, thereby bringing Vietnam under the trusteeship of Japanese and Western creditors. Thus twenty years after the war, Vietnam had surrendered its economic sovereignty.

By fully recognizing the legitimacy of these debts, Hanoi had agreed to repay loans that had supported the U.S. war effort. Moreover, the government of Mr. Vo Van Kiet had also accepted to comply fully with the usual conditions (devaluation, trade liberalization, privatization, etc.) of an IMF-sponsored structural adjustment program.

These economic reforms, launched in the mid-1980s with the Bretton Woods institutions, had initiated, in the war’s brutal aftermath, a new phase of economic and social devastation: Inflation had resulted from the repeated devaluations that began in 1973 under the Saigon regime the year after the withdrawal of American combat troops(f.3). Today Vietnam is once again inundated with U.S. dollar notes, which have largely replaced the Vietnamese dong. With soaring prices, real earnings have dropped to abysmally low levels.

In turn, the reforms have massively reduced productive capacity. More than 5,000 out of 12,300 state-owned enterprises were closed or steered into bankruptcy. The credit cooperatives were eliminated, all medium and long term credit to industry and agriculture was frozen. Only short-term credit was available at an interest rate of 35 percent per annum (1994). Moreover, the IMF agreement prohibited the state from providing budget support either to the state-owned economy or to an incipient private sector.

The reforms’ hidden agenda consisted in destabilizing Vietnam’s industrial base. Heavy industry, oil and gas, natural resources and mining, cement and steel production are to be reorganized and taken over by foreign capital. The most valuable state assets will be transferred to reinforce and preserve its industrial base, or to develop a capitalist economy owned and controlled by Nationals.

In the process of economic restructuring, more than a million workers and over 20,000 public employees (of whom the majority were health workers and teachers) have been laid off(f.5). In turn, local famines have erupted, affecting at least a quarter of the country’s population(f.6). These famines are not limited to the food deficit areas. In the Mekong delta, Vietnam’s rice basket, 25% of the adult population consumes less than 1800 calories per day(f.7). In the cities, the devaluation of the dong together with the elimination of subsidies and price controls has led to soaring prices of rice and other food staples.

The reforms have led to drastic cuts in social programs. With the imposition of school fees, three quarters of a million children dropped out from the school system in a matter of a few years (1987-90)(f.8). Health clinics and hospitals collapsed, the resurgence of a number of infectious diseases including malaria, tuberculosis and diarrhea is acknowledged by the Ministry of Health and the donors. A World Health Organization study confirmed that the number of malaria deaths increased three-fold in the first four years of the reforms alongside the collapse of health care and soaring prices of antimalarial drugs(f.9). The government (under the guidance of the international donor community) has also discontinued budget support to the provision of medical equipment and maintenance leading to the virtual paralysis of the entire public health system. Real salaries of medical personnel and working conditions have declined dramatically: the monthly wage of medical doctors in a district hospital is as low as $15 a month(f.10).

Although the U.S. was defeated on the battlefield, two decades later Vietnam appears to have surrendered its economic sovereignty to its former Wartime enemy.

No orange or steel pellet bombs, no napalm, no toxic chemicals: a new phase of economic and social destruction has unfolded. The achievements of past struggles and the aspirations of an entire nation are undone and erased almost with a stroke of the pen.

Debt conditionality and structural adjustment under the trusteeship of international creditors constitute in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, an equally effective and formally nonviolent instrument of recolonization and impoverishment affecting the livelihood of millions of people.

Michel Chossudovsky is professor of economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization

Elon Musk’s newest venture, Neuralink, is attempting to wire brains directly to computers. The start-up’s vision is to insert thousands of tiny threads into the neurons of your brain. The other ends of the threads are attached to chips, embedded under the skin on your head and wirelessly connected to a detachable Bluetooth ‘pod’ behind your ear, enabling you to control a phone or another device with your thoughts. Sound far-fetched? The company has already successfully tested the technology in monkeys and aims to start testing it in humans later this year.

Neuralink’s brain-machine interface could potentially help people with brain and spinal cord injuries who have lost the ability to move or sense, as Musk highlighted at the company’s livestreamed launch event. Even more ambitiously, Musk said his long-term goal is “to achieve a sort of symbiosis with [artificial intelligence].” He wants to build what he calls a digital superintelligence layer to complement the parts of the brain responsible for thinking and planning (the cerebral cortex) and for emotions and memory (the limbic system). In fact, he said, “you already have this layer.” It is your phone and your laptop. But you are limited by how quickly you can process what you see, and how quickly you can type a response. The answer, Musk says, is to increase the band-width of the brain-machine interface.

Neuralink is just one of the organizations developing cutting-edge neurotechnology, although others like teams at Carnegie Mellon, Rice University, and Battelle, are not proposing drilling through people’s skulls and inserting microscopic threads into their brains, opting instead for electromagnetics, light beams, and acoustic waves.

It’s also not difficult to imagine neurotechnology being used for darker purposes, unrelated to the goals of the researchers developing it. A brain-machine interface could, for instance, be hacked and used to spy on or deliberately invade someone’s innermost thoughts. It could be used to implant new memories, or to extinguish existing ones. It could even be used to direct bionic soldiers, remotely pilot aircraft, operate robots in the field, or telepathically control swarms of artificial-intelligence-enabled drones.

A monkey has already controlled a computer with its thoughts, according to Elon Musk. His startup Neuralink aims to start testing its neurotechnology on people this year. Credit: Steve Jurvetson. CC BY 2.0.

In the case of biological, chemical, and nuclear technologies, international rules exist to ensure these are not used for developing weapons. There are also controls to ensure things like certain electronics, computers, software, sensors, or telecommunications technology are not used in conventional weapons. In all cases, the underlying technologies in question have useful and beneficial purposes. But these regulations do not directly apply to neurotechnologies. Of more relevance are discussions taking place at the United Nations on lethal autonomous weapons systems, particularly around aspects associated with human-machine interactions, the loss of human control, and accountability. While these are limited to weaponry, informal discussions at the United Nations are also examining broader issues around artificial intelligence and militarization, including military decision-making, intelligence-gathering, and command and control systems.

Yet, none of the international regimes or current discussions provide guidance for how people should consider the beneficial and harmful potential that neurotechnology holds, a growing area of research among scholars as militaries begin developing the technology.

Building on formative work by researchers like Jonathan Moreno, Malcolm Dando, James Giordano, and Diane DiEuliis, we talked to eight senior neurotechnologists from labs at established universities in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia about the risks they saw with the new technology and about who has responsibility for safely developing it. The interviews were part of a pilot project, in which participation was confidential and identifying information was removed from the data, as is usual practice in social science research.

In addition to brain-computer interfaces, the technologists were working on cutting-edge technologies like neuromorphic computing, a field with the goal of designing computer systems that mimic the form of the human brain, and cognitive robotics, an enterprise concerned with designing robots that can more seamlessly and empathetically interact with people. The technologists we talked to didn’t see the potential for their particular technologies to be used as weapons or to pose security concerns. They saw themselves as being “away from the front line.” Yet, at the same time, six of the study technologists we talked to, from each of the three countries, had been previous recipients of direct or indirect Pentagon funding.

Some also said that technology they had created in the past had gone on to be used for entirely unexpected purposes that would have been impossible to predict. One, for instance, designed a component for airbags that eventually found its way into tech products like smartphones.

As neurotechnology advances and applications with potential military as well as civilian uses are developed, debates about the so-called dual-use risks it poses will become more acute.

Military neurotechnology and the definition of dual use. A common way to think about the concept of dual use relates to technology transfers between civilian and military organizations. Civilian and military research and development are thought to go hand-in-hand, where innovations, like the internet and GPS, can be maximized for the mutual benefit of both civilian and military stakeholders in a win-win scenario. Technologies are spun-in from basic research to military application or spun-out from military research to civilian application. The main drivers behind this form of dual use, however, are economic interests.

When the focus shifts to international security, the dual use concept becomes more complicated. Here, civilian and military uses stand in opposition to one another, and technology transfers between civilian and military applications are focused on restricting civilian technologies from migrating to foreign or non-aligned militaries. Under the export controls agreed on by the Australia Group, a group of many of the world’s major economies that have agreed to harmonize regulations to control the spread of technology that could be used in chemical or biological weapons, a company in the United States couldn’t, for instance, export a 20-liter fermenter capable of growing bacteria without a license. A license would be denied if the company were exporting to a country suspected of having a biological weapons program, regardless of whether the recipient was explicitly a military entity or not. As such, there is not just a civilian versus military distinction to dual use, but also a distinction between what are considered legitimate and illegitimate uses.

Representatives to the Biological Weapons Convention, the international treaty banning bioweapons activity, meet in 2015. Credit: Eric Bridiers/US Mission Geneva. CC BY-ND 2.0.

International disarmament and nonproliferation treaties like the Biological Weapons Convention, the international agreement that bans bioweapons activities, introduce yet another distinction. They do not use the term dual use but instead differentiate between peaceful and non-peaceful purposes of research and development activities. Originally aimed at curtailing proliferation by states, since 9/11 the Biological Weapons Convention has broadened in scope to also encompass proliferation by non-state actors like terrorists and criminals. This trend has layered on the idea that dual use has to also be thought of in terms of the juxtaposition of benevolent and malevolent purposes.

The technologists we spoke to found these security concepts of dual use too abstract to relate to their own work. The problem is that whichever concept of dual use is applied—civilian versus military, legitimate versus illegitimate, peaceful versus non-peaceful, benevolent versus malevolent–there is very little practical guidance for how to assess the risks of neurotechnology research being used for harm, or to determine the potential contribution of neurotechnologies to a military program. It’s easy to understand how a fermenter that creates bacteria could be used in biological weapons. Countries have done that sort of thing before. There’s no such direct line between existing nuerotechnology and an already developed weapons system.

Developing clear guidance for neurotechnologies is increasingly urgent, because as it stands, militaries are already developing neurotechnology. The US Defense Department’s research wing, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), is significantly expanding brain-machine interfaces for use in military applications. It is “preparing for a future in which a combination of unmanned systems, artificial intelligence, and cyber operations may cause conflicts to play out on timelines that are too short for humans to effectively manage with current technology alone,” Al Emondi, manager of DARPA’s Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology (N3) program, said.

The N3 program is pushing for “a neural interface that enables fast, effective, and intuitive hands-free interaction with military systems by able-bodied warfighters,” according to its funding brief, and the program is sponsored at approximately $120 million over four years. But DARPA also funds many other programs, as do military research and development units in other countries. These various programs are expanding the reach of neurotechnologies into military intelligence gathering, image analysis, and threat and deception detection, as well as developing technology to manipulate emotional states and to incapacitate adversaries.

The technologists we spoke to talked about the “capabilities race” they saw developing within countries and internationally, and that “technological supremacy” was at the forefront of many researchers’ minds. Despite this, none of the six technologists who had received DARPA funding believed their scientific work was being developed for military application. The other two neurotechnologists we talked to said they would refuse military funding on the grounds that they did not promote warfare and that such funding may instigate political tensions within their labs—echoing the mixed perspectives on defense dollars from the synthetic biology field.

Of course, militaries aren’t the only organizations funding neurotechnology. Universities, major brain initiatives like the European Union’s Human Brain Project, and national health funding schemes all fund projects, as well. But it is private funders that really get technologists excited. According to an article last year in the journal Brain Stimulation, the technologies may constitute a $12-billion-dollar annual market by 2021.

The pursuit of private capital led two of the neurotechnologists we spoke with to move to Silicon Valley in California, a place where, as one of them said, “You don’t even have to explain it.” Half of the people we talked to had spinout companies, separate from their university research. These ventures may promote benefits by creating wider access to neurotechnology, but they also create privacy and other ethical dilemmas separate from concerns about whether a technology could be weaponized or not. For instance, as private companies potentially become gatekeepers of large amounts of personal brain data, they could choose to monetize it.

How can scientists and institutions account for the potential of misuse inherent in the development of neurotechnology? “Boundaries are not always so obvious when people are crossing them,” one of the technologists we spoke to said. “It is only in hindsight that people think, ‘yeah this is bad.’” Different people have different boundaries. Perceptions of beneficial technology can vary, too.

Often the benefits or potential harms associated with a technology are tightly wrapped up in a particular implementation. Even if technologists hold “good” intentions, later applications of their technology are not always within their control. Talking with neurotechnologists underscores that what is and isn’t a dual-use technology is often in the eye of the beholder, even when militaries are paying to develop the products.

While no treaty regulates neurotechnology, safely developing this sci-fi like technology calls for a new framework that articulates specific harmful or undesirable uses of the technology in political, security, intelligence, and military domains. It would be better to develop the framework now, at the stage when many entrepreneurs are more focused on telepathically controlling smartphones than the weapons of the future.

*

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.

Filippa Lentzos is a senior research fellow jointly appointed in the Departments of War Studies and of Global Health and Social Medicine at King’s College London.

Isobel Butorac is a recent graduate from King’s College London with a Master’s in Bioethics and Society and an early career researcher with a research agenda looking at public health, neuroethics, and technology.

Featured image: Neurotechnology could help people with disabilities use their thoughts to control devices in the physical world. It may also be useful in weapons systems. Private companies, militaries, and other organizations are funding neurotechnology research. Credit: US Army.

While governments worldwide are still racing against the clock to contain the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) within their own countries, U.S. President Donald Trump took comfort in his accusations over death toll numbers in different countries.

The U.S. president said in a contentious White House press briefing on Saturday: “Does anybody really believe these figures?” and insinuated that China had underreported the fatalities it suffered from the coronavirus outbreak, citing China’s death per 100,000 people at 0.33.

Though China’s population is more than four times that of the United States, the number of COVID-19 deaths in China was less than 10 percent of the U.S.

China has reported 4,642 coronavirus deaths as of April 24, compared with 49,954 deaths in the United States, according to data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and Johns Hopkins University.

Various death rates

What does the death rate mean? Why does it vary in different countries?

According to the mortality analyses by Johns Hopkins University, the deaths per 100,000 people in the United States was 15.27 on April 24, compared with a mere 0.33 in China.

Fluid due to the increase of mortalities, the death per 100,000 people measures the outbreak’s severity facing the entire population of a country.

Healthcare workers push hospital beds after bringing deceased patients to a temporary morgue outside Brooklyn Hospital Center during the coronavirus pandemic in the Brooklyn borough of New York, the United States, April 14, 2020. (Photo by Michael Nagle/Xinhua)

If two countries have the same death toll, the death per 100,000 people for the country with a larger population will be lower. That is one of the reasons why China’s death rate per 100,000 people is a mere 0.33 — the country has a population of 1.4 billion.

China first bore the brunt of the outbreak, and further analysis in breakdown shows the mortality rate per 100,000 people varies in its different regions, too.

Aerial photo taken on Jan. 26, 2020 shows the Yellow Crane Pavilion and the Yangtze River Bridge during a lockdown to contain the epidemic in Wuhan, central China’s Hubei Province. (Xinhua/Xiong Qi)

Take the hardest-hit city, Wuhan, for example. After the coronavirus was first detected in the city, capital of Hubei Province, in late December 2019, local hospitals were once overwhelmed by large numbers of infected patients in the early stages of the outbreak, a predicament that was repeated in many Western countries.

With a population of more than 11 million, Wuhan saw the coronavirus death per 100,000 people at around 35.17 as of April 23, while that for Hubei Province, with a population of over 59 million, stood at around 7.6, compared with 0.33 nationwide, as calculated using data from China’s National Health Commission (NHC).

Thanks to the resolute measures including a strict 76-day lockdown of Wuhan, the coronavirus outbreak in China was largely contained in Hubei. The province took up 97.4 percent of deaths and 82.3 percent of confirmed cases in the Chinese mainland.

Another indicator, the case-fatality ratio or the deaths-to-infections ratio, which calculates the rate by dividing total deaths by the number of confirmed cases, is also widely used to reflect both the severity of the outbreak and the effectiveness in the treatment of patients.

The empty Grand Place is seen in Brussels, Belgium, April 13, 2020. (Xinhua/Zheng Huansong)

Belgium, France, UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Iran, the United States, China and Germany were ranked by Johns Hopkins University as the top 10 countries that have the most deaths proportionally to their COVID-19 cases. The proportion in the United States was 5.7 percent and that in China stood at 5.5 percent on April 24.

Globally, the deaths-to-infections ratio stood at about 6.9 percent by April 22, with 175,694 deaths and over 2.54 million confirmed cases worldwide, according to WHO data.

That means about 6.9 percent of people known to be infected with the coronavirus have died worldwide, underscoring how deadly the virus could be.

Lessons beyond Math

Of those different death rates, what makes the difference? What things has China done right to bring COVID-19 under control?

NHC official Jiao Yahui said a series of decisive measures taken by the Chinese government since late January are the variants that matter.

A medical worker examines a patient with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) therapies at a temporary hospital in Jiangxia District in Wuhan, central China’s Hubei Province, Feb. 25, 2020. (Xinhua/Shen Bohan)

Such measures, including strict quarantine policy, dispatching medical professionals nationwide to Hubei, building makeshift hospitals, treating patients in severe conditions with the country’s best resources and making full use of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), have helped China flatten the infection curve and largely contain the contagions within Hubei Province, Jiao said.

Total lockdown of Wuhan and nationwide response

China began the 76-day lockdown of outbound channels in Wuhan on Jan. 23 as part of its nationwide emergency response efforts, and the situation started to improve subsequently.

The central government allocated and transferred funds to Hubei and pooled resources from other parts of the country to guarantee the normal lives of local residents in Wuhan and Hubei.

Medical staff members from Jiangsu Province examine patients at the temporary hospital converted from Wuhan Sports Center in Wuhan, central China’s Hubei Province, Feb. 17, 2020. (Xinhua/Xiao Yijiu)

Wearing face masks or not made a big difference in preventing healthy people, particularly medics, from contracting COVID-19, said Wang Xinghuan, president of the Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University.

None of those medics who wore masks while contacting the patients in the hospital were infected, but some medics from non-COVID-19-treating departments who had not worn masks contracted the coronavirus at the early stage of the outbreak, Wang said.

A medical worker wears protective equipment before entering the isolation ward at Wuhan No.1 Hospital in Wuhan, central China’s Hubei Province, Feb. 22, 2020. (Xinhua/Xiao Yijiu)

Placing patients with mild symptoms under home isolation could transmit the virus to more family members, Wang said, citing lessons Wuhan has learned by reporting many cases in which one patient infected three, five or six family members in the early days of the outbreak.

To solve this problem, Wuhan later converted public facilities, including gyms and exhibition centers, into 16 temporary hospitals that helped quarantine patients with mild symptoms, while inaugurating two hospitals from scratch — Huoshenshan and Leishenshan — within two weeks between late January and early February to treat COVID-19 patients after local hospitals were overwhelmed.

Tackling the huge challenge of the strained medical resources, more than 42,000 medics from across the country were assembled and dispatched to Hubei to help treat coronavirus patients.

During the peak period of the epidemic, Wuhan has a total of 60,000 hospital beds to meet the surging demand for medical resources.

Members of a medical team heading for Wuhan of Hubei Province board the plane in Xining, northwest China’s Qinghai Province, Jan. 28, 2020. (Xinhua/Zhang Long)

“This is one of the reasons that we have a rather high patient cure rate and a low mortality rate,” Jiao said, adding the prompt intervention of the TCM in the whole process of treatment has been proved especially effective in alleviating early symptoms and shortening the time that patients needed to test negative.

Different regions, different measures

The total lockdown of Wuhan and the national emergency response measures have helped reduce the confirmed cases in other Chinese cities by 96 percent than expected, said Zhang Wenhong, head of the Center for Infectious Disease with Shanghai-based Huashan Hospital of Fudan University, during a webinar on Wednesday between Chinese and U.S. medical professionals.

Many provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions swiftly initiated the top level of the public health alert system that involves the government, medical facilities and the community when the lockdown of Wuhan began.

In other parts of China where the epidemic was at different stages, slow-down, shut-down or lockdown strategies were adopted for those at the early stage, progressive stage and outbreak stage, respectively, Zhang said.

Slow-down measures, including testing, tracing, social distancing and patient hospitalization, were adopted in regions like Shanghai; shut-down measures, including testing, tracing, stay-at-home order for healthy people and closing recreational sites, were adopted in regions at the progressive stage; and lockdown measures were adopted in Wuhan and other cities in Hubei to break the transmission chain.

At the Sino-U.S. joint webinar, Zhang shared China’s five-point experience in medical and health control of the epidemic: All suspected cases were tested twice by CDC; all diagnosed patients were admitted to designated hospitals; all nucleic acid tests and treatments were free; all patients were traced and quarantined; and in epidemic outbreak regions, the transmission chain was broken and temporary shelter models set up.

Aerial photo taken on Feb. 2, 2020 shows the Huoshenshan (Fire God Mountain) Hospital in Wuhan, central China’s Hubei Province. (Xinhua/Cheng Min)

China’s tough measures to stop the spread of the coronavirus in the first 50 days of the epidemic in Wuhan have bought other cities across the country valuable time to prepare and install their own restrictions, according to a paper published in late March in the journal Science by researchers from China, the United States and Britain.

By Feb. 19 there were 30,000 confirmed cases in China, said Oxford fellow Christopher Dye, co-author of the paper.
“Our analysis suggests that without the Wuhan travel ban and the national emergency response there would have been more than 700,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan by that date,” he said. “China’s control measures appear to have worked by successfully breaking the chain of transmission — preventing contact between infectious and susceptible people.”

*

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.

Xinhua reporters Yu Pei, Liao Jun, Wang Yu and Han Jie also contributed to the story ; video editor: Zheng Xin

Featured image: Photo taken on March 27, 2020 shows fire engines with the U.S. Capitol building in the background in Washington D.C., the United States. (Xinhua/Liu Jie)

What do we make of it all?  I just read an article in the New York Times that reports that President Trump lied and hid from the public the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic. On the other side, I encounter endless Internet rage that Covid-19 is a hoax, that New York city’s hospitals  are empty and no one has died.  It is nothing but a Rothchild-Rockefeller-Bill Gates plot. Perhaps the most stunningly inconsistant claim of all is that it is a bioweapon that is so harmless that there should have been no lockdown.  Why make a harmless bioweapon?  

Where one stands on the closedown depends on where one stands on other issues.  If you are a libertarian, you oppose the closedown because it interferes with your freedom and keeps useless old people alive who cost you payroll tax dollars.  If you are a Trump-hater like the New York Times you blame trump for understating the threat and not closing down soon enough.  If you are a Trump supporter you blame China and expect China to pay for it by forfeiting their trillion dollar holding of US government bonds.  

Those decrying the closedown are unaware of the mischief they are making.  They have set it up for the elites, who have taken us for another “bailout the one percent ride,” to blame the resulting economic depression on the closedown.  The US economy has been in a long-term recession.  Growth in income and wealth has accrued to the top few percent who own the majority of stocks and bonds driven up in price by the Fed’s money printing.  The rest of the population has been hurt by the offshoring of their jobs and by the financialization of the economy that leaves them little or no discretionary income after they pay their rent or mortgage, car payment, credit card payment and student debt.  

The economy was already in a debt deflation with 40% of the population unable to raise $400 cash according to the Federal Reserve.  The inevitable consequence of a debt deflation is economic depression as debt deflation precludes sufficient consumer aggregate demand to drive the economy.  GDP growth has received no help from business investment, because corporations have used their profits to buy back their own shares.  

The closedown is not responsible for the debt deflation, the foundations of which were already in place.  But the closedown has given it a push.  Small businesses were not bailed out like larger ones such as Boeing.  For small businesses the closedown represents a period when their costs exceed their revenues.  For the unemployed that resulted from the closedown, their living expenses continued but their pay checks did not. The Trump checks help as do temporary moratoriums on evictions to dely the inevitable, but for the majority of the already heavily indebted, the closedown adds to their debt.

Michael Hudson and I believe that an economic system that enriches the rentier class by converting as much of personal income as possible to the service of debt is an economic system that is dead in the water.  One possible way out is a debt writedown in order to create some discretionary income.  Keep in mind that when the replacement of offshored manufacturing jobs with Walmart jobs stopped US GDP growth, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan subsituted growth in consumer debt for the missing income growth, and by this substitution created discretionary income by loading up the consumer with debt.

That load is now full.  We are in the unenviable position of having very high stock prices in an econony that has no growth potential.  The high stock prices are the product of trillions of dollars injected into financial asset prices.  If the reopening spreads the virus and produces a second wave that overwhelms the health care system on a broader basis, the economy could be shutdown again, or if kept open could be disrupted by widespread illness or reluctance to accept exposure to the virus.  On the other hand, if the virus has run its course, or the threat was exaggerated, the existing stifling debt burden remains. 

The danger in the shouting and finger-pointing is that a sick economy will be blamed on the closedown, not on the debt burden.  Reopening the economy does not make the debt burden disappear.  Michael Hudson and I have tried to focus the public and policymakers on the real problem.  So far we have been unsuccessful.

*

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 site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko

An interesting film to watch is Gavin Hood’s 2015 Eye in the Sky. It captures the tremendous tension of a joint US/UK drone missile ‘Kill’ mission in Kenya. The movie had to make the targeed terrorist cell look extremely dangerous. The two most dangerous ones were a British citizen working hand in hand with her Al Qaeda type Arab husband. Of course, she and her husband were high up on the ‘East Africa Kill List’ of the allies. To really make the plot thicken more, the script threw in two suicide-to be bombers also at the said target house. Not to spoil things for you, the movie offers the old standby for  action movie uncertainty, that of possible Collateral Damage.

The reason why this film is so intense is just the idea of assassinating people from thousands of miles away, from the sky. The drone operator is an Air Force Lieutenant sitting in front of a screen in Las Vegas, Nevada. Connected by monitor to he and his assistant are British officials somewhere in the UK, with others  working on surveillance screens in Kenya and elsewhere.

This whole amalgamation of force is dependent upon the drone aircraft releasing a Hellfire missile when the Lieutenant is ordered to. Is this just fiction, or does ‘Art imitate Life’?

Folks, this is all real!

This is what 21st Century Empire is all about. How more sanitized can killing become, except for those in the missile’s path?

IN 2007 Wiki Leaks released the video of the Apache Helicopter massacre of a score of Iraqi civilians casually strolling in the street in Baghdad. The audio of that event tragically showed a bunch of US servicemen playing some perverse video game, before, during and after their attack. What Eye in the Sky alludes to is even more surreal. This is about the business of killing, push button killing of anyone the powers that be want eliminated. Maybe the victims in the film were terrible people. Does that justify the murder of innocents who happen to be in the way? On top of that, in the film they even explain that this drone missile assassination was taking place in another sovereign country, Kenya. When this writer runs up against folks who always seem to justify such killings, I offer this analogy: I ask the person who says this is just part of the war on terrorism, what if? What if a Palestinian engineer, a neighbor of yours, is known by the Israelis to be giving money to groups who are enemies of Israel? What if the Israelis track this person, this neighbor of yours, with such intricate surveillance, right to his house, which happens to be next door to yours? What if they go ahead and send a drone missile to destroy him when he is at home? They succeed, but you get that phone call that we all dread, saying that your house had collateral damage, as in your wife and kid were killed in your house when the missile tore into it as well?

These are the reasons why so many of us on the ‘Left’, as well as those on the Libertarian Right, are so dismissive of this modern era of satellite surveillance and of course actions like those above. Our nation has become the Sky God of this planet, and it is sure as hell disgusting!!

*

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].

US history since WW II is pockmarked with endless wars of aggression against invented enemies — what the scourge of imperialism is all about.

The nation’s resources are used for smashing one country after another, occupying planet earth with the Pentagon’s empire of bases, and serving the interests of America’s privileged class by exploiting most others at home and abroad.

April 30 is the 45th anniversary of US defeat in Southeast Asia — marked at the time by a humiliating Saigon embassy rooftop exit, ending America’s aggression in a part of the world where it doesn’t belong.

Historian Gabriel wrote the definitive history of the war in his 1985 book, titled “Anatomy of a War: Vietnam, the United States, and the Modern Historical Experience.”

US aggression was and remains part of its rage for global dominance.

Jack Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA in part because he wanted all US forces out of Vietnam by end of 1963 before war began.

False flags are a longstanding US tradition, dating from the 19th century.

In August 1964, US war on North Vietnam followed the staged Gulf of Tonkin false flag incident.

Raging for over a decade, around three or four million Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians perished from US aggression, one of history’s greatest crimes.

Indiscriminate terror-bombing, including with napalm, other incendiary devices, anti-personal cluster bombs, widespread use of  deadly dioxin-containing Agent Orange, and other banned weapons devastated Southeast Asia and its people.

Sarin nerve gas was used in Laos. The scars of war in the region remain to this day.

Scores of towns, villages, and hamlets were destroyed, millions killed, countless millions more harmed.

From 1965 – 1973, around eight million tons of bombs were used against Southeast Asia targets, threefold the tonnage in WW II.

Washington’s defeat in the didn’t curb its rage for global dominance, far from it.

Endless wars of aggression against nations threatening no one followed by hot and other means, ongoing today in multiple theaters.

Will Trump escalate ongoing wars or start one or more new ones to divert attention from homeland economic collapse as a reelection campaign strategy?

Oral historian Studs Terkel once said WW II “warped our view of how we look at things today, (seeing them) in terms of war” as a crusade of good v. evil.

This “twisted memory encourages (people) to be willing, almost eager, to use military force” as a way to solve problems, ignoring their destructive harm.

Never just, in the nuclear age they’re lunatic acts. If past is prologue, US forever wars will continue unless or until mass rebellion ends them or they end us.

The hoped for end of US aggression on April 30, 1975 wasn’t to be. Might unjustifiably justifying right is longstanding US policy.

After the US 1991 Gulf War ended, GHW Bush trumpeted: “By God, we’ve licked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”

Three more decades of endless wars followed. Raging today, there’s no end of them in prospect.

From inception, the US has been and remains a warrior state wrapped in the American flag, the rule of law and human toll ignored.

Money and power take precedence over all else — peace, equity and justice be damned.

*

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 peterpilt.org

“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.

Nobody can tell me after 35 years in the world of medicine that sometimes those kinds of things impact on what we do.”

Listen to Senator Dr. Scott Jensen in this new interview.

Both right wings of the US war party are hostile toward sovereign independent states that are free from its imperial control.

It’s notably true for nations with enormous hydrocarbon resources like Iran and Venezuela — what the US seeks control over for added ability to dominate other countries.

Most of all, it’s true for powerful nations like China and Russia, able to challenge US hegemonic aims effectively.

Russia’s super-weapons, exceeding the best in the West, made it the world’s dominant military power.

China’s growing economic, industrial, technological, and political power most concerns US policymakers because of the country’s increasing preeminence on the world stage at the expense of America in decline.

In their eyes, China is public enemy No. 1. Are both countries on a collision course for confrontation?

A rupture in political relations could follow the Trump regime’s trade war.

It’s exacerbated by unacceptable Pentagon incursions close to and in Chinese waters, and now falsely blaming Beijing for spreading COVID-19 outbreaks to shift responsibility from US failures to deal with the public health crisis effectively.

Intense China bashing affects US public opinion. A February Gallup poll showed two-thirds of Americans view Beijing mostly or very unfavorably — a 20 point decline from 2018.

A March poll by the organization showed nearly half of US respondents view China as a “critical threat.”

A new Pew Research poll showed two-thirds of Americans view China unfavorably. When Trump took office, it was 47%.

According to Asia Society’s director Orville Shell, “(i)t’s hardly surprising.”

“It’s now just about the only thing in Washington that Republicans and (Dems) agree on…(They) have a much more skeptical view of China’s intentions” — ignoring their own.

Negative US public opinion toward China shows propaganda works as intended.

According to former US National Security Council member Douglas Paal, proposed congressional legislation calls for greater get tough on China policies.

It’s an election issue. Congressional members and aspirants believe that publicly bashing China is a way to gain voter support.

Bilateral relations are likely to worsen ahead, including in the aftermath of US November elections — heightening the risk of confrontation by accident or design.

The outlook ahead is unsettling at best, a matter of great concern if bilateral relations continue deteriorating.

A rupture will be harmful to both countries. The US is China’s largest export market. It’s a major market for US exports.

According to the St. Louis Fed, agricultural products, aircraft, motor vehicles, and microchips are the top US exports to China.

The country is the world’s leading source of low-cost goods for the US and many other nations. It’s a major buyer of US Treasuries.

In response to growing contentious relations with the US, China began developing internal consumer-led growth years ago, including for services — to be less dependent on exports for future growth, especially to the West.

Has Russiagate shifted to Chinagate? US anti-China Cold War poses the risk of turning hot.

Is mutual trust beyond repair short-or-longer-term?

The issue goes way beyond Trump and GOP hardliners. If Biden succeeds DJT as president in January, Sino/US relations are unlikely to improve.

Given the current trend, they’re more likely to further deteriorate.

Obama’s 2013 Asia pivot aimed to reassert America’s East Pacific presence by advancing its military footprint in a part of the world where it doesn’t belong.

It aims to challenge and counter China growing preeminence on the world stage, while checking Russia in its far east at the same time.

Containment has been US policy throughout the post-WW II period, targeting nations able to challenge its hegemonic aims.

Cold War politics rages on multiple fronts, mainly against China and Russia — in the Middle East against Iran, in Latin America against Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.

It’s what the scourge of Washington’s imperial agenda is all about, risking endless wars by hot and other means.

US imperial overreach threatens everyone everywhere.

What’s unthinkable is possible, the risk of military confrontation with China and/or Russia that could go nuclear if pushed too far.

*

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 theme of biological warfare has gained increasing prominence in recent times. The global pandemic of the new coronavirus has aroused interest in this matter in particular, and several speculations have arisen by experts from many countries about the possibility of an artificial origin of the virus that currently plagues the planet. In fact, it doesn’t matter if this particular virus was created in laboratory or not, but the use of biological manipulation for military purposes is a complex subject and worthy of careful study. The interest in the issue is absolutely legitimate and allows such a debate to go beyond the sphere of “conspiracy theories” to acquire an academic character.

Recently, some alleged cases of biological weapons operations have received due attention, thanks to the suspicions raised by the pandemic. This is the case for American military laboratories in the Amazon rainforest. Although little is said about this subject, the American armed forces maintain several laboratories for obscure research purposes within the Amazon territory. It is already known that many of these laboratories have or had an active participation in the drug production process by drug trafficking criminal organizations hidden in the Amazon. The most notorious laboratory is the so-called NAMRU-6, which belongs to the American Navy.

The “Observatory for the Closing of the School of the Americas” reported in a note that several bacteriological and tropical diseases researches are being carried out in the Peruvian Amazon by the NAMRU-6 base.

“In Peru, the United States has a number of military bases, some allegedly involved in drug trafficking,” said Pablo Ruiz, spokesman for the observatory, emphasizing: “This is a military base that we are monitoring, which belongs to the US Navy. […] (NAMRU) Conducts research on pathological and infectious diseases, and we are very concerned because it is close to the Amazon, and eventually on that military base they could be preparing biological weapons”.

NAMRU-6 (Naval Medical Research Unit Six) is an American Navy biomedical research center based in Lima, Peru. Publicly, Washington states that the interest of the researches carried out by the base is the identification and control of infectious diseases and the development of medications for their control, however there are several suspicions about the real nature of its activities, with the hypothesis of clandestine operations on biological manipulation being highly considered. According to the Observatory (which is a social movement that fights for the end of foreign military bases in Latin America), NAMRU is behind the creation of several biological weapons, many of which have already been used in combat by the USA.

The Observatory spokesman reported that the investigations being carried out on NAMRU suggest that this base is behind the epidemic of hemorrhagic dengue in Cuba in 1981, which caused the death of hundreds of people. The hypothesis gains even more strength now that evidence is found of the use of the mosquito “aedes eagypt” (host of the virus that transmits dengue and other diseases) as a biological weapon by the Pentagon in several regions of the planet, as described in several official documents recently revealed .

Pablo Ruiz argued that the UN bodies responsible for the control of weapons of mass destruction should work more closely with regard to biological weapons and seek greater control over the activities carried out by military laboratories. In his words:

“In the situation that humanity is currently experiencing, it would be very good if the UN body that ensures that no country produces weapons of mass destruction could visit this base and see what they are doing there with infectious diseases”.

In fact, too much attention has been paid in recent decades to the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation; however, biological weapons are almost never seriously treated, with almost all complaints on the subject being referred as “conspiratorial”. The reason for this is understandable: when used, biological weapons transmit an atmosphere of “normality”, as they deal with natural phenomena that are artificially manipulated. So, the last thing one could think about an infection is that it is a military weapon rather than a natural phenomenon. But this is exactly where the benefits of using such weapons are: they are almost never noticed and their damage can be greater than that of chemical and nuclear weapons – which clearly identify their launchers. The difficulty in understanding whether or not such weapons were used in a given event was the main reason why some countries chose to go ahead in research to develop such products.

It is increasingly difficult to deny the existence of biological weapons. It is a matter of time before publicly admitting that the biomedical field is a battlefield like any other, just as it happened recently with the cyberspace. However, until it is proved whether or not such weapons are being used, many things continue to happen, such as, for example, top-secret research by the American Navy within the Amazon Rainforest. The location is extremely strategic: far from any rich country, in remote and difficult-to-reach regions, these laboratories remain out of the international media and do not put the populations of western urban centers at risk in the event of accidents or leaks.

Indeed, Washington already has several accusations of using biological weapons. Experts from Russia, China, Iran and several other nationalities raised this hypothesis about the new coronavirus. Now, a new charge comes from South America. Above all, the US owes the world an answer. After all, what is so secret about biomedical research being carried out in military laboratories in remote areas of the globe? International society demands an explanation.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is a New Jersey National Guard photo by Mark C. Olsen

It took all of two days for a Connecticut city’s plan to use drone tech to snoop on citizen behavior to make sure they’re complying with coronavirus rules for an angry public to shut it down.

On Tuesday, the Westport Police Department announced it had launched a pilot project in coordination with Canadian company Draganfly to send drones hovering around the city to make sure people in public spaces were maintaining six feet of social distance.

But these drones were much more intrusive than simply looking for crowds. Draganfly’s drone-mounted biometric monitoring tools are even more sinister, dystopian, and potentially abusive. The drone is able to quickly measure whether people are six feet apart from each other, and Draganfly claims it can also measure heart rate, body temperature, and other vital signs, which suggests that a drone might be able to spot potential infections from above.

Here’s how Westport Police Chief Foti Koskinas promoted this “Flatten the Curve Pilot Program” in a Facebook post from Tuesday:

“Westport and its first responder network is one of the most progressive public safety advocates in the nation. They are real pioneers when it comes to adopting and integrating new technology to protect its community. This pandemic has opened up a new frontier and urgent need for the use of drones. Draganfly is the first in the U.S. to implement this state-of-the-art technology to capture and analyze data in a way that has been peer reviewed and clinically researched to save lives.”

The community was not thrilled. Facebook comments under the post blasted Westport for violating the privacy of citizens. The police department took a drone out for a test run intended to show the public that it was useful. Instead, it looked creepy. They brought the drone to a Trader Joe’s where customers were waiting in line to be allowed into the store to go shopping. They were socially distancing, but they weren’t always perfectly six feet apart, and the drone flagged people who were waiting just slightly too close to others or who passed by other people at a distance closer than six feet.

And that was pretty much all it showed—very brief moments of people being maybe a few inches too close to each other. This was not exactly pioneering new ways of keeping people safe. But it did have the potential to violate people’s privacy since its biometric analysis supposedly detects symptoms associated with COVID-19, but also any other ailment that increases a person’s temperature.

Connecticut activist Michael Picard—who’s been written about previously at Reason—raised the alarm about these drones.

“Technology is not the be-all and end-all,” he tells Reason. “How can a drone sense when someone has a fever when the difference between a normal temperature and a fever is a tenth of a degree, and how will it know the difference between coronavirus and springtime allergies? This will just subject people to pointless harassment. This is just a stepping stone. Before you know it, police departments will be weaponizing drones.”

On Thursday, Westport announced it would not participate in this pilot program after all.

“In our good faith effort to get ahead of the virus and potential need to manage and safely monitor crowds and social distancing in this environment, our announcement was perhaps misinterpreted, not well-received, and posed many additional questions,” First Selectman Jim Marpe said. “We heard and respect your concerns, and are therefore stepping back and re-considering the full impact of the technology and its use in law enforcement protocol.”

In response to the city’s decision, Picard declared “a victory for the people and civil liberties, especially in a time of overreach….Using drones to surveil people will only breed mistrust, and it will cause people to be unnecessarily harassed.”

The entire proposal seemed like a policing tech project looking for an excuse to exist. Westport is a town of fewer than 30,000 people, and it’s absurd to think that the police would need a drone to know when large groups of people are organizing, where they’re organizing, and whether they’re observing social distancing guidelines. Monitoring people’s biometric information, meanwhile, is not just unnecessary but invasive and likely to result in police actions that cause more harm than good.

*

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 Feverpitched / Dreamstime.com

A Czech magazine’s scandalous claim that two of the capital’s politicians are being guarded by police in order to protect them from a reportedly imminent assassination attempt by a Russian spy reeks of the Skripal conspiracy when Moscow were accused of unsuccessfully trying to kill a former double agent, though this time the alleged justification is that one of the supposed targets renamed the square outside the Russian Embassy to honor a slain Russian opposition member while the other ordered the tearing down of a Soviet-era statue to World War II hero Ivan Konev.

The hits just keep on coming for Boeing which last quarter was slammed with the continued grounding of the 737 MAX and now had to contend with the collapse in airline travel due to the coronavirus. As a result, moments ago Boeing reported another dismal earnings report with the following highlights:

• Q1 Revenue of $16.9BN, exp. $17.3BN, and down 26% Y/Y
• Q1 EPS Loss of ($1.70), exp. ($1.61) and down from a profit of $3.16 year ago
• Q1 Operating Cash Burn ($4.3BN) vs positive cash flow of $2.8BN  year ago; total free cash flow was a record negative ($4.7BN)
• Q1 Core operating margin of (10.1%) vs 8.7% year ago
• Q1 Cash and marketable securities of $15.5BN
• Exploring All Options for Additional Liquidity

Of the above, the most notable was the record $4.7 BN in free burn.

As one would expect, Boeing was quick to flag that “financial results significantly impacted by COVID-19 and the 737 MAX grounding”, something it did in the very first line of its earnings release. As a result, the company is planning to reduce commercial airplane production rates as a result of the pandemic hitting air traffic.

“The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting every aspect of our business, including airline customer demand, production continuity and supply chain stability,” said Boeing President and CEO David Calhoun. “Our primary focus is the health and safety of our people and communities while we take tough but necessary action to navigate this unprecedented health crisis and adapt for a changed marketplace.”

Additionally, Boeing sent out a separate letter to employees just as it reported earnings. CEO Dave Calhoun said the company is targeting a 10% cut through voluntary layoffs, natural turnover and “involuntary layoffs as necessary.” The reduction will be even deeper – with a 15% employment drop – at the company’s jetliner and services units, as well as in its corporate functions operation.

In his message to employees, Calhoun calls the news on job cuts “a blow during an already challenging time.” He goes on to say, “I regret the impact this will have on many of you. I sincerely wish there were some other way.” As a bright spot, he also points to Boeing’s defense and space businesses, which will provide a measure of stability while the jetliner market collapses.

“While COVID-19 is adding unprecedented pressure to our business, we remain confident in our long term future,” said Calhoun. “We continue to support our defense customers in their critical national security missions. We are progressing toward the safe return to service of the 737 MAX, and we are driving safety, quality and operational excellence into all that we do every day. Air travel has always been resilient, our portfolio of products and technology is well positioned, and we are confident we will emerge from the crisis and thrive again as a leader of our industry.”

Boeing said the slower-than-expected ramp-up of the 737 Max will add about $1 billion to so-called “abnormal” costs that the company booked for shutting down and restarting production. It now expects to report $5 billion in those costs.

• Other commercial charges include:
• $797 million in abnormal Max costs
• $137 million for virus-related factory closings
• $336 million for 737 picklefork repairs

A look at commercial airplane production rates from the presentation slides:

With attention focusing on Boeing’s liquidity, the company reported that operating cash flow was ($4.3) billion in the quarter, primarily reflecting the impact of the 737 MAX grounding and COVID-19, as well as timing of receipts and expenditures. Adding $428MM in capex, total cash flow was a negative record $4.7BN…

… resulting in $15.5BN in cash and marketable securities, as total debt soared to a new record high of $38.9BN.

The company remains investment grade at Baa2/BBB but one wonders how much longer.

The company provided the following details related to the continued grounding of the 737MAX

• Progressing Toward Safe Return to Service of 737 Max
• 787 Production Rate Cut to 10 Per Month in 2020
• 787 Production Rate Reduced to 7 Per Month by 2022
• $797M Abnormal Prod. Costs 1Q From 737 Max Suspension
• 737 Max Production Will Resume at Low Rates in 2020
• Boeing to Gradually Boost 737 Max to 31 Per Month During 2021
• Estimated Abnormal Costs 737 Max Have Increased ~$1B
• Est. Total Abnormal Prod Costs From Max Suspension ~$5B

Of note: baked into the Boeing’s results is the assumption that the “timing of 737 Max regulatory approvals will enable deliveries to resume during 3Q20,” the company says in its earnings slides. Boeing has been waiting for regulators to complete their review of redesigned software systems and lift a flying ban imposed on the Max in March 2019 after two fatal crashes.

Commenting on the results, Bloomberg Intelligence Senior analyst George Ferguson notes that “Boeing’s liquidity will be improved by the termination of its joint venture with Embraer, which eliminates a $4.2 billion payment to acquire 80% of the E-Jet franchise.” But was it a missed opportunity?: “The price would likely have been materially lower today due to a dramatic decline in air travel.”

Despite missing across the board, and reporting a record cash burn, investors for some inexplicable reason – perhaps because it means more government grants – like what they see as Boeing moves to shrink its operations to contend with crumbling demand for its commercial planes. The shares are up 4.8% to $137.55 ahead of regular trading. By way of context, Boeing has plunged 60% this year — the biggest drop on the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

High-ranking governmental and military leaders in the Republic of South Africa greeted a Cuban medical mission which arrived on April 27.

The 217 Cuban healthcare workers are in the country to assist in efforts to contain and eradicate the COVID-19 pandemic.

South Africa has the second largest number of cases reported on the continent only lagging behind Egypt. President Cyril Ramaphosa declared a national emergency in late March while the country remains under a five week-old lockdown.

The moments leading up to the arrival of the Henry Reeve International Medical Brigade and the welcoming ceremony held at the Waterkloof Airforce base in Pretoria were emotional for South Africa as a nation which had gained its national independence exactly 26 years earlier. Cuba had played a pivotal role in the struggle to liberate the entire region of Southern Africa from the ravages of white-minority rule and settler-colonialism.

In Angola, the Cuban Internationalists forces were deployed from 1975-1989 to support the independence of the ruling MPLA government in Luanda. Several incursions by the-then racist apartheid South African Defense Forces (SADF) during this period were repelled with the decisive aid of the Cuban military which dispatched hundreds of thousands of its volunteer soldiers over the course of 14 years.

After the defeat of the SADF in southern Angola at Cuito Cuanavale in 1988, the racist South African troops were forced to withdraw from the country paving the way for the national independence of Namibia in 1990 and later South Africa, four years later in 1994. The first African National Congress (ANC) ruling party government led by former President Nelson Mandela, expressed profound gratitude for Cuba in its contributions to South African and regional liberation as a whole.

Medicine as Socialist Foreign Policy

Decades later the Cubans had returned to engage in another battle on the medical front. The country has the healthcare personnel and socialist orientation which has been acknowledged internationally for its successful interventions in humanitarian crises.

The Cuban government’s medical personnel are a key component of the Caribbean island-nation’s foreign policy. Cuba has the highest physician-patient ratio in the world which is a direct result of the national priorities which is placed on the health and well-being of the population of 11 million people.

South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor welcomes Cuban medical personnel on April 27 (SABC photo)

At present the Cuban government has deployed 37,000 healthcare workers in 67 different countries in various geo-political regions of the world. These brigades are well received by various nations in Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America. At the height of the pandemic in Italy where tens of thousands have been infected, Cuba sent a medical delegation to assist in the monumental work of the infectious disease specialists in that country.

With specific reference to the COVID-19 pandemic, Cuba as of the last week of April has deployed 1,218 medical professionals to 20 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe, Africa and the Middle East. The majority of the healthcare specialists are assigned to the most severely impacted areas to directly confront the virus. In some cases, nonetheless, there are advisory brigades which do not deal directly with patients, although they are providing consultation to local health authorities, such as in Mexico.

The Contingent which arrived in South Africa consists of epidemiologists, public health experts, general practitioners and healthcare technology engineers. These Cuban healthcare specialists are slated to assist in neighborhood screening projects which began several weeks ago. 168,000 people have been tested already.  In Guateng province, 13,500 people have undergone COVID-19 tests. This province has the largest concentration of confirmed cases inside the country.

According to an article published by Granma International, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC):

“Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla tweeted, ‘Without neglecting the responsibility to protect our people and despite limitations imposed by the blockade, Cuba offers modest cooperation to other peoples,’ adding, ‘In the face of the COVID-19, the priority of all must be to save lives. This is a crisis of multiple and devastating effects not only in the field of health, but also in the economy, international trade and our societies in general,’ he continued. ‘Homeland is Humanity. Under this maxim of Martí’s, our health professionals defend medical care, the welfare of the people and life in different corners of the world,’ the Foreign Minister stated. Cuba’s Minister of Public Health, José Ángel Portal, referring to the group in South Africa, said that the attitude of health professionals on these missions is based on the Revolution and our people’s principles of solidarity.”

The Cuban government has deployed medical teams to other African states in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Those countries include Cape Verde, Togo and Angola.

Earlier in April, Togo became another country where members of the Henry Reeve International Medical Brigade have been assigned. 11 doctors are in the former French colony in West Africa to assist with the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of arrival of the Cuban healthcare workers on April 9, there were 73 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Togo and three deaths.

Angola, where a delegation arrived on April 11, some 256 healthcare specialists including university professors, physicians and nurses have been deployed in the country’s efforts to stem the spread of COVID-19. The Cubans will conduct trainings of 1,500 Angolan medical personnel in community medicine techniques which will facilitate the necessary field work among the population.

In a statement on the Cuban mission, Angolan Health Minister Silvia Lutuca noted that:

“The training will take place at Girassol Hospital… because it has excellent simulators for practical classes, which is an indispensable condition.  Angolan doctors will visit the families assigned to them, at a rate of 1,000 inhabitants per professional, cohabiting with the Cubans who arrived in Angola for this purpose. Cuban doctors will not only stay in referral hospitals.​​​​​​​ They will put their knowledge to the benefit of Angola and Angolans, even in remote areas, especially with confirmed cases.”

Socialism Promotes Cooperation in Tackling Global Challenges

Cuba has set an example of internationalism through its technical and material assistance to various states battling the COVID-19 pandemic. This foreign policy orientation can be contrasted with the starkly different approach by the U.S. administration of President Donald Trump, who has consistently stoked racism and disinformation in response to the current global healthcare crisis.

Cuban healthcare workers holding portrait of Fidel Castro

The U.S. has far more COVID-19 infections and deaths than any other country in the world. Yet the White House has continued to heighten the blockade against Cuba and intensify destabilization efforts against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Zimbabwe, in Southern Africa, which is a close ally of Cuba, remains under U.S. sanctions despite a direct appeal by the United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres to end all economic and military warfare in order to place the world’s resources behind the campaign for the elimination of the pandemic.  Another African Union (AU) member-state, Somalia, has been bombed on several occasions over the last few months by the Pentagon’s U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) in purported “anti-terrorism” operations. All of these nations in Africa and Latin America require the necessary peace to guard against the spread of COVID-19 which endangers all other peoples and nations throughout the world.

A statement issued by the Cuban Foreign Ministry on April 16 makes a significant ideological argument in favor of international cooperation during the current period. The Foreign Ministry emphasized:

“If politically motivated coercive economic measures against developing countries are not lifted and if they are not exempted from the payment of the burdensome and unpayable foreign debt and freed from the ruthless tutelage of international financial organizations, we cannot delude ourselves into thinking that we will be in a better position to respond to the economic and social disparities that, even without a pandemic, kill millions of people every year, including children, women and elders. The threat against international peace and security is real and constant attacks against some countries only made it worse.” (See this)

These sentiments represent the antithesis of imperialist foreign policy which amid such a critical conjuncture maintains its war posture. Cuban medical workers are deployed to save lives and rebuild societies.

In the city of Detroit, where the COVID-19 pandemic has killed a thousand people and sickened at least ten times more, the Moratorium NOW! Coalition is building a coalition to demand that the governor and mayor make an official request for Cuban medical assistance to the majority African American and working class municipality. While the social and economic impact of the pandemic is rendering many unemployed, homeless, food insecure, without healthcare coverage and traumatized, the intervention of socialist medical personnel from Cuba would provide the much needed material assistance as well as political morale to the masses of people.

*

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.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated; featured image: Cuban doctors arrive in South Africa on the 26th anniversary of Freedom Day

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison made a series of phone calls last week to several world leaders, including US President Donald Trump, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, appealing for their support of Australia’s “independent” inquiry into “the origin and spread” of the COVID-19 outbreak, with China as the thinly veiled target.

The calls were not an impulsive act. They were part of a strategic plan made through thoughtful deliberations. Morrison’s proposal and lobbying came after his foreign minister Marise Payne made a similar threat on April 21. A day after that, at a G20 ministerial meeting, Australia’s agricultural minister David Little proud called for international scrutiny of wet markets in China which he claimed were rampant with “live wildlife, exotic wildlife” that are creating “human risk and biosecurity risk.”

While the rest of the world is actively joining forces and pooling resources to combat the novel coronavirus pandemic, the Morrison administration is spearheading this malicious campaign to frame and incriminate China with groundless conjecture and outlandish fabrications.

China has made tremendous human sacrifices and suffered great economic losses during its fight against the epidemic. At the start of the outbreak when the novel coronavirus caught everyone unprepared, China communicated with the WHO and other countries about the virus’ genome sequence and other key information about the disease. In a January 29 telephone conversation with Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Payne said she appreciated China’s open, transparent and timely communication with the international community.

Even though the crisis still exits, China has kick-started its manufacturing of medical and personal protective equipment, providing much-needed supplies to 127 countries and four international organizations, and sending teams of experts to 15 countries.

It is utterly senseless for Australia to start a blame game that amounts to pointing a finger at the victim. Consequently, Chinese and other Asians in Australia have become a vulnerable target of racial discrimination and hate crimes.

Based on unsubstantiated anecdotes and hearsay, Australia has been spreading preposterous lies accusing China of opening wet markets trading in wildlife across the country. Sensational tales, which are far from reality, are being told by media shock jocks and some politicians, who allege that bats are on menus in restaurants in China. This nonsense is stigmatizing the Chinese community and the Chinese way of life.

This is an all-out crusade against China and Chinese culture, led by Australia, which has worked hard in the past to become a comprehensive strategic partner of China.

This is not the first time that Canberra has attempted to lead a panda-bashing campaign. We still remember that in 2018, Morrison’s predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull, fired the world’s first shot at Huawei by imposing a blanket ban on its 5G equipment, and lobbied a number of Western countries to follow suit.

During this global existential crisis, Canberra is exercising despicable opportunism and is deluded in thinking it will result in geopolitical gains. All governments should be following the basic principles of humanitarianism during these dark hours of human history, and rally behind a global fight to end the pandemic, instead of guilefully trying to stab China in the back.

Australia prides itself on being in the vanguard of this anti-China crusade, and pretends it’s not performing on the whims of the White House. A Sydney commentator congratulates Morrison’s reckless ploy as “represent[ing] a remarkable moment in Australia’s national self-assertion,” denoting “a new boldness and independence.”

It is a most ludicrous and immature illusion for Australia to think it is growing bigger and taller by waging one skirmish after another against China. By placing itself as a chess piece in Washington’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, Australia is still playing its part as America’s “deputy sheriff.” Bilateral relations between China and Australia have hit a record-low over the past three years. For almost 30 years, Australia sustained its economic growth by riding on the coattails of China’s monumental development. China is Australia’s largest destination of exports, largest source of international tourists and students, and one of the biggest overseas investors.

The Morrison government’s adventurism to fiddle with this mutually beneficial comprehensive strategic partnership is in defiance of rational thought and common sense. It has seriously ravaged trust, confidence and shared interests, which are the bedrocks of the bilateral relationship. Canberra is treading on a hazardous path that has no prospect for a U-turn during the COVID-19 pandemic, and likely for a long time afterward.

*

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 author is professor and director of Australian Studies Centre, East China Normal University. [email protected]

Featured image: Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison Photo: Xinhua

It is getting ugly, extremely ugly.

It is increasingly looking like a war – at least a new ‘cold’, ideological war.

But in the shadow of COVID-19, it goes almost unnoticed.

The blind horseman, who hates China intuitively, without knowing hardly anything about it, is leading the pack, pushing his president into a confrontation with the most populous country on Earth. His name is Peter Navarro.

Not that the president is ‘innocent’. Under him, the White House has become a haven of bigotry, of anti-Chinese racist sentiments. It was already converted into the global headquarters of the combat against the much more logical and humane, socialist, systems.

Red warning lights are blinking. All indicators are pointing downwards; economic ones, social ones, as well as medical. US warships are repeatedly being deployed, near Taiwan and the South China Sea.

And the insults, terrible insults, are flying.

Trump and Navarro are insulting China publicly, with no shame. They are smearing the nation which just a few months ago stood alone, facing an unknown enemy, battling and at great cost, but rapidly defeated the pandemic, all over its vast territory.

All this is being done shamelessly and arrogantly.

The world is watching. Part of it in disbelief and outrage, and the other part lethargically and submissively, as always.

On April 19, 2020, the New York Post reported:

“White House trade adviser Peter Navarro on Sunday called on China to prove that a Wuhan laboratory played no role in the coronavirus pandemic — and accused the nation of hoarding personal protective equipment and profiting off the outbreak.

Navarro took aim at China on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” accusing the country of taking several actions that worsened the ongoing crisis and “led to the deaths of many people worldwide.”

“First of all, the virus was spawned in China. Second of all, they hid the virus behind the shield of the World Health Organization. The third thing they did was basically hoard personal protective equipment and now they’re profiteering from it,” Navarro said.

US President Trump, perhaps taking Navarro’s advice, has already cut all funding to the World Health Organization (WHO), something unimaginable, considering that the world is in the middle of a war with the virus, and the WHO is at the frontline of it. But the WHO is being accused of “colluding with China”, which this administration increasingly sees as its greatest adversary.

Peter Navarro, Director of the White House National Trade Council, Addresses in the Oval Office before U.S. President Donald Trump Signs Executive Orders Regarding Trade on March 31, 2017 (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

One day later, on 20th April, 2020, Reuters carried a report about Peter Navarro’s accusation of China for withholding data on COVID-19:

“One of the reasons that they may not have let us in and given us the data on this virus early, is they’re racing to get a vaccine and they think this is just a competitive business race, it’s a business proposition so that they can sell the vaccines to the world,” Navarro told Fox Business Network.”

“But we’re going to beat them. We’re going to beat them because of President Trump’s leadership. We’re going to beat them because HHS has already got a five-company horse race,” said Navarro, referring to the US Department of Health and Human Services.”

The attacks against China are bordering on hysteria. Trump and his advisors appear to be thoroughly desperate.

This extreme desperation, this fear of losing a grip on power, all over the world, is extremely dangerous for the survival of humanity.

China, but also Russia, have been extremely patient. They use diplomacy, instead of threats and insults. They are observing the behavior of the US leaders with certain amusement, as if it was the behavior of a spoiled child who is throwing a tantrum. But their patience has boundaries. Once the US attitude begins harming the lives of Chinese or Russian citizens, they will be forced to act. And the US is pushing, as if, paradoxically, the confrontation was the only chance for its survival.

And it is pushing, provoking, on all fronts: from the South China Sea and Taiwan to Hong Kong, from Venezuela to Iran, from insulting China and Russia, to a bizarre battle already being fought on the COVID-19 front.

One scratch, one tiny error in the Iranian territorial waters, or in the South China Sea, and the fragile peace may go up in flames.

The world had been tolerating, uneasily but tolerating, the aggressive behavior of Washington, for years and decades. But now, with the COVID-19 confusion, and with the imminent global economic and financial collapse, almost all countries are now extremely edgy. This is not the same world as we knew it to be just a year ago. Trump, Navarro and the others in their ‘camp’ should pay close attention, if they want to avoid a global tragedy.

Unfortunately, they do not seem to be trying to avoid a conflict. They are trying to provoke one, by all means!

***

You cannot call China, a country which was first attacked by the coronavirus, and which defeated it, alone and with great determination and sacrifice, “a country which infected the world”, or “a country which is profiteering from the crisis”. That would be insane, incorrect, and thoroughly vulgar.

If anything, China has helped almost the entire world to fight this pandemic. It also quickly shared expertise, and helped those nations which have been hit the most, with both advice and invaluable medical equipment.

Statements such as those of the White House trade adviser Peter Navarro calling on China to prove that a Wuhan laboratory played no role in the coronavirus pandemic, are extremely irresponsible and dangerous, and could easily backfire.

Many experts worldwide, actually believe that it was the US that brought the virus to China. Earlier, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian tweeted one of the theories, which says that it was the US military that brought the new coronavirus to the central city of Wuhan.

But in the end, the Chinese officials decided not to point fingers in the direction of Washington, at least for now, as these are extremely explosive topics and exceptionally dangerous times.

But the United States has misread these wise and conciliatory moves of the Chinese government and the Communist Party, as weakness. It has turned the tables around, and began the lowest imaginable set of ideological attacks, obviously convinced of its invincibility.

Eventually, Washington crossed all the lines. And it has become almost certain that its propaganda salvos will not go unanswered.

***

The attacks against China are unjust and racist.

They are also tremendously arrogant, smell of cultural supremacy and of a superiority complex.

The Western world in general, and the United States in particular, have brought death and destruction to hundreds of millions of human beings, all over the world. Washington has no moral mandate to lecture any country on our planet, particularly not China, which has no history of imperialism or harming humanity.

“Hiding facts”, or using chemical and biological warfare is something that is in line with Washington and its ‘foreign policy’. China has no history of such behavior.

One should just recall Indochina, Iraq, Cuba and many other places, to see what Washington is capable of.

Both Trump and Navarro are thoroughly ignorant about China. Navarro’s lack of knowledge about the country he keeps smearing and provoking, has been exposed even by countless members of the (otherwise obedient) US academia.

For both Trump and Navarro, China is the most convenient political and economic punch bag. It is governed by the Communist Party, it is greatly successful, both economically and socially. And it owes its success to the enthusiasm and hard work of its people, not to colonialism or imperialism, not to the plundering of other nations. Therefore, it is offering a totally new alternative model to our planet.

In summary: to the neocons and Western supremacists, China is the greatest nightmare.

***

The old fundamentalist ideological theology of the West reads: “If you cannot compete with it, smear it; destroy it!”

By now, it is all way beyond even pretending there is something like fairness and ‘objectivity’. How Washington behaves, has nothing to do with the concern for our world, and for the people inhabiting it.

It is all raw, brutal and bad-mannered. It all about dominance; about not losing that dominance.

Trump, Bolton, Pompeo, Navarro, Bannon… many others. They are present-day crusaders. Fighters for the white race, and the Western “culture” of expansionism. Their deeds are not often defined in this manner. But there is hardly any more honest way to describe those individuals.

***

What is happening around us is predominantly not about saving lives. The fight against COVID-19 has become an ideological war, not a war for the survival of millions of human beings.

Again, and again, China, Russia as well as Cuba have clearly demonstrated where they stand. Their airplanes brought hope and desperately needed help. Grateful Italians sung the Chinese national anthem. Many in the US began paying attention to Russian humanitarian airlifts. Cuba sent its legendary medical brigades to some of the hardest hit areas of the world.

The response from the West? Ungrateful, repulsive cynicism. Even some Italian reporters opted for writing sarcastic pieces questioning the Russian and Chinese altruism.

US politicians were quick to begin disputing the fact that Russian aid to New York was fully free, or at least half free, in some cases.

While Trump was snatching the deliveries of Chinese medical equipment bound for Germany and other countries, from transit airports in Thailand and elsewhere; while he was trying to literally bribe a German pharmaceutical company, so it would produce COVID-19 vaccine exclusively for the United States, while the EU showed no solidarity with Italy and other members when the solidarity was most needed, China, Russia and Cuba displayed grace under pressure, behaving like human beings, like responsible members of the international community.

That, precisely that; this tremendous contrast between two world systems, during the hour of great global crises, had to be covered up by Washington, so, god forbid, the world would not notice that there is something essentially wrong with the North American and European imperialist regime, and its extreme, fundamentalist capitalism.

But people like Mr. Navarro or Mr. Trump cannot see the world in any other way, anymore; only through the paradigm of profits, control and superiority. Instead of cleaning their own house, and improving their regime, they rather smear and attack those who are building a much better world.

***

We are still not sure, what real danger COVID-19 represents. We cannot precisely calculate the mortality rate, or spread of the pandemic. We can only guess how many millions of lives will be ruined by the global economic downfall.

But we know what a confrontation between US and China or between US and Russia would bring.

We also know what Washington’s novel Cold War combatants are counting on: that Beijing and Moscow (but also Teheran, and others) will accept anything; that in order to save the planet, they will always back up, trying to de-escalate tensions with the West. After all, it has been like that, up to now.

But lines are being crossed.

The recent statements, insults uttered by Trump and Navarro, accusing China of spreading the virus, or even manufacturing it in its labs, are pushing Beijing too far. It is like defying logic, and then spitting in the faces of the true victims, and those heroes who fought and died at the frontline in Wuhan, for their city, their country, and the world.

Such lies, such insults can never be forgiven.

What next? Washington may now impose more of the insane sanctions, then bring its NAVY to the South China Sea, or near Taiwan, and keep funding rioters in Hong Kong… And watch out! Trump and his people are playing with fire. They are not almighty, not anymore. A few weeks more of this, and they may inherit the storm, such a terrible storm, that it could make even COVID-19 look like a breeze.

*

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.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He’s the creator of Vltchek’s World in Word and Images, and a writer that penned a number of books, including China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Connecting Countries Saving Millions of Lives. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Featured image is from NEO

3 weeks is a long time in politics these days, and a particularly long time in this coronavirus pandemic. As UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson returned to 10 Downing Street on Monday, it was to a different Britain from the one he had left when admitted to hospital at the beginning of April. Gone was the #PrayForBoris hashtag on Twitter, it had been replaced with #Panorama after the BBC programme which aired on Monday night, exposing gaping holes in the government’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis.

The surge of patriotic enthusiasm that was reflected by the ‘clapping for carers’ trend has gradually waned.  People are now beginning to question why the nation wasn’t more prepared. The dire lack of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers has in part led to the deaths so far of over 100 NHS staff. The Panorama programme detailed that not only had the government stockpiled inadequate levels of PPE, but their lists included things like bin liners which would not normally be considered as PPE. The plastic aprons and surgical masks also being counted as PPE are a far cry from what we see medical staff wearing in other countries – they are fully clothed in hazmat suits and goggles. The BBC programme contains interviews from medical personnel who feel let down by the system, who compare it to going into battle without armour. These doctors and nurses know that they may die at work. There are clearly problems with a mismanaged NHS and a malfunctioning supply chain which results in companies which manufacture PPE in the UK, right now, sitting without any orders from the British government. Obviously, someone hasn’t read an email; someone, somewhere isn’t doing their job.

But aside from incompetence, which is a natural human trait, and can be found everywhere, there appears a lack of understanding of the importance of PPE on a national level in Britain. I compare my experience of Russian hospitals, and in particular infection wards, with hospitals in Britain. The first thing I am obliged to do when visiting any hospital or clinic in Russia is hand over my coat to the cloakroom assistant and put on a pair of ‘bakhili’ or blue plastic shoe coverings. And this is nothing new – it dates back to Soviet times – has always long been the case, long before the days of Covid-19. Doctors and nurses are immaculate, women wear hair tied back and often covered. Infections wards are completely out of bounds for visitors and even the fathers of newborn babies are not allowed into the neonatal wards – in many a Russian TV series or film you will see the father shouting through the window to his wife. Now efforts have been stepped up. As one nursing relative told me: ‘Masks are obligatory for everyone in hospital, as are shoe coverings. For medical staff they must wear head coverings and two layers of overalls. It is forbidden now to visit hospitals and if something needs to be passed on to a patient, it is cleaned with antiseptic.’

In Britain, once upon a time, it was also the case. When my mother was a nurse in the 1960s she spoke of the high hygiene standards, maintained by ‘matron’ on each ward, and compared the way doctors and nurses dressed in the past to nowadays. Hair had to be short or covered up and male doctors had to be clean shaven. Nursing uniforms were taken off before leaving the hospital.  Visitor numbers were strictly limited as were visiting hours. All this has changed in recent decades. Take for example the video uploaded to social media of 94 year old coronavirus patient Dennis Palmer being wheeled on a trolley out of the Barnet hospital in North London just the other week.  All the medical staff lining the corridors, and onlookers, were completely bereft of PPE.  One would assume that all hospital staff, particularly in areas of a hospital treating Covid-19 patients, would have a basic level of PPE such as an overall and a mask. But this is clearly not the case, and it was not even obtained for a PR moment such as this.

Only the strictest of measures will beat this pandemic. Take even the decision by Russia to close its borders. Why has Britain not done the same? Not only has it not shut its borders, but it is not testing any incomers to the country, nor are any travellers obliged to sit in quarantine. As the FT puts it, Britain is ‘setting itself apart’ by not imposing stricter measures. It quotes Professor Gabrielle Scally, president of epidemiology and public health at the Royal Society of Medicine, who refers to the UK as an ‘outlier’ and that “It is very hard to understand why it persists in having this open borders policy. It is most peculiar.” In a world where 90% of people live in countries where restrictions are placed on incomers, Britain still is not testing the 15,000 daily arrivals to its border. And the experts don’t understand why Britain is not following the example of other countries such as Japan, China and Germany, that have all tightened their travel restrictions since the outbreak began. It’s a strange, ironic twist from a party of Brexiteers that has spent the last several years explaining why Britain needed tighter border controls and immigration control.

In politics, stupidity is not a handicap, Napoleon Bonaparte is supposed to have said. Some things never change.

*

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 InfoBrics

It is no secret the global new coronavirus pandemic is causing an unprecedented economic crisis, but this crisis does not seem to have the same effects for everyone. Undoubtedly, there are those who are profiting from the global crisis and accumulating more and more money, while a larger part of the population becomes increasingly poorer and more vulnerable, aggravating the scenario of global inequality and creating small expectations for the post-coronavirus world. The concentration of income is heading towards an almost apocalyptic situation, where a small financial oligarchy accumulates a huge amount of capital, while the number of poor people increases exponentially.

According to data from the Wall Street Journal, in the first quarter of 2020, American banks registered 1 trillion dollars from companies and consumers. In parallel, the United States becomes the global epicenter of the pandemic, with more than 60,000 dead. Most of the money was received by the four largest American banks: JP Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp, Wells Fargo & Co. and Citigroup Inc. Apparently, the power of the largest US banks only increases. These four banks alone raise more than 590 billion dollars, practically double of the previous quarterly record (about 313 billion dollars). Each of these banks has already exceeded one trillion dollars in loans since March.

Contrary to what happened in the 2008 crisis, people and companies are looking to save their money in banks, instead of avoiding them. Interestingly, the pandemic and the world crisis arrive at an exact moment of instability in the banking system. In Italy, more than 100 banks were bankrupt before the pandemic. In Germany, the serious crisis of Deutsche Bank and Commerzebank could no longer be hidden. All of these were symptoms of the final stage of financial capitalism and of the age of unproductive profit. The great bubbles of the banking system have been multiplying all over the world, increasing its debts exponentially, so that nothing else could save such a system or the economic model it presupposes. Or, rather, nothing, except an event of the magnitude of a pandemic or a world war, which would cancel debts due to force majeure events, as is foreseen in most contracts worldwide. Thus, the system could be revitalized.

In fact, financial capitalism is very unlikely to survive the coronavirus crisis. The age of speculation seems to be coming to an end. Since 1991, capitalism has suffered from a structural crisis. Expansion is one of the basic principles of this system; it is a condition for the existence of capitalism. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the old socialist world was inserted into the global market, in order to exhaust the possibilities for the expansion of capitalism, which then begins its phase of decline. With specific regard to financial capitalism, we can see that this system arises precisely in the period of greatest stability of capitalism in the western world, beginning its structural and existential crisis in recent decades. The 2008 crisis puts an end to financial system, but it didn’t really overwhelm it, thanks mainly to the strong damage control investments applied by the American State in order to save its main banks, allowing the economic model to survive. Since then, however, the situation has only worsened.

It is curious why people are relying on banks. Fear of the coming crisis is having a reverse effect to that of many previous crises. Everyone knows that a time of brutal difficulties will come around the world, with increasingly harsh economic conditions. In general, companies are allocating their remaining earnings to banks or, in other cases, are preparing to take out giant loans for future investments. International society believed in the salvation of financial capitalism in 2008 and did not realize that that crisis killed this system forever. Therefore, the effect is the opposite: in 2008, people struggled to take their money from banks, now they run to keep it, as they see banking institutions as the only form of refuge in the midst of social chaos. In the words of Paul Donofrio, chief financial officer of Bank of America: “We believe companies viewed us as a safe haven in this period of stress”. It can only be concluded that these people are making a big mistake.

All this money invested will disappear and the world will face the greatest crisis of the contemporary era. The belief in the indestructibility of capitalism has deeply shaken people’s ability to analyze complex situations and establish plans and strategies. Banks will survive the crisis, but not the companies that take services from these banks. The global market will ruin, as already shown in the drastic fall of all stock exchanges. The people’s power of consumption will drop absurdly and large populations will be thrown entirely into poverty, so that the poor will become increasingly poorer – and we can include even today’s millionaires among the “poor”. The banks will save themselves and render the financial oligarchy an extraordinary profit by canceling debts and ending bubbles by the pandemic force majeure, thus making a select group of billionaires achieve trillionaires status.

Finally, what is on our horizon is a dystopian future, in which world society will be divided between a small faction of trillionaires and a large global mass of poor and precarious people.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

A letter from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to U.S. President Donald Trump accompanied medical supplies sent to the U.S. from Turkey. There is little hiding that the U.S. is the most affected country from the coronavirus pandemic with over a million cases and about 60,000 deaths. Turkey too is also struggling with the coronavirus, with over 3,000 deaths and 117,000 cases, if official data is to be believed.

In the letter to Trump, Erdoğan said

“You can be sure, as a reliable and strong partner of the U.S., we will continue to demonstrate solidarity in every way possible.”

Turkey seems to be getting inspiration from China by engaging in “mask diplomacy” and is helping many coronavirus affected countries in a bid to try and create good will after it tarnished its reputation when it attempted to asymmetrically invade Greece with illegal immigrants in February and March. However, its mask diplomacy initiative with the U.S. is for a very different purpose than that with the EU, and this was revealed in a statement by Fahrettin Altun, Erdoğan’s Director of Communications.

“We stand in solidarity with the United States, our NATO ally, against COVID-19,” he said on Twitter.

U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, then went to Twitter to thank Turkey for their donation of medical supplies and their “friendship, partnership and support” while emphasizing that “during times of crisis, NATO allies must stand together.”

Erdoğan’s relationship with the U.S. became openly confrontational as the Turkish president insisted on purchasing Russia’s powerful S-400 missile defense system that the U.S. argued is not compatible with NATO. Not only did Erdoğan resist NATO threats and purchased the missile defense system, but he opened Russo-Turkish relations to flourish to unprecedented levels.

Trump resisted calls from the U.S. Congress to impose sanctions on Turkey, and it has proven to be a masterstroke from the president’s perspective as he knew sooner or later Erdoğan would break from Russia. The Turkish president in recent months has become enraged at Moscow for not budging on its Syria and Libya policy. Erdoğan wanted Russia to convince the Syrian Army not to engage in a highly successful operation to liberate large swathes of Idlib, while also demanding Russia to force the Wagner volunteer group to withdraw its fighting force from operating in Libya.

As Erdoğan’s geopolitical goals in Syria and Libya failed and he wants to put the blame on Russia, coupled with the coronavirus putting a heavy strain on the volatile Turkish economy, he has no choice but to reopen relations with Washington to have some respite from the ever-increasing problems he is dealing with.

Yesterday, the Turkish lira plummeted to 6.98 for $1USD, forcing the central bank to burn other foreign exchange reserves. The Turkish Statistical Institute found that confidence in the Turkish economy is at its lowest possible level after confidence fell from 91.8% to 51.03% in the past month. Turkish officials said in April that Ankara was in talks with Washington to secure a swap line from the U.S. Federal Reserve. However, the Fed has not included Turkey in its program of opening up the credit line of accepting foreign currencies in exchange for dollars. As the Fed is yet to do this, is Erdoğan’s gift to the U.S. to convince Trump to allow the bank to open up a line of credit?

According to an Ipsos poll, 59% of Turks consider the coronavirus pandemic to be their biggest worry. This means the economy is taking a backseat for now, giving Erdoğan some respite from public scrutiny. But coronavirus will not be a pandemic forever and the economy will have to come to the forefront of public attention once again. It is for this reason that Turkey is pre-emptively attempting to recover relations with the U.S. and emphasizing that they are NATO allies. This is in the hope that sanctions against Turkey can be averted and some economic assistance can be provided to help recover the dire situation.

Although some thought Turkey was finally entering the multipolar world order and escaping the grasps of U.S. hegemony, it now appears that Ankara was only using Russia as a leverage against Trump who was not supporting Erdoğan’s ambitions in Syria. The Turkish president thought that perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin would endorse and support Turkey’s Syria policy, but this too came to a dead end, thus forcing Erdoğan back towards NATO. Whether Trump will speak to the Fed to open up a line of credit to Turkey remains to be seen, but what is undoubtful is that Erdoğan has certainly increased his chance of this occurring as he desperately seeks a way to avoid economic catastrophe and find other methods of economic assistance outside of the International Monetary Fund.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Facing the Covid-19 pandemic, the US Congress rammed through the CARES Act — which economist Michael Hudson explains is not a “bailout” but a massive, $6 trillion giveaway to Wall Street, banks, large corporations, and stockholders.

Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton discuss the enormous financial scam with Hudson, who reveals how the economy actually works, with the Federal Reserve printing money so rich elites don’t lose their investments.

Full transcript follows.

***

MICHAEL HUDSON: Just think of when, in the debates with Bernie Sanders during the spring, Biden and Klobuchar kept saying, ‘What we’re paying for Medicare-for-All will be $1 trillion over 10 years.’ Well, here the Fed can create $1.5 trillion in one week just to buy stocks.

Why is it okay for the Fed to create $1.5 trillion to buy stocks to prevent rich people from losing on their stocks, when it’s not okay to print only $1 trillion to pay for free Medicare for the entire population? This is crazy!

The idea is that only the rich should be allowed to print money for themselves, but the government should not be allowed to print money for any public purpose, any social purpose — not for medicine, not for schools, not for personal budgets, not for full employment — but only to give to the 1 percent.

People hesitate to think that. They think, ‘It can’t possibly be this bad.’ But for those of us who have worked on Wall Street, for 60 years in my case, that’s what the numbers show.

But you don’t have the media talking about actual numbers. They talk about just words, and they use euphemisms. It’s a kind of Orwellian vocabulary, describing an inside-out world.

(Intro – 1:58)

BEN NORTON: The world is suffering right now from one of the worst economic crises in modern history. Definitely the worst crisis since the 2008 financial crash. And many economics experts are saying that we’re living through the worst recession actually since the Great Depression of 1929.

Well joining us to discuss this today, we have one of the best contemporary economists, who is really well prepared to explain what has been going on in this global recession during the coronavirus pandemic. And specifically today we’re gonna talk about the $6 trillion bailout package that the US Congress has passed.

The Trump administration is basically taking Obama’s corporate bailout on steroids, and injecting trillions of dollars into the corporate sector. And today to discuss what exactly the coronavirus bailout means, we are joined by the economist Michael Hudson.

He is the author of many books. And in the second part of this episode we’re gonna talk about his book Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. So that’ll be much more in the vein of kind of traditional Moderate Rebels episodes, where we talk about imperialism, US foreign policy, and all of that.

Michael Hudson is also a former Wall Street financial analyst, so he’s very well prepared to talk about the financial thievery that goes on on Wall Street. And he is a distinguished research professor of economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.

So Michael, let’s just get started here. Can you respond to this global depression that we’re living through right now amid the Covid-19 pandemic? And what do you think about this new bailout that was passed?

(3:50)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well the word bailout, as you just pointed out, really was used by Obama and only applies to the banks. The word coronavirus is just put in as an advertising slogan.

Banks and corporations, airlines, have a whole wish list that they had their lawyers and lobbyists prepare for just such an opportunity. And when the opportunity comes up — whether it’s 9/11 with the Patriot Act, or whether it’s today’s coronavirus — they just pasted the word coronavirus onto an act, which should be called a giveaway to the big banking sector.

Let’s talk about who’s not bailed out. Who’s not bailed out are the small business owners, the restaurants, the companies that you walk down the street in New York or other cities, and they’re all shuttered with closed signs. Their rent is accumulating, month after month.

Restaurants, gyms and stores are small-markup businesses, small-margin businesses, where, once you have no sales for maybe three months and rent accruing for three months, they’re not going to have enough money to earn the profits to pay the rents that have mounted up for the last three months.

The other people that are not being bailed out are the workers — especially the people they call the prime necessary workers, which is their euphemism for minimum-wage workers without any job security. There have been huge layoffs of minimum-wage labor, manual labor, all sorts of labor.

They’re not getting income, but their rents are accruing. And their utility bills are accruing. Their student loans are accruing. And their credit card debts are mounting up at interest and penalty rates, which are even larger than the interest rates. So all of these debts are accruing.

The real explosion is going to come in three months, when all of a sudden, this money falls due. The governor of New York has said, “Well we have a moratorium on actually evicting people for three months.” So there are restaurants and other people, individuals, wage-earners, who are going to be able to live in their apartments and not be evicted. But at the end of three months, that’s when the eviction notices are going to come. And people are going to decide, is it worth it?

Well, especially restaurants are going to decide. And they’re going to say, “There is no way that we can make the money to pay, because we haven’t had the income to pay.” They’re going to go out of business. They’re not going to be helped.

The similar type of giveaway occurred after 9/11. I had a house for 20 years in Tribeca, one block from the World Trade Center. The money was given by the government to the landlords but not to the small businesses that rented there — the Xerox shops and the other things. The landlords took all of the ostensible rent loss for themselves, and still tried to charge rent to the xerox shops, the food shops, and ended up collecting twice, and driving them out.

So you’re having the pretense of a bailout, but the bailout really is an Obama-style bailout. It goes to the banks; it goes to those companies that have drawn up wish lists by their lobbyists, such as the airlines, Boeing and the large banks.

The banks and the real estate interests are going to be the biggest gainers. They have changed the real estate law so that the real estate owners, for a generation, will be income tax free. They are allowed to charge depreciation, and have other fast write-offs to pretend that their real estate is losing value, regardless of whether it’s going up and up in value.

Donald Trump says that he loves depreciation, because he can claim that he’s losing money, and gets a tax write-off, even while his property prices go up.

So there’s a lot of small print. The devil is in the small print of the giveaway. And then President Trump has his own half-a-trillion-dollar slush fund that he says he doesn’t have to inform a Congress or be subject to any Freedom of Information law. He gets to give to his backers in the Republican States.

And states and municipalities are left broke. Imagine New York City and other states. Most states and cities, have balanced budget constitutional restrictions. That means they’re not allowed to run a deficit.

Now if these states and cities have to pay unemployment insurance, and have to pay carrying charges on the schools and public services, but are not getting the sales taxes, not getting the income taxes, from the restaurants and all the businesses that are closed, or from the workers that are laid off, they’re going to be left with a huge deficit.

Nothing is done about that. There has been no attempt to save them. So three months from now, you’re going to have broke states, broke municipalities, labor that cannot, whose savings was wiped out.

As I’m sure you’ve reported on your show, the Federal Reserve says that half of Americans do not have $400 for emergency saving. Well now they’re going to be running up thousands of dollars of rent and monthly bills.

So the disaster is about to hit. They will not be bailed out. But no major investor, really will lose. You’ve seen last week, the stock market made the largest jump since the depression — the largest jump in in 90 years. And that’s because Trump says, “The economy is the stock market, and the stock market is the One Percent.”

So from the very beginning, his point of reference for the market and for the economy is the One Percent. The 99 Percent are simply overhead. Industry is an overhead. Agriculture is an overhead. And labor is an overhead, to what really is a financialized economy that is writing the whole bailout.

It’s not a bailout — it’s a huge giveaway that makes them richer than they ever were before.

(10:48)

BEN NORTON: Yeah and Michael, related to that — you mentioned that fine print is important. But I also have a kind of bigger question. And I don’t really know where exactly these numbers come from.

Officially the bailout is $2 trillion. Many media outlets reported it as effectively $4 trillion. But actually, according to Larry Kudlow — who is the director of the US National Economic Council, he’s the Trump administration’s kind of chief economist — Larry Kudlow is now saying that it’s actually $6 trillion in total, which is a quarter of all of US GDP.

And that includes $4 trillion in lending power for the Federal Reserve, as well as $2 trillion in the aid package.

So there is discussion of this aid package, but actually the aid package of $2 trillion is actually half the size of the $4 trillion that is given to the Federal Reserve.

What exactly is that $4 trillion that the Federal Reserve has? Is this some kind of slush fund, or how does it work?

(11:52)

MICHAEL HUDSON: No, the Federal Reserve was given special powers to create 10 times as many loans or swaps as others. The Federal Reserve represents the commercial banks and commercial investors.

Now here’s the problem: a lot of companies were issuing junk bonds. They were going way down in price, especially junk bonds for the fracking industry. The Federal Reserve says, “We’re going to be backed up by the Treasury. We can just create — as you know, Modern Monetary Theory — we can just create money on a computer, and swap. So we will, say, ‘Give us your poor.’ It’s like the Statue of Liberty: ‘Give us your poor, your oppressed,’ or Aladdin’s old lamps for new: Give us your junk bonds, and we will give you a bona fide Federal Reserve deposit.”

So the Federal Reserve has been pumping trillions and trillions of dollars into the stock market. That’s what’s been pushing up the stock market, the Federal Reserve. The bailout has gone to the stock market. As if the stock market got coronavirus! Stocks don’t get coronavirus! They don’t get sick on the virus! And yet it’s the stock market that’s going up through the Federal Reserve.

There’s also another $2 trillion dollars, $2 to $4 trillion that the US government has, over and above the $2 trillion that’s going to the people. So most of the calculations that have been published cite it as a $10 trillion bailout. Of which the newspapers, to avoid embarrassing Mr. Trump, only refer to the money given to the the wage earners. And they’re sort of embarrassed that the vast majority are given to the financial sector that doesn’t need a bailout, but that doesn’t want to lose a single penny from the virus.

So when you see the stock market recovered almost to what it was before the virus, while the economy is going down, you realize, wait a minute they’re saving the 1 percent, or the 10 percent of the population that own 85 percent of the stocks and bonds. They’re saving the banks. They’re not saving the people, and they’re not saving the economy; they’re not saving industry; and they’re not saving small businesses.

So it’s an amazing hypocrisy that the mainstream press is not discussing, which is why your show is so important.

(14:29)

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah and here in Washington, DC, we got I think $500 million from the, I guess what you accurately describe as the stock market bailout. And that’s a lot less than a number of red states that are less populous than Washington, DC got. So there’s a massive shafting here.

And then the city has only been able to provide for certain parts of the economy. Undocumented immigrants, who do a lot of work here, got nothing from the city. Vendors, which are a big part of the informal economy in DC, even though they have to be regulated, got nothing.

And then you mention all of these sectors of the economy — young people, college-educated young people who are deep in debt, and therefore less inclined to spend — are getting shafted here.

So you have called for a solution — well I guess, knowing so many of those people, they contribute so little to the economy because they can’t; they’re just putting all their money into debt. So you have called for a debt jubilee.

You say that debts that can’t be paid won’t be, and this is the best way out.

Maybe you can explain to our viewers and listeners what that is and why it would be the best remedy?

(15:42)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well here’s what happens if you don’t write down the debts that are just going to accrue in the next three months: If you don’t say, “The rents will not have to be paid, and workers will not have to pay the debts that mount up,” if you leave those debts on the books, and you make the workers liable to keep paying the student debts, and the other debts, and the mortgage debts, and the rents, then they’re not going to have any money left to buy goods and services.

When it’s all over, they’re going to get their paychecks, and off the top is going to be the wage withholding, and the tax withholding, and the Medicare, and if they don’t want to get kicked out of their houses, they’re going to have to pay all of this money that’s accrued while they’re not making an income.

So you’re going to have a shrinkage of the economy, a vast shrinkage. How can they afford to buy anything but the most basic necessities, the cheapest food, the necessary transport? Obviously they’re not going to buy the kinds of goods and services that are supposed to be part of the circular flow.

Economics textbooks say employers pay the workers so the workers can have enough money to buy what they produce. But the workers don’t spend their income only on what they produce. They spend most of their income on rent, on debt service, on taxes, on finance, insurance, and real estate. And this is the only part of the economy that is being enabled to survive.

So how can you have the superstructure of rents and debts, of insurance charges, on an economy that doesn’t have the income to buy goods and services? And if they can’t buy goods and services, you’re going to have the stores closing down, because people can’t afford to buy what the stores are selling.

You’re going to have a whole wave of closures. And you’re going to go down the streets, and certainly in cities like New York, or where I live in Queens, just outside of Manhattan, where block after block, they’re going to be “For rent” signs. It’s going to be empty.

And the only way to avoid that is for a debt write-down.

Now you’ve had this occurring for 5,000 years. I’ll give you an example that may be easy to understand.

In Babylonia, we have the Laws of Hammurabi, in 1800 BC. One of the laws says that when you would buy beer or other things, they would write it on a tab in the bar, in the ale house, and all the debts were owed when the harvest was in. You’d pay the debt seasonally.

Well Hammurabi said, if there’s a drought, or if there’s a flood, then you don’t have to pay the debts. Most debts were owed to the palace, and others.

The implied policy is that, “The reason we’re doing this is, if we don’t do that, then you’re going to have these debtors become debt servants, bond servants to the creditors; they’re going to owe their labor to the creditors; they’re going to lose their land to the creditors; and they won’t be able to work on public infrastructure projects; they won’t work for Babylonia; they won’t serve in the army, and we can be invaded; and they won’t be able to use their crops as taxes, because they’ll owe the crops as debts. So we’re going to write it down.”

So the whole idea for thousands of years, of every Near Eastern ruler starting his reign by writing down the debts, was to begin everything in balance.

Because they realized, just mathematically, debts grow at compound interest. You’ve seen the coronavirus increase at an exponential rate. That’s how debts accumulate interest, at an exponential rate.

But the economy grows in an S-curve, and then it tapers off. The American economy, the GDP since the Obama bailouts of 2008, the entire growth of the GDP has only accrued to 5 percent of the population. 95 percent of the GDP. But the population for 95 percent, the industry and agriculture, that’s actually gone down.

So we’re already in a 12-year depression, the Obama depression, that they like to call a recession, because most of the media are Democratic Party people.

But you’re going to have this recession turn into a genuine depression, and it will continue until the public debt, that is state and local debts, are written down; the mortgage debts written down; and the personal debts written down, starting with the student loans, the most obviously unpayable debt.

And the choice is, do you want to depression, or do you want the banks to be able to collect all the economic surplus for themselves? Well Donald Trump, supported unanimously by the Democratic Congress, says, “We want to protect the banks, not the population, not the economy. Let the economy shrink, as long as our constituents, the donor class, are able to avoid making a loss. Let’s make the loss borne by the 99 percent, not our donor class.”

(21:17)

BEN NORTON: Yeah, and Michael, you mentioned something, getting back to the Federal Reserve and understanding how this whole system works. I mean frankly it seems to me to kind of be a house of cards.

But you mentioned this idea of Modern Monetary Theory and just kind of creating money out of nothing. Can you talk more about that? You know this is a term that’s become more prominent, especially on the left: MMT, modern monetary theory.

There are socialists who argue in support of MMT and then there are others who are kind of skeptical of the whole notion that you can just print all this money to fund these social programs that you want to create, and that it won’t create inflation.

But at the same time, you and other people point out that that’s exactly how the economy already works. Where for instance, you want to fund a war, there’s never — you know frequently when someone on the left asks for universal health care or free public education, members not only of the Republican Party but many neoliberal Democrats often say, “Well yeah, where are you gonna get the money from?” And the response of some of the MMT supporters is, “Well we just fund the program, and we just create the money because we control the creation of the dollar.”

And we see that same attitude used actually by the Federal Reserve right now, but to bail out Wall Street. “Yeah we’re just gonna print” — they printed $1.5 trillion, and then just gave it, they just injected it right into Wall Street.

So does that not create inflation, or what exactly is happening economically there? I mean to me, it seems like a scam; it seems like totally a scam.

(22:59)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Since 2008, you have had the greatest inflation of money in history. And you have also had the greatest inflation in history, but it’s entirely asset price inflation.

You’re absolutely right: the money has gone into the stock market and the bond market, to support bond prices, meaning you’ve had the biggest bond boom in history. You’ve had a huge stock market boom. But consumer prices have gone down. So here you have an enormous amount of money creation, and consumer prices and real wages have been drifting down.

So they are really two economies. The question is, are you going to create money for public purposes by spending it into the economy, on industry, agriculture, and the goods and service production and consumption economy Or, are you going to put it into the financial economy?

Well the whole way of our banking system is that banks create credit. If you go into a bank and you take out a loan, you say, I’m gonna borrow $5,000 for something. The banker doesn’t go and say, let me see if we have any money to loan you; he says, okay I will write a loan on my computer. I will credit your deposit with $5,000, and you will sign this IOU, and we have an asset. And the asset is $5000, on which we’re going to charge interest on what we pay you.

So it’s just done by computer, on a balance sheet. And as long as money is created on a computer, the only cost is the electricity used to make that debt record.

Now the banks, when they make loans, 80 percent are against real estate. So they say, in case you can’t pay, you’re pledging your real estate – the home you’re buying, or the commercial building you’re buying, as collateral. So we’ll lend you up to 80 percent, maybe 100 percent, of the value of what you’re buying, and that’s the collateral we have.

So they lend against collateral. Well, if you lend the money against collateral to buy a building, or to buy stocks and bonds, which are the other collateral, then obviously this money you’re creating to buy houses, or commercial real estate, or stocks and bonds are going to bid the price up.

Banks don’t give loans for people who say, I want to go shopping and buy more goods because I need the money. That may be a little bit, that’s what credit cards are for, but that’s a small portion of the overall money supply. So banks don’t make loans to buy goods and services; they make loans to buy assets that obviously inflate the price of assets.

And the more money that you pay for houses that are rising in price, or medical insurance, or stocks and bonds, to make a retirement income for your pension fund; the more money you pay for houses that are inflating in price because of bank credit, the less money you have to buy goods and services.

So actually, the more money they create, the more consumer prices for goods and services fall. It’s the exact opposite of the usual theory.

On my website I have many articles about that, and I have something today in Counterpunchon that. It’s on how the economy works the opposite of the way the textbook says.

Now unfortunately the left-wing doesn’t really study finance and money much. The discussion of finance and money has been monopolized by the right-wing, so left-wingers think, they don’t realize that they’re picking up a kind of junk theory of monetary relations and debt relations that’s all picked up from the right-wing of the political spectrum.

It’s a kind of parallel universe. That’s not how the economy really works, but in a way that sort of is easy to understand. And it’s very easy to make an erroneous, oversimplified view of the world easy to understand.

And when it’s repeated again and again and again, in the media, the New York Times and MSNBC, people really think that, well, maybe that’s how the world works — more money is going to push up prices, so we better not push for it, we better go along with trickle-down theory.

And most of the left believes in trickle-down theory. The Democratic Party leadership is absolutely convinced, if you just give enough money to the top 1 percent, or 5 percent, or Wall Street, it’ll all trickle down.

(27:49)

BEN NORTON: Well of course the Democratic Party is not the left.

MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s right, but it pretends to be. And it has crowded out the left. You can see in the recent election primaries that its job is to protect the Republican Party from any critique by the left, interjecting itself in between the Republican Party and any possible reform movement.

BEN NORTON: Exactly.

(28:20)

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well they stood up really strongly against the bailout — I mean what was it, 96 to nothing? And in the voice vote, I was listening to the voice vote last night in the House; I didn’t hear AOC’s voice against it.

MICHAEL HUDSON: They did a voice so that everybody could say, “Oh it wasn’t me!”

MAX BLUMENTHAL: No, no! So you mentioned that foreclosure king Steve Mnnuchin gets like a $500 billion slush fund. I haven’t heard much discussion about that. What will he do with this sort of opaque slush fund, and how will this — I mean it’s a leading question, but how will this kind of reinforce or consolidate inequality for the next generation?

(29:10)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well gee, I hope he gives some of it to Kamala Harris, who was the attorney general who let him do all of this, and who thoroughly backed him and led the foreclosure, was the iron fist behind his foreclosure program. So I’m sure he’ll press for Kamala to be the vice president on the ticket.

The Democrats have a problem. How can they guarantee that they have their candidate win? Their candidate is Donald Trump. How can they make sure that they have such a weak candidate that he’s sure to lose to Donald Trump? And the choice is, we’ll get a vice president that’s so unpopular that they’re sure to lose.

Now it’s a race between Kamala Harris and the Minnesota lady.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Klobuchar? The one who throws staplers at her staff. She seems very charming.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Uh, I don’t know about that. But my wife can’t even look at her on television. But I think that the pretense is that she’ll help get Minnesota, as if Minnesotans, where I’m from, are so dumb just to vote for somebody from there. But by getting Minnesota, they’ll lose the whole rest of the country.

So I think she’ll be the vice president, because that guarantees a Trump victory. And that will enable the Democrats to say, here — they’ll have the president they want, that is for their donor class, but they can say, “That’s not us; that’s the Republicans.” So that’s the Democratic strategy.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Right, then they can raise loads of money for the “Resistance,” and all of the outside think tanks. And that was the old Republican, William F. Buckley strategy, is we’re better throwing rocks outside the building and raising a ton of money for the National Review than actually having to govern. And that seems like the Democratic strategy.

But I guess I was asking about how you see the economy transforming, because the Obama bailout sort of transformed it or consolidated the gig economy, where everyone has to work three to five jobs, and what was supposed to be a highly educated middle class is deeply in debt.

Where do you see it after this next tranche of stock market bailouts?

(31:29)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Ok, let’s look at three months from now. Smaller companies are going to be squeezed, because all of their expenses are going to go up. Small companies have had to run up debts, and they have all sorts of other problems, and their earnings, their prospective profits, are not going to look that good. Because there’s not going to be a market for the things that they sell, because of the debt deflation that I talked about.

So what’s going to happen? You’re going to have a bonanza for private equity capital. The liquid, the 1 percent that have access to bank credit and have their own equity capital are going to come in and pick up a lot of real estate that’s going to be defaulted on — just like they did after Obama evicted his constituency, the mob with pitchforks, and evicted them.

Blackstone will pick up more real estate. Big companies are going to pick up small companies. You’re going to emerge with a highly monopolized economy, much more centralized.

The important thing to realize about free-market economics and libertarianism, is libertarians advocate central planning, The Chicago School of monetarists advocate central planning; the free marketers want central planning. But the banks are to be the planners, not the government. They want to exclude the government from planning, except to the extent that they can take over the government, as Trump has done, and plan all of the income to be transferred to themselves from the rest of the economy.

So we’re going to have a much more centrally planned by a coalition of monopolies and the government. In the 1930s, that was called fascism.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: It’s what we call a “public-private partnership” or something.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Right.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Just really quickly, and maybe we can kind of transition after this, but you mentioned Blackstone. I think this is one of the key components of the bailout. They own so much stake in so many of the companies getting bailed out. Can you just describe their role and what they are?

(33:38)

MICHAEL HUDSON: It’s appropriate that they were put in charge of bailout. So if they’re the largest company buying up defaulted real estate and buying, picking up the weak — it’s called moving assets from the weak hands to the strong — then they might as well be put in charge, because they’re going to be the company doing all the grabbing. So of course they’re in charge of it.

It’s called grabitization. That was the Russian word for privatization in the 1990s. So grabitization is I think a better word than public-private partnership. It’s not really a partner; it’s sort of a one-way partnership; there’s one subsidiary partner. It’s really financialization and grabitization.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Right, just the looting of state assets.

BEN NORTON: Going back one step here, Michael, you were talking about the way that people should think about how the economy actually works. And I mentioned MMT. Can you kind of just walk through that again? Because you were talking about how actually, when the Fed creates — I mean really to me, as someone, I’m definitely not an economics expert, I just don’t understand really how this whole process works, because to me it just seems simply like, they’re literally just creating money and just giving it to banks, and corporate elites, and rich people.

I mean maybe that’s what it is. But I don’t understand, this is like the biggest scheme I can imagine, where the Federal Reserve is creating all of this money, printing — they’re physically printing money is my understanding. And then they’re just giving it to these banks, to bondholders. And then, but you said that what does is, instead of actually creating inflation, all that does is, if I understood correctly, it boosts the value of assets like real estate, while at the same time deflating wages and commodity prices.

So if that’s the case, then how should people who are advocating for socialized programs like Medicare for All, free public education, and maternity leave, and childcare, and all of these programs that the Bernie Sanders campaign and movement have been advocating for, how should we talk about the way to pay for all of those programs, if the reality of the economy is that the Fed is printing trillions of dollars, and then just giving that cash to banks?

(36:11)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well I think the reason you’re having trouble understanding MMT is because what you described is what’s happening, but you think, “But that’s unfair!” And there’s a tendency to think, if it’s unfair —

MAX BLUMENTHAL: It’s not just unfair. It’s the biggest scheme I can imagine. There’s no other word other than just a con scheme.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes, and the brain recoils from thinking, “Can the government really be doing that to us?” Well, yes it can.

And just think of when, in the debates with Bernie Sanders during the spring, Biden, and Klobuchar keep saying, ‘What we’re paying for Medicare-for-All will be $1 trillion over 10 years.’ Well here the Fed can create $1.5 trillion in one week just to buy stocks.

Why is it okay for the Fed to create $1.5 trillion to buy stocks to prevent rich people from losing on their stocks, when it’s not okay to print only $1 trillion to pay for free Medicare for the entire population? This is crazy!

The idea that only the rich should be allowed to print money for themselves, but the government should not be allowed to print money for any public purpose, any social purpose — not for medicine, not for schools, not for personal budgets, not for full employment — but only to give to the 1 percent.

People hesitate to think that. They think, ‘It can’t possibly be this bad.’ But for those of us who have worked on Wall Street, for 60 years in my case, that’s what the numbers show.

But you don’t have the media talking about actual numbers. They talk about just words, and they use euphemisms. It’s a kind of Orwellian vocabulary, describing an inside-out world that they’re talking about.

They will buy stock; they’ll say we’re going to buy a million shares of Boeing; they’ll just write a check, and the check will be from the Federal Reserve, and Boeing will get the money. The Federal Reserve can create a deposit, just like a banker will write you a loan when you go in and borrow. It’s done on a computer – without levying taxes. The Fed can do the same thing.

Stephanie Kelton, my department chairman for many years at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, describes this. The University of Missouri’s website, New Economic Perspectives has a description of it. So if people want to google either her, UMKC, or what I’ve written, or Randall Wray at the Levy Institute, you’ll get walked through.

If you’re not already thinking in terms of balance sheets, which most people don’t, you have to sort of just read it again and again, and then all of a sudden, “Ah, now I get. It’s a ripoff! It’s created out of nothing. Now I get it.”

BEN NORTON: It’s just a house of cards. To me it proves the kind — there used to be this kind of very blunt orthodox Marxist view that the economy strictly follows politics, and it seems to me this is a case where the economy is just created by politics.

MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s true, and that’s not an un-Marxist position. Marx did distinguish between oligarchies and democracies, and finance capitalist economies and industrial capitalist economies.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Right. And the $17 billion for “urgent national security measures” was straight into the pockets of Boeing, which had its 737 maxes falling out of the sky, and had been clamoring for this bailout for a long time.

I mean you saw 3M, the maker of these masks which are suddenly unavailable, gained a total exemption from lawsuits, if the masks that it mass-produced now somehow failed.

So all of these things stuffed into the bailout were what industry and finance had been clamoring for for years. And they finally had the opportunity to do it.

(Outro – 40:38)

BEN NORTON: All right, we’re gonna take a pause there. That was the end of part one of our interview here with the economist Michael Hudson. He is a Wall Street financial analyst, a distinguished research professor of economics at the University of Missouri Kansas City, and of course the author of many books on economics.

You can find some of his work at michael-hudson.com. We will link to that in the show notes. He has interviews with transcripts and articles.

You can also find some of his economics work and the work of some of his like-minded colleagues at the economics department at the University of Missouri Kansas City website. I will link to that as well in the show notes. You can find the show notes at moderaterebels.com.

In part two of this episode, we’re going to continue our discussion of the house of cards that is the international financial system, the economic system. And in the second part we’re going to talk about his book “Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.”

This is an incredible book. You know here at Moderate Rebels, Max and I frequently talk about the political and military side of imperialism. Michael Hudson just spells out, in easy-to-understand terms, how imperialism works at an economic level, how the US government and the Treasury, through the backing of military force, force countries around the world to buy US bonds, Treasury bonds, and how there’s basically just a con scheme where countries pay for their own US military occupation through buying US Treasury bonds.

Michael Hudson explains that all in really simple terms. And we also talk about the rise of China, and how China does pose a so-called threat, in scare quotes, to not the American people but rather to the hegemony of the US financial system — and the main financial instruments, the weapons that the US uses to maintain that hegemony, the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, and the World Bank.

And Hudson describes how, in his terms, the IMF, and the World Bank, specifically, are some of the most evil institutions that are really maintaining the American dictatorial, authoritarian chokehold on the global financial system.

*

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.

Economist Michael Hudson explains how American imperialism has created a global free lunch, where the US makes foreign countries pay for its wars, and even their own military occupation.

Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton discuss the economics of Washington’s empire, the role of the IMF and World Bank, attempts to create alternative financial systems like BRICS, and the new cold war on China and Russia.

Full transcript follows.

***

MICHAEL HUDSON: The World Bank has one primary aim, and that’s to make other countries dependent on American agriculture. This is built into its articles of agreement. It can only make foreign currency loans, so it will only make loans to countries for agricultural development, roads, if it is to promote exports.

So the United States, through the World Bank, has become I think the most dangerous, right-wing, evil organization in modern in history — more evil than the IMF. That’s why it’s almost always been run by a secretary of defense. It has always been explicitly military. It’s the hard fist of American imperialism.

Its idea is that, we’ll make Latin American, and African, and Asian countries export plantation crops , especially plantations that are foreign owned. But the primary directive of the World Bank to countries is: “You must not feed yourself; you must not grow your own grain or your own food; you must depend on the United States for that. And you can pay for that by exporting plantation crops.”

(Intro – 1:45)

BEN NORTON: Here at Moderate Rebels we talk a lot about imperialism. I mean it’s really the kind of main point of this show. This program explores how US imperialism functions, how it works on the global stage, how neoliberal policies of austerity and privatization are forced at the barrel of a gun through the US military, through invasion and plunder.

We talk about it in Venezuela, and Iraq, and Syria, and so many countries. But we often don’t talk about the specific economic dynamics of how it works through banks, and loans, and bonds.

Well today we are continuing our discussion with the economist Michael Hudson, who is really one of the best experts in the world when it comes to understanding how US imperialism functions as an economic system, not just through a system of military force.

Of course the economics are maintained, are undergirded, by that military force. And we talk about how the military force is expressed through regime-change wars and military interventions.

But Michael Hudson also explains how the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and the US financial system, and banks and Wall Street, they all work together, hand in glove with the military, to maintain that financial chokehold.

He spells this all out brilliantly in a book called “Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.” He originally wrote that book back in 1968, and then recently updated it in 2002, published again in 2003 with the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, and kind of updated and showed how, even though the system that he detailed 50 years ago hasn’t really changed, but it has shifted in some ways.

So today we’re gonna talk about how that international imperialist system dominated by the US works.

Michael Hudson, who in the first part of this talked about the scheme that is the coronavirus bailout — if you want to watch the first part you can go find that at moderaterebels.com; it’s on YouTube, Spotify, iTunes, any other platform.

Michael Hudson is an economist and he’s also a longtime Wall Street financial analyst. He is also a professor of economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and you can find his work at michael-hudson.com, which I will link to in the show notes for this episode.

So without further ado, here is the second part of our interview with Michael Hudson.

(4:37)

MAX BLUMENTHAL: I think it’s a good transition point to talk about another kind of scam you’ve identified. There’s a really hilarious aside in the second preface to your book “Super Imperialism,” where Herman Kahn, who is, I think he was a founder of the Hudson Institute, which you went to work for, he was also the inspiration for the Dr. Strangelove character and Stanley Kubrick’s film.

Herman Kahn is, there’s an award that the neocons give out every year named for him; Benjamin Netanyahu is a recent award winner.

But he was he was in the audience, or on a panel for one of your talks, where you laid out your theory of “Super Imperialism,” and how the United States actually gets other countries to subsidize its empire, and is able to expand and carry out this massive imperial project without having to impose austerity on its own population, as other countries have to do under IMF control.

So Herman Kahn comes up to you after the talk and says, “You actually identified the rip-off perfectly.” And your book starts selling like hotcakes in DC, I guess among people who work for the CIA, and people who work in the military-intelligence apparatus.

MICHAEL HUDSON: What he said was, “We’ve pulled off the greatest ripoff in history. We’ve gone way beyond anything that British Empire ever thought of.” He said, “That’s a success story. Most people think imperialism is bad; you’ve shown how it’s the greatest success story — we get a free lunch forever!”

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Right. So explain the ripoff you identified there, and how it is being perpetuated under the Trump administration in ways that I think are pretty amazing, including through the imposition of unprecedented sanctions on something like one-third of the world’s population.

(6:40)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well I wrote “Super Imperialism” in 1972, and it was published exactly one month after President Nixon took America off gold in August of 1971. And the reason he took America off gold was the entire balance of payments deficit from the Korean War to the Vietnam War was military in character.

And every time, especially in the ’60s, the more money that America would spend in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, all this money had to be spent locally. And the banks were all French banks, because it was French Indochina, all the money would be sent to Paris, to the banks’ head offices, turned over from dollars into francs, and General de Gaulle would end up with all these dollars, and he would, every month, send in the dollars and want payment in gold. And Germany would do the same thing.

And so the more America fought militarily, it was depleting its own gold stock, until finally, in August 1971, it said, “We’ve been using gold as the key to our world power ever since World War I, when we put Europe on rations. So we’re going to stop paying gold.”

They closed the gold window. And most of the economists were all saying, “Oh my heavens, now it’s going to be a depression. “But what I said was, “Wait a minute, now that other countries can no longer get gold from all this military spending” — and when you talked about the balance of payments deficit, it’s not the trade deficit, it’s not foreign investment; it’s almost entirely military in character.

So all these this money that spent abroad, how are we ever going to get it back? Well these dollars we have spent around the world, mainly for the 800 military bases and the other activities we have, these dollars would end up in foreign central banks.

And foreign central banks, what are they going to do with them? Well we wouldn’t let foreign central banks buy American industries. We would let them buy stocks, but not a majority owner.

My former boss, the man who taught me all about the oil industry, in Standard Oil, who became undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs, and when Herman Kahn and I went to the White House, he said, “We’ve told the Saudi Arabians that they can charge whatever they want for their oil, but all the money they get, they have to recycle to the United States. Mostly they can buy Treasury bonds, so that we’ll have the money to keep on spending, but they can also buy stocks, or they can do with the Japanese did and buy junk real estate and lose their shirts.”

So basically, when America spends money abroad, central banks really don’t have much — they don’t speculate. They don’t buy companies; they buy Treasury bonds. So we run a monetary deficit; the dollars are spent abroad; the central banks lend them back to the Treasury; and that finances the budget deficit, but it also finances the balance of payments deficit. So we just keep giving paper

And I think President Bush, George W. Bush, said, “Well we’re never really going to repay this. They get counters, but we’re not going to repay it.” And then, as a matter of fact, you have Tom Cotton a senator from [Arkansas] saying, “Well you know China holds savings of $2 trillion or so in US Treasury bonds. Why don’t we just not pay them? They gave us the virus; let just grab it and nullify it.”

We can nullify Iranian assets, Venezuelan assets — it’s like a bank can just wipe out other deposits you have, if it wants militarily. So the United States doesn’t have any constraint on military spending.

Now Herman Kahn and I on another occasion went to the Treasury Department, and we talked about what the world would look like on a gold standard. And I said, “Well gold is a peaceful metal. If you have to pay in gold, no country with a gold standard can afford to go to war anymore. Because a war would be entail a foreign exchange payment, and you’d have to pay this foreign exchange in gold, not IOUs, and you would end up going broke pretty quickly.”

Well needless to say, I think someone from the Defense Department said, “That’s why we’re not going to do it.”

Here’s an example: Let’s suppose that you went to a grocery store. You decided, ok, you go to the grocery store and you buy — you sign an IOU for everything that you buy. You go to a liquor store, IOU. You buy a car, IOU.

You get everything you want just for an IOU, and people try to collect the IOUs, and you say, “Well you know that IOU isn’t for collecting from me. Trade it among yourselves. Trade it among yourselves and you’ll get rich in no time. But treat it as an asset, just as you treat a dollar bill.”

Well you’d get a free ride. You’d be allowed to go and write IOUs for everything, and nobody could ever collect. That’s what the United States position is, and that’s what it wants to keep.

And that’s why China, Russia, and other countries are trying to de-dollarize, trying to get rid of the dollar, and are buying gold so that they can settle payments deficits among themselves in their own currency, or currencies of friendly countries, but just avoid the dollars altogether.

(12:21)

BEN NORTON: Michael, in the first part of this interview, when we were talking about the coronavirus bailout and the $6 trillion that were just basically given to Wall Street, you mentioned that basically it is just — I mean, I also said it — that’s it’s just a con scheme. But you said, really, that a lot of people are surprised, that they don’t think the system can work this way, because it just seems so blatantly stacked against them, so blatantly unfair.

In your book — “Super Imperialism” is just so mind-blowing because, in simplistic terms to someone who is definitely a non-expert like me, it just becomes so clear that, as you put it, the US for decades, since the end of World War Two, has been really obtaining “the largest free lunch ever achieved in history,” the way you put it.

I’m gonna read just two paragraphs here really quickly from your book, and then maybe ask you to unpack exactly how this works. But right at the beginning — and this is the updated version of your book, and we’ll link to your book in the show notes for this show. So anyone, I would highly recommend anyone listening could go buy “Super Imperialism.”

I’m going to be republishing it through my own institute. It’s very hard to get the book; that’s why I’m buying the rights back. Because it’s really not marketed in this country very much. So at any rate it’s on my website, and you don’t have to buy the book; you can go to my website and get many of the chapters.

Excellent, well I’m gonna link to your website in the show notes that’s michael-hudson.com. And thank you for putting that up, because I’ve been reading the PDF, and it’s incredible.

So you write in the the introduction to the new updated version, which you wrote in 2002, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, you wrote:

“The Treasury bonds standard of international finance has enabled the United States to obtain the largest free lunch ever achieved in history. America has turned the international financial system upside down, whereas formerly it rested on gold, central bank reserves are now held in the form of US government IOUs, that can be run up without limit.

“In effect America has been buying up Europe, Asia, and other regions with paper credit, US Treasury IOUs that it has informed the world it has little intention of ever paying off.

“And there is little Europe or Asia can do about it except to abandon the dollar and create their own financial system.”

So this seems to me as an outsider to be totally insane, to be a total con scheme. Can you explain how that scheme works, and especially in light of neoliberal economics?

I took, just in college, basic introductory economics classes that were mandatory, especially microeconomics, and in those classes they teach you this neoliberal, libertarian form of economics, and they teach you the famous Winston Churchill quote, “There is no such thing in economics as a free lunch.” But you’re pointing out that actually, on the international stage, this whole thing is just all a giant free lunch for the US empire.

(15:53)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well the whole financial economy is a free lunch, and if you’re going to get a free lunch, then you protect yourself by saying there is no such thing as a free lunch. Obviously it does not want to make itself visible; it wants to make itself as invisible as possible.

Well most of these countries in Asia get the dollars from US military spending. They say, “What are we going to do with the dollars?” They buy US Treasury bonds, that finance the military spending on the military bases that encircle them. So they’re financing their own military encirclement!

It’s a circular flow. The United States spends dollars in these countries; the local recipients turn them over for local currency; the local currency recipients, the food sellers and the manufacturers, turn the dollars over to the banks for domestic currency, which is how they operate; and the dollars are sent back to the United States; and it’s a circular flow that is basically military in character.

And the gunboats don’t appear in your economics textbooks. I bet your price theory didn’t have gun boats in them, or the crime sector, and probably they didn’t have debt in it either.

So if you have economics talking as if the whole economy is workers spending their wages on goods and services; government doesn’t play a role except to interfere, but government is 40 percent of GDP, mainly military in character, then obviously economics doesn’t really talk about what you think of the economy; it doesn’t talk about society.

It talks about a very narrow segment that it isolates, as if we’re talking about a small organ in the body, without seeing the body as a whole economic system, a whole interrelated system that is dominated and controlled by the finance and real estate sector, which has gained control of the government.

And if the finance, and the insurance, and military sector, military-industrial complex, make themselves invisible and absent from the textbook, then people are just not going to look there to say, “How did that affect our life? How does that affect the economy?” And they’re not going to see that that’s what’s making the economy poor and pushing it into depression.

(18:11)

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well I can’t give out IOUs on everything, on my own debts, because when the debt collector comes, I don’t have gunboats; I don’t have machine guns; I don’t have any gun.

I mean if I wanted to get a gun I couldn’t get one, because they’re all bought up in Virginia, across the river, because you know everyone’s panicking. And I’m sure they’re defending themselves by like having their guns accidentally go off and shoot their dogs.

But that’s kind of what’s missing as well from this theory is that, if people try to collect their debt on the US, the US can do severe damage to them, militarily or otherwise.

Let’s game this out. I mean how do you see this playing out in Venezuela, where the Venezuelan government has tried to go around US sanctions, has tried to to work with Russia and China to sell gold; it’s had something like $5 billion of assets stolen by the US through sheer piracy in the past year.

And now the US has dispatched I think more naval ships than we’ve seen in Latin America or in South America at any time in the last 30 years.

(19:27)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well that’s the other part of the “Super Imperialism” book: debt bondage. Venezuela had a US-installed dictator, a right-winger, some years ago, and changed the law in Venezuela so that Venezuela’s foreign debt, sovereign debt, when it borrows in dollars, is backed by the collateral of its oil reserves. And it has the largest oil reserves in South America.

So the United States wants to grab the oil reserves. Just as Vice President Cheney said we’re going into Iraq and Syria to grab the oil, America would like all these oil reserves in Venezuela.

How does it get the oil reserves? Well it doesn’t have to technically invade, or at least finance is the new mode of warfare.

It tried to grab these reserves by saying, “Let’s block Venezuela from earning the money by exporting the oil and earning the money from its US investments to pay the foreign debt. So we’re just going to grab the investment, and we’re going to select a mini dictator; we’re going to give it to Mr. Guaidó, and say, “This doesn’t belong to Venezuela; we’re arbitrarily taking it away and we’re giving the oil distribution assets in North America to Guaidó.”

“We’re going to block Venezuela from paying the debt, and that means it’ll default on a foreign debt, and so the vulture funds and the bondholders can now grab Venezuelan oil, anywhere, under international law, because it is pledged as collateral for its debt, just as if you’d borrowed a mortgage debt and you’d pledged your home and the creditor could take away your home” — like Obama had so many people lose their home.

Well now they’re trying to force Venezuela into relinquishing its debt, but Venezuela still is managing to scrape by. And so they may need a military force out to invade Venezuela, like Bush invaded Panama or Grenada.

It’s an oil grab. So what finance couldn’t achieve, finally you really do need the military fist.

Finance is basically backed by military, and domestically by force, by the sheriff, by the police department. It’s the force that are going to kick you out of the house.

So the question is, is the only defense by the indebted people in America, your Virginia defense? Does there have to be an armed revolution here to cancel the debts? Do they have to eat the rich? That’s the whole question for the politics of America.

I don’t see it being solved. If it is not solved by the indebted people simply starving to death, committing suicide, getting sick, or emigrating, then there will have to be a revolution. Those are the choices in Americ.

And Venezuela said, “We’re not going to starve quietly in the dark.” And so there’s a military buildup pretending that it’s all about drugs, when Venezuela is threatening to interrupt the CIA’s drug trade. I mean that’s the irony of this! It’s the CIA that’s the drug dealer, not the Venezuelan government.

So we’re in the Orwellian world that works through the organs or the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC, National Public Radio, the real right-wing of America.

(23:00)

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, I’m so glad you boiled it down like that. Because so much of what we do at The Grayzone is to punch holes in the propaganda constructs that are used to basically provide liberal cover for what is sheer gangsterism.

MICHAEL HUDSON: It’s much more black and white than gray.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah well, we should call it The Black and White Zone.

We’re seeing it as well in Syria, where we’ve had one kind of human rights propaganda construct after another. And now at the end of the line, as the whole proxy war ends, Trump says, “We have to keep the troops there because of oil. We need them to guard the oil fields.”

So it all becomes clear. But it’s unclear to everyone who’s been confused for the past years, following the way that the war has been marketed to them through these corporate media and US government publications that you just named. It’s just, we’re there for the oil.

BEN NORTON: Michael, I mean there are so many ways we could explore this topic further, and hopefully we can have you back more often in the future, because we definitely need more economics coverage. We frequently talk about the political side of a lot of these issues of US imperialism, but of course the economic element is absolutely integral to understand what’s happening.

I’m also very interested, you mentioned before we started this interview, that your book “Super Imperialism” is very popular in China, and that even in schools there people are reading it.

And the question of China I think is the central question of this century — the rise of China, the so-called “threat” that China poses, in scare quotes, to the US. Of course China doesn’t threaten the American people, but rather the chokehold that the US has on the international financial system.

And we have seen under Trump — I mean it’s been happening for years; it really actually began under Obama with the “Pivot to Asia,” and that was really Hillary Clinton’s State Department strategy was to move toward the encirclement of China.

But now under Trump it has really become the main foreign policy bogeyman of the Trump White House. And especially now with coronavirus, every single day the corporate media is full of non-stop anti-china propaganda — “China is the evil totalitarian regime that’s going to take over the world, and we have to unite with the Republicans in order to fight against China.”

And we now even see figures openly defending the “new cold war,” as they call it. They say we’re in a new Cold War, as the right-wing historian from Harvard Niall Ferguson put it in the New York Times recently.

So I’m wondering, your book I think is even more relevant now than it was when you first wrote it, it’s so, so relevant. But what about the question of China? And what about the question of this new cold war?

Do you think that could challenge the US-dominated financial system that was created after World War II, using the weapons of the World Bank and the IMF, as you spell out? Are we heading maybe toward the creation of a new international financial system?

(26:24)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well what makes China so threatening is that it’s following the exact, identical policies that made America rich in the 19th century. It’s a mixed economy.

Its government is providing the basic infrastructure and subsidized prices to lower the cost of living and the cost of doing business, so that its export industry can make money. And it’s subsidizing research and development, just like the United States did in the 19th century and early 20th century.

So America basically says to the rest of the world, “Do as we say, not as we do, and not as we’ve done.”

So China has a mixed economy that is working very well. You can just see the changes occurring there. And it realizes that the United States is trying to disable it, that that the United States wants to control all the sectors of production that have monopoly pricing — information technology, microchip technology, 5G communications, military spending.

And the United States wants to be able to essentially buy goods from the rest of the world with overpriced exports, American movies, anything that has a patent that yields a monopoly price. And China wants to become — it has decided that.

America, in the 1950s tried to fight China by sanctioning grain exports to China. You mentioned sanctions earlier, the first sanctions were used against China, to prevent them, trying to starve them with grain.

Canada broke that embargo for grain, and China was very friendly to Canada, until Canada turned out to be — the prime minister, now that he has moved into a small basement in the Pentagon, and has agreed to grab Chinese officials. It’s right there in Washington; Canada is right there in Washington in one of the basements. It’s not a country anymore. So China does not feel so friendly towards Canada now that it’s moved.

But it realized, we can’t depend on America for anything. It can cut us off with sanctions like it has tried to do with Iran, with Venezuela, with Cuba.

So the idea of China, Russia, and the countries in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has been: “We have to be independent within ourselves, and make a Eurasian trading area, and we will take off because we are successful industrial capitalism, evolving into socialism, into a mixed economy, with the government handling all of the monopoly sectors to prevent monopoly pricing here.”

“And we don’t want American banks to come in, create paper dollars, and buy out all of our industries. We’re not going to let America do that.”

(29:29)

I have gone back to China very often. And I’m a professor at Peking University; I have honorary professorships in Wuhan. I probably lecture mainly in Tianjin. There are a number of articles on my website from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences on de-dollarization, essentially how China can avoid the use of the dollar by becoming independent in agriculture, and technology, and other goods.

And the threat of China is that it will not be a victim. Victimizers always look at the victims as vicious attackers of themselves. So America says China is a vicious threat because it’s not letting us exploit them and victimize them.

So again, it’s an Orwellian rhetoric of the bully. The bully always believes that the person he’s attacking is a threat. Just like in Germany, Goebbels said that their surefire way to mobilize the population behind any attack is to say, “We’re defending ourselves against foreign attack.”

So you have the American attack on China pretending to be defense against their wanting to be just as independent as the United States always has been. The United States doesn’t want any other country to have any leverage to use over the United States. The United States insists on veto power in any organization that it’ll join — the World Bank, the IMF, the United Nations.

And China essentially says, ok, this is the very definition of national independence, to be independent from other countries available to choke us, offering a choke point, whether it’s a grain that we need; or technology; or the bank clearing system, the SWIFT interbank clearing system, to make our financial system operate; or the internet system.

So by essentially waging this economic warfare against China to protect America monopolies, America is integrating China and Russia. And probably the leading Chinese nationalist in the world, the leading Russian nationalist, is Donald Trump.

He’s saying, “Look boys, I know that you’re influenced by American neoliberals. I’m gonna help you. I believe that you should be independent. I’m gonna help you, Chinese, and Russians, and Iranians, be independent. I’m going to keep pushing the sanctions on agriculture, to make sure that you’re able to feed yourself. I’m gonna be pushing sanctions on technology, to make sure that you can defend yourself.”

So he obviously is, I believe he’s a Chinese and Russian agent, just like MSNBC says.

(32:09)

BEN NORTON: Yeah and Michael, this actually reminds me, I used to follow you regularly at The Real News, and I worked there for a bit, and unfortunately there was kind an internal coup there, and it has moved to the right a bit.

But the point is, a few years ago at The Real News, I remember you did an amazing debate between you and the Canadian economist Leo Panitch, and it was about the nature of the BRICS system.

This was when this is before the series of coups that that overthrew the left in Brazil and installed the fascist government now of Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing extremist. And at the time there was Dilma Rousseff, a progressive from the Workers’ Party.

And Brazil and Russia were helping to take the lead in the BRICS system. This is Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

And of course the coups, the series of coups in Brazil, kind of ended that project of South-South regional integration. And also the rise of the right-wing, the far-right, in India with Narendra Modi.

But there was a moment there when the BRICS community, these countries were trying to build their own bank. China of course has a series of banks. You mentioned the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

So there have been these international institutions, multilateral institutions, created to kind of challenge the hegemony of the World Bank and the IMF.

And I remember in that debate, Leo Panitch was arguing that, “Oh the BRIC system and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, all of these institutions are just going to be the new form of neoliberalism, and they’re just going to replace the World Bank and implement many of the same policies.” You disagreed with that.

So maybe can you kind of relitigate that debate here a little bit and just kind of articulate your position for our viewers?

(34:08)

MICHAEL HUDSON: The World Bank has one primary aim, and that’s to make other countries dependent on American agriculture. This is built into its articles of agreement. It can only make foreign currency loans, so it will only make loans to countries for agricultural development, roads, if it is to promote exports.

So the United States, through the World Bank, has become I think the most dangerous, right-wing, evil organization in modern in history — more evil than the IMF. That’s why it’s almost always been run by a secretary of defense. It has always been explicitly military. It’s the hard fist of American imperialism.

Its idea is that, we’ll make Latin American, and African, and Asian countries export plantation crops , especially plantations that are foreign owned. But the primary directive of the World Bank to countries is: “You must not feed yourself; you must not grow your own grain or your own food; you must depend on the United States for that. And you can pay for that by exporting plantation crops that can’t be grown in temperate zones like the United States.”

So China and Russia, they’re not really agricultural economies. The buttress of America’s trade balance has been agriculture, not industry. Obviously, we de-industrialized. Agriculture, since World War II, has been the foundation of the trade balance.

And you need foreign dependency. The purpose of the World Bank is to make other countries’ economies distorted and warped into a degree that they are dependent on the United States for their trade patterns.

BEN NORTON: Well Michal, isn’t it also true though that China has massive agricultural production, and Russia produces a lot of wheat right?

(36:14)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Sure, but it does it doesn’t have to base its exports on agriculture to African countries. It can afford having African countries growing their own food supply so that they won’t have to buy American food; they can grow their own food.

Imagine, if China helps other countries grow their own food and grain, then America’s trade surplus evaporates. Because that’s the only advantage that America has, agribusiness.

BEN NORTON: Yeah it’s like that famous quote: If you give a man a fish, he’ll eat for one day; if you teach a man to fish, he’ll eat for the rest of his life. And then I think Marx, didn’t Marx complicate that?

MICHAEL HUDSON: But if you lend them the money to buy a fish, then he ends up bankrupt and you get to grab up all his property.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah I mean we saw this play out clearly in Haiti.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Yeah, that’s the typical — what America has when it has a free a reign, that’s exactly the Haiti story. That’s absolutely terrible. It’s depressing to read.

I get cognitive dissonance, because it’s just so unfair. It’s so awful to read; I avert the page.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah I mean just observing all of this is what kind of brought me to the point where I concluded that there had to be another international financial system, when I saw how Haiti was brought to its knees.

First with the School of the Americas graduates staging a coup, and Bill Clinton reinstalls Jean-Bertrand Aristide. And so it all it takes place under the guise of goodwill by Washington.

But Aristide is forced to sign off, basically sign away Haiti’s domestic agricultural production capacity. And the next thing you know, their rice economy’s wiped out, and they’re importing rice from Louisiana.

And the only economy left, the only economic opportunity left, is to work in these free trade zones for US companies.

And that’s just the model writ large. It kind of helped lead to the next coup, that removed Aristide, and look where Haiti is today.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Right, it means, you must not protect your own economy; only America can protect its own economy. But you must not. That’s free trade.

(38:45)

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Right, going back to the JFK Seeds of Peace program. It’s big agro subsidies, and then you bomb the Third World with cheap seeds and cheap goods, and then you have a migration crisis.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Seeds for Starvation is what the program is known as. Because by giving a low price of foreign aid to these countries, they they prevented domestic agricultural development, because no farmer could compete with free crops that America was giving.

The purpose of the Seeds for Starvation program was to prevent countries from feeding themselves, and to make them dependent.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, when I lived in LA I would meet families who had initially come across the border because of the program — they would point the finger directly at Seeds for Starvation. They’d say, “We came from rural Mexico, and our livelihood was wiped out.”

So this is a long-standing program. And we’ve seen in the coronavirus bailout five times more money provided to USAID for so-called stabilization programs than for hospital workers.

And that’s to do exactly what you just described: USAID is sort of the spearhead of these programs which aim to wipe out land reform programs, and replace them with US aid in the form of these cheap seeds and so on, cheap bananas to Burundi, and everywhere else.

So do you see, through your experience in China, that Belt and Road is a genuine alternative to this model?

(40:27)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well they’re certainly trying to make it. By the way, what you’ve just described, it’s not a bug; it’s a feature.

When you have the same problem occurring after 50 years, it’s either insanity — and we know it’s not — or it’s the intent.

You have to assume at a certain point that the results of these aid programs are the intended results. And certainly if you look at the congressional testimony, Congress knows this, but the media don’t pick it up.

In China, they’re really trying to create an alternative. They want to break free from the United States. And if Trump’s policies of “America First” continue, and as he said, “We have to win every deal.” That means, any deal we make with the foreign country, that country has to lose.

So he’s integrating the whole world, and isolating the United States. And when you isolate the United States, China realizes that what will be isolated is the neoliberal philosophy that is the cover story, the junk economics that justifies all of these destructive policies.

BEN NORTON: Well Michael, this was I think one of our most interesting episodes. We want to more economics coverage, so hopefully we can talk more with you and get some more of your analysis.

I guess just concluding here, my final question would be, I mentioned that the term cold war has been thrown around a lot. And of course, the new cold war is going to be different from the old cold war in a lot of different ways.

And of course Russia is not the Soviet Union at all. Russia does not have a socialist system. China’s system as you mentioned is mixed, there are still socialist elements, but even China’s economy is not nearly as state controlled as the Soviet Union was at the peak of the cold war.

So I’m wondering, it’s pretty clear if you listen to the rhetoric coming from the Pentagon, that “great power competition” as they refer to it is now the the undergirding philosophy of US foreign policy. What is the economics of that?

Because the economics of neoliberalism, after the destruction of the Socialist Bloc, and George H. W. Bush’s declaration of a “new world order,” which is of course just neoliberalism and US hegemony — in that period, the clear economic philosophy, the kind of guiding foreign policy, was destruction of independent socialist-oriented states and forcible integration of those countries into the international neoliberal economy.

We saw that with Iraq; we saw that with former Yugoslavia; we saw that with Libya — which is really just a failed state.

So now I think we’re in a kind of new phase. The Pentagon released two years ago its national defense security strategy saying that the new goal of the Pentagon and US foreign policy is to contain China and Russia. That is the stated, professed goal.

What does that look like economically going forward?

(43:31)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well I think that’s quite right. Of course it’ll contain Russia and China, and there’s nothing that Russia and China want more than to be contained.

In other words, that they’re talking about is decoupling from the US economy. And the US will say, “Well we’re not going to let them have access to the US market, and we’re not going to have anything to do with them.” And Russia and China say, “Boy that’s wonderful, ok we’re on the same wavelength there. You can contain us; we will contain you. You go your way; we’ll go our way.”

So basically the cold war was an attempt — it’s neoliberalism and privatization. It’s Thatcherism. It’s, “How do we make China and Russia look like Margaret Thatcher’s England, or Russia in the 1990s under Yeltsin?”

“How do we prevent other countries from protecting their industry and their financial system from the United States financial system and US exports? How do we prevent other countries from doing for themselves what America does for itself? How do we make a double standard in world finance, and world trade, and world politics?”

And the result of trying to prevent other countries from doing this is simply to speed the parting guest, to accelerate their understanding that, they have to make a break; they have to be contained.

In other words, they have to create their own food supply, not rely on American food exports. They have to create their own 5G system, not let America’s 5G, with its spy portals all built in. And they have to create their own society, and go their own way.

Which is what China was like before the 16th century. It was always the “Central Kingdom”; it always looked at itself as being central and independent from the rest of the world. And it’s going back to that. Except it realizes that it needs raw materials from Africa and other countries.

And the question is, what is Europe going to do? Is Europe going to just follow the Thatcher right deflationary Eurozone policies and end up looking like Greece? Or is it going to join with Eurasia, with Russia and China, and make a whole Asiatic continent?

The cold war really is about what is going to happen to Europe. Because we have already isolated China and Russia and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

The question is what will happen to Europe, and what will happen to Africa.

(Outro – 46:04)

BEN NORTON: Great, well I think that’s the perfect note to end on. We were speaking with the economist Michael Hudson. He is a Wall Street financial analyst and a distinguished research professor of economics at the University of Missouri – Kansas City.

He’s also the author of many books, and we were talking about “Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.” He has two versions of that, and we will link to that book in the show notes of this episode.

We will also link to his website, where you can find a lot of great interviews with transcripts, his articles — and that’s michael-hudson.com.

Michael, thanks a lot. That was a really great, two-part interview. I learned a lot, and I think our viewers will benefit a lot.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah thanks a lot Michael.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Thank you. I hope we can fill out all the details in subsequent broadcasts.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Absolutely.

*

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 Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

While Russiagate still simmers, Chinagate is coming to a boil — both highly politicized, nothing credible supporting them.

No evidence in modern memory suggests US election meddling by other countries.

If attempted, they’d accomplish nothing because of the US political system — a one-party state with two right wings.

On issues mattering most, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them, just the illusion of different agendas.

Both are hostile to democratic governance the way it should be.

They notably oppose world peace, stability, social justice, and the rule of law.

They’re hostile to virtually everything just societies hold dear — exploiting ordinary people at home and abroad to benefit privileged ones.

Trump is a congenital liar, why nothing he says should be taken at face value.

On Wednesday, he falsely accused China of “do(ing) anything they can” to help Joe Biden defeat him in November.

China bashing by him, hardliners surrounding him, and GOP congressional members are all about trying to falsely shift blame for failed Trump regime policies in dealing with COVID-19 and economic collapse onto Beijing.

China’s Foreign Ministrry spokesman Geng Shaung denounced the US blame game, saying the following:

“They have only one objective: to shirk their responsibility for their own poor epidemic prevention and control measures and divert public attention.”

He debunked phony claims about Chinese US election interference, saying:

“The US presidential election is an internal affair. We have no interest in interfering in it.”

“We hope the people of the US will not drag China into its election politics.”

Political scientist Huang Jing explained that Trump’s blame game aims to further his reelection prospects.

He advised Beijing to “stay calm and avoid overreacting while trying to prevent (US moves for unacceptable COVID-19 reparations) from developing into a global trend.”

Separately, Chinese broadcaster CCTV blasted neocon hardliner Mike Pompeo, saying:

He “has shown no professionalism or responsibility whatsoever,” adding:

“Instead, he spreads a political virus of estrangement through falsehoods.”

“He has turned himself into an obstacle, setting back all humanity. One could say, he is an accomplice to the coronavirus.”

Interviewed by NBC News on Tuesday, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng said “at this critical and trying moment, China and the US (should) put aside…differences…to confront our common enemy, the virus,” adding:

“(S)ome (US officials) have gravely politicized the COVID-19 issue.”

“China has been open, transparent and responsible in its COVID-19 response.”

“We did not cover up anything, and did not delay any efforts.”

“We have already publicized the time line of how we have shared the information on COVID-19.”

“Chinese government officials, the general public, and individual citizens are outraged as some US political figures are using COVID-19 to slander China” with their own aims and ambitions in mind.

“(A) Republican campaign memo goes so far as to advise the candidates to address COVID-19 issues by directly attacking China.”

“Such flagrant moves have taken political manipulation to a level beyond anyone’s imagination.”

The blame game is longstanding US policy, falsely accusing other nations and their leadership for its own high crimes and other hostile actions.

The Trump regime’s National Security Strategy called China a “strategic competitor.”

Both wings of the US war party treat all sovereign independent nations as strategic enemies, especially China, Russia and Iran.

On the concocted issue of demanding reparations from China for spreading COVID-19 infections, Le Yucheng called the scheme “a preposterous political farce,” adding:

“It has no legal basis. These is no international law that supports blaming a country simply for being the first to report a disease. Neither does history offer any such precedent.”

It’s “blackmail,” what Beijing categorically rejects.

On Tuesday, Geng Shaung accused US politicians of “lying through their teeth” about China, while covering up their own failures.

That goes for Trump, hardliners surrounding him, and anti-China congressional members.

Geng: “We advise American politicians to reflect on their own problems and try their best to control the epidemic as soon as possible, instead of continuing to play tricks to deflect blame.”

Missouri’s lawsuit against China for damages is “absurd…(N)o factual or legal basis” supports it.

Is COVID-19 and its economic fallout a diabolical US scheme to demonize, isolate, and weaken China politically and economically.

It has clear earmarks of this objective, along with arranging a transfer of enormous wealth to US monied interests at the expense of public health and welfare, and the further erosion of fundamental rights and social justice.

Time and again, things aren’t as they seem. What’s going on may not be natural as widely reported.

It may be a diabolical US plot aimed at achieving the above objectives — a second 9/11.

The fullness of time will explain when more about what’s going on and what’s behind it is known.

*

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.

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis provided by Global Research on a daily basis?

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

*     *     *

Seniors, Prisoners and the Plight of the Detroit Majority

By Abayomi Azikiwe, April 30, 2020

During the early weeks of April the state of Michigan was ranking third in the number of deaths and the city of Detroit held the undesirable position of having the highest mortality rates above any other region in the United States.

By the conclusion of the month, it appears as if the shelter-in-place and other emergency declarations issued by Governor Gretchen Whitmer have had an effect on curbing transmissions. Many more people are wearing masks and engaging in social distancing on the streets and in businesses declared essential which remain open.

Giulietto Chiesa: Lets Free Ourselves from the Virus of War

By Comitato No Nato, April 29, 2020

We remember the last words pronounced by Giulietto Chiesa at the conclusion of the Conference of April 25th, at the end of the political commitment of his whole life. Truthful, crude words about the gravity of the crisis we are living in. Words that call to the struggle to regain constitutional freedoms.

Welcome to the Era of the Great Disillusionment

By Jonathan Cook, April 29, 2020

Let me preface my argument by making clear I do not intend to express any view about the truth or falsity of any of these debates – not even the one about reptile rulers. My refusal to publicly take a position should not be interpreted as my implicit endorsement of any of these viewpoints because, after all, only a crazy tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist sympathiser would refuse to make their views known on such matters.

Equally, my lumping together of all these disparate issues does not necessarily mean I see them as alike. They are presented in mainstream thinking as similarly proof of an unhinged, delusional, conspiracy-oriented mindset. I am working within a category that has been selected for me.

The Dubious COVID Models, The Tests and Now the Consequences

By F. William Engdahl, April 29, 2020

Two major models are being used in the West since the alleged spread of coronavirus to Europe and USA to “predict” and respond to the spread of COVID-19 illness. One was developed at Imperial College of London. The second was developed, with emphasis on USA effects, by the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Seattle, near the home of Microsoft founder Bill Gates. What few know is that both groups owe their existence to generous funding by a tax exempt foundation that stands to make literally billions on purported vaccines and other drugs to treat coronavirus—The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

How to Think Post-Planet Lockdown

By Pepe Escobar, April 29, 2020

What we already know for sure, as Shoshana Zuboff detailed in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, is that “industrial capitalism followed its own logic of shock and awe” to conquer nature. But now  surveillance capitalism “has human nature in its sights.”

In The Human Planet: How We Created the Anthropocene, analyzing the explosion in population growth, increasing energy consumption  and a tsunami of information “driven by the positive feedback loops of reinvestment and profit,” Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin of University College, London, suggest that our current mode of living is the “least probable” among several options. “A collapse or a switch to a new mode of living is more likely.”

Will China Replace Islam as the West’s New Enemy?

By Peter Oborne, April 29, 2020

Huntington was writing after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the end of the Cold War between Soviet Russia and the West. Rather than an era of peace, Huntingdon forecast a new struggle between what he viewed as irreconcilable enemies: Islam and the West.

Huntington asserted that identity, rather than ideology, lay at the heart of contemporary politics. “What are you?”, he asked, “and as we know, from Bosnia to the Caucasus to the Sudan, the wrong answer to that question can mean a bullet in the head.”

The Myth of V-Shape US Economic Recovery

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, April 29, 2020

The spin is in! Trump administration economic ‘message bearers’, Steve Mnuchin, US Treasury Secretary, and Kevin Hasset, senior economic adviser to Trump, this past Sunday on the Washington TV talking heads circuit launched a coordinated effort to calm the growing public concern that the current economic contraction may be as bad (or worse) than the great depression of the 1930s.

*

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.

Statistical indicators from the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan reveal that the rate of infections and deaths resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic are on the decline.

During the early weeks of April the state of Michigan was ranking third in the number of deaths and the city of Detroit held the undesirable position of having the highest mortality rates above any other region in the United States.

By the conclusion of the month, it appears as if the shelter-in-place and other emergency declarations issued by Governor Gretchen Whitmer have had an effect on curbing transmissions. Many more people are wearing masks and engaging in social distancing on the streets and in businesses declared essential which remain open.

Data provided by the authorities say the city suffered 251 deaths between April 6-12, 240 deaths from April 13-19 and 124 during April 20-26. As of April 29, nearly 1,000 people have died in Detroit while 8,811 people have been infected.

In the state of Michigan altogether there are 39,262 cases reported resulting in 3,547 deaths since March 10 when the first patient was confirmed. The U.S. as a country is leading in the number of confirmed COVID-19 infections with 1,046, 426 out of 3.5 million worldwide. There have been over 60,000 deaths in the U.S., out of 225,000 internationally, with concentrations of infections and deaths in states such as New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, California and Pennsylvania. At the time of this writing Michigan was listed as having the seventh highest number of infections and the third largest in regard to deaths.

Michigan chart showing number of COVID-19 infections

Nonetheless, the problems in Detroit have by no means been resolved amid continuing significantly high rates of infection and deaths. Hospitals are allocating substantial resources to treat COVID-19 patients while healthcare institutions have laid-off employees. At least 2,200 nurses, doctors and various healthcare workers have contracted the virus requiring quarantine and hospitalization.

Nursing Homes Expose the Capitalist Crisis Related to COVID-19

A major concentration of infections and deaths has occurred in the senior and convalescent homes located in the city and suburbs. The problem was largely hidden due to the focus on hospitals and public service agencies. Relatives and others concerned about the health status of patients living in nursing homes say they were denied information from administrators.

A major testing initiative conducted by the City of Detroit and Wayne County revealed that hundreds of infections occurred in these facilities among both the patients and workers. The conditions prevailing among senior residents in Detroit are reflective of the challenges facing working and poor people around the U.S.

In the state of Michigan there are 2,637 COVID-19 confirmed cases in the nursing homes. The bulk of these infections are being reported in the Detroit Metropolitan area. This problem has been allowed to persist due the substandard living conditions prevailing in the senior homes where staff members are often low-paid and overloaded with employment responsibilities.

Kim Russell of WXYZ said of the situation in Michigan:

“If you take a look at state data you will see that across Michigan there are nursing homes reporting cases of COVID-19, but most cases are in the communities hardest hit in Metro-Detroit. Taking a look at the three facilities with the most in the state they are Imperial Healthcare Centre in Dearborn Heights with 76 cases, Ambassador Nursing and Rehab Center in Detroit with 70, and Regency A Villa Center in Taylor with 65.”

The Michigan Department of Health finally in late April released the names of nursing home facilities where there have been COVID-19 cases and deaths. 75% of the infections are reported in the tri-county areas surrounding Detroit which are Macomb, Wayne and Oakland.

Governor Whitmer issued an executive order after the large-scale infections in nursing homes were uncovered. The order is ostensibly designed to ensure the safety and well-being of residents and employees.

However, the question becomes why have these horrendous conditions in the senior long term health facilities been allowed to deteriorate to such a level? Where was the State of Michigan, Tri-county officials and the City of Detroit administration prior to the outbreak of COVID-19 in the nursing homes?

These developments illustrate that the current profit-driven privatized healthcare system in the U.S. represents a serious threat to the security of the people who reside inside the country. There are still large segments of the population in cities like Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans, New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, among others that have no medical insurance.

Despite the rapid and pervasive spread of COVID-19 among seniors, there is no reference within the corporate media in regard to the need for universal guaranteed healthcare coverage for everyone living in the U.S. The lack of medical coverage is becoming even more calamitous with the loss of tens of millions of jobs and incomes since mid-March.

Jails, Juvenile Detention Centers and Prisons: Infections Spread Along with Resistance

The U.S. has the highest per capita prison population in the world and the advent of COVID-19 is confirming the dangerous situation which this creates for those inside and outside of the prison-industrial-complex. There are approximately 2.5 million people incarcerated in jails and prisons where inmates are disproportionately African American and Latin American descendants.

Where there has been testing in prisons in various states across the U.S., the infection rates have been extremely high. This phenomenon holds true for the state of Michigan as well where inmates and their families are demanding testing, personal protective equipment (PPE), medical treatment and early release.

Image on the right: Michigan Lakeland Correctional Facility in Coldwater

A report published by WZZM, an ABC News affiliate, says:

“The first round of mass testing at a Michigan prison facility revealed that more than half of the prisoners there had COVID-19. Of the 1,403 inmates tested at Lakeland Correctional Facility in Branch County, 785 of them tested positive for the virus. There are about 30 inmates still awaiting results as of Monday (April 27) morning.”

Another article addressing the problems at Lakeland Correctional Facility emphasizes that:

“The coronavirus has swept through Lakeland unabated, three inmates told HuffPost. At least 13 men have died and more than 50 have been hospitalized. Of 266 inmates that the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) tested for the virus in units that hold patients with other health issues, 208 came back positive. Overall, about 57% of Lakeland’s 1,400 prisoners have tested positive.”

A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of inmates across the state which accuses the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) of failing to provide protection for prisoners and even deliberately allowing them to be infected. The legal action was taken by the Michigan State University Civil Rights Clinic on behalf of 37,000 prisoners in the state where in some facilities the infection rate is as high as 87%.

Prisoners say they have been told by guards that there is nothing the system can do to protect them from COVID-19 spreading in the facilities. The lawsuit demands that the prisons implement the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines which were issued doing the month of March.

Juvenile detention centers in Michigan are also a cause for concern. There was a recent case of COVID-19 reported in Muskegon County where dozens of youth are being held.

The Kent County Juvenile Detention Center reported five cases during early April, three among staff and two inmates. Although Governor Whitmer signed an executive order mandating the release of people from jails and youth detention facilities who posed no risk to the public, the measure provides nothing in regard to relief for those endangered by the MDOC. (See this)

Capitalism, Racism and the Quest for Self-Determination

There has been some cursory discussion in the corporate media as it relates to the disproportionate rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths among African Americans and other nationally oppressed groups in the U.S. The data released by various municipalities and state governments confirms clearly that the U.S. is not an egalitarian society.

The national and class struggles of the majority of people in Detroit and in the key municipalities around the state of Michigan is a direct result of the undemocratic implementation of corporate policies which only benefit the financial institutions and the wealthy business interests. In the administrative and legislative branches of Detroit’s city government, the leadership has failed in the recent period to protect the welfare and public health of the majority African American majority.

Corporate-oriented and bank-imposed Mayor Mike Duggan said in a press conference on April 28 that he wants to establish the most rigorous health screening methods in the U.S. Interestingly enough, this is the same individual who opposed a moratorium on water shut-offs and property tax foreclosures since he was installed in office during the illegal period of Emergency Management and Bankruptcy in 2013-2014.

The Duggan-Gilbert program is designed to facilitate the rapid transfer of public assets and taxes to private interests. This has been actual source of the healthcare crisis in Detroit where the majority 80% African American residents are routinely ignored and suppressed in favor of the outside corporate entities subsidized through abatements and revenue captures.

These conditions in Detroit can only be resolved through the independent actions of the people geared towards the eradication of the capitalist methods of production and distribution. The pandemic has proven that only the transformation of the U.S. towards socialism can address the existing and worsening conditions of working people and the oppressed in the current period and the foreseeable future.

*

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.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author; featured image: Detroit SEIU worker protests outside nursing home

GIULIETTO CHIESA remained on the front line of the fight, to implement Article 11 of the Constitution, to take Italy out of the “War System”. 

Giulietto Chiesa passed away a few hours after the conclusion, on the 75th Anniversary of the Liberation and the end of the Second World War, of the International Conference of April 25th” Let’s Free ourselves from the virus of war.”

His Legacy Will Live 

Five years ago, when we set up the No War No Nato Committee, we have been with him in the continuous commitment to provide truthful information on the real causes of wars;

for a sovereign and neutral Italy, outside NATO and any other military alliance;

for the total elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction;

to put an end to the waste of enormous resources destined to weapons and wars;

for a new economic and social system that eliminates the causes that are at the origin of wars.

We remember the last words pronounced by Giulietto Chiesa at the conclusion of the Conference of April 25th, at the end of the political commitment of his whole life. Truthful, crude words about the gravity of the crisis we are living in. Words that call to the struggle to regain constitutional freedoms:

“We have come to the end of this marathon, which I hope has been interesting for all of you. Many new things have been exposed, with other new international voices.

We give each other a goodbye, a physical goodbye when we can meet again, although I think it will not be easy to regain the constitutional freedoms that have been suspended, and we know why.

We can already see signs showing us the difficult situations in which we will have to fight to regain the freedoms that have been suspended.

We need to know that the situation will be much more critical, much more dramatic.

There is an economic crisis of gigantic proportions that will involve and overwhelm (I am afraid) Italy.

Those who are using this situation as a tool to hit the weakest, and the weakest have already been hit, those who have the sticks of command will use them, and so it will be our task, all together, to build a barrier and a capacity for recovery. We must think about a different policy to get out of this situation.

This conference took place online, but there will be and we will have to make sure that there are other moments of political struggle and combat that are physical, where we can find ourselves and look each other in the eye”.

Giullietto Chiesa‘s Legacy Will Live Forever in the History of Italy, and in the History of the World.

US President Trump ordered a surprise withdrawal of US troops from Syria in October 2019; however, he bent to pressure from aides and Pentagon officials and soon reversed his decision. He then ordered about 500 US soldiers to occupy the Syrian oil fields to steal the oil, regardless of the violation of international law, or the reflection of state-sanctioned crime on the image of America. 

As the US armored vehicles left Qamishli in October, the locals threw rocks and rotten vegetables at them. The US had ditched its local allies, in favor of oil revenues. ISIS was no longer an enemy, and the Kurdish militia was no longer a partner. Now, six months after the US pullout of the northeast of Syria, the US forces are confronted by angry locals, deadly attacks, and the COVID-19 virus.  It appears the days of the US illegal occupation of Syria are numbered.

Ryan Goodman, the co-editor of ‘Just Security’ and a former Pentagon legal adviser filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the number of military and civilian defense personnel assigned to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria because the Trump administration has stopped reporting them publically since December 2017.  He said, “Providing this information would be a show of respect for the American public, who ultimately must decide what sacrifices our country should make in sending troops into war.”

“The United States Government and all its institutions represent and are accountable to the American people,” wrote Chuck Hagel, former Secretary of Defense, in support of the requests.  Trump had made a campaign promise in 2016 to bring US troops home from Afghanistan and the Middle East but has failed to keep his promise to his supporters.   With the 2020 election fast approaching, those troop numbers are being guarded like ‘top-secret’ files.

According to the Pentagon, 3,500 active duty US military personnel have tested positive for COVID-19, with 85 hospitalized, and 2 deaths. The numbers jump to more than 5,700, with 25 deaths when you include civilian employees, contractors, and military dependents.

Health experts fear that COVID-19 could spread like wildfire across Syria, and US troop movements or rotations could help to spread the virus, as Iraq has a very large number of cases and there are US troops there as well.  Movement of US troops between Iraq and Syria could be lethal for Syrians as well as American soldiers.

The first reported death from COVID-19 in Syria occurred in Qamishli which is the same region some of the US troops are present. The Syrian Ministry of Health works closely with the WHO and has a central lab for testing in Damascus.  However, the northeast of Syria, and Qamishli in particular, are not under the direct control of the central Syrian government.  The northeast of Syria is in chaos, as Russian, Syrian, Turkish, Kurdish, and US forces are all present, but not all working together.  The rest of Syria is calm, stable, and prepared to face COVID-19.

“This epidemic is a way for Damascus to show that the Syrian state is efficient and all territories should be returned under its governance,” analyst Fabrice Balanche said.

The pandemic may contribute to the departure of US troops from Syria and Iraq, where the Iraqi Parliament called for US troop withdrawal.

The Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, said on April 23 there are reports of COVID-19 cases among the US troops in Syria, who are there illegally under international law.

“This means that Washington bears full responsibility for the civilian population and provision for their humanitarian needs on territories under its control east of the Euphrates and in the south near Al-Tanf, where the notorious Rukban camp for the internally displaced people is located,” she said.

Khirbet Ammu is an Arab village just east of Qamishli.  The Kurds, a minority in Syria, were the US partners on the fight against ISIS, but the local Arabs were not partners, and they are the majority in Syria. This village remained loyal to the Syrian government throughout the war years.  On February 12 a US military patrol got stuck in the mud, and another of their trucks had a flat tire. The US soldiers may have taken the wrong turn, down the wrong road, because they found themselves stuck and under fierce attack by armed residents shouting: “What do you want from our country? What is your business here?” One resident was killed, and another wounded when the US forces fired at the villagers.

Brett H. McGurk has served in senior national security positions under Bush, Obama, and Trump as the Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL.  He commented on the Khirbet Ammu attack as an example of a deepening quagmire for US troops.

On March 23 a US military convoy was stopped at Hamo, a village near Qamishli, where the 11 vehicles were forced to turn around and find a different route.  The Syrian Arab Army, which is the only national army in Syria, was assisted by the locals in an act of resistance.

An officer in the US Army was reportedly killed on April 6 in the town of Al-Sur, near the village of al-Wasi’a, in the countryside of Deir Ez Zor, where the US troops were ordered by Trump to steal the oil.  Also reportedly killed in the ambush were two Kurdish militiamen, formerly partnered with the US. The deaths occurred during an ambush by locals on the foreign military convoy.

Joshua M. Landis is an expert on Syria, and was aware of the reported incident; however, his Twitter account had a post from the US military denying the death, and accusing the Saudi Arabian media ‘Al Hadath’ with spreading false information.

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

Locals in the village of Abu Qasaib forced the US troops to turn their convoy around on April 16 and go back to their illegal base. It appears the local resistance to the military occupation of Syria is gaining momentum.

The US military was seen crossing illegally from Iraq into Syria at al-Walid, on their way to Hasakah on April 18.  The US convoy consisted of about 35 trucks, carrying military and logistical equipment to steal the oil reserves and loot other natural resources in Syria.

The US military convoy was attacked with stones on April 22, by locals in the village of Farafrah, near Qamishli, who had set up a road-block.  Men and boys chased the Americans on foot while shouting, “Go back to where you came from.”

On April 27, a US Hummer vehicle that carried American troops was attacked by locals in Deir Ez Zor.  The vehicle was later found completely burned, but it is not known what became of the troops who were being transported to the important oil fields of al-Omar and al-Tank, which are being occupied by the US military, on orders by Trump to steal the oil.  ‘Al Mayadeen’ media reported the names of one sailor and one soldier, with eye-witness information that the two Americans were kidnapped.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

The current disaster exists in large part because the U.S. healthcare system is the opposite of what is needed. It is fragmented, discriminatory and designed for corporate profits, not the well-being of the public. Even before the pandemic, the United States had the highest number of preventable deaths compared to other wealthy nations and a declining life expectancy.” —Margaret Flowers

While some U.S. lives may have been saved during the COVID-19 pandemic through a quicker and more coordinated action plan, the objective fact remains no plan could have been successfully implemented because a developed public healthcare infrastructure does not exist. Years of neoliberal austerity and privatization gutted public investment in healthcare for rural and urban working-class communities and led to thousands of hospital closings over the last few decades, decimating the already weak U.S. public healthcare system.

That, as well as capitalist environmental racism—where toxic industrial processing plants, waste dumps and pollutants from industrial agricultural operations produced the so-called “underlying conditions” of cancers, asthma and a whole host of upper-respiratory illnesses—translated into death sentences for many poor and working-class Africans.

Yet, the focus on Trump’s personality has shifted attention away from the structural violence of capitalist oppression and exploitation. In fact, it is not just Trump, but most of the capitalist class, pushing for a return to “normal.” That class consensus was reflected in opinion pieces and commentary in bourgeois rags ranging from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal. While it was not openly echoed by Democratic congressional representatives, it helps to explain why the Democrats went along with the measly $1,200 checks to workers. Those insufficient payments help to keep people desperate and ready to return to work, even if it means jeopardizing their health.

So, we must keep our focus on the system. That will ensure we are not confused by the diversionary politics of the rulers, who do not want us to notice their bipartisan collaboration to uphold corporate interests.

Press and media

The war being waged against the African/Black working class in the United States mirrors the anti-Black warfare being waged globally, thus producing similarly devastating health outcomes for Africans in Brazil.

BAP Coordinating Committee member Netfa Freeman places into historical context the U.S. state’s use of direct military intervention in response to what it sees as potential threats to social order during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ajamu Baraka, BAP’s National Organizer, argues the changing class structure of the African American population explains the questionable politics and policies of Black political representatives in response to the COVID-19 crisis. He gave this presentation as part of a two-day Black Is Back Coalition webinar.

Black public opinion has been whipped up against China while Black opinion makers have remained silent on the aggressive U.S. militarization of the African continent. Margaret Kimberley, in her latest piece in Black Agenda Report, uses a material, non-sentimental framework to understand how the U.S. state is using the COVID-19 issue to advance its commitment to confronting China.

If you were wondering why BAP launched the 2020 Candidate Accountability Pledge, BAP member Jose Monzon explained on U.S. Senate candidate Madelyn Hoffman’s livestream.

Take action

General Strike 2020 is calling for all workers to remain sheltered in place (in accordance with current medical guidance), encouraging participation in nationwide strikes (including rent strikes, debt strikes and labor strikes) on May 1, and asks workers to hang white sheets or towels outside of their homes as a sign of solidarity.

Sign the U.S. Peace Council’s Open Letter to the Government of the United States and the United Nations, demanding all U.S. and U.N. sanctions against the targeted nations be lifted, and all U.S. military threats and actions against them cease immediately.

No Compromise, No Retreat!

*

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 City News Service

“We work shoulder to shoulder. We’re very close to each other…. I’ve had a fever and flu symptoms, but I take Tylenol and keep working.” María, worker from Butterball. Español

Marshal Khalifa Haftar of the Libyan National Army (LNA) has declared that his forces will take control of Libya, arguing that the UN-negotiated unity agreement is dead. The statement was made during a televised speech, in which Haftar reported that “the will of the people” gave him a mandate to govern, announcing that the LNA will take control of the country, radically changing the situation in the war-torn country.

“We thus announce that the General Command of the Armed Forces accepts the will of the people despite the burden of that trust, multiplicity of obligations, and the magnitude of responsibilities before God, our people, and conscience and history,” he said.

Haftar’s forces already control most of Libya’s territory and population, and have spent much of the past year advancing against the capital city of Tripoli to overthrow the Turkish-backed Muslim Brotherhood Government of the National Agreement (GNA). The GNA was created in 2015 after UN-mediated talks following the 2011 NATO-led operation by the U.S. that deposed long-time Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi and threw the country in years of civil war.

During Haftar’s speech, addressing the “free Libyans,” the marshal condemned the unity agreement that established the GNA, insisting that it “destroyed” Libya, and that the citizens had chosen another “eligible” leader.

“We have followed up the call that you announced to end the Political Agreement, which has destroyed the country and led it to the abyss, and also to authorize those you consider eligible to lead,” said Haftar, adding that the LNA would work in “building durable institutions of the civil state.”

In response to the announcement, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli said Washington regrets “Haftar’s suggestion that changes in Libya’s political structure can be imposed by a unilateral declaration,” and urged the LNA to declare a ceasefire during the month of Ramadan that is holy for Muslims and while the country fights the coronavirus outbreak.

With the support of Turkey, the GNA has managed to repel Haftar’s latest offensive, including regaining a small amount of ground against the LNA near Tripoli in recent weeks. However, the GNA asked Washington for support, declaring in February that it would welcome U.S. troops on Libyan soil to help fight “terrorism,” the irony being that many of the GNA militias are jihadists themselves. It is not such a shameful prospect for the GNA to ask for U.S. assistance considering it once supported the very same jihadist militias in 2011 that toppled Gaddadi.

The NATO regime change operation in 2011 that was aimed at maintaining the U.S. global hegemony and toppling those who opposed it, forced Gaddafi out of power and ended in his brutal roadside execution at the hands of Western-backed jihadists. The end of his decades-long rule transformed Libya into a war-torn state, prompting armed conflict between competing powers and the rise of terrorist groups such as ISIS, which flourished because of the anarchy created in the midst of fighting. The LNA however emerged in the midst of the Western-created chaos as a unifying force for Libyans and aims to expel the Turkish-backed and UN-recognized Muslim Brotherhood government.

However, Haftar’s move to declare the LNA as the government has come as a shock for many international players, with Moscow describing it as “surprising,” according to Reuters via RIA who cited a foreign ministry source on Tuesday. The source added that “we support the continuation of the political process. There is no military solution to the conflict.”

Many commentators on Libya have argued that Russia has big influence in Libya like it does in Syria. The Russian Wagner volunteer group are contracted on the side of the LNA. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan claims there are 2,500 Wagner volunteers operating in Libya, but there is no evidence on the actual number.  Washington, Ankara and commentators from the West have pointed to the Wagner group as evidence that Russia is influencing events in Libya like it does in Syria, but this is just a distraction and diversion for their own responsibilities in creating the near 10-year chaos in the North African country.

Rather, Haftar’s surprising move even caught Moscow off guard. Turkey will surely act more aggressively now in Libya to defend the GNA, but to what extent is not known considering it battles a destructive coronavirus outbreak and sees its economy slumping, hampering its efforts for power projections in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The NATO powers of the U.S., Italy and France were the main Western players involved in Libya, however, with all three countries distracted by the coronavirus that has killed tens of thousands, Libya would be a minor concern for them. This has provided Haftar the opportunity to cease power with only the GNA standing in the way of complete control over Libya. As his power grab has shown, Haftar acts independently of Moscow despite accusations made by the West and he will surely begin a new campaign to complete the takeover of Tripoli.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

No country could fail to be shaken by the kind of profound struggle between all its political groups that currently prevails in Iraq. The US does not need to make any great effort to sow discord between the parties because they are currently intrinsically fragmented. The removal of Major General Qassim Suleimani from the Iraqi scene– whose personal objective had been to bring the various political parties together – was a major event, but not a game-changer. It did not profoundly modify the Iraqi political scene because he had already failed, two months before his assassination by the US, to persuade the parties to agree on a single Prime Ministerial candidate, following the resignation of Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi. Iraqi politicians put their differences above all else in order to protect their political influences, unmoved by the patriotic duty for unity in the light of the serious challenges facing their country.

Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi was not mistaken when he once told me: “We do not know how to rule. We are good at opposing the ruler.”

No ruler in Iraq will be able to get the country out of its current severe financial crisis, the political acrimony, and COVID-19 health crisis, because the financial means are lacking. The pressure from the street, where protestors were demanding improved living conditions, will return stronger than ever. The low price of crude oil is undermining Iraq’s yearly income. The state’s budget deficit is skyrocketing; its external debts are persistent and its need for help from the World Bank, which is under US control, is greater than ever. America will not provide financial assistance until its demands are fulfilled and Iranian influence is removed from Iraq.

America rejects Iraq’s balancing policy. Iraq considers its relationship with the US only as important as its relationship with neighbouring Iran. Washington wants Iraq for itself, adopting one principle: “after me, the great flood” (après moi le deluge) an expression said to be often used by Louis XV of France to indicate that he is the centre of attention, no other consideration matter but his own self-obsession and that any other considerations are irrelevant.

The US is supporting Iraqi Kurdistan by expanding its “Harir” military base and establishing another large military base on the border with Iran. The message to Baghdad seems blunt: US forces will remain in the face of resistance from those parts of Iraq more subject to Baghdad’s authority. In Kurdistan, the central government authority is not as effective as in other parts of the country. The US supports the Kurdish Peshmerga and arms them through its allies, the United Arab Emirates, who are providing the Kurdish armed men with weaponry: four cargos full of weapons landed recently in Erbil.

It is not excluded, if Trump remains in power, that his administration will help the Kurdistan region detach itself from Iraq, as it may also support a Kurdish secession attempt in north-eastern Syria. In the part of Syria, the US is occupying with Kurdish help, US forces are stealing Syrian crude oil- even if its price is no longer sufficient to pay the expenses of the troops deployed around it- indicating that there is another reason for their presence, related to the US ally, Israel.

Iraqi protestors refer to the United States as the “Joker,” a powerful force exerting influence on events in Iraq, often covertly. This influence was evident in last year’s demonstrations, but most conspicuously in the Kurdistan independence movement. Kurdish officials already rejected the binding constitutional decision of the Iraqi parliament – in a clear rebellion against the authority of Baghdad –which demanded the US withdrawal from Iraq.

Iraqi decision-makers in Baghdad believe that US President Donald Trump acts only in accordance with his own country’s interests. He thanked Adel Abdul-Mahdi for his protection of the US embassy because it was attacked in Baghdad. The US President sent a positive message to Iran through Abdul-Mahdi and then, a few days later, killed the Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. The US administration is also working for Israel’s interests in Iraq – and not according to the “declared” interest of the US in building a strong and friendly Iraq-US relationship.

Trump did not listen to his protests when Abdul-Mahdi called him personally and told him that US actions in attacking security forces were angering the Iraqis and that any unilateral action would have catastrophic consequences for everyone. Rather, Trump listened to his aides who consider the Middle East leaders as subordinates, not allies. This US condescension serves the interests of Iran, which knows how to benefit from American mistakes, said the sources.

There is no doubt that Iraq is facing a crisis, with severe domestic bickering adding to the difficult economic and sanitary situation affecting all countries. But the greatest danger to the country comes from the Trump administration, which can only imagine subduing states by force. The US will certainly end up “reaping the whirlwind” rather than gaining a robust alliance with Iraq.

There is no doubt that Iraq is experiencing difficult labour in the midst of severe domestic bickering, plus the difficult economic and sanitary situation affecting all countries. But even more dangerous is the fact that Iraq is in the eye of the storm, pulled off course by the winds of Trump, who can only imagine subduing states by force. The US will certainly end up “reaping the whirlwind” rather than gaining any kind of robust allies.

*

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 EJM

In modern warfare, one of the greatest weapons is the power to manipulate information. In a globalized international society, extremely integrated and connected by an infinite information circulation network, a media which controls the dissemination and content of such information is in an extremely advantageous position, as this power allows it to shape public opinion. In the mass society, we are all hostages to the dissemination of information and to the way it is carried out, which puts us in a position of extreme fragility, as we are daily forced to consume false information strategically manipulated by its disseminators.

Lies fill a large part of the mass media, as it is controlled by the most powerful groups in society and which are better able to guarantee their interests. In the Western world, the use of false information to denigrate the public image of people, countries, ideologies and movements that in some way oppose the liberal hegemonic ideology has become frequent. One of the biggest victims of this information war is North Korea, a country that is extremely denigrated in the West with numerous and repeated lies about its political regime and its society as a whole.

North Korean President Kim Jong-un was the youngest victim of the unfounded “death” news in Western media. In fact, it has become common for all North Korean public figures who are absent from the media spotlight for a few days to be reported as “dead” around the world – these death reports are often accompanied by weird accusations that such people were “sentenced to death”, even if there is no evidence for such conclusions. Once again, history repeated itself: after about two weeks without public appearances, Kim Jong-un was presumed dead by the West.

The trigger for world hysteria was Kim’s absence from the celebration of the last Day of the Sun – a traditional Korean holiday – on April 15th. Immediately, a media bombardment began in the West, with worldwide reports of the alleged “death” or “serious state of health” of the Korean President. The legend was generated around an alleged cardiac surgery, which would have been unsuccessful. According to the New York Post, the deputy director of HKSTV in Hong Kong said that Kim would be dead, citing a “very solid source” – which was not identified – while the Japanese newspaper, Shukan Gendai, said that Kim would be in “vegetative state” after undergoing cardiac surgery at the beginning of the month. On social media, the hashtag #kimjongundead quickly gained absurd popularity, being one of the most accessed on Twitter.

Apparently, the West wants to see Kim Jong-un dead, but the truth came out, with a series of official responses denying the avalanche of lies by the mass media. The South Korean intelligence service was the first to report the lie behind the information that Kim either died or was ill. “Our position in the government is firm”, special national security adviser, Moon Chung-in, said in an interview with CNN this Sunday (26), “Kim Jong-un is alive and well”. The adviser also said that Kim had been in Wonsan – a tourist town in the east of the country – since April 13 – which is why he was absent from public commitments – adding, “No suspicious movements were detected so far ”.

Then, a satellite photo captured an image of the President in Wonsan, showing that Kim is alive and well. The North Korean media then responded to the Western media offensive with several messages from Kim, confirming his health and thanking the messages of support received from public figures around the world who sympathized with the President’s alleged serious state of health. The most curious thing is that the lies invented by the West call attention for the degree of accuracy and complexity. Not satisfied with inventing death, vegetative condition and heart surgery, the media agencies released fake news stating that China had sent a team of doctors to operate Kim. Fortunately, Beijing denied the information immediately, leaving no doubt to its deleterious character.

In the end, Kim is alive, well and there is no concrete data that can tell us anything more accurate about his health. Obviously, the lie promoters already knew all this with antecedence, but they were concerned to make a lie in order to provoke inflamed reactions worldwide and destabilize Korea by tarnishing its image, portraying it as a dictatorial country, extremely closed and with a systemic censure – so strong that they are able to hide from the whole world a news as important as the death of their own president.

The darker side of this “fake news age” is that this false information drives big political decisions and is capable of influencing the actions of the people on large scale. Another example of the info-war power is Brazil, where fake news accusing China of having created the new coronavirus was officially admitted by the government, generating a serious diplomatic crisis between both countries and causing a wave of synophobia and hostility against Asians in the country, with Chinese immigrants being beaten on the streets. On social media, millions of messages containing fake news about the virus are spread daily and already completely permeate the popular mentality.

An important tactic of information warfare is the handling of which news should be broadcast. Despite the huge repercussions of Kim Jong-un’s “death”, very few agencies have so far reported about the farce of this information, or, if they did, have invested little in its dissemination. The reason is simple: in addition to the interest in spreading fake news, denying previous information is costly and damages the image of these media outlets, which prefer to keep the lie.

Even though Pyongyang denies Kim’s death, Beijing denies having sent doctors for heart surgery and South Korea itself admits that it is all about fake news, in the popular imagination of Western mass societies, an image of Korea as a “terrible dictatorship” and “the most closed country in the world” is already formed and can hardly be rebuilt without a strong media work committed to the truth (which is far from emerging).

The fact is that Kim Jong-un is alive and, more than ever, it is proven that most of the content released about non-Western countries is made up of fake news. In our times, the circulation of information is a real battlefield, really worthy of attention for purposes of national defense and strategy.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

David Swanson was to speak at a conference in Florence, Italy, on April 25, 2020.commemorating the 75 anniversary of Italy’s Liberation. 

The conference became a Live Stream. 

This was David Swanson’s speech at this important venue in Italy organized by the Italian Committee No Guerra, No NATO  together with Global Research.

*

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.

“Convegno internazionale “Liberiamoci dal virus della guerra” in occasione del 75° anniversario della Liberazione d’Italia”

Michel Chossudovsky (Canada), economista, direttore del Centro di ricerca sulla globalizzazione; Peter Koenig (Svizzera), economista con lunga esperienza nella Banca Mondiale, Guido Grossi, già dirigente Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, ci diranno come potenti forze economiche e finanziarie sfruttano la crisi del coronavirus per impadronirsi dei nostri risparmi e soffocarci con la stretta del debito, e cosa dovremmo fare per risolvere tale situazione.

David Swanson (Stati Uniti), direttore di World Beyond War; Tim Anderson (Australia), docente di economia politica; Giorgio Bianchi, fotogiornalista e filmmaker; Franco Cardini, storico e saggista, ci parleranno delle guerre in corso, funzionali agli interessi delle stesse potenti forze.

Vladimir Kozin (Russia), consigliere capo del Centro Studi Politico-Militari, Diana Johnstone (Stati Uniti), saggista; Kate Hudson (Regno Unito), Segretaria Campagna per il Disarmo Nucleare, spiegheranno come e perché aumenta la probabilità di un catastrofico conflitto nucleare.

John Shipton (Australia), padre di Julian Assange, Ann Wright (Stati Uniti), già colonnello US Army e funzionaria Dipartimento di Stato, ci parleranno delle condizioni disumane in cui è detenuto a Londra Julian Assange, il giornalista fondatore di WikiLeaks, incarcerato per aver portato alla luce i crimini di guerra USA, che rischia di essere estradato da Londra negli Stati Uniti dove lo attende la pena dell’ergastolo o la pena di morte; Giulietto Chiesa, giornalista, direttore di Pandora TV. ci parlerà della fondamentale battaglia per il diritto costituzionale di manifestare liberamente il proprio pensiero e per una informazione veritiera.

Israel has deployed additional units of the Iron Dome and Patriot air defense systems near the borders of Lebanon and Syria. Pro-Israeli sources claim that the country’s military is preparing to repel possible retaliatory strikes from Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed forces following the recent airstrikes on alleged ‘Iranian targets’ near Damascus.

Over the past year, the Israeli Defense Forces have been steadily increasing their military presence in the area of the occupied Golan Heights under pretext of combating the so-called Iranian threat. Syrian sources describe these developments as a part of preparations for wider aggressive military actions against forces of the Damascus government and its allies in southern Syria.

Late on April 27, Turkish unmanned aerial vehicles dropped leaflets calling on Idlib residents to support actions of the Turkish Army in the area of the M4 highway. Such actions by the Turkish military likely demonstrate that the negotiations with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which were held after a military incident between the sides on April 26, likely ended with no real progress. If the Turkish Army continues its efforts to de-block the part of the M4 highway near Nayrab by force, it may find itself in the state of an open military confrontation with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

2 US soldiers were abducted after an attack on their vehicle near the Omar oil fields, on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, Syrian state media said on April 27. Arab media regularly report about security incidents involving US-led coalition forces and their proxies in eastern Syria. Earlier in April, Syria’s SANA claimed that a US soldier and 2 members of the Syrian Democratic Forces were killed in an attack near the village of al-Wasia in Deir Ezzor province.

On top of this, ISIS via its news agency Amaq regularly reports successful attacks against personnel of the Syrian Democratic Forces and civilians in the US-controlled area. For example on April 21, Amaq announced that ISIS forces had killed a “sorcerer” in the town of al-Sabhah. The victim was identified as Hassan Ghanem al-Osman. He became the third “sorcerer” killed by ISIS in eastern Deir Ezzor during the last two months.

The US-led coalition prefers to remain silent regarding the ISIS terror campaign, which is ongoing under the nose of its forces. However, it found time to comment on the April 27 report about the supposed casualties among US personnel calling it fake.

The Russian Military Police established a new observation point near the town of Tell Tamir in northeastern Syria. Kurdish sources claim that Turkish-backed militants regularly shelled the town and the surrounding areas during the past few weeks. They expect that the deployment of the Russians there should help to put an end to these regular ceasefire violations.

*

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

The coronavirus depression is fast becoming as deep as the Great Depression. The federal government’s response has been too little, too late.

While sickness and death spread, while unemployment and small business failures soar, while health care and essential workers lack personal protective equipment (PPE), Congress is in recess until May 4.

The childlike dummy, Donald Trump, spouts bad advice daily in his televised briefings. Thursday he said we could beat the coronavirus by injecting disinfectants or somehow shining ultraviolet radiation inside our bodies.

Meanwhile, the presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, is MIA. Is he sitting on a park bench somewhere feeding bread crumbs to pigeons?

Since the lockdown started five weeks ago, 26 million people have applied for unemployment insurance. But many qualified people have yet to receive unemployment benefits, or even get their applications accepted through overwhelmed state unemployment insurance agencies.

Economists estimate that the real unemployment rate may have reached 23% in April, which is about as high as it ever got in the Great Depression. The economy had contracted nearly 50% four years into Great Depression, while economists predict a contraction of 25% to 50% over a few months now.

Many of these temporary layoffs are turning into permanent job losses as businesses fail, particularly the small business that provide half of the nation’s jobs. Half of small businesses went into the lockdown with less than a month of cash reserves to cover fixed expenses like rent or mortgage and utilities. When small businesses run out of cash, they are dead.

The Payroll Protection Program (PPP) was supposed to keep these small businesses going, but like the unemployment insurance program, the loans are not getting to most people and the money allocated is far from enough to meet the need. 60% of small businesses have applied, but only 5% small businesses have received PPP funding.

When the lockdown started, Obama’s Small Business Administration head, Karen Mills, predicted a small business failure rate of 20% in a “best case scenario” and 30% in a “good scenario.” With a nearly 100% failure rate by the federal government in responding to the coronavirus depression, the carnage among small businesses and their workers is looking like a worst case scenario.

Big businesses are getting bailed out. Much of the money designated for small businesses has been snatched up by big businesses before small business’s applications were even considered. The half a trillion allocated for big businesses is being doled out to Trump cronies without disclosure of the recipients and without restrictions against firing workers or bonuses for executives. The Federal Reserve has cut its overnight borrowing interest rate for banks to zero and is engaged in unlimited trillions of dollars of quantitative easing to backstop corporate debt.

Meanwhile, essential workers—in hospitals, grocery stores, public transit, sanitation, food processing, package handling, delivery—are working in most cases without adequate or any PPE. We have already lost 83 transit workers to COVID-19 in New York City. We must demand an OSHA Temporary Standard to provide enforceable PPE protection for workers.

Most of the elements of the 5th Relief Package we need have been introduced by various members of Congress, but they won’t be included if we don’t speak up and demand real emergency relief.

Here are measures the 5th Relief Package should include to protect our health and well-being during the crisis:

• Medicare to Pay for COVID-19 Testing and Treatment and All Emergency Health Care
• Defense Production Act to Rapidly Plan the Production and Distribution of Medical Supplies and a Universal Test, Contact Trace, and Quarantine – – Program to Safely Reopen the Economy
• An OSHA Temporary Standard to Provide Enforceable PPE Protection for Workers
• $2,000 a Month to All Over Age 16 and $500 per Child
• Loans to All Businesses and Hospitals for Payroll and Fixed Overhead To Be Forgiven If All Workers Are Kept on Payroll
• Moratorium on Evictions, Foreclosures, and Utility Shutoffs
• Cancel Rent, Mortgage, and Utility Payments; Federal Government Pays Those Bills; High-income People Pay Taxes on this Relief
• Suspend Student Loan Payments with 0% Interest Accumulation
• Federal Universal Rent Control
• Aid to State and Local Governments Sufficient to Keep Essential Services Running
• Universal Mail-in Ballots for the 2020 General Election

A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that over the last 600 years, the economic depression after pandemics persists for about 40 years, in contrast to much faster recoveries after wars. The difference is that capital is destroyed in wars that has to be rebuilt, but not in pandemics. Coming out of this pandemic, we should destroy the productive capital stock that has been heating up the planet and poisoning the environment and replace it with clean energy, zero waste production systems.

To rebuild our economy when it is safe to go back to work, we should invest public money on the scale needed to put everyone to back to doing what we should have been doing before the coronavirus crisis hit in order to protect our climate and our people. I have detailed a 10-Year, $42 Trillion budget for an Ecosocialist Green New Deal that would create 38 million new jobs rebuilding all of our production systems for zero-to-negative greenhouse gas emissions, zero-waste recycling, and 100% clean renewable energy by 2030 in order to reverse the climate crisis and other environmental problems.

This full-strength Green New Deal includes an Economic Bill of Rights to end poverty and economic despair. It provides for a job guarantee, a guaranteed income above poverty, affordable housing, Medicare for All, lifelong tuition-free public education, and a secure retirement by doubling Social Security benefits. We need the Green New Deal now for economic recovery as well as climate safety.

*

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.

Howie Hawkins is a Trade Unionist and co-founder of the Green Party of the United States. He is the leading candidate for the Green Party nomination for president in 2020. His website is HowieHawkins.US.

Featured image is from the author

Since death is one idea that has no history except as an idea and not a reality any of us has experienced, it is the most frightening idea there is and also quite simple. It is the ultimate unknown. It has always haunted human beings, whether consciously or unconsciously. It lies at the root of war, violence, religion, art, love, and civilization. The good and the bad, the beautiful and the ugly, why we like to win and not lose, pass and not fail, “pass on” and not die. It is so funny and so sad.  We would be lost without it, even when we feel lost when thinking about it.  And it is fundamental for understanding the action and reaction to Covid-19. 

Societies have always been people banded together in the face of death.  And since people are not just physical beings but symbolic creatures who can think and imagine the past and the future, societies are necessarily mythic symbol systems whose job is not only to protect people physically, but symbolically as well. Sometimes, however, the protection is a protection racket with racketeers holding people hostage to fabricated fears that keep them locked in a living-death.

Thus death, this most potent imaginative idea and reality that doesn’t exist except as a mystery about which anything we say is speculation, can be used for good and evil, depending on who controls society.  Death is the great fear, the human haunting that hangs by a thread over life like the sword of Damocles.

In 1944 in a newspaper column, George Orwell made an astute remark:

There is little doubt that the modern cult of power worship is bound up with the modern man’s feeling that life here and now is the only life there is.  If death ends everything, it becomes much harder to believe that you can be in the right even if you are defeated…. I would say that the decay in the belief in personal immortality has been as important as the rise of machine civilization.

Beliefs, of course, like “personal immortality” and all others, such as the recent rise in the belief in atheism, which is as much a belief as belief in God, are, partially at least, relative to time and place, and develop out of social storytelling. The “hard facts” on which many feel their lives and security rest are themselves dependent upon the symbols which give them legitimacy. Reality is indeed precarious with society suspended by a web of myths and symbols.  It is through cultural and social symbol systems that society’s meaning is transmitted to individuals, and it is within the symbol systems that the control and release of action resides.  In today’s electronic mass media world, those who control the mass media that control the narrative flow – the storytelling – control the majority’s beliefs and actions.

Since society is held together by this myth system – the beliefs and values people live for and live by – that sustains it, societies have always had to offer symbolic “answers” to death.  For without a meaningful symbolic for coming to terms with death, human action would be stymied and people would be reduced to what the psychiatrist Allan Wheelis termed “intense, preoccupying yearning.” Today we can hear such yearning everywhere.

Shortly after Orwell made his prescient comment in The Tribune, nuclear weapons were developed and used by the United States to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians.  With those weapons and their use, the ages-old symbolic narrative of life and death was transformed in a flash.  “The significance of the possibility of nuclear death is that it radically affects the meaning of death, of immortality, of life itself,” wrote Hans Morgenthau.  The traditional symbolic sources that once served to allow humans to transcend death were fundamentally undercut, and the search for new modes of death transcendence was carried on beneath the portentous covering of the nuclear umbrella. A qualitative transformation in the meaning of human existence was thus brought about as humans, who had the weapons, replaced the belief in God as the holder of the power over life and death, since nuclear war could result in the extinction of human life, leaving no one left to die.

This is our world today, and it is where the Covid-19 story takes place.  A world not just of nuclear fear, but a host of other fears constantly inflamed by the mass media that hypnotize people through the conjuring of death-fear.

In his great work on group psychology, Freud showed us how it was not just mental contagion and the herd instinct that got people to join in group behavior.  People could be induced to become little children and obey their leaders because they have “an extreme passion for authority.” When leaders speak, the children hear the inner voices of their parents telling them to be careful, be very careful, the bogeyman is everywhere, so listen and obey. Freud, the Jewish atheist, and Dostoevsky, the Russian Orthodox Christian, were in agreement about people’s desire to give up their freedom to authority figures who would allegedly shelter them within their warm embrace.

The easiest way to do this is to convince people that death is stalking them, for the bogeyman is always death in one form or another.

It works to get people to support the terrifying sadism of wars against fabricated “others,” who are always portrayed as aliens who are out to kill the good people.

It works to get people to give up their freedoms out of fear of “terrorists,” who are said to slide and hide in the interstices of everyday life, ready to pounce and kill at any moment.

And it works to get people to obey orders to protect themselves from terrifying viruses that are lying in wait everywhere to strike them dead.

In his novel The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky said that people want miracles, mystery, and authority, not freedom.  His Grand Inquisitor, while a fictional creation, lives on in reality.  For the Grand Inquisitor represents those power elites across the world who wish to cower people into accepting their dicta on Covid-19 as truth without questioning its logic or rationale.  To question has become an act of insubordination deserving death by censorship or the defiling of one’s name via the term “conspiracy theorist,” a name used by the CIA to dismiss anyone questioning its murder of President Kennedy.  Death comes in many forms, and the fear of it has always been used by the powerful to render the common people speechless and obedient.

How can any thinking person, anyone not totally crippled by fear, not question what is going on with the coronavirus disaster when reading what Peter Koenig, a thirty-year veteran economist of the World Bank and World Health Organization, writes in his article “The Farce and Diabolical Agenda of a ‘Universal Lockdown’”:

The pandemic was needed as a pretext to halt and collapse the world economy and the underlying social fabric.

There is no coincidence. There were a number of preparatory events, all pointing into the direction of a worldwide monumental historic disaster. It started at least 10 years ago – probably considerably earlier – with the infamous 2010 Rockefeller Report, which painted the first phase of a monstrous Plan, called the “Lock Step” scenario. Among the last preparatory moves for the “pandemic” was Event 201, held in NYC on 18 October 2019.

The event was sponsored by the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the World Economic Forum (WEF), the club of the rich and powerful that meets every January in Davos, Switzerland. Participating were a number of pharmaceuticals (vaccine interest groups), as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s of the US and – of China.

One of the objectives of Event 201 was a computer simulation of a corona virus pandemic. The simulated virus was called SARS-2-nCoV, or later 2019-nCoV. The simulation results were disastrous, killing 65 million people in 18 months and plunging the stock market by more than 30% — causing untold unemployment and bankruptcies. Precisely the scenario of which we are now living the beginning.

The Lock Step scenario foresees a number of ghastly and disturbing events or components of The Plan to be implemented by the so called Agenda ID2020, a Bill Gates creation, fully integrated into the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) – target date for completion – 2030 (also called Agenda 2030, the hidden agenda unknown to most of the UN members), the same target date for completion of the Agenda ID02020.

I ask the question but I am afraid I know the answer: miracle, mystery, and authority usually defeat evidence and simple logic.  Fear of death and free thought scare children. The Grand Inquisitor lives on:

But man seeks to bow before that only which is recognized by the greater majority, if not by all his fellow-men, as having a right to be worshipped; whose rights are so unquestionable that men agree unanimously to bow down to it.

Death: A simple idea with such a powerful punch.

*

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

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. Visit the author’s website here.

Between unaccountability of elites and total fragmentation of civil society, Covid-19 as a circuit breaker is showing how the king – systemic design – is naked. 

We are being sucked into a danse macabre of multiple complex systems “colliding into one another,” producing all kinds of mostly negative feedback loops.

What we already know for sure, as Shoshana Zuboff detailed in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, is that “industrial capitalism followed its own logic of shock and awe” to conquer nature. But now  surveillance capitalism “has human nature in its sights.”

In The Human Planet: How We Created the Anthropocene, analyzing the explosion in population growth, increasing energy consumption  and a tsunami of information “driven by the positive feedback loops of reinvestment and profit,” Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin of University College, London, suggest that our current mode of living is the “least probable” among several options. “A collapse or a switch to a new mode of living is more likely.”

With dystopia and mass paranoia seemingly the law of the (bewildered) land, Michel Foucault’s analyses of biopolitics have never been so timely, as states across the world take over biopower – the control of people’s life and bodies.

David Harvey, once again, shows how prophetic  was Marx, not only in his analyses of industrial capitalism but somehow – in Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy – even forecasting the mechanics of digital capitalism:

Marx, Harvey writes, “talks about the way that new technologies and knowledge become embedded in the machine: they’re no longer in the laborer’s brain, and the laborer is pushed to one side to become an appendage of the machine, a mere machine-minder. All of the intelligence and all of the knowledge, which used to belong to the laborers, and which conferred upon them a certain monopoly power vis-à-vis capital, disappear.”

Thus, adds Harvey, “the capitalist who once needed the skills of the laborer is now freed from that constraint, and the skill is embodied in the machine. The knowledge produced through science and technology flows into the machine, and the machine becomes ‘the soul’ of capitalist dynamism.”

Living in ‘psycho-deflation‘

An immediate – economic – effect of the collision of complex systems is the approaching New Great Depression. Meanwhile, very few are attempting to understand Planet Lockdown in depth – and that goes, most of all, for post-Planet Lockdown. Yet a few concepts already stand out. State of exception. Necropolitics. A new brutalism. And, as we will see, the new viral paradigm.

So let’s review some the best and the brightest at the forefront of Covid-19 thinking. An excellent road map is provided by Sopa de Wuhan (“Wuhan Soup’), an independent collection assembled in Spanish, featuring essays by, among others, Giorgio Agamben, Slavoj Zizek, Judith Butler, David Harvey, South Korean Byung-Chul Han and Spaniard Paul Preciado.

The last two, along with Agamben, were referenced in previous essays in this running series, on the Stoics,  Heraclitus,  Confucius, Buddha and Lao Tzu, and contemporary philosophy examining The City under The Plague.

Franco Berardi, a 1968 student icon now professor of philosophy in Bologna, offers the concept of “psycho-deflation” to explain our current predicament. We are living a “psychic epidemic … generated by a virus as the Earth has reached a stage of extreme irritation, and society’s collective body suffers for quite a while a state of intolerable stress: the illness manifests itself at this stage, devastating in the social and psychic spheres, as a self-defense reaction of the planetary body.”

Thus, as Berardi argues, a “semiotic virus in the psycho-sphere blocks the abstract functioning of the economy, subtracting bodies from it.” Only a virus would be able to stop accumulation of capital dead in its tracks: “Capitalism is axiomatic, works on a non-verified premise (the necessity of unlimited growth which makes possible capital accumulation).

Every logical and economic concatenation is coherent with this axiom, and nothing can be tried outside of this axiom. There is no political way out of axiomatic Capital, there’s no possibility of destroying the system,” because even language is a hostage of this axiom and does not allow the possibility of anything “efficiently extra-systemic.”

So what’s left? “The only way out is death, as we learned from Baudrillard”. The late, great grandmaster of simulacrum was already forecasting a systemic stall back in the post-modernist 1980s.

Croatian philosopher Srecko Horvat , in contrast, offers a less conceptual and more realist hypothesis about the immediate future: “The fear of a pandemic is more dangerous than the virus itself. The apocalyptic images of the mass media hide a deep nexus between the extreme right and the capitalist economy. Like a virus that needs a living cell to reproduce itself, capitalism will adapt itself to the new 21^st century biopolitics.”

For the Catalan chemist and philosopher Santiago Lopez Petit, coronavirus can be seen as a declaration of war: “Neoliberalism unabashedly dresses up as a war state. Capital is scared,” even as  “uncertainty and insecurity invalidate the necessity of the same state.” Yet there may be creative possibilities when “obscure and paroxistic life, incalculable in its ambivalence, escapes algorithm.”

Our normalized exception 

Giorgio Agamben caused immense controversy in Italy and across Europe when he published a column in late February on “the invention of an epidemic.” He later had to explain  what he meant. But his main insight remains valid: The state of exception has been completely normalized.

And it gets worse: “A new despotism, which in terms of pervasive controls and cessation of every political activity, will be worse that the totalitarianisms we have known so far.”

Agamben redoubles his analyses of science as the religion of our time: “The analogy with religion is taken literally; theologians declared that they could not clearly define what is God, but in his name they dictated rules of conduct to men and did not hesitate to burn heretics. Virologists admit they don’t know exactly what is a virus, but in its name they pretend to decide how human beings shall live.”

Cameroonian philosopher and historian Achille Mbembe, author of two indispensable books, Necropolitics and Brutalisme, has identified the paradox of our time: “The abyss between the increasing globalization of problems of human existence and the retreat of states inside their own, old-fashioned borders.”

Mbembe delves into the end of a certain world, “dominated by giant calculation devices,” a “mobile world in the most polymorphous, viral and near cinematic sense,” referring to the ubiquity of screens (Baudrillard again, already in the 1980s) and the lexicography, “which reveals not only a change of language but the end of the word.”

Here we have Mbembe dialoguing with Berardi – but Membe takes it much farther: “This end of the word, this definitive triumph of the gesture and artificial organs over the word, the fact that the history of the word ends under our eyes, that for me is the historical development par excellence, the one that Covid-19 unveils.”

The political consequences are, inevitably, dire: “Part of the power politics of great nations does not lie in the dream of an automated organization of the world thanks to the manufacturing of a New Man that would be the product of physiological assemblage, a synthetic and electronic assemblage and a biological assemblage? Let’s call it techno-libertarianism.”

This is not exclusive to the West: “China is also on it, vertiginously.”

This new paradigm of a plethora of automated systems and algorithmic decisions “where history and the word don’t exist anymore is in frontal shock with the reality of bodies in flesh and bones, microbes, bacteria and liquids of all sorts, blood included.”

The West, argues Mbembe, chose a long time ago to “imprint a Dionysiac course to its history and take the rest of the world with it, even if it doesn’t understand it. The West does not know anymore the difference between beginning and ending. China is also on it. The world has been plunged into a vast process of dilaceration where no one can predict the consequences.”

Mbembe is terrified by the proliferation of “live manifestations of the bestial and viral part of humanity,” including racism and tribalism.

This, he adds, conforms our new viral paradigm.

His analysis certainly dovetails with Agamben’s: “I have a feeling that brutalism is going to intensify under the techno-libertarianism drive, be it under China or hidden under the accoutrements of liberal democracy. Just like 9/11 opened the way to a generalized state of exception, and its normalization, the fight against Covid-19 will be used as a pretext to move the political even more towards the domain of security.”

“But this time”, Mbembe adds, “it will be a security almost biological, bearing with new forms of segregation between the ‘immunity bodies’ and ‘viral bodies’. Viralism will become the new theatre for fractioning populations, now identified as distinct species.”

It does feel like neo-medievalism, a digital re-enacting of the fabulous Triumph of Deathfresco in Palermo.

Poets, not politicians 

It’s useful to contrast such doom and gloom with the perspective of a geographer. Christian Grataloup, who excels in geo-history, insists on the common destiny of humanity (here he’s echoing Xi Jinping and the Chinese concept of “community of shared destiny”): “There’s an unprecedented feeling of identity. The world is not simply an economic and demographic spatial system, it becomes a territory. Since the Great Discoveries, what was global was shrinking, solving a lot of contradictions; now we must learn to build it up again, give it more consistence as we run the risk of letting it rot under international tensions.”

It’s not the Covid-19 crisis that will lead to another world – but society’s reaction to the crisis. There won’t be a magical night – complete with performances by “international community” pop stars – when “victory “will be announced to the former Planet Lockdown.

What really matters is a long, arduous political combat to take us to the next level. Extreme conservatives and techno-libertarians have already taken the initiative – from refusal of any taxes on the wealthy to support the victims of the New Great Depression to the debt obsession that prevents more, necessary public spending.

In this framework, I propose to go one step beyond Foucault’s biopolitics. Gilles Deleuze can be the conceptualizer of a new, radical freedom. Here is a delightful British series that can be enjoyed as if it were a serious Monty Python-ish approach to Deleuze.

Foucault excelled in the description of how meaning and frames of social truth change over time, constituting new realities conditioned by power and knowledge.

Deleuze, on the other hand, focused on how things change. Movement. Nothing is stable. Nothing is eternal. He conceptualized flux – in a very Heraclitean way.

New species (even the new, AI-created Ubermensch) evolve in relation with their environment. It’s by using Deleuze that we can investigate how spaces between things create possibilities for The Shock of the New.

More than ever, we now know how everything is connected (thank you, Spinoza). The (digital) world is so complicated, connected and mysterious that this opens an infinite number of possibilities.

Already in the 1970s, Deleuze was saying the new map – the innate potentially of newness – should be called “the virtual.” The more living matter gets more complex, the more it transforms this virtual into spontaneous action and unforeseen movements.

Deleuze posed a dilemma that now confronts us all in even starker terms. The choice is between “the poet, who speaks in the name of a creative power, capable of overturning all orders and representations in order to affirm difference in the state of permanent revolution which characterizes eternal return: and that of the politician, who is above all concerned to deny that which “differs,” so as to conserve or prolong an established historical order, or to establish a historical order which already calls forth in the world the forms of its representation.”

The time calls for acting as poets instead of politicians.

The methodology may be offered by Deleuze and Guattari’s formidable A Thousand Plateaus – significantly subtitled “Capitalism and Schizophrenia,” where the drive is non-linear. We’re talking about philosophy, psychology, politics connected by ideas running at different speeds, a dizzying non-stop movement mingling lines of articulation, in different strata, directed into lines of flight, movements of deterritorialization.

The concept of “lines of flight” is essential for this new virtual landscape, because the virtual is conformed by lines of flight between differences, in a continual process of change and freedom.

All this frenzy, though, must have roots – as in the roots of a tree (of knowledge). And that brings us to Deleuze’s central metaphor; the rhizome, which is not just a root, but a mass of roots springing up in new directions.

Deleuze showed how the rhizome connects assemblies of linguistic codes, power relations, the arts – and, crucially, biology. The hyperlink is a rhizome. It used to represent a symbol of the delightful absence of order in the internet, until it became debased as Google started imposing its algorithms. Links, by definition, always should lead us to unexpected destinations.

Rhizomes are the antitheses of those Western liberal “democracy” standard traits – the parliament and the senate. By contrast, trails – as in the Ho Chi Minh trail – are rhizomes. There’s no masterplan. Multiple entryways and multiple possibilities. No beginning and no end. As Deleuze described it, “the rhizome operates by variation, expansion, conquest, capture, offshoot.”

This can work out as the blueprint for a new form of political engagement –as the systemic design collapses. It does embody a methodology, an ideology, an epistemology and it’s also a metaphor. The rhizome is inherently progressive, while traditions are static. As a metaphor, the rhizome can replace our conception of history as linear and singular, offering different histories moving at different speeds. TINA (“ There is no alternative”) is dead: there are multiple alternatives.

And that brings us back to David Harvey inspired by Marx. In order to embark onto a new, emancipatory path, we first have to emancipate ourselves to see that a new imaginary is possible, alongside a new complex systems reality.

So let‘s chill – and deterritorialize. If we learn how to do it, the advent of the New Techno Man in voluntary servitude, remote-controlled by an all-powerful, all-seeing security state, won’t be a given.

Deleuze: a great writer is always like a foreigner in the language through which he expresses himself, even if it’s his native tongue. He does not mix another language with his own language; he carves out a non pre-existent foreign language within his own language. “He makes the language itself scream, stammer, murmur. A thought should shoot off rhizomatically – in many directions.

I have a cold. The virus is a rhizome.

Remember when Trump said this was a “foreign virus”?

All viruses are foreign – by definition.

But Trump, of course, never read Naked Lunch Grandmaster William Burroughs.

Burroughs: “The word is a virus.”

*

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: The Triumph of Death, fresco, Palermo, Italy (artist unknown).

While the US government has proceeded expeditiously to hand over trillions of dollars to the Wall Street banks and corporations, millions of workers who have lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic have been blocked from applying for unemployment benefits.

A survey published Tuesday by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) shows that the widely reported figure of 26.5 million workers who applied for jobless benefits over the past five weeks significantly underestimates the actual number of people who have lost their jobs since March 15.

The EPI survey reveals that for every 10 people who have successfully applied for unemployment benefits during the pandemic, three or four more tried to apply but could not get through to make a claim. An additional two people did not try to apply at all because the process was so onerous.

EPI summarizes the survey results in the following way:

“When we extrapolate our survey findings to the full five weeks of UI [unemployment insurance] claims since March 15, we estimate that an additional 8.9–13.9 million people could have filed for benefits had the process been easier.”

The EPI further states:

“These findings imply the official count of unemployment insurance claims likely drastically understates the extent of employment reductions and the need for economic relief during the coronavirus crisis.”

The inability of millions of workers across the country to even apply for unemployment benefits stands in stark contrast to the trillions of dollars that have been transferred from the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve to corporations, banks and the super-rich.

At present, the amount of “emergency assistance” provided to the corporations and banks by the US government—since President Trump signed the initial $2.2 trillion CARES Act on March 27—stands at between $4.2 and $6 trillion.

The denial of resources to unemployed workers while unlimited funds are made available to the ruling elite demonstrates that the officially stated purpose of the CARES Act—voted for unanimously by both Democrats and Republicans—as “fast and direct economic assistance for American workers, families and small businesses” is an utter fraud.

The unemployment benefits program included in the CARES Act has been, to a large extent, an elaborate exercise in deliberate mass deception. When Congress and the White House presented the additional 13 weeks of state-based unemployment insurance beyond the typical 26 weeks, plus an additional $600 weekly federal supplement through July 31, 2020, as a social safety net during the COVID-19 crisis, they knew very well that millions of unemployed workers would be unable to take advantage of it.

The Democrats and Republicans knew that many workers would not be able to get through to the antiquated systems in the state capitals across the country, which would be completely overwhelmed and unprepared for the number of people seeking to apply for benefits. They were counting on these systems being so backed up with delays and confusion that workers would give up and end up receiving little or nothing of the government money.

The banks, corporations and wealthiest individuals, on the other hand, were to get vast sums of money without delay.

In an example of the ease with which government money is flowing into the accounts of the largest corporations in America, the Washington Post reported on Monday that nearly half of the “payroll support fund” allocated to the airline and cargo industries had been disbursed. The Post report said:

“As of this week, $12.4 billion of the $29 billion in grants has been paid out to 93 carriers to keep front-line workers on the job, Treasury officials said. In all, airlines and air cargo carriers are eligible for more than $50 billion in grants and loans.”

Additionally, the Federal Reserve will shortly begin buying $500 billion in bonds issued by large US corporations. Although this cash is being provided officially as a “financial lifeline” that is to be paid back, there are no provisions in the Fed’s credit program requiring companies to maintain jobs or restrict the funds from being used for executive compensation, stock buybacks or shareholder dividends.

The EPI survey, starting with 24.4 million people who applied for unemployment benefits between March 15 and April 18, shows that the actual number of unemployed workers in the US is somewhere between 33.3 and 38.3 million people. This means that between one-quarter and one-third of the workers who have lost their jobs during the pandemic (8.9 to 13.9 million workers) have been blocked from applying for benefits.

EPI explained the methodology behind its study:

“To gauge how well the UI [unemployment insurance] system is handling the new caseloads, we used Google Surveys to ask 25,000 people, ‘Did you apply for unemployment benefits in the last 4 weeks?’”

EPI asked those who responded to this question which one of six different scenarios corresponded to their experience, such as, “I applied successfully,” “I tried but could not get through,” “I did not apply because it was too difficult.”

When added to the number of people who were officially without a job prior to the pandemic—7.1 million workers—the EPI survey results would put the jobless rate in the US at somewhere between 24 and 27 percent, eclipsing the highest rates of unemployment during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

In addition to jobless workers who have been prevented from applying for government assistance, a number of surveys have shown that substantial numbers of those who have successfully applied have not received any benefits.

A study by the Washington Post published on April 23 says that there is a backlog of three million unpaid jobless claims across the US, although “the true backlog is probably far greater.” A Pew Research Study showed that only 29 percent of the 7.37 million who filed for jobless assistance in March, or 2.1 million people, actually received the benefits.

Many states across the country are continuing to report “glitches” and “backlogs” in processing unemployment applications that have been successfully submitted. Among the states reporting delays in processing applications are:

• California: A report on Monday in the Los Angeles Times said that for Californians applying for unemployment assistance, “the last month has been a perfect storm of failures for a state government with a long history of technology problems.” Of the 3.2 million new unemployment claims filed in the last month, 76 percent of those applying have received benefits. This means that 768,000 applicants have not yet received an unemployment check.

• Florida: The state of Florida has published an online dashboard showing a total of 1.9 million applications for “reemployment insurance” since March 15. Because of confusion created by the state instructing applicants who had applied before April 5 to apply a second time, there are multiple applications in this total. Florida then reports 824,412 “Confirmed Unique Claims Submitted,” and of these, just 392,051 (47.6 percent) that have been paid any benefits.

• Oregon: A large percentage of the 300,000 unemployed in Oregon who have filed for government assistance have not received a check and cannot find out the status of their claim. The state’s antiquated systems have been overwhelmed by the volume of applications, and, according to a report in the Oregonian, thousands of workers have been given faulty information about their applications. “The department’s phone lines are overwhelmed, preventing callers from getting through,” the newspaper reports.

Amidst the dysfunction, chaos, incompetence and bureaucratic mismanagement of state unemployment programs in the US, there is a definite policy at work. The ruling class and both of its parties are intentionally withholding financial assistance from broad sections of the working class who are being devastated by the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic, while offering up unlimited funds in the trillions of dollars to the corporate-financial oligarchy.

There is a deliberate policy of using mass unemployment and the prospect of destitution, homelessness and hunger to blackmail a section of workers into going back to work under unsafe conditions. This policy is, moreover, aimed at the imposition among all workers of a permanent restructuring of economic and class relations, such that full-time jobs, wages, health care, pensions and social services such as education are gutted.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the financial collapse of 2008 was a foretaste of the social and political assault on the working class that is now unfolding. At the same time, millions of workers all over the world are seeing the true reality of capitalism—the subordination of everything, including human life itself, to the ruthless drive of the parasitic elite to increase its wealth. The conditions are being created for revolutionary upheavals. The conclusion that must be drawn is the necessity for a unified international struggle of the working class to put an end to the capitalist system and establish socialism.

*

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

It’s just over a quarter of a century since the American political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote his famous essay on the Clash of Civilisations. It set the tone for a series of wars. 

Huntington was writing after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the end of the Cold War between Soviet Russia and the West. Rather than an era of peace, Huntingdon forecast a new struggle between what he viewed as irreconcilable enemies: Islam and the West.

Huntington asserted that identity, rather than ideology, lay at the heart of contemporary politics. “What are you?”, he asked, “and as we know, from Bosnia to the Caucasus to the Sudan, the wrong answer to that question can mean a bullet in the head.”

He added:”Islam has bloody borders.”

Western politicians like former US President George W Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair followed Huntington’s lead. For the last quarter century, many Muslim countries have been the target of the US and its allies.

Meanwhile Muslims have often been portrayed in Western media as lawless, radical ideologues and an existential threat to the world. This has given rise to virulent Islamophobia in the West with the rise of far right political parties in Europe.

I will argue today that much of this noxious hostility may soon abate in the aftermath of the coronavirus tragedy. This is partly because (especially in Britain) the sacrifices made by Muslims are so obvious and have been so great that this may lead to a belated change in public attitudes. The first four medics to die from the outbreak were all Muslim.

But there is a second factor at work: the coronavirus pandemic is reshaping global geopolitics. The West likes, perhaps needs, an enemy and the latest target is China.

Targeting China

China is being presented as the new existential enemy, just as Islam was 20 years ago. And by the very same people. The same newspaper columnists, the same think tanks, the same political parties and the same intelligence agencies.

After Huntington’s famous essay that led the charge against Muslims – or what they often call radical Islam – now they have turned their attention to the Far East.

US President Donald Trump, the world’s Muslim-basher-in-chief, has now started to attack China, rather as Bush, his Republican predecessor, attacked Iraq in 2003 and the “axis of evil” 20 years ago. During his campaign in 2016 he accused China of “raping” the US economy.

However, since the outbreak of Covid-19, Trump’s attacks have gained speed and traction. He has accused China of covering up the virus and lying about its death toll.

Earlier this month, he even stopped US funds to the World Health Organization, calling it too “China-centric”. British newspapers, which have cut down entire forests to vent their spleen against Muslims, have pivoted to the Chinese menace.

The Sun – which banged the drum to invade Iraq in 2003 – ran a story on a report alleging the virus was developed deliberately by China to “prove it’s greater than the US at battling deadly diseases”. Britain’s foreign intelligence agency, MI6, helped to build the case for Blair’s calamitous attack on Iraq in the notorious dossier on Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Now it has China in its sights.

Speaking on BBC’s Today Programme, former MI6 chief Sir John Sawers greatly surprised me by showing sympathy for Trump’s removal of funding from the WHO. He said: “There’s deep anger in America over what they see as having been inflicted on us all by China, and China is evading a good deal of responsibility for the origin of the virus, for failing to deal with it initially.”

In Britain speeches by former spy chiefs are always seen as representing the current view inside the office.

Meanwhile Britain’s acting prime minister, Dominic Raab, said that after coronavirus there is “no doubt” it will not be “business as usual” with China. Senior newspaper columnists Melanie Phillips, a long-time critic of so-called radical Islam, recently used her column in The Times to warn that the West can no longer “turn a blind eye” to China.

The cover-up

Of course, there are good reasons to criticise China. There is evidence to suggest that China has not been transparent over the early stages of the outbreak or its number of cases. On the other hand, plenty of other countries (including Britain) are guilty of cover-ups and deception too.

This is what makes the change of atmosphere around China so remarkable. Even the neoconservative think tanks, that have fulminated against manifestations of Islam for so long, have found a new opponent.

The Henry Jackson Society (HJS) has been one of most consistent critics of what it likes to describe as radical Islam or Islamism. Now it’s led the way with a series of recent reports and media appearances attacking China. Indeed their attacks on China in recent months have increased exponentially.

The latest was a poll conducted by HJS. It formed the basis of a Times article last week which found that “more than 80 percent of Britons want Boris Johnson to push for an international inquiry into China’s handling of the initial coronavirus outbreak”.

HJS associate Dr John Hemmings wrote in The Telegraph in support of Trump withdrawing WHO funding and warned of China’s growing “malign” influence. Matthew Henderson, director of Asia Studies Centre at HJS, launched a new series of videos with The Sun called “Hot Takes”.

The first episode asks “Is the coronavirus outbreak China’s Chernobyl?”

It was also an HJS report that provided the basis for a Mail on Sunday article suggesting Britain should pursue Beijing in the international courts for £351bn ($437bn) compensation over the outbreak. The Gatestone Institute has made the comparison between China and radical Islam most directly.

It ludicrously described the outbreak of coronavirus as “another 9/11 moment for the West”. My old friend Con Coughlin is the Telegraph’s defence and foreign affairs editor and distinguished senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute. He supported the Iraq war passionately. Now he has called on the WHO’s “pro-China” chief to resign.

MEE reached out to Henry Jackson Society for a comment but did not receive a response.

The new faultline

Some might say that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West has been in need of a replacement enemy.

Bear in mind that Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations warning that “the faultlines between civilisations will be the battle lines of the future” didn’t only concern Islamic civilisation. Huntington warned of a second “challenger” civilisation besides Islam.

China, according to Huntington, was the most powerful long-term threat to the West.

Not everything will change overnight. I sense that Iran will remain in the sights of the White House, such is the strength of the personal bond between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But we may now be reaching the end to the long period when the main “faultline” was Islam. It may well be that the West has now found itself a new enemy. If so, Muslims can breathe a little more freely.

*

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.

Peter Oborne won best commentary/blogging in 2017 and was named freelancer of the year in 2016 at the Online Media Awards for articles he wrote for Middle East Eye. He also was British Press Awards Columnist of the Year 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, and Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran.

The spin is in! Trump administration economic ‘message bearers’, Steve Mnuchin, US Treasury Secretary, and Kevin Hasset, senior economic adviser to Trump, this past Sunday on the Washington TV talking heads circuit launched a coordinated effort to calm the growing public concern that the current economic contraction may be as bad (or worse) than the great depression of the 1930s.

Various big bank research departments predicting a GDP contraction in the first quarter (January-March 2020) anywhere from -4% to -7.5%, and for the current second quarter, a further contraction from -30% to -40%:  Morgan Stanley investment bank says 30%. The bond market investment behemoth, PIMCO, estimates a 30% fall in GDP. Even Congress’s Budget Office recently estimate the contraction in GDP could be as high as -40% in the 2^nd quarter.

Mnuchin-Hassett’s New Old Normal

Despite the flashing red lights on the state of the US economy, the Trump administration’s key economic spokespersons are pushing the official line that the economy will soon quickly ‘snap back’. On the near horizon is a V-shape recovery coming in the 3^rd quarter (July-September) or, at the latest, the following 4^th quarter. The economy may be particularly bad, they admit, but be patient folks a return to normal is on the way before year end!

Speaking on Fox News Sunday Treasury Secretary, Mnuchin, declared the US economy is about to open up in May and June and “you’re going to see the economy really bounce back in July, August and September”. And Hassett echoed the same, just a barely less optimistic viewing the snap back in the 4^th quarter. Getting ahead of the bad news coming this Wednesday when 1^st quarter US GDP numbers are due for release, Hassett admitted a big shock is coming on Wednesday, to be followed by “A few months of negative news that’s unlike anything you’ve ever seen”. But not to worry, according to Hassett, the 4^th quarter “Is going to be really strong and next year is going to be a tremendous year”.

Meanwhile, the administration’s big banker allies were also making their TV news show rounds, singing the same ‘happy days will soon be here again’ tune. Bank of America’s CEO, Moynihan, appearing on ‘Face the Nation’ show, predicted consumer spending had bottomed out and would soon rise nicely again in the 4^th quarter, October-December, followed by double digit GDP growth in 2021!

The Trump administration is pressing hard to reopen the economy now! It knows if it doesn’t the contraction of the economy could settle in to a medium to long term stagnation and decline.  Business interests are pushing Trump and Republicans to reopen quickly, regardless of the likely consequences for a second wave of the virus devastating national health and death rates. There is a growing segment of US business interests desperate to see a return to sales and revenue, without which they face imminent defaults and bankruptcies after a decade of binging on corporate debt.  A growing wave of defaults and bankruptcies could very well provoke an eventual financial crisis which would exacerbate the collapse of the real economy even further.

The Fed’s $9 Trillion May Not Succeed 

So far the Federal Reserve central bank has committed to $9 trillion in loans and financial backstopping to the banks and non-banks, in an unprecedented historic experiment by the Fed. Not just the magnitude of the Fed bailout in dollar terms, already twice that the central bank employed in 2008-09 to bail out the banks in that prior crash, but the Fed this time is not waiting for the banks to fail. It’s pre-emptively bailing them out! Also new is the Fed is bailing out non-banks as well, trying to delay the defaults and bankruptcies at their origin, before the effects began hitting the banking system. Bailing out non-banks is new for the Fed as well, no less than the pre-emptive bank rescue and the $9 trillion—and rising—total free money being thrown at the system.  But it should not be assumed the Fed will succeed, despite its blank check to banks and businesses. Its historic, unprecedented experiment is not foreordained to succeed—for reasons explained below.

For the magnitude and rapidity of the shutdown of the real economy in the US is no less unprecedented.  Even during the great depression of the 1930s, the contraction of the real economy occurred over a period of several years—not months. It wasn’t until 1932-33 that unemployment had reached 25%.

As of late April 2020, that 25% unemployment rate was already a fact. The official government data indicated 26.5m workers had filed for unemployment benefits. That’s about 16.5% of the 165 million US civilian labor force.  Bank forecasts are 40 million jobless on benefits by the end of May. But respected research sources, like the Economic Policy Institute, recently estimated that as many as 13.9m more are actually out of work but have not yet been able to successfully file for unemployment benefits. So the 40 million jobless may already be here. And that’s roughly equivalent to a 25% unemployment rate. In other words, in just a couple months the US economy has collapsed to such an extent that the jobless ranks are at a level that took four years to attain during the great depression of the 1930s!

A contraction that fast and that deep likely has dynamics to it that are unknown. It may not respond to normal policy like enhanced unemployment benefits, emergency income checks, and even grants and loans to businesses on an unprecedented scale such as being provided by the Fed.  The psychology of consumers, workers, businesses, and certainly investors may be so shocked and wounded that the money injections—by Congress and by the Fed—may not quickly result in a return to spending and production.  The uncertainty of what the future may bring may be creating an equally unprecedented fear of spending the money. Economists sometimes call this a ‘liquidity trap’. But it may more accurately be called a ‘liquidity chasm’ out of which the climb back will prove very slow, very protracted, and the road strewn with economic landmines that could set the economy on a second or third collapse along the way.

Image on the right: Kevin Hasset (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The V-shape argument is predicated on the assumption that the virus’s negative effect will dissipate this summer. Those supporting the argument assume, openly or indirectly, that the economic collapse today is largely, if not totally, due to the virus. It’s not really an economic crisis; it’s a health crisis. And when the latter is resolved, the economic crisis will fade as well as a consequence.

But this assumes two things: first that the virus will in fact ‘go away’ soon and not hang like a dead weight on the economy. Second, that there were not underlying economic causes that were slowing the US (and global) economy already before the virus’s impact. The virus is seen as the sole cause, in other words, and not as a precipitating factor that accelerated an already weak and fragile economy into a deep contraction.  But the virus may be best understood as an event that precipitated and then accelerated the contraction of an economy already headed for a slowdown and recession.

These latter possible ways to understand the current economic crisis are of course ignored by the advocates of a V-shape recovery. In their view, it’s just a health crisis. And the health crisis is about to end soon. And when it does, we’ll return to the old ‘normal’ and the economy will snap back. But the depth and rapidity of the decline into what is, at least, a ‘great recession 2.0’ and perhaps something more like the even deeper and longer great depression of the 1930s, strongly suggests that forces of decline have been unleashed in the US economy that have a dynamic of their own now. And that dynamic is independent of the precipitating cause of the virus which, in any event, is not going away soon either. In all cases of such virus contagion, there has always been a second and even third wave of infection and death. And Covid-19 appears the most aggressive and contagious.

It’s not just the 40 million and likely more unemployed that define the unprecedented severity of the current crisis.

Millions of small businesses have already shut down or gone out of business. More will soon follow. And many will never re-open again. The average number of days of cash on hand for small businesses before the virus impact was 27 days. Many small businesses are projected to run out of that by end of April. That’s why we are not witnessing growing protests and refusals to abide by a ‘sheltering in place’ order announced by various state governors. Small businesses and their workers, both on the brink of bankruptcy are taking to the streets—encouraged of course by radical right forces, conservative business interests, and political allies right up to the White House.

The millions of workers who haven’t been able to get through to successfully file and obtain unemployment benefits, and the millions of smallest businesses who have been squeezed out of the Small Business bailout program (called the Pay Protection Program) are fertile ground for right wing propaganda demanding the country reopen the economy immediately, even if it’s premature in terms of suspending virus mitigation efforts and almost sure to result in a second wave of infection that will debilitate the economy again later in the year.

And the flow of funding from recent small business legislation passed by Congress has been bottled up by big banks gaming the system—first using the crisis to extract concessions from the federal government on further bank deregulation, getting guarantees by the government on liability protection, ensuring they receive lucrative fees and charges from the lending, and requiring the government to reimburse them for loans that might later default and fail.

In addition to the slow distribution of the loans by the big banks, the same big banks began re-directing the small business program loan funds first to their own largest and best customers. Thus the first $350 billion in Congress funding for small business was directed to the banks’ best customers in less than two weeks. A second $320 billion supplement just added is reportedly already accounted for in less than half that time.

Despite the data on jobs, small business, and GDP much of the liberal economist establishment appear to be falling for the Trump administration official line and spin that there’ll soon be a V-shape recovery.

Liberal Economists Buy the Mnuchin-Hassett Line

The dean of liberal economists, Paul Krugman, in one of his columns recently, says it’s not an economic crisis but a disaster relief situation. Kind of like an economic hurricane, he added, that once it passes the sun will come out and shine again at the same economic intensity as before. And then there’s Larry Summers, Harvard economics professor and advisor to Barack Obama in 2009, who agreed with Krugman, saying “it’s possible to collapse and come back quite quickly.” Or Robert Reich, Cal Berkeley professor and former member of Bill Clinton’s cabinet, who declared in another TV interview recently, that the crisis wasn’t economic but a health crisis and as soon as the health problem was contained (presumably this summer) the economy would ‘snap back’.

Theirs is economic analysis by means of weather metaphors.  And the error they all make is assuming that the fundamental cause of the crisis is not economic but the virus. They don’t see the virus as only a precipitating cause, exacerbating and accelerating what was a basically weak US and global economy going into the crisis, but instead the virus is the sole, fundamental cause of the deep contraction.

Krugman and other proponents of the ‘snap back’ (V-shape recovery) thesis all deny the counter argument that the current deep and rapid economic decline is precipitated by the crisis and that there is an internal economic dynamic set in motion that is taking over that driving the economy into a downward spiral regardless of the initial health crisis effect.

As one partial example of that internal dynamic: once the contraction in the real economy accelerates and deepens, it inevitably leads to defaults and bankruptcies—among businesses, households, and even local governments. The defaults and bankruptcies then provoke a financial crisis that feeds back on the real economy, causing it to deteriorate still further.  Income losses by businesses, households and local government thereafter in turn cause a further decline. Once negative mutual feedback effects within the economy begin, it matters little if the health crisis is soon abated. The economic dynamic has been set in motion.  Krugman and friends should understand that but either don’t, or are cautioned by their employers and political friends not to tell the whole truth lest it cause further concern, lack of business and consumer confidence, or even panic.

When mainstream economists don’t understand what’s actually happening, they hide behind their metaphors as a way to obfuscate their lack of understanding and ability to forecast the future. Or they employ the same metaphors to avoid telling the truth. But the truth is this isn’t just a health crisis. And it won’t quickly disappear even if the health issue were resolved in a matter of weeks or months.

Instead of pacifying the public with nice metaphors, they might just look at the recent past.   No snap back economic recovery occurred after 2008-09, which was a contraction far weaker in relative terms than the present, with fewer job losses and a much smaller GDP decline.

2008-09 Recovery Was No V-Shape 

Even after the less severe 2008-09 contraction, bank lending after 2009 did not return immediately or even normally. Only the largest, best customers of the big banks and their offshore clients received new loans from them.  Bank lending to US small and medium businesses continued to decline for years after 2009. And jobs lost in 2008-09 did not recover to the levels of 2007 just before the recession began until 2015.  Wages of jobs recovered from 2008 to 2015 was much lower compared to wages of 2007 jobs that were lost. The ratio between full time jobs and part time/temp/contract work deteriorated after 2009, with more of the latter hired and the former not rehired.  Real wages still has not recovered to this day for tens of millions of workers at median income levels and below.

So one can only wonder what the Krugmans, Summers and Reichs are ‘smoking’ when they make ridiculous declarations about ‘snap back’ recovery. They should know better. All they had to do was look at the evidence of the historical record post-2009 that V-shape recoveries do not happen when there are deep and rapid contractions! And that’s true not only for 2009, but even for 1933 when the great depression finally bottomed out.

Between 1929 and 1933 the US economy continued to contract. Not all at once, but in a kind of ‘ratcheting down’ series of lower plateaus as banking crises erupted in 1930, 1931, 1932 and then again in early 1933. When Roosevelt came into office in March 1933 he introduced a program aimed at bailing out the banks first, and then assisting business to raise prices. It was called the National Recovery Act. That program stopped the collapse but generated only modest recovery, and by mid-1934 that recovery had dissipated. It was then, in the fall of 1934, that Roosevelt and the Democrats proposed what would be called the New Deal, which was launched in 1935 after the mid-term 1934 Congressional elections. The US economy began to recovery rapidly in 1935 to 1937.  In late 1937 Republicans and conservative Democrats in the South allied together and cut back New Deal social spending. The US economy relapsed back into depression in 1938 until Congress, fearful of the return to Depression, reinstated New Deal spending and the economy recovered again to where it was in 1937. The permanent recovery did not begin until 1940-41, as the US economy mobilized for war and government spending rose from 15%-17% of GDP to more than 40% in one year in 1942.

But mainstream economists are not very attentive to their own country’s economic history. If they were they would understand that deep and rapid economic contractions always result in slow, protracted, and often uneven recoveries. There never is a ‘snap back’ when depression levels of contraction occur—or even when ‘great recession’ levels occur, as in 2008-09. It takes a long time for both business and consumers to restore their ‘confidence’ levels in the economy and change ultra-cautious investing and purchasing behavior to more optimistic spending-investing patterns. Unemployment levels hang high and over the economy for some time. Many small businesses never re-open and when they do with fewer employees and often at lower wages. Larger companies hoard their cash. Banks typically are very slow to lend with their own money. Other businesses are reluctant to invest and expand, and thus rehire, given the cautious consumer spending, business hoarding, and banks’ conservative lending behavior. The Fed, the central bank, can make a mass of free money and cheap loans available, but businesses and households may be reluctant to borrow, preferring to hoard their cash—and the loans as well.

In other words, the deeper and faster the contraction, the more difficult and slower the recovery. That means the recovery is never a V-shape, but more like an extended U-shape.

*

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 released book, The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, January 2020; and the preceding book, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression’, Clarity Press, August 2017. He blogs at jackrasmus.com. His twitter handle is @drjackrasmus and his website: http://kyklosproductions.com. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

The successful opening of Gwadar Port to Afghanistan lays the basis for expanding this trade network to Central Asia and Russia via N-CPEC+, which sets a positive example for how BRI-led regionalization can rejuvenate globalization after the coronavirus is finally defeated.

The launch Monday morning of the second round of the US “small business” Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was a debacle. Millions of family-owned entities, desperate for credit and tottering on the brink of permanent closure, were once again shut out from applying for, let alone receiving, government-backed forgivable loans.

As soon as the $310 billion program administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA) began taking loan applications at 10:30 am, its computer system, overwhelmed by the volume of requests, crashed.

Cynthia Blankenship, vice chair of Texas-based lender Bank of the West, told the Financial Times, “First the page would not load, and then it just showed us an error message.” The problems continued throughout the day. Blankenship said her bank was able to process only 15 applications.

TAB Bank in Ogden, Utah had prepared loan applications from 1,100 customers. Five hours after the start on Monday, the bank had gotten only seven loans processed.

The Washington Post quoted Paul Merski of the Independent Community Bankers of America as saying, “All of the reports I have around the country is that it’s been a disaster.”

The big Wall Street banks, which are making a killing off of the government loan program, having taken in $10 billion in fees in the first round, had warned the Treasury Department and the SBA that they had to prepare for a massive flood of loan requests, but nothing was done to avoid the logjam. The SBA said later on Monday that there were double the number of users accessing the system than one any day during the initial round of the program.

The banks have warned, moreover, that the $310 billion allotted for the restart of the program will likely be exhausted in less than a week.

The abortive start of the second round of the program immediately demonstrated that, like the first installment, part of the $2.2 trillion corporate bailout enacted in March, the vast majority of small businesses and their employees will receive little or nothing in relief from the economic collapse triggered by the coronavirus outbreak.

Big businesses were given top priority by the Wall Street banks administering program until the first allotment of funds ran out in less than two weeks. In round two, they will continue to grab a disproportionate share of the funds, while the vast majority of small firms, which employ 48 percent of the US labor force, will be left on their own.

The program, initially backed by $349 billion in taxpayer money, was presented by the media and both big business parties as a boon to businesses with fewer than 500 employees and their workers. Family-owned entities such as restaurants, beauty salons, barber shops, gas stations and small retail stores, as well as other small firms with little access to capital, could receive up to $10 million in government-backed loans that would be turned into grants if the businesses used 75 percent of the loans to rehire or retain their employees and spent the rest on rent and utilities.

Even if the reality lived up to the dishonest marketing spin, the program would do little to prevent a wave of small business bankruptcies and millions of job losses, since it is set to expire on June 30, many months before the economy can reasonably expected to recover from the steepest contraction since the Great Depression and the coronavirus pandemic is certain to continue causing death and sickness on a gigantic scale.

But even before the initial round of the program ran out of money on April 16, less than two weeks after it began, with only eight percent of small firms that applied for loans having received any money, it became clear that the entire operation was a corporate-government fraud.

Despite the fact that the CARES Act, passed last month with the unanimous support of the Democrats, did not require the SBA or the Treasury Department to disclose the identities of the firms receiving PPP loans, it emerged that billion-dollar publicly traded companies, including restaurant and hotel chains with thousands of employees, cruise ship lines, hedge funds, energy companies, medical device firms and other large businesses had received hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, while the vast bulk of genuine small businesses were shut out.

At his Monday press briefing, President Trump described the disastrous start of round two of the PPP as a “glitch,” and said the first round of the program had “worked out well.”

Indeed it had, for the banks and well-connected, large companies with hundreds of millions or billions in revenues and share values in the billions. Last week, press reports revealed that big restaurant chains such as Shake Shack, Ruth’s Chris Steak House, Potbelly Sandwich Shop, and J. Alexander’s had received loans totaling between $15 million and $20 million.

A group of hotel companies chaired by Monty Bennett, a Dallas executive and major Trump donor, received $53 million in loans. The firms control 153 properties, including luxury hotels such as the Ritz Carlton Atlanta.

Over the weekend, more damning revelations emerged. More than 40 hotels, including numerous Marriott and Hilton properties, received loans. AutoNation, Inc., a Fortune 500 company valued at $3 billion, the nation’s largest car dealership chain with 81 locations and 26,000 employees, received nearly $80 million from the PPP program.

The Los Angeles Lakers of the National Basketball Association, valued at $4.4 billion, received a loan for $4.6 million.

A number of large firms that have run afoul of the law were granted loans. MiMedx Group, an Atlanta-based medical device company with 700 employees, was approved for a $10 million PPP loan. Earlier this month, MiMedx entered into a civil settlement with the Justice Department, agreeing to pay $6.5 million to resolve allegations that it knowingly overcharged the Department of Veterans Affairs. Two of its former top executives were indicted last year by federal prosecutors in Manhattan on charges of accounting fraud. It was sued separately by the Securities and Exchange Commission and settled the case for $1.5 million.

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin as well as prominent Democrats, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have feigned shock and horror over the insider dealing, corruption and lying in connection with the so-called “Paycheck Protection Program.” This is a fraud. They were perfectly aware from the outset that the program was designed, despite the deceptive marketing, to benefit big business and banks and shut down small business and their employees.

In fact, the provision in the CARES Act that allowed restaurant and hotel chains to evade the 500-employee limit, so long as none of their individual units employed 500 or more, was negotiated by Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, known informally as the “senator from Wall Street.”

And all but one Democrat in both chambers of Congress—including Sanders and Warren—voted for the second round of the PPP last week, despite the stench of corruption and lying surrounding the program. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hailed the bill’s passage as a “historic, bipartisan vote.”

That bill, with $174 billion in addition to the $310 billion for the PPP, did not allocate a penny to aid state and local governments facing massive deficits and preparing to carry out brutal social cuts. Nor did it provide any money for food stamps, under conditions where millions of laid off workers are running out of money for food and massive food lines are spreading across the country.

On the eve of the launch of phase two of the phony “small business” program, Mnuchin announced new guidelines that will supposedly exclude large publicly traded firms, as well as hedge funds and private equity firms, from participating going forward. He also called on big companies that received loans in round one to return the money, and a dozen or so businesses have complied. Among those who have refused to give back the money is Trump’s buddy Monty Bennett, the Dallas hotel magnate.

No one should be taken in by Mnuchin’s exercise in damage control. Behind the chaos and incompetence that abound in the PPP program is a deliberate policy, one that is shared by the entire ruling class and both of its political parties.

Under the cover of the pandemic, unlimited funds are being funneled to the corporate-financial oligarchy and the stock market, while unemployment benefits are withheld from laid-off workers and credit is denied to small businesses. The brutal aim is to use mass unemployment and the prospect of destitution, homelessness and hunger to force a section of workers back to work without any protection from the virus, while slashing wages, pensions and health coverage for the working class more broadly and eliminating millions of full-time jobs. Millions of small businesses are, in the process, to be driven to the wall while mega-companies gain an even greater stranglehold on the economy.

*

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

“Australia is always there, making trouble.  It is a bit like chewing gum stuck on the sole of China’s shoes.  Sometimes you have to find a stone to rub it off.” – Hu Xijin, Global Times editor, April 27, 2020. 

Disasters always invite blame – divine, natural, human – and the current calls of blame being directed with vengeful spleen have one target.  The People’s Republic of China is being accused for everything from having shoddy and irreverent diplomats to having dubious and duplicitous scientists wickedly unleashing viruses.  Australia, in China’s heavy debt for keeping its fossil fuel industry boosted and primed, is happy to be the stalking horse of powers keen to find the culpable and the guilty for the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The main thrust of the recent “target China” approach is the use of that mechanism any sovereign state will be suspicious over: an independent inquiry into the origins and ultimate transmission of COVID-19.  Such an inquiry serves two purposes: to identify the cause of the coronavirus and vest the relevant investigative body with powers akin to those of a weapons inspector.  Two parties end up being tarred in this: the World Health Organization, considered unreformable, and the PRC, considered recalcitrant. 

This seems to be an Australian brainchild as much as anything else, a provincial and parochial effort to shore up support and garner prominence on the international stage.  Australian politicians have seen such suggestions as benign and benevolent.  As Foreign Minister Senator Marise Payne described it, “Australia has made a principled call for an independent review of the COVID-19 outbreak, an unprecedented global crisis with severe health, economic and social impacts.” 

Labor’s foreign affairs spokeswoman Senator Penny Wong sees things similarly.  “We have to press for what is right,” she claims somewhat bombastically, “what we believe is right, for us and for the international community, and making sure that humanity understands how this virus started is the right thing to do.”  Canberra has ceased talking to China, and any sense of conviviality has dried up.  Support, instead, is being sought in France, Germany and the United States.

French President Emmanuel Macron has responded with diplomatic caution.  In the words of an Élysée official, he agreed that “there have been some issues at the start, but that the urgency is for cohesion, and that it is no time to talk about this, while reaffirming the need for transparency for all players, not only the WHO.” 

This is the language Beijing has hoovered up, with its envoy in Australia, Cheng Jingye, remarking that, “Resorting to suspicion, recrimination or division at such a critical time could only undermine global efforts to fight against this pandemic.”  China’s ministry of foreign affairs spokesman Geng Shuang put the point less severely.  “The urgent task for all countries is focusing on international cooperation rather than pointing fingers, demanding accountability and other non-constructive approaches.”

This is not a view taken in Australia.  Comments by Australia’s Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton this month suggest that unison and cohesion are not exactly on the briefing notes of ministers. As he claimed in an interview, it was “incumbent upon China to answer those questions [on COVID-19] and provide information, so that people can have clarity about exactly what happened because we don’t want it repeated.”  For good measure, he added that “we know that this is not the first instance of a virus being spread from the wildlife wet markets and we need to be honest about that.”  These remarks were made after an oblique reference to US State Department “documentation” supposedly detailing the spread of the coronavirus, something which Dutton personally had not read.

The Chinese embassy, ruffled, responded accordingly, using the Global Times as their platform.  In the view of a spokesperson, Dutton would surely have consulted the US documents before enthusiastically launching into an attack on China.  “Obviously he must have also received some instructions from Washington requiring him to cooperate with the US in its propaganda war against China.”  Cheng has not shied away from threats, suggesting that a boycott of Australian goods would be an appropriate response to any Australian-led inquiry. “Maybe the ordinary people will say, ‘Why should he drink Australian wine?  Eat Australian beef?’”

As with much in such spluttering accusation, kernels of truth are discernible in the foam.  Australia remains the unquestioned sentinel of US designs in the Asia-Pacific, and should never be confused with being with the angels of impartiality.  Any sense of that was killed off in the brief and dying days of the Whitlam government.  Washington sees Canberra as a natural front for Chinese containment, though such an effort requires gentle padding and coating to lend a certain plausible effect.  This involves, for instance, the avoidance of terms such as the “militarisation” of Northern Australia, or US “garrisons” operating on home soil.  Terms such as “rotation” and “friendship” are preferred.

Sentiment in Australia against Beijing is now almost militant, watered by claims of domestic interference from the PRC, cyberwarfare, and disputes in the South China Sea.  It is to be found in the usual pea-shot pugilists at Sky News to the otherwise more cautious assessments in Fairfax and The Guardian Australia.  “At the moment,” suggests Richard McGregor, “Beijing is like someone who lends you a book and urges you to skip the horrifying opening chapters and flip straight to the end, where the hero – in this case, the party-state – prevails, shining a path for the rest of the world to follow.”

An international investigation along the lines being proposed by Australia would also involve its own bit of chapter skipping, with China being found to be the villain at the yawn-inducing conclusion.  Such bodies of inquiry tend to suffer from an oxymoronic emphasis, since the investigators run the risk of already having their conclusions ahead of time.  In all of this, someone has to pay.  Partiality is lost in the zeal of getting a conviction, or finding a cause.

*

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]

Featured image: Chinese doctors in face masks deployed overseas. Photo: Facebook

Your Freedoms Don’t Have to be Muzzled Just Because You’re Wearing a Mask

By John W. Whitehead, April 29, 2020

It was 4:30 a.m. on March 12, 2020, in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that has most of the country under a partial lockdown and sheltering at home, when this masked SWAT team—deployed to execute a “high risk” search warrant for unauthorized firearms—stormed the suburban house where 21-year-old Duncan, a software engineer and Second Amendment advocate, lived with his parents and 19-year-old brother.

The entire household, including Lemp and his girlfriend, was reportedly asleep when the SWAT team directed flash bang grenades and gunfire through Lemp’s bedroom window.

Covid-19 Is the Perfect Catalyst for Trump’s War Against China

By Johanna Ross, April 28, 2020

It was just a matter of time before the blame game would begin. Donald Trump has long viewed China as an economic adversary. On the presidential campaign trail in 2016 he was accusing China of ‘raping’ the US and that the nation was responsible for the ‘the greatest theft in the history of the world’. The rhetoric has not changed much since then. Trump vigorously pursued his trade war with China in 2018 when he literally ‘ordered’ US companies to cease trading with the east asian nation. The President has attempted to influence policy beyond its borders too; pressurizing the UK not to embark on a deal with Huawei, the Chinese mobile phone network provider, to set up 5G across Britain. The US has never disguised its hatred of the firm, launching its own special vendetta against it, including the organisation of the arrest of the Huawei founder’s daughter and Chief Financial Officer in Canada in 2018.

The U.S. Wants to “Purchase” Greenland from Denmark

By Andrew Korybko, April 28, 2020

Greenland returned to the news late last week after an American official disclosed that his country will grant the world’s largest island $12.1 million in economic aid following reports last summer that the US was interested in purchasing this strategically positioned and energy-rich territory from Denmark. The author wrote about that at the time in his piece about how “Greenland Is Trump’s For The Taking If He Really Wants It“, which explained how the US could simply seize it from Denmark without suffering any serious consequences apart the negative press coverage that it would inevitably provoke across the world. Instead of undertaking that dramatic course of action, however, Trump is almost somewhat uncharacteristically opting for a much more subtle approach aimed at gradually swaying the island’s inhabitants and their local authorities to his country’s side through what can best be described as “economic diplomacy”.

Iraq: Official Warns of US Plot to Transfer ISIS Terrorists from Syria to Iraq’s Al-Anbar

By Drago Bosnic, April 28, 2020

The official warned of the US attempts to transfer a large number of ISIS terrorists from occupied regions of Syria to Iraq’s western desert province of al-Anbar. The terrorists pose a great danger to inhabitants of this area, as well as the bordering areas with Syria.

The aim of the US and its NATO and regional Wahhabi partners in crime is quite obviously fomenting tension and unrest in Iraq in the future, giving them an excuse to continue occupying Iraqi and Syrian territories, all under the pretext of “fighting terrorism”.

Is Trump Using the U.S. Military for Regime Change in Venezuela?

By Barbara Boland, April 28, 2020

U.S. policy towards Venezuela has been a head-spinning series of contradictions lately, with no end in sight. From placing a bounty on the heads of President Nicolas Maduro and a dozen current and former Venezuelan officials, to upping sanctions and sending the largest fleet ever to the Southern hemisphere to stop drug trafficking from Venezuela, the U.S. appears to be pursuing an inexorable path towards regime change.

Reports of North Korean Leader’s Death Greatly Exaggerated

By Stephen Lendman, April 28, 2020

CNN’s chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto claimed he was “told by a US official with direct knowledge that the US is monitoring intelligence that the North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un is in grave danger following a surgery.”

US Launches Campaign to Accuse Syria of Inability to Curtail Coronavirus, Claims Syrian-Russian Joint Statement

By Sputnik, April 25, 2020

The United States has launched a propaganda campaign by accusing Damascus of its inability to effectively combat the spread of COVID-19 in Syria, the Russian and Syrian coordination centres said in a joint statement.

According to the statement, the United States has influenced the development of a UN plan for sending a humanitarian medical mission to the camp.

Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

Last Wednesday, during the daily UK Government Coronavirus livestream, the head of the British Army, General Sir Nick Carter, bragged:

We’ve been involved with the Cabinet Office Rapid Response Unit, with our 77th Brigade helping to quash rumours from misinformation, but also to counter disinformation. Between three and four thousand of our people have been involved, with around twenty thousand available the whole time at high readiness.

To understand the implications of this statement, we have to go back to 2018, when Carter gave a speech to the Royal United Services Institute.

“In our 77th Brigade,” he said, “… we have got some remarkable talent when it comes to social media, production design, and indeed Arabic poetry. Those sorts of skills we can’t afford to retain in the Regular component but they are the means of us delivering capability in a much more imaginative way than we might have been able to do in the past.”

77th Brigade

Previously known as the ‘Security Assistance Group’, 77th Brigade was stood up in 2015 as part of ‘Army 2020’. The Security Assistance Group had been established following the amalgamation of the Media Operations Group, 15 Psychological Operations Group, Security Capacity Building Team, and the Military Stabilisation and Support Group.

77th Brigade is described on their website as being about ‘information and outreach’. But what does that mean? General Carter again:

We also, though, need to continue to improve our ability to fight on this new battlefield, and I think it’s important that we build on the excellent foundation we’ve created for Information Warfare through our 77th Brigade, which is now giving us the capability to compete in the war of narratives at the tactical level. [Emphasis mine]

It is in this context, then, that Carter’s words from last week’s livestream should be viewed. Carter has acknowledged that the British military is waging war on a section of its own population.

A Rapid Response

Carter mentioned working with the Cabinet Office’s ‘Rapid Response Unit’. Established in April 2018 and also known as the ‘fake news unit’, the Rapid Response Unit was given an initial six months’ funding. It brought together a “team of analysts, data scientists and media and digital experts,” armed with cutting-edge software, to “work round the clock to monitor online breaking news stories and social media discussion.”

According to the RRU’s head, Alex Aiken:

The unit’s round the clock monitoring service has identified several stories of concern during the pilot, ranging from the chemical weapons attack in Syria to domestic stories relating to the NHS and crime.

For example, following the Syria airstrikes, the unit identified that a number of false narratives from alternative news sources were gaining traction online. These “alt-news” sources are biased and rely on sensationalism rather than facts to pique readers’ interest.

Due to the way that search engine algorithms work, when people searched for information on the strikes, these unreliable sources were appearing above official UK government information. In fact, no government information was appearing on the first 15 pages of Google results. We know that search is an excellent indicator of intention. It can reflect bias in information received from elsewhere.

The unit therefore ensured those using search terms that indicated bias – such as ‘false flag’ – were presented with factual information on the UK’s response. The RRU improved the ranking from below 200 to number 1 within a matter of hours.

The Rapid Response Unit was given permanent funding in February 2019.

Three months following the establishment of the Rapid Response Unit, Theresa May attended the G7 summit in Quebec, Canada.

There she announced the establishment of “a new Rapid Response Mechanism“, following Britain’s proposal for “a new, more formalised approach to tackling foreign interference across the G7” at the G7 Foreign Minister’s meeting the previous month.

The agreement sends “a strong message that interference by Russia and other foreign states would not be tolerated,” she said.

“The Rapid Response Mechanism,” she continued, “will support preventative and protective cooperation between G7 countries, as well as post-incident responses”, including:

• co-ordinated attribution of hostile activity
• joint work to assert a common narrative and response

The UK government’s Rapid Response, then, is to create international agreement on a common narrative (via the ‘mechanism’), and then wage an information war on its own people to make sure that narrative is protected in the media (via the ‘unit’).

Fusion

During Carter’s 2018 RUSI speech, he explained the role of the mainstream press in “setting up a well-informed public debate”. He spoke about “political warfare” being war by other means, and he said that winning that war would require a “fusion” approach.

Here, he is referring to the Fusion Doctrine, which was launched during the Theresa May regime, as part of the 2015 National Security Capability Review.

“Many capabilities,” it said, “that can contribute to national security lie outside traditional national security departments and so we need stronger partnerships across government and with the private and third sectors.”

It should come as no surprise, then, that the Cabinet Office’s Rapid Response Unit is not only working with the military’s 77th Brigade, but is “leading on the ‘rebuttal of false narratives’ as part of the unit … [that also] involves the Home Office, DCMS, Number 10 and other agencies.”

The Corona-Narrative

General Carter said his 77th Brigade is “helping to quash rumours from misinformation, but also to counter disinformation.”

What misinformation and disinformation is 77th Brigade helping to quash? How much of the ‘disinformation’ originates from 77th Brigade in the first place?

Part of 77th Brigade’s role is:

Monitoring and evaluating the information environment within boundaries or operational area

They not only ‘counter’ disinformation, but also watch social media, analysing how disinformation, including their own, spreads; mapping the internet and the networks of people sharing content between each other.

And for that, they have thousands deployed, and tens of thousands in reserve, not only in 77th Brigade directly, but right across government and the third sector.

*

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 UK Column

“If 2019 was the year of the street protest, of tear gas and rubber bullets, 2020 might be the year the street protest died, or perhaps fell into a deep sleep, and went online.”—Journalist Christopher Miller

Despite all appearances to the contrary, martial law has not been declared in America.

We still have rights.

Technically, at least.

The government may act as if its police state powers suppress individual liberties during this COVID-19 pandemic, but for all intents and purposes, the Constitution—especially the battered, besieged Bill of Rights—still stands in theory, if not in practice.

Indeed, while federal and state governments have adopted specific restrictive measures in an effort to lockdown the nation and decelerate the spread of the COVID-19 virus, the current public health situation has not resulted in the suspension of fundamental constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and the right of assembly.

Mind you, that’s not to say that the government has not tried its best to weaponize this crisis as it has weaponized so many other crises in order to expand its powers and silence its critics.

All over the country, government officials are using COVID-19 restrictions to muzzle protesters.

It doesn’t matter what the protest is about (church assemblies, the right to work, the timing for re-opening the country, discontent over police brutality, etc.): this is activity the First Amendment protects vociferously with only one qualification—that it be peaceful.

Yet even peaceful protesters mindful of the need to adhere to social distancing guidelines because of this COVID-19 are being muzzled, arrested and fined.

For example, a Maryland family was reportedly threatened with up to a year in jail and a $5000 fine if they dared to publicly protest the injustice of their son’s execution by a SWAT team.

If anyone had a legitimate reason to get out in the streets and protest, it’s the Lemp family, whose 21-year-old son Duncan was gunned down in his bedroom during an early morning, no-knock SWAT team raid on his family’s home.

Imagine it.

It was 4:30 a.m. on March 12, 2020, in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that has most of the country under a partial lockdown and sheltering at home, when this masked SWAT team—deployed to execute a “high risk” search warrant for unauthorized firearms—stormed the suburban house where 21-year-old Duncan, a software engineer and Second Amendment advocate, lived with his parents and 19-year-old brother.

The entire household, including Lemp and his girlfriend, was reportedly asleep when the SWAT team directed flash bang grenades and gunfire through Lemp’s bedroom window.

Lemp was killed and his girlfriend injured.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, had a criminal record.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, was considered an “imminent threat” to law enforcement or the public, at least not according to the search warrant.

Now what was so urgent that militarized police felt compelled to employ battlefield tactics in the pre-dawn hours of a day when most people are asleep in bed, not to mention stuck at home as part of a nationwide lockdown?

According to police, they were tipped off that Lemp was in possession of “firearms.”

So instead of approaching the house by the front door at a reasonable hour in order to investigate this complaint—which is what the Fourth Amendment requires—police instead strapped on their guns, loaded up their flash bang grenades and acted like battle-crazed warriors.

This is the blowback from all that military weaponry flowing to domestic police departments.

This is what happens when you use SWAT teams to carry out routine search warrants.

This is what happens when you adopt red flag gun laws, which Maryland did in 2018, painting anyone who might be in possession of a gun—legal or otherwise—as a threat that must be neutralized.

These red flag gun laws allow the police to remove guns from people merely suspected of being threats.

While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to “stop dangerous people before they act,” where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.

Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.

This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to arrest and detain American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.

This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

Let that sink in a moment.

If you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you are most likely at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

Needless to say, if you happen to be passionate about the Constitution and a vocal critic of government corruption, you’ve already been flagged in a government database somewhere.

Likely, Lemp was, too.

Now Lemp is dead and his family is devastated, outraged and desperate to make sense of what appears to be an insensible act of violence resulting in an inexcusable loss of life.

As usual in these kinds of shootings, government officials have not been forthcoming with details about the shooting: police have refused to meet with family members, the contents of the warrant supporting the raid have not been revealed, and bodycam footage of the raid has not been disclosed.

So in order to voice their objections to police violence and demand answers about the shooting, Lemp’s family and friends planned to conduct an outdoor public demonstration—adhering to social distancing guidelines—only to be threatened with arrest, a year in jail and a $5000 fine for violating Maryland’s stay at home orders.

Yet here’s the thing: we don’t have to be muzzled and remain silent about government corruption, violence and misconduct just because we’re wearing masks and social distancing.

That’s not the point of this whole COVID-19 exercise, or is it?

While there is a moral responsibility to not endanger other lives with our actions, that does not mean relinquishing all of our freedoms.

Be responsible in how you exercise your freedoms, but don’t allow yourselves to be muzzled or your individual freedoms to be undermined.

Understandably, no one wants to talk about individual freedoms when tens of thousands of people the world over are dying, and yet we must.

The decisions we make right now—about freedom, commerce, free will, how we care for the least of these in our communities, what it means to provide individuals and businesses with a safety net, how far we allow the government to go in “protecting” us against this virus, etc.—will haunt us for a long time to come.

At times like these, when emotions are heightened, fear dominates, common sense is in short supply, liberty takes a backseat to public safety, and democratic societies approach the tipping point towards mob rule, there is a tendency to cast those who exercise their individual freedoms (to freely speak, associate, assemble, protest, pursue a living, engage in commerce, etc.) as foolishly reckless, criminally selfish, or outright villains.

Sometimes that is true, but not always.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, there is always a balancing test between individual freedoms and the communal good.

What we must figure out is how to strike a balance that allows us to protect those who need protecting without leaving us chained and in bondage to the police state.

We must find ways to mitigate against this contagion needlessly claiming any more lives and crippling any more communities, but let’s not lose our heads: blindly following the path of least resistance—acquiescing without question to whatever the government dictates—can only lead to more misery, suffering and the erection of a totalitarian regime in which there is no balance.

*

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 American Friends Service Committee