Video - #DailyShow #TrevorNoah #Coronavirus Biden’s Corona Task Force & Pfizer’s Vaccine | The Daily Social Distancing Show

#Elections2020 - Don’t Let Up: Fascism isn’t Dead Yet

BY PETE DOLACK

Even if Joe Biden had won the U.S. presidency by the expected landslide, the threat of fascism would remain. And not simply because Trumpites are not going away anytime soon.

Donald Trump doesn’t have the intelligence, competence or sufficient ruling-class backing to actually become a fascist dictator. His desire to be one, however, has been more than sufficient to necessitate the widest possible movement against him and the social forces he will continue to represent, and there is no doubt his authoritarian impulses would have become still worse had he won a second term. What little democracy is left in the United States’ capitalist formal democracy would have been further reduced.

It might be better to understand Trump as the Republican Party’s frankenstein — the culmination of the Republican “Southern Strategy.” Richard Nixon was an open racist who developed the strategy of sending dog whistles to White racists; Ronald Reagan promoted “states’ rights,” well understood code words for supporting racially biased policies; George H.W. Bush exploited racial stereotypes with his Willie Horton campaign ads; George W. Bush’s presidency will be remembered for his callous ignoring of New Orleans and its African-American population in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; and the roster of Republicans hostile to civil rights is too long to list. Moreover, the Republican Party, with very few exceptions, has been an eager promoter and enabler of Trump’s virulent pro-big business policies with most not even bothering to pretend to challenge Trump’s racism and misogyny.

It was no surprise that a billionaire con man whose business plan has long been to screw his real estate empire’s working-class contractors and use every trick imaginable to not pay taxes or his creditors was going to stick it to working people.

The Trump administration has been the worst U.S. presidency in history with an extraordinarily fierce approach to class warfare. But let us consider what fascism is: At its most basic level, fascism is a dictatorship established through and maintained with terror on behalf of big business. It has a social base, which provides the support and the terror squads, but which is badly misled since the fascist dictatorship operates decisively against the interest of its social base. Militarism, extreme nationalism, the creation of enemies and scapegoats, and, perhaps the most critical component, a rabid propaganda that intentionally raises panic and hate while disguising its true nature and intentions under the cover of a phony populism, are among the necessary elements.

Despite varying national characteristics that result in major differences in the appearances of fascism, the class nature is consistent. Big business is invariably the supporter of fascism, no matter what a fascist movement’s rhetoric contains, and is invariably the beneficiary. We often think of fascism in the classical 1930s form, of Nazis goose-stepping or the street violence of Benito Mussolini’s followers. But it took somewhat different forms later in the 20th century, being instituted through military dictatorships in Chile and Argentina. Any fascism that might arise in the U.S. would be wrapped in right-wing populism and, given the particular social constructs there, that populism would include demands to “return to the Constitution” and “secure the borders.”

Formal democracy vs. fascism

United Statesians have indeed suffered through four years of militarism, extreme nationalism, the creation of enemies and scapegoats, the imposition of “constitutionalist” judges and demands to “secure” borders, complete with open racism and misogyny. But the Trump administration and its followers constitute a movement with the potential to bring about a fascist dictatorship, not actual fascism. Should the U.S. ruling class — industrialists and financiers — decide they would no longer tolerate the country’s limited, corporate-constrained variety of “democracy,” the militias and assorted far right street gangs that “stand by” on Trump’s command would be unleashed without constraint. And they would be openly joined by police and security agencies in fomenting violence rather than being tacitly supported as they are at present.

Nonetheless, fascism is the last resort of any capitalist ruling class. Instituting a fascist dictatorship is no easy decision even for the biggest industrialists, bankers and landowners who might salivate over the potential profits. For even if it is intended to benefit them, these business elites are giving up some of their own freedom since they will not directly control the dictatorship; it is a dictatorship for them, not by them. It is only under certain conditions that business elites resort to fascism — some form of formal democratic government, under which citizens “consent” to the ruling structure, is the preferred form and much easier to maintain. Working people beginning to withdraw their consent — beginning to seriously challenge the economic status quo — is one “crisis” that can bring on fascism. An inability to maintain or expand profits, as can occur during a steep decline in the “business cycle,” or a structural crisis, is another such “crisis.”

A summary of what happened under the fascist regimes of the 20th century shows the class nature of fascism clearly.

*In Germany, corporate profits more than doubled in five years, while from Hitler’s ascension to power on January 30, 1933, to the summer of 1935, wages dropped 25 to 40 percent. In 1935, a “labor passport” was instituted in which the employer wrote reports on the holder. The employer could confiscate the passport at will, without which employment could not be taken, effectively making it impossible to change jobs. In 1938, it was formally made illegal for a worker to change jobs.

*In Italy, from 1926 to 1934, industrial wages were reduced at least 40 to 50 percent, while agricultural wages were reduced 50 to 70 percent. Unemployment meant the specter of starvation, and as a further whip to keep wages down, children were regularly used in agricultural and factory work as substitutes for fired adults. From 1935, many factory employees were placed under direct military discipline; missing more than five days of work was a penalty subject to nine years’ imprisonment. All workers had to carry a “labor passport.”

*In Francisco Franco’s Spain, real wages in 1949 were 50 percent of those in 1936. Rationing lasted until 1952; the rations alone were insufficient to maintain human existence. The historian Paul Preston, author of two books that closely examine Franco and his regime, quoted Hitler aide Heinrich Himmler as calling the Franco regime “more brutal in its treatment of the Spanish working class than was the Third Reich in its dealings with German workers.”

*In Augusto Pinochet’s Chile, the majority of workers earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation). Labor’s share of the national income declined from 52 percent in 1970 to 31 percent in 1989. The minimum wage dropped almost by half during the 1980s, and by the end of that decade, Chile’s poverty rate reached 41 percent and the percentage of Chileans without adequate housing was 40 percent, up from 27 percent in 1972. One-third of the country’s workforce was unemployed by 1983.

*In Argentina, the main union federation was abolished, strikes outlawed, prices raised, wages tightly controlled and social programs cut. As a result, real wages fell by 50 percent within a year. Tariffs were reduced deeply, leaving the country wide open to imports and foreign speculation, causing considerable local industry to shut. For the period 1978 to 1983, Argentina’s foreign debt increased to $43 billion from $8 billion, while the share of wages in national income fell to 22 percent from 43 percent.

Capitalists remain firmly in control

Even with the dramatic rise in unemployment and the trillions of dollars handed out to large corporations since the start of the pandemic, the above disasters for working people, imposed through unrestrained violence, is far beyond what working people experienced under Trump.

Industrialists and financiers have an iron grip on U.S. politics (witness the dreadful choice the two corporate parties have just offered), and the overdue economic downturn triggered by the pandemic has not hurt profits for most big corporations, with bailouts provided for those who have taken a hit to their bottom lines. Financiers and speculators are doing quite well, and because Wall Street values stability, financiers likely were more behind Joe Biden than Trump. As the Democratic Party favors financiers (while the Republicans favor industrialists), Wall Street will have no problem at all with the incoming Biden administration. Some industrialists likely have tired of Trump’s antics, or calculate that they have gotten all the services they can reasonably expect from him; some among this grouping probably don’t mind a change. And given Biden’s decades of loyal service to corporate interests, in particular the banking industry, little gnashing of teeth is likely to be found in corporate boardrooms.

There was no need for U.S. capitalists to institute a fascist dictatorship during the Trump administration and there won’t be any need in the near future. So, to circle back to the opening of this article, why should it be said that the threat of fascism is undiminished with the ouster of Trump? That is because as long as capitalism exists, the threat of fascism exists.

The system is called capitalism for a reason — it is the rule of capital. The owners of capital. Those who have capital generally divide into two camps, industrialists and financiers, as alluded to above. Industrialists own or are the top managers of enterprises that produce tangible goods and services, while financiers trade, buy and sell stocks, bonds and other securities, continually inventing new instruments to profit off virtually every aspect of commercial activity. The two compete fiercely for the bigger half of the profits and thus have sometimes conflicting interests, but there is considerable overlap between the two sectors of capitalists. Crucially, their class interests are completely aligned. Employees are paid far less than the value of what they produce; this is the source of corporate profit. The bloated salaries and profits generated by exploitation of employees is far greater than can be thrown into spending on luxuries or used for business investment, so these massive piles of money are diverted into financial speculation, swelling an already bloated financial sector, which grabs large amounts of this speculative money for itself. Top managers of industrial firms in turn are paid largely in stock so that their interests are “aligned” with that of finance capital, to use Wall Street lingo.

Elections don’t decide who gets to rule

This is the ordinary and routine working of capitalism. As long as people consent to this arrangement — and thus consent to their ongoing exploitation — all is well for industrialists and financiers. But what if consent begins to be withdrawn? What if an economic downturn is so severe and sustained that it becomes difficult to extract profits? This is when capitalists begin to think about putting an end to formal democracy and instituting authoritarian rule. At the most extreme, this authoritarian rule can slide into fascism. Such a scenario is always a possibility because capitalism is inherently unstable. Twenty years into the 21st century, we’re already living through a third economic downturn, each worse than the previous one. United Statesians, for now, have pushed back against a potential slide toward fascism by ousting Trump, albeit only by a narrow margin. But the recent global trend is unmistakable: Far right authoritarian ideologues remain in office in countries around the world, among them Brazil, Turkey, Hungary, Poland and the Philippines, and the U.S. has a history stretching back to the 19th century of installing right-wing dictators and overthrowing democratically elected governments. Capitalists have a variety of economic tools at their disposal to maintain their rule, the armed force of governments to enforce their rule, and a variety of institutions and control of the mass media to reinforce ideologies upholding their rule. Elections in capitalist countries decide who gets to govern, not who gets to rule.

Formal democracy is the preferred method of ruling, but if violence, ranging all the way to fascism, is the only way to maintain their power, that is what industrialists and financiers will insist their governments impose. Fascism can’t arise or be raised to power without a social base, a badly confused bloc that supplies support and the shock troops. This social base has to be maleducated enough to believe the obvious lies spewed by the leader and be enthused by the permission granted to openly display their hatreds, be those racism, misogyny, nativism, homophobia or anti-Semitism, permission wrapped in virulent nationalism. The millions of fanatical Trump followers are a monument to the lack of education in the U.S., a pervasive propaganda system and the product of decades of relentless Republican Party ideology. There can be no potential fascist movement without such a social base.

Given this fanatical support of Trump despite the massive failures and undisguised class warfare of his administration, both the followers and the shock troops will remain when Trump soon leaves the White House. Will they be called on in the future? If you don’t want the threat of fascism to hover in the background, you’ll have to get rid of capitalism.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/11/08/dont-let-up-fascism-isnt-dead-yet/

The Covid-19 Roadmap: Towards Global Economic Chaos and Societal Destruction

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky While these flawed official statistics used to "measure" the spread of the virus are meaningless, they have nonetheless been used to support the ongoing fear and disinformation campaign.

It is now confirmed that the Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Test (RT-PCR) used to estimate COVID-19 positive cases is questionable. It cannot detect or identify the virus. What it detects are particles or fragments of the virus.  

PCR- Positive does not imply Covid-19 Positive. The statistics derived from the PCR test do not adequately measure “confirmed cases”. The PCR Test does not provide the statistics required (by policy-makers and national health authorities) to assess the number of people infected. Moreover, according to the CDC “a positive [covid-19] infection” could be the result of “co-infection with other viruses… The agent detected may not be the cause disease”.

While these  official statistics used to  “measure” the spread of the viral infection are flawed, they have nonetheless been used to support the ongoing fear and disinformation campaign. 

Because the PCR Test is faulty as a means of identifying the spread of the virus, major decisions taken by the WHO and national governments since late January 2020 (supported by faulty statistics) are potentially invalid.  Moreover, official reports including the WHO confirm that Covid-19 is not a killer virus, it has features similar to seasonal influenza.  

The purpose off this article is to examine how these far-reaching decisions, invariably based on invalid concepts and faulty statistics, have contributed to a state of economic, social and political chaos Worldwide, leading up to the March 11, 2020 lockdown and closure of 190 national economies of UN member states. Only three countries including Belarus, Nicaragua and Sweden refused to close down their national economy.

What strikes us in this analysis is the fact that major decisions from the very outset on January 30, 2020 were taken when the number of recorded positive cases was exceedingly low.

The lockdown as well as closure of national economies Worldwide on March 11, 2020 were presented as a means to confronting the “Killer Virus” and “Saving Lives”. Amply documented, the impacts have led to mass unemployment and poverty Worldwide.

The Roadmap towards Economic Chaos and Societal Destruction

October 18, 2019. 201 Pandemic Simulation Exercise

The coronavirus was initially named 2019-nCoV by the WHO, the same name as that adopted at the October 18, 2019 201 Simulation exercise under the auspices of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health, Centre for Heath Security (an event sponsored by the Gates Foundation and World Economic Forum).(Event 201)

January 7, 2020: The Chinese authorities “identified a new type of virus” which (according to official reports) was isolated  on January 7, 2020.

January 20-24:  World Economic Forum Meetings at Davos. The Role of Powerful Financial Interests 

Dominant financial interests, billionaire foundations and international financial institutions played a key role in launching the WHO Public Health Emergency (PHEIC). The decision was not taken by the WHO.

In the week preceding this historic WHO decision. The PHEIC was the object of “consultations” at the World Economic Forum (WEF), Davos (January 21-24). The WHO Director General Dr. Tedros was present at Davos. Were these consultations instrumental in influencing the WHO’s historic decision on January 30th.

Was there a Conflict of Interest as defined by the WHO? The WHO’s largest donor is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which together with the WEF and CEPI had already announced in Davos the development of a Covid-19 vaccine prior to the historic January 30th launching of the PHEIC.

January 28, 2020:  The US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed that the novela corona virus had been isolated. To this date, the process of identification of the virus has not been made public.

January 30, 2020: The WHO’s Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)

The first stage of this crisis was launched by the WHO on January 30th. While officially it was not designated as a “Pandemic”, it nonetheless contributed to spearheading the fear campaign.

From the very outset, the estimates of “confirmed positive cases” have been part of a “Numbers Game”.

In some cases the statistics were simply not mentioned and in other cases the numbers were inflated with a view to creating panic.

The number of “confirmed cases” based on faulty estimates (PCR) used to justify this far reaching decision was ridiculously low.

The Worldwide population outside China is of the order of 6.4 billion. On January 30, 2020 outside China there were:

83 cases in 18 countries, and only 7 of them had no history of travel in China. (see WHO, January 30, 2020).

On January 29, 2020, the day preceding the launching of the PHEI (recorded by the WHO), there were 5  cases in the US, 3 in Canada, 4 in France, 4 in Germany.

There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide public health emergency. 

Screenshot of WHO table, January 29, 2200, 

one day prior to the WHO decision to declare a global public health emergency 

Those ridiculously low numbers  (not mentioned by the media) were used to spearhead a Worldwide fear campaign.

January 31, 2020:  President Trump’s Decision to Suspend Air Travel with China

Whereas the WHO  “[did] not recommend any travel or trade restrictions” the five so-called “confirmed cases” in the US were sufficient to “justify” President Trump’s January 31st decision to suspend air travel to China while precipitating a hate campaign against ethnic Chinese throughout the Western World.

This historic January 31st decision paved the way towards the disruption of international commodity trade as well as Worldwide restrictions on air travel.

And those flawed “confirmed cases” were for the most part using the standard RT-PCR test.

February 20-21, 2020. Worldwide Covid Data Outside China: The Diamond Princess Cruise Ship 

While China reported a total of 75,567 cases of COVID-19, (February 20) the confirmed cases outside China were abysmally low and the statistics based in large part on the the PCR test used to confirm the “Worldwide spread of the virus” were questionable to say the least. Moreover, out of the 75,567 cases in China, a large percentage had recovered. And recovery figures were not acknowledged by the media.

On the day of Dr. Tedros’ historic press conference (February 20, 2020) the recorded number of confirmed cases outside China was 1073 of which 621 were passengers and crew on the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship (stranded in Japanese territorial waters).

From a statistical point of view, the WHO decision pointing to a potential “spread of the virus Worldwide” did not make sense.

On February 20th, 57.9% of the Worldwide Covid-19 “confirmed cases” were from the Diamond Princess, hardly representative of  a Worldwide “statistical trend”.The official story is as follows:

• A Hong Kong based passenger who had disembarked from the Diamond Princess in Hong Kong on January 25 developed pneumonia and was tested positive for the novela coronavirus on January 30.
• He was reported to have travelled on January 10, to Shenzhen on mainland China (which borders on Hong Kong’s new territories).
• The Diamond Princess arrived at Yokohama on February 3. A quarantine was imposed on the cruiser See NCBI study.
• Many passengers fell sick due to the confinement on the boat.
• All the passengers and crew on the Diamond Princess undertook the PCR test.
• The number of confirmed cases increased to 691 on February 23.

From the standpoint of assessing Worldwide statistical trends, the data doesn’t stand up. Without the Diamond Princess data, the so-called confirmed cases worldwide outside China on February 2oth would have been of the order of 452, out of a population of 6.4 billion. 

Examine the WHO Graph below. The blue indicates the confirmed cases on the Diamond Princess (international conveyance) (which arrived in Yokohama on February 3, 2020), many of whom were sick, confined to their rooms for more than two weeks (quarantine imposed by Japan). All passengers and crew took the RT-PCR test (which does not detect or identify Covid-19).

Needless to say, this so-called data was instrumental in spearheading the fear campaign and the collapse of financial markets in the course of the month of February. (see section below)

Source WHO, February 28,2020

The February 2020 Financial Crisis. The 2020 Corona Crash

February 20-21, 2020 marks the beginning of the 2020 Financial Crash. 

February 20th, 2020: At a press conference on Thursday the 20th of February afternoon (CET Time) in a briefing in Geneva, the WHO Director General. Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said that he was

“concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” …

“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.”

These “shock and awe” statements contributed to heightening the fear campaign, despite the fact that the number of confirmed cases outside China was exceedingly low.

Officially 1073 cases Worldwide.

Excluding the Diamond Princess, 452 so-called “confirmed cases” Worldwide outside China, for a population of 6.4 billion recorded by the WHO on February 20th, 15 in the US, 8 in Canada, 9 in the UK. (February 2020).

A larger number of cases outside China were recorded in South Korea (153 cases according to WHO) and Italy (recorded by national authorities).

WHO data recorded on February 2020 at the outset of the so-called Covid Financial Crash (right)

The statement by Dr. Tedros (based on flawed concepts and statistics), set the stage for  the February financial collapse triggered by inside information, foreknowledge, derivative trade, short-selling and a galore of hedge fund operations.

Whoever had foreknowledge (inside information) of the WHO Director General’s February 20th statement would have reaped significant monetary gains.

Was there a conflict of interest? The WHO receives funds from the Gates Foundation. And Bill Gates has “60% of his assets invested in equities [including stocks and index funds]”, according to a  September 2019 CNBC report.

The stock market crash initiated on February 20th referred to as the 2020 Coronavirus Crash, was categorized as:

“the fastest fall in global stock markets in financial history, and the most devastating crash since the Wall Street Crash of 1929.”

The cause of the financial crash was (according to analysts), V.  The Virus. The spread of the virus outside China. 

The “killer virus” fear campaign coupled with Dr. Tedros’ timely “warnings” of the need to implement a Worldwide pandemic indelibly served the interests of Wall Street’s institutional speculators and hedge funds. The financial crash led to a major shift in the distribution of money wealth. (see analysis below)

In the week following the February 20-21 WHO announcement, the Dow Jones collapsed by 12%  (CNBC, February 28, 2020). According to analysts, the plunge of the DJIA was the result of the Worldwide spread of the virus. A nonsensical statement in contradiction with the (small) number of WHO Covid positive estimates, most of which were based on the faulty PCR test.

On Monday, February 24th upon the reopening of stock markets, there was an unprecedented plunge in the Dow Jones attributable to the “impending dangers” that “Covid was spreading Worldwide creating uncertainties in financial markets”. 

.

Stocks fell sharply on Monday ( February 24) as the number of coronavirus cases outside China surged, stoking fears of a prolonged global economic slowdown from the virus spreading. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed 1,031.61 points lower, or 3.56%, at 27,960.80.” (CNBC) (emphasis added)

Dow Jones Industrial Average December 2019 – March 2020

Also on February 24th, Trump requested a $1.25 billion emergency aid.

According to the BBC, Worldwide stock markets saw sharp falls “because of concerns about the economic impact of the virus”, suggesting that the Virus was “the invisible “hand” responsible for the decline of financial markets.

COVID-19 was narrowly identified as the catalyst of the financial crash.

Who was behind this catalyst?  Who was behind the fear campaign which contributed to triggering chaos and uncertainty on financial markets?

March 11, 2020: The Covid-19 Pandemic, Lockdown, Closing Down of 190 National Economies

The WHO Director General had set the stage in his February 21st Press Conference.  “the world should do more to prepare for a possible coronavirus pandemic”. The WHO had called upon countries to be “in a phase of preparedness”.

On March 11, 2020: the WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic at a time when there were 118,000 confirmed cases and 4291 deaths Worldwide (including China). (March 11, 2020, according to press conference). What do these “statistics” tell you?

The figures quoted by Dr. Tedros included China.

The number of confirmed cases outside of China (6.4 billion population) are of the order of  44279 and 1440 deaths (figures recorded for March 11, (on March 12) (see table right).

Immediately following the March 11,2020 WHO announcement, the fear campaign went into high gear. As in the case of the February 20-21 crash, the March 11 statement by the WHO Director General had set the stage. Stock markets crashed worldwide. On the following morning, the Dow (DJIA) plummeted by 9.99%  (A decline of 2,352.60 to close at 21,200.62). Black Thursday, March 12, 2020 was “the Dow’s worst day” since 1987. A massive transfer of financial wealth had taken place in favor of America’s billionaires.

Confinement instructions were transmitted to 193 member states of the United Nations. Politicians are the instruments of powerful financial interests. Was this far-reaching decision justified as a means to combating the Virus?

Unprecedented in history, applied almost simultaneously in a large number countries, entire sectors of the World economy were destabilized. Small and medium sized enterprises were driven into bankruptcy. Unemployment and poverty are rampant.

In some countries famines have erupted. The social impacts of these measures are devastating.  The health impacts (mortality, morbidity) of these measures including the destabilization of the system of national health care (in numerous countries) far surpass those attributed to Covid-19. (For further details see author’s article here,

Billionaire Enrichment. The Appropriation and Redistribution of  Wealth

Billionaire wealth has increased dramatically since early February. There are three distinct phases, which are directly related to the corona crisis, each of which is marked by major shifts in the distribution of global wealth.

1. The financial crisis initiated on February 20th, was conducive to a dramatic redistribution of money wealth and ownership of financial assets. Foreknowledge, inside information and speculative trade played a key role. Was there foreknowledge of  WHO’s Dr. Tedros February 20th Statement?
2. The March 11 lockdown and closing down of the national economies of 190 UN member states, which triggered corporate as well as SME bankruptcies Worldwide. The March 11 event was also marked by the plunge of stock markets worldwide, starting on Black Thursday March 12, 2020.
3. The third stage of billionaire enrichment pertains to the implementation of the so-called “Second Wave” which consists in triggering a renewed wave of  bankruptcies.

The redistribution of wealth in favor of the billionaire class is confirmed by an IPS study pertaining to the closing down of the global economy.

The combined wealth of U.S. billionaires increased by $850 billion since March 18th, 2020, an increase of over 28 percent. (This estimate does not account for the increase in wealth during the period preceding March 18, which was marked by a series of stock market crashes).

On March 18, 2020, U.S. billionaires had combined wealth of $2.947 trillion.  By October 8th, their wealth has surged to $3.8 trillion ($3.798 billion to be exact).

At the global level, billionaires are big winners during the Covid-19 pandemic.  According to a recent UBS report, the roughly 2,189 global billionaires now have $10.2 trillion.  This is an estimated increase of $1.5 trillion during the pandemic looking at both UBS and Forbes billionaire data from 2019.

The table below identifies the increase in personal wealth of the five richest US billionaires (March 18- June 17, 2020). (Not outlined in the Table, the wealth of US billionaires increased by another $266 billion from June to October 2020).

Let us now briefly reflect on the Second Wave which is now being imposed on millions of people.

The Second Wave

September-October 2020. The financial establishment has instructed governments to implement what is tantamount to a second bankrupcy program using the pretext and justification that the number of Covid positive cases has increased.

In all likelihood this second wave will lead to the further process of appropriation and concentration of wealth.

Concurrently, there is a tendency towards totalitarian forms of government.

All forms of social activity are affected including family reunions, weddings and funerals, public gatherings, not to mention the closure of schools, universities, museums, sports and cultural events. Police state measures are now being applied to enforce compliance. And people accept!

At the outset of the Second Wave, the process of postponing the reopening of the global economy will indelibly contribute to wiping out (regional and local) small and medium sized enterprises worldwide, while also precipitating the bankruptcy of entire sectors of the World economy including airlines, hotel chains and the tourist industry. This in turn will lead to the appropriation of real assets by powerful financial interests.

The fear campaign has once again gone into high gear.

Official statistics based on faulty and manipulated estimates of so-called “confirmed” Covid positive cases constitute the basis for justifying these diabolical measures.

V the virus is presented as the Threat. But the Virus has no direct impact on key economic variables.

What is at stake is unprecedented: It’s a global neoliberal agenda carried out by corrupt governments on behalf of the financial establishment.

Common sense tells us that the closure of the global economy destroys people’s lives.

Disrupting the fear campaign constitutes the first step towards reversing the tide.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-covid-19-roadmap-towards-economic-chaos-and-societal-destruction/5725602

Report From China: Pompeo’s last-ditch efforts to bash China: Global Times editorial

 In a speech Tuesday at the Ronald Reagan Institute's Center for Freedom and Democracy, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the Trump administration is "not finished yet" when it comes to getting tough on China. He used his most vicious rhetoric to date, accusing the Communist Party of China as a "Marxist-Leninist Monster" whose political system is "authoritarian, brutish." It seems this ideological maniac who is going to lose his job as secretary of state will use his last-ditch effort to discredit China and shape anti-China agenda as the most prominent mark of his tenure. 

Pompeo admitted in his Tuesday speech that his attitude toward China was formed when he was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This is consistent with people's judgment that he still behaves like a CIA director. In most countries, intelligence organs converge upon bottom-line thinking. By contrast, diplomatic departments represent more of a country's openness and inclusiveness. Pompeo has upended that balance by turning the State Department into a more combative and confrontational front foe - even more so than the CIA.

Pompeo has offended and humiliated diplomats with his bad example. He can be called the "No.1 Wolf Warrior" in global diplomacy. When he is forced to retreat from his position, the louder and more rampant his screams are, and the more they sound like wailing. 

Pompeo is obsessed with making China an enemy. He has added a lot of his own fantasies in the China-US confrontation he created. According to his description of China, the two countries should have cut off any exchanges, and even the militaries of both countries should have prepared for a war. But the structure of China-US relations is complicated. While keeping vigilant against each other, the two countries have maintained the largest bilateral trade of the world. Many entangled interests cannot be cut off. 

Pompeo will ultimately be a loser. He is that kind of US governing elite who has the most hatred against China, which determines his false depiction of China and extreme policies that could not be widely followed and pushed by others. Much of his anti-China swagger is a bravado balloon and when he leaves, the balloon is bound to burst, as the unrealistic things he promoted will be revealed.

For example, his said that nearly 50 countries and 170 telecommunications companies have joined the US-led Clean Network program that he has largely engineered, but all of those countries and companies are half-hearted in excluding China's telecommunications elements, in which there are enough variables to make a nightmare for Pompeo. 

Pompeo's claim that China's political system must end sounds like a political will. However, we want to tell him that socialist China puts the interests of the people at the center, so it will last as long as the people desire a better life. China has outlived many of its political opponents who have fled to the US, and Pompeo would have the same ending if he lives for this goal.

We would like to remind the US white right-wing elites that it is their own country that is most likely to "change color." White supremacy is coming to an end, and the connotation and direction of "democracy" are bound to change. But this will have nothing to do with China. Rather, demographic changes in the US will continue to evolve, leading to an upending of the existing value system and interests in the US.

If Pompeo lives longer than average life expectancy, he will see the critical point in the next two decades when the US will no longer be predominantly white, and all kinds of restructuring that this change will bring. That is the real political challenge in the US. He should just mind the US' own business and deal with the political balance in the great change of the country. Confronting China will not help the US in transition.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1206543.shtml

‘Relationship reassessed’: Joe Biden and Saudi Arabia relations

By Abubakr Al-Shamahi

@abubakrabdullah

Analysts suggest Biden administration could end the near-unconditional support that Riyadh has enjoyed over the years.

US President-elect Joe Biden has made his position on Saudi Arabia and its war in Yemen clear.

In the past two years, Biden has said Saudi Arabia’s government has “very little social redeeming value”, that Riyadh had murdered “children … and innocent people” in Yemen, and it was a “pariah” state.

“Under a Biden-Harris administration, we will reassess our relationship with the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia], end US support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, and make sure America does not check its values at the door to sell arms or buy oil,” Biden said in October. That forceful language is echoed by the wider Democratic Party. Just in the past week, US Representative Ro Khanna tweeted the Democrats would “stop funding the Saudi war in Yemen”.

The reason for this push to punish Saudi Arabia on the Democratic side is clear – the war in Yemen’s continuing humanitarian cost, the murder of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018, and the Trump administration’s overt support for Saudi Arabia throughout these affairs.

Aside from shared antipathy for Iran, Saudi Arabia was President Donald Trump’s first overseas visit, and the outgoing US leader bragged that he protected Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) after Khashoggi’s killing. Many Democrats, on the other hand, called for MBS to be held accountable.

However, there is often a difference between promises made on the campaign trail and the reality of life as the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth – one that has historically always sought to remain friendly with Saudi Arabia.

Analysts say it is, therefore, more likely Biden will adopt a balanced approach that, while different to Trump’s, is not quite the repudiation of Saudi Arabia that some in the Democrat base might want. “The Biden administration will end the perception that the Saudi leadership enjoys near-unconditional support in the White House … with a view to reframing it around goals that serve both the US and Saudi interests,” Kristian Ulrichsen, a fellow for the Middle East at Rice University, told Al Jazeera.

“These would include a way of disengaging Saudi Arabia from Yemen.”

Ulrichsen said this new policy towards Saudi Arabia would extend to arms sales, as Washington seeks to attempt to not lose Saudi business while pivoting to arms sales of a different nature.

“Given that advisers around Biden have maintained a commitment to helping defend Saudi Arabia against regional adversaries, I’d imagine there would be more of a focus on ensuring that any weapons sales would be defensive rather than offensive in nature,” Ulrichsen said.

A quarter of US weapons sales in the five years between 2014 and 2019 went to Saudi Arabia, up from 7.4 percent in 2010-2014, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Saudi Arabia began its military involvement in the war in Yemen in March 2015.

Ending Yemen’s war

In addition to billions of dollars in arms sales, the US provides logistical and intelligence support to the Saudi war effort in Yemen, and previously refuelled Saudi planes in-flight.

In April 2019, a bipartisan resolution to end American involvement in the war was passed by both houses of Congress, only to be vetoed by Trump. At the time, the president defended his actions by saying peace in Yemen could only come through “a negotiated settlement”. The question now is whether Biden will have more luck in bringing about such a solution. “I think the Biden administration can have a very positive impact on ending the war in Yemen,” said Gregory Johnsen, a former member of the UN Security Council Panel of Experts on Yemen. “Indeed, the US may be the only country, which – if it so chooses – can put enough diplomatic pressure on Saudi Arabia to end the war in Yemen.”

However, ending Saudi involvement in Yemen does not necessarily mean the wider conflict in the country will be over.

“Ending the Saudi-led war in Yemen is step one, but the next and much more difficult step is ending Yemen’s civil war and putting the country back together again,” Johnsen said.

Aside from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the war in Yemen involves a myriad number of warring parties, including the internationally-recognised government, the Iran-allied Houthi rebels, and the separatist Southern Transitional Council. Fighting in the country has intensified over the past few months with the Houthis advancing into Marib, the Yemeni government’s power-base in the north of the country, and home to a large population of internally displaced people.

If the Biden administration is successful in a push for peace talks, it may come as the Houthis hold the upper hand on the battlefield. And that does not necessarily mean the outcome of any negotiated agreement will lead to an end to the war on the ground. “We should not overestimate what the Biden administration can do in relation to Yemen’s war,” Nadwa Dawsari, a non-resident scholar at the Middle East Institute, told Al Jazeera. “A political settlement under the current circumstances would further complicate Yemen’s war and play into the hands of the Houthis and, by default, Iran.”

“Trump gave the Saudis and the Emiratis a free hand in Yemen,” Dawsari added. “I hope Biden won’t do the opposite and give Iran a free hand in Yemen.” https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/11/relationship-reassessed-joe-biden-and-saudi-arabia