WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE [1].
You can subscribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE [2].
You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE [2].
You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself, HERE [3].
Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is available on a 32GB flash drive, available for a contribution of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dave’s 40+ years’ work. [4]
Please consider supporting THE WORK DAVE EMORY DOES [5].
FTR #1113 This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment [6].
FTR #1114 This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment. [7]
Introduction: The first program begins with review of the conclusion of FTR #1112 [8], noting the repetitive, drumroll of articles about the economic effects of the coronavirus on the Chinese, U.S. and global economy, this in the context of Steve Bannon’s links to Guo Wengui, J. Kyle Bass and–through Bass–to Tommy Hicks, Jr. (This was covered at length and in detail in FTR #‘s 1111 and 1112 [8].)
Steve Bannon–one of the luminaries of the “Alt-Right,” and a former key Trump aide–is centrally involved in the anti-China effort [9]. Note Bannon’s role in the “Get China” movement and the manner in which Washington is being possessed by this: ” . . . . Fear of China has spread across the government, from the White House to Congress to federal agencies, where Beijing’s rise is unquestioningly viewed as an economic and national security threat and the defining challenge of the 21st century. ‘These are two systems that are incompatible,’ Mr. Bannon said of the United States and China. ‘One side is going to win, and one side is going to lose.’ . . . .”
Next, the program undertakes a review of circumstances that suggest the possibility of investor activity by people linked to Steve Bannon, who is at the epicenter of the anti-China effort. Bannon has been the beneficiary of the enormous wealth of the brilliant, eccentric investor Robert Mercer [10]. Mercer has used AI-directed investment projection to afford a 70% return for his hedge fund.
We wonder if he might have had foreknowledge of the coronavirus outbreak? IF that was the case, this would have enabled him to have made a great deal of money on the torpedoing of the Chinese economy as may well be the case for J. Kyle Bass. On the other side of the coin is Mercer’s/Renaissance Technologies’ enormous investment in Gilead Pharmaceuticals [11].
IF Gilead’s remdesivir does prove to be the “go-to” treatment for coronavirus [12], that firm stands to make a great deal of money, as would Mercer/Renaissance Technologies. NB: The information from Dr. Mercola’s post should be factored in to the information about investing and the possibility of short-selling and/or other types of maneuvering to profit from this crisis. Equity markets are very responsive to suggestion, accurate or falacious. We note that the hysteria alluded to in the post by Dr. Mercola may well contribute to the steep decline in markets.
China, of course, has shut down much of its infrastructure to combat the virus. That is contributing, obviously. To what extent they, too, are responding to hysteria is an open question. We also wonder if they know something we don’t. Media have featured pictures of Chinese personnel in protective clothing fumigating public facilities. We wonder if they are protecting against rodents or other animals spreading the virus. Note the reference in the post by Dr. Mercola.
China has begun testing [13] of Gilead’s remdesivir. IF, for the sake of argument, Gilead’s remdesivir becomes the “go-to” treatment for the coronavirus, Gilead–and Mercer–will make a great deal of money. China is a huge market and the drug will find markets elsewhere, as well. Note that a Chinese government research facility has applied for a patent on the drug.
We find it curious that American media outlets have remained silent [14] on such a promising therapeutic regimen. Reuters reported it, as did Agence France Presse. These are major wire services. Why not American media outlets?
Indicative of the “Chicken Little journalism”–weaponzed journalism– that characterizes the U.S. news media is the lack of coverage of the American flu epidemic of 2017–2018 [15]. Contrast the statistics about the 2017–2018 flu epidemic in this country with the statistics about coronavirus. In this country, 45 million caught the flu. According to the CDC, 80,000 of them died.
Next, we read in full an Op-Ed column by Rosie Spinks [16]–a rare island of balance and sanity in The New York Times’ coverage of this event. In addition to noting the effects of the coronavirus on the economics of the travel industry, Rosie Spinks notes the draconian reaction of the U.S. State Department. Ms. Spinks tales stock of the relatively mild nature of the virus. ” . . . . Numerous experts have said that the majority of people who contract coronavirus will experience it as a respiratory infection they will fully recover from. But the extreme reactions — the canceling of flights, closing of borders and level-four travel warnings — seem more appropriate for something much worse. . . .”
Because it screens points of entry for MERS coronavirus infection because of its citizens who make the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca, Indonesia has no recorded cases [17]. In the column cited above, Ms. Spinks noted the effectiveness of the kind of prophylactic screening measures taken by Indonesia: ” . . . . Measures like screening at airports, quarantining cruise ships or flights with confirmed cases and isolating communities at the center of an outbreak can be effective, said Erin Sorrell, an assistant research professor at Georgetown University who studies emerging infectious diseases. . . .”
The outbreak has occurred in the context of what we have called a “Full Court Press” against China.
Headed by “ex” CIA officer William Barr, the Justice Department has charged Chinese personnel [18] with having hacked the Equifax credit reporting agencies. The Chinese have denied this. It will be interesting to see if the U.S. deploys cyber-weaponry on Chinese computer and internet systems, as it has in Russia. In turn, it will be interesting to see if the “Full Court Press” strategy encompasses the sabotaging of Chinese nuclear power plants, Project HAARP environmental modification warfare or other draconian measures.
The CIA’s hacking tools are specifically crafted [19] to mask CIA authorship of the attacks. Most significantly, for our the purposes of the present discussion, is the fact that the Agency’s hacking tools are engineered in such a way as to permit the authors of the event to represent themselves as Chinese. ” . . . . These tools could make it more difficult for anti-virus companies and forensic investigators to attribute hacks to the CIA. Could this call the source of previous hacks into question? It appears that yes, this might be used to disguise the CIA’s own hacks to appear as if they were Russian, Chinese, or from specific other countries. . . . This might allow a malware creator to not only look like they were speaking in Russian or Chinese, rather than in English, but to also look like they tried to hide that they were not speaking English . . . .”
Pivoting to what Mr. Emory has termed the “weaponized media coverage” of the coronavirus outbreak, we note The New York Times’ stunningly slanted coverage of the 2016 campaign.
Before discussing Allen Dulles and his relationship to The New York Times, we set forth events illustrating the fundamental place of Sullivan & Cromwell [20] in the development of American Big Money. Both Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles worked for Sullivan & Cromwell.
A now famous article [21] by Carl Bernstein (of Watergate fame) focuses on CIA presence in major U.S. media. We note, here, the deep historical and political relationship between Allen Dulles and The New York Times’s Arthur Hays Sulzberger. This, again, by way of background to the weaponized coverage of the coronavirus outbreak.
In in his 1985 volume American Swastika [22], the late author Charles Higham [23] provides us with insight into the Christian West concept, revealing the extent to which these SS/OSS negotiations set the template for the post-World War II world, as well as the degree of resonance that key Americans, such as Allen Dulles, had with Nazi ideology, anti-Semitism in particular. Weighing the long, profound relationship between Dulles and The Times, this is presented as something of a “navigational aid” to analysis of the weaponized coverage of the virus.
In the context of Allen Dulles’s orientation and his relationship with The New York Times, we present a look at The New York Times’ use of a Third Reich alumnus named Paul Hofmann [24] as a foreign correspondent, serving as chief of The Times’ Rome bureau, and covering the Gray Lady’s coverage of the CIA’s participation in the overthrow of Patrice Lumumba.
The program concludes with an item presented in our landmark series of interviews [25] with the brilliant Jim DiEugenio about Destiny Betrayed [26].
Nothing illustrates this country’s media and their willingness to distort information than the NBC television broadcast arranged by Walter Sheridan. [27] Sheridan is a career intelligence officer, with relationship with the Office of Naval Intelligence, the CIA, the NSA and the FBI.
Exemplifying Sheridan’s methodology was the treatment meted out to Fred Leemans [27], who was the climactic person interviewed by Sheridan in his special. Note the open intimidation of Leemans and his family, threatening them if they did not perjure themselves, betray Garrison, and cooperate with both Sheridan and Clay Shaw’s counsel!
1. The first program begins with review of the conclusion of FTR #1112 [8], noting the repetitive, drumroll of articles about the economic effects of the coronavirus on the Chinese, U.S. and global economy, this in the context of Steve Bannon’s links to Guo Wengui, J. Kyle Bass and–through Bass–to Tommy Hicks, Jr. (This was covered at length and in detail in FTR #‘s 1111 and 1112 [8].)
. . . . The coronavirus outbreak seems defined by two opposing forces: the astonishing efficiency with which the travel industry connects the world and a political moment dominated by xenophobic rhetoric and the building of walls. . . .
. . . . The United States State Department nevertheless is denying entry to foreigners who have recently been to China, and is screening Americans who arrive home from China as well as asking them to self quarantine for 14 days. It has told Americans not to visit the country at all. British Airways, Lufthansa and all three major American carriers have halted all flights to China, while the cruise line Royal Caribbean is denying boarding to any person who has traveled to, from or through China or Hong Kong in the past 15 days. . . .
. . . . But what has motivated the response from governments? It doesn’t appear to be evidence. . . .
. . . . Coronavirus is different from other tourism disruptions in a significant way: The potential loss of tourism revenue will hurt not only China but also other countries. In the decade and a half since the SARS crisis, the number of Chinese travelers has soared, with China surpassing other nations in its volume of outbound travelers starting in 2012. In 2017, the Chinese made more than 143 million trips abroad; my colleagues at Skift Research predict that in 2029, that figure will be more than 286 million. Luxury retailers all over the world rely on Chinese travelers, and destinations develop sophisticated marketing strategies to cater to them. . . .
. . . . With the rhetoric surrounding coronavirus, however, however, it appears the astonishing growth of the Chinese travel market in the last 15 years did little to rid the industry of the impulse to treat Chinese travelers as “others” in the face of doubt and uncertainty. . . .
“Declaring Health Emergency, U.S. Restricts Travel from China” by Michael Corkery and Annie Karni; The New York Times; 2/1/2020; p. A1 [Western Edition.]
. . . . The travel restrictions and the airline’s announcements showed how rapidly concerns about the virus have escalated into a contest of the global economy, for which there is no precedent. Three weeks after the first virus-related death was reported, China has found itself cut off from its largest trading partner, the United States, and many other nations. . . .
“Governments Expand Restrictions on Travel to China as Cases Spike” by Paul Mozur; The New York Times; 1/29/2020; p. A6 [Western Edition.]
. . . . With China’s Lunar New Year holiday nearing its end, companies ordered workers to stay home and avoid travel. The economic impact of such measures pointed to a deeper political crisis, with many people accusing the Chinese authorities online of failing to act quickly to contain the virus, even as the government continues to struggle to contain its spread. . . .
. . . . Businesses that operate in China have issued warnings of their own. . . .
. . . . Investors in Asia were gripped on tuesdaywith fear about the health of the global economy for a second day, with a widespread sell-off continuing coninuing in the markets. Investos dumped stocks in companies thought to be most vulnerable to the effects of the virus.
“The corona virus is the No. 1 threat to financial markets currently as global investors are becoming jittery on the uncertainty.” said Nigel Green, founder of an investment company, the DeVere group . . .
“Trade Networks Face New Menace in a Coronavirus” China in Cross Hairs; by Peter S. Goodman; The New York Times; 2/3/2020; p. A1 [Western Edition.]
“China Reels From Virus, and Markets Are on Edge” by Alexandra Stevenson; The New York Times; 1/24/2020; p. B1 [Western Edition.]
“Outbreak Rattles Markets, Spurring Downturn Fears” by Matt Phillips; The New York Times; 1/28/2020; p. B1 [Western Edition.]
On same page, relevant to psychological warfare and online activity: “On Chinese Social Media, Anger over Virus” by Raymond Zhong; The New York Times; 1/28/2020; p. B1 [Western Edition.]
“OPEC Scrambles to React as Virus Imperils Demand” by Stanley Reed; The New York Times; 2/4/2020; p. B1 [Western Edition.]
“Virus Threatens an Oil Industry That’s Already Ailing” by Clifford Krauss With a Decline in China’s Demand sending Crude Prices Lowe, Cutbacks by American Companies May Be Coming; For Now, Drivers are benefiting; The New York Times; 2/5/2020; p. B1 [Western Edition.]
“Africa, With Growing Ties to China, Is Especially Vulnerable” by Simon Marks and Latif Dahir; The New York Times; 2/7/2020; p. A10 [Western Edition.]
“U.S. Plans Trade Talks With Kenya to Counter China’s Influence in Africa” by Ana Swanson; The New York Times; 2/7/2020; p. B4 [Western Edition.]
“China’s Command of 5G Is A ‘Danger,’ Barr Says” by Katie Benner; The New York Times; 2/7/2020; p. B7 [Western Edition.]
“Virus Fuels Anti-Chinese Sentiment Overseas” by Motoko Rich; The New York Times; 1/31/2020; p. A1 [Western Edition.]
. . . . In Japan, the hashtag #ChineseDon’tComeToJapan has been trending on twitter. In Singapore, tens of thousands of residents have signed a petition calling for the government to ban Chinese from entering the country.
In Hong Kong, South Korea and Vietnam, businesses have posted signs saying that mainland Chinese customers are not welcome. In France, a front-page headline in a regional newspaper warned of a “Yellow Alert.” And in a suburb of Toronto, parents demanded that a school district keep children of a family that had recently returned from China out of classes for 17 days. . . .
. . . . At a time when China’s rise as a global economic and military power has unsettled its neighbors in Asia as well as its rivals in the West, the coronavirus is feeding into latent bigotry against the people of mainland China . . .
“Virus Puts a Fractured Hong Kong on Edge” by Austin Ramzy; The New York Times; 1/29/2020; p. A1 [Western Edition.]
The two Hong Kong protesters were dressed head to toe in black, their faces coverd in masks. They smashed their Molotov cocktails into the lobby of a public housing estate, and flames and smoke began spewing out. . . .
“Virus Putting E.U. At Risk of Recession” by Jack Ewing; The New York Times; 2/12/2020; p. B1 [Western Edition.]
“Commodities Tumble as Epidemic Snarls Supply Chains” by Matt Phillips; The New York Times; 2/12/2020; p. B3 [Western Edition.]
2. Steve Bannon–one of the luminaries of the “Alt-Right,” and a former key Trump aide is centrally involved in the anti-China effort. Note Bannon’s role in the “Get China” movement and the manner in which Washington is being possessed by this: ” . . . . Fear of China has spread across the government, from the White House to Congress to federal agencies, where Beijing’s rise is unquestioningly viewed as an economic and national security threat and the defining challenge of the 21st century. ‘These are two systems that are incompatible,’ Mr. Bannon said of the United States and China. ‘One side is going to win, and one side is going to lose.’ . . . .”
“A New Red Scare Is Reshaping Washington” by Ana Swanson; [9]The New York Times [9]; 7/20/2019. [9]
In a ballroom across from the Capitol building, an unlikely group of military hawks, populist crusaders, Chinese Muslim freedom fighters [Uighurs–D.E.] and followers of the Falun Gong has been meeting to warn anyone who will listen that China poses an existential threat to the United States that will not end until the Communist Party is overthrown.
If the warnings sound straight out of the Cold War, they are. The Committee on the Present Danger, a long-defunct group that campaigned against the dangers of the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s, has recently been revived with the help of Stephen K. Bannon, the president’s former chief strategist, to warn against the dangers of China.
Once dismissed as xenophobes and fringe elements, the group’s members are finding their views increasingly embraced in President Trump’s Washington, where skepticism and mistrust of China have taken hold. Fear of China has spread across the government, from the White House to Congress to federal agencies, where Beijing’s rise is unquestioningly viewed as an economic and national security threat and the defining challenge of the 21st century.
“These are two systems that are incompatible,” Mr. Bannon said of the United States and China. “One side is going to win, and one side is going to lose.” . . . .
3. Next, the program undertakes a review of circumstances that suggest the possibility of investor activity by people linked to Steve Bannon, who is at the epicenter of the anti-China effort. Bannon has been the beneficiary of the enormous wealth of the brilliant, eccentric investor Robert Mercer. Mercer has used AI-directed investment projection to afford a 70% return for his hedge fund.
We wonder if he might have had foreknowledge of the coronavirus outbreak? IF that was the case, this would have enabled him to have made a great deal of money on the torpedoing of the Chinese economy as may well be the case for J. Kyle Bass. On the other side of the coin is Mercer’s/Renaissance Technologies’ enormous investment in Gilead Pharmaceuticals.
IF Gilead’s remdesivir does prove to be the “go-to” treatment for coronavirus, that firm stands to make a great deal of money, as would Mercer/Renaissance Technologies. NB: The information from Dr. Mercola’s post should be factored in to the information about investing and the possibility of short-selling and/or other types of maneuvering to profit from this crisis. Equity markets are very responsive to suggestion, accurate or falacious. We note that the hysteria alluded to in the post by Dr. Mercola may well contribute to the steep decline in markets.
China, of course, has shut down much of its infrastructure to combat the virus. That is contributing, obviously. To what extent they, too, are responding to hysteria is an open question. We also wonder if they know something we don’t. Media have featured pictures of Chinese personnel in protective clothing fumigating public facilities. We wonder if they are protecting against rodents or other animals spreading the virus. Note the reference in the post by Dr. Mercola:
. . . . In the 1970s, Mercer programmed machine-learning artificial intelligences to process vast sets of data and so predict what was supposed to be the central mystery of capitalism, the movement of markets. And, well, they did–and still do. The hedge fund for which Mercer worked, Renaissance Technologies, has earned an average of 70 percent each year, making Mercer one of the richest men on the planet. . . .
4. China has begun testing of Gilead’s remdesivir. IF, for the sake of argument, Gilead’s remdesivir becomes the “go-to” treatment for the coronavirus, Gilead–and Mercer–will make a great deal of money. China is a huge market and the drug will find markets elsewhere, as well.
. . . . On Thursday, China began enrolling patients in a clinical trial of remdesivir, an antiviral medicine made by Gilead, the American pharmaceutical giant. The drug has to be given intravenously, is experimental and not yet approved for any use, and has not been studied in patients with any coronavirus disease. But studies of infected mice and monkeys have suggested that remdesivir can fight coronaviruses. . . . . . . . Doctors in Washington State gave remdesivir to the first coronavirus patient [28] in the United States last week after his condition worsened and pneumonia developed when he’d been in the hospital for a week. His symptoms improved the next day. . . .
5. A Chinese government research facility has applied for a patent on the drug.
A state-run Chinese research institute has applied for a patent on the use of Gilead Sciences’ experimental U.S. antiviral drug, which scientists think could provide treatment for the coronavirus that has killed hundreds and infected thousands.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology of the China Academy of Sciences, based in the city where the outbreak is believed to have originated, said in a statement on Tuesday it applied to patent the use of Remdesivir, an antiviral drug developed by Gilead, to treat the virus. . . .
. . . . “Even if the Wuhan Institute’s application gets authorized, the role is very limited because Gilead still owns the fundamental patent of the drug,” said Zhao Youbin, a Shanghai-based intellectual property counsel at Purplevine IP Service Co.
6a. Mercer’s Renaissance Technology has a huge position in Gilead stock.
. . . . Renaissance Technology’s top 15 holdings also include 16.4 million shares of the medical device manufacturer Novo-Nordisk valued at $563 million, 7.7 million shares of Gilead Pharmaceuticals valued at $523 million, and 2.4 million shares of Amgen valued at $396 million. An economic analysis of the New York Health Act estimated that the plan would result in $16 billion in reduced spending on pharmaceuticals and medical devices in New York State by negotiating lower prices. . . .
6b. We find it curious that American media outlets have remained silent on such a promising therapeutic regimen. Reuters reported it, as did Agence France Presse. These are major wire services. Why not American media outlets? ” . . . . A Chinese woman infected with the new coronavirus showed a dramatic improvement after she was treated with a cocktail of anti-virals used to treat flu and HIV, Thailand’s health ministry said Sunday. The 71-year-old patient tested negative for the virus 48 hours after Thai doctors administered the combination, doctor Kriengsak Attipornwanich said during the ministry’s daily press briefing. ‘The lab result of positive on the coronavirus turned negative in 48 hours,’ Kriengsak said. . . .
“The doctors combined the anti-flu drug oseltamivir with lopinavir and ritonavir, anti-virals used to treat HIV, Kriengsak said, adding the ministry was awaiting research results to prove the findings. . . . Thailand so far has detected 19 confirmed cases of the virus believed to have originated in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, which is under lockdown. . . .
” . . . .That is the second-highest number of cases outside of China, with Japan recording 20. So far, eight patients in Thailand have recovered and returned home, while 11 remain in the hospital. In a video released Sunday, Thai health minister Anutin Charnvirakul visited a patient from Wuhan who had recovered from the coronavirus, chatting with her amicably in Mandarin as she thanked him and the medical staff. . . .”
A Chinese woman infected with the new coronavirus showed a dramatic improvement after she was treated with a cocktail of anti-virals used to treat flu and HIV, Thailand’s health ministry said Sunday.
The 71-year-old patient tested negative for the virus 48 hours after Thai doctors administered the combination, doctor Kriengsak Attipornwanich said during the ministry’s daily press briefing.
“The lab result of positive on the coronavirus turned negative in 48 hours,” Kriengsak said.
“From being exhausted before, she could sit up in bed 12 hours later.”
The doctors combined the anti-flu drug oseltamivir with lopinavir and ritonavir, anti-virals used to treat HIV, Kriengsak said, adding the ministry was awaiting research results to prove the findings.
The news comes as the new virus claimed its first life outside China – a 44-year-old Chinese man who died in the Philippines – while the death toll in China has soared above 300.
Thailand so far has detected 19 confirmed cases of the virus believed to have originated in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, which is under lockdown.
That is the second-highest number of cases outside of China, with Japan recording 20.
So far, eight patients in Thailand have recovered and returned home, while 11 remain in the hospital.
In a video released Sunday, Thai health minister Anutin Charnvirakul visited a patient from Wuhan who had recovered from the coronavirus, chatting with her amicably in Mandarin as she thanked him and the medical staff.
Thai authorities are trying to balance the screening of inbound Chinese visitors with the economic needs of its tourist sector, which is heavily reliant on arrivals from the mainland.
Messages of support saying “Our hearts to Wuhan” in English, Chinese and Thai were plastered on a Bangkok mall popular with tourists.
The bulk of confirmed cases have been Chinese visitors to Thailand, but on Thursday the kingdom recorded its first human-to-human transmission when a Thai taxi driver was diagnosed with the disease.
The taxi driver had not traveled to China but may have had contact with tourists.
Thailand’s government is also battling public criticism that it has been slow to evacuate scores of its citizens from Hubei province, at the center of the outbreak.
Anutin said the evacuation would happen Tuesday, and the returnees would be quarantined for 14 days.
7. Contrast the statistics about the 2017–2018 flu epidemic in this country with the statistics about coronavirus. In this country, 45 million caught the flu. According to the CDC, 80,000 of them died.
An estimated 80,000 Americans died of flu and its complications last winter [29] — the disease’s highest death toll in at least four decades.
The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Robert Redfield, revealed the total in an interview Tuesday night with The Associated Press. . . .
8. In addition to noting the effects of the coronavirus on the economics of the travel industry, Rosie Spinks notes the draconian reaction of the U.S. State Department. Ms. Spinks tales stock of the relatively mild nature of the virus. ” . . . . Numerous experts have said that the majority of people who contract coronavirus will experience it as a respiratory infection they will fully recover from. But the extreme reactions — the canceling of flights, closing of borders and level-four travel warnings — seem more appropriate for something much worse. . . .”
The coronavirus outbreak seems defined by two opposing forces: the astonishing efficiency with which the travel industry connects the world and a political moment dominated by xenophobic rhetoric and the building of walls.
Respiratory infections, however, know no borders. The virus has spread regardless of extreme measures taken by governments around the world, which include the cancellation of flights, the shutting down of borders and the issuance of travel advisories usually reserved for conflict zones.
Time and time again, destinations perceived as “Western” benefit from a kind of cultural familiarity and presumption of safety that so-called foreign or exotic places do not. When we, as travelers, decide what places are too unsafe to travel, [30] those decisions are determined not just by actual conditions on the ground but also by perceptions shaped by the media, the travel industry and the foreign offices of governments. Whether travelers realize it or not, that is subtly informed by the same power structures that underlie much unfairness in the world.
Valid arguments may exist for shutting down the world to travelers originating in China — and shutting down China to the world — as a reasonable public health response. But the World Health Organization explicitly did not advise [31] that any restriction of trade or travel was necessary when it declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern last week, and it still doesn’t. Instead, it has called for exit screening [32] in international airports and domestic hubs in China.
The United States State Department is denying entry [33] to foreign nationals who have recently been to China, is screening American citizens who arrive home from China as well as asking them to self-quarantine for 14 days. It has told American citizens not to visit the country at all. Major airlines including British Airways, Lufthansa and all three major American carriers have halted all flights to China, while the cruise line Royal Caribbean is denying boarding [34]to any person who has traveled to, from or through China or Hong Kong in the past 15 days. Travel companies such as those airlines are motivated both by [35] pressure from employees and by the falling demand for flights. Flying empty planes to and from China is, after all, not profitable.
But what has motivated the response from governments? It doesn’t appear to be evidence. Measures like screening at airports, quarantining cruise ships or flights with confirmed cases and isolating communities at the center of an outbreak can be effective, said Erin Sorrell, an assistant research professor at Georgetown University who studies emerging infectious diseases. However, she and other experts [36] say the available evidence suggests that total border shutdowns are not an effective means of containment of respiratory viruses. Resources are better used, she argued, treating sick patients and developing vaccines and other countermeasures.
Sadly, one doesn’t have to look far for evidence of these top-down decisions morphing into outright [37] racism [38] within the general population, a trend that has a long history [39] in the narrative of outbreaks such as this one.
Coronavirus shares something in common with other kinds of civil disruption, natural disasters or emergencies that affect localized travel industries: Its destructive power lies not in the actual risk but in the perception of that risk. Numerous experts have said that the majority of people who contract coronavirus will experience it as a respiratory infection they will fully recover from. But the extreme reactions — the canceling of flights, closing of borders and level-four travel warnings — seem more appropriate for something much worse.
Therein lies a familiar unfairness. When it comes to travel, the perception of risk is rarely meted out objectively. Consider the level-two travel warning imposed by the State Department last month in the wake of the continuing Australian wildfires. It advised travelers to consider postponing their trips because of extremely poor air quality and the threat of evacuation in the monthslong fires. Just a few days later, it was reduced [40] to level one, reportedly in response [41] to the direct appeal of Prime Minister Scott Morrison to the Trump administration. Similarly, in the 2017–18 flu season, when the United States had a particularly bad outbreak, the respiratory virus resulted in an estimated [42] 61,000 deaths and 45 million symptomatic cases — but no travel warnings.
Coronavirus is different from other tourism disruptions in a significant way: The potential loss of tourism revenue and gross domestic product will hurt not only China but also other countries. In the decade and a half since the SARS crisis, Chinese travelers have become the most powerful source market in the world, surpassing all other nations in its volume of outbound travelers in 2012. [43] In 2017, Chinese citizens took more than 143 million trips abroad; in 2029, Skift Research predicts [43] that figure will be 286 million. Luxury retailers all over the world rely on Chinese travelers for their consistent trip spending, and destinations develop and target sophisticated marketing strategies to cater to them.
The world often thinks of travel and tourism as being a collection of different industries, operating separately yet alongside one another. But in reality, it’s a web of economically interconnected parts. While it is subject to the political environment it operates in, it also has a chance to stand up to the political norms of the day, especially when policy goes against best practices recommended by international agencies.
With the rhetoric surrounding coronavirus, however, it appears the astonishing growth of the Chinese travel market in the past 15 years did little to rid the industry of the impulse to treat Chinese travelers as “others” in the face of doubt and uncertainty. Canceling flights, cruises and locking down borders when it’s not advised by international agencies will be not only an act of economic self-harm but also a wasted opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the past.
9. Because it screens points of entry for MERS coronavirus infection because of its citizens who make the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca, Indonesia has no recorded cases. In the column above, Ms. Spinks noted the effectiveness of the kind of prophylactic screening measures taken by Indonesia: ” . . . . Measures like screening at airports, quarantining cruise ships or flights with confirmed cases and isolating communities at the center of an outbreak can be effective, said Erin Sorrell, an assistant research professor at Georgetown University who studies emerging infectious diseases. . . .”
. . . . Health experts have questioned why Indonesia has not yet reported a single case of novel coronavirus [44], even though officials were slow to halt nonstop flights from China. Indonesia receives about 2 million Chinese tourists a year, most of them in Bali. . . .
. . . . “So far, Indonesia is the only major country in Asia that does not have a corona case,” Indonesia’s security minister, Mohammad Mahfud MD, told reporters on Friday [45]. “The coronavirus does not exist in Indonesia.” . . . .
. . . . Indonesia is experienced at monitoring travelers for illness, he said, because the country has long been on the lookout for another dangerous coronavirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome or MERS. About 1.4 million Indonesians go each year on pilgrimages to Saudi Arabia, where they can be exposed to MERS, he said, and they are screened on their return.
“We have experienced this many times,” he said. “Maybe other countries are not as diligent as Indonesia in dealing with this situation.” . . . .
10. Headed by “ex” CIA officer William Barr, the Justice Department has charged Chinese personnel with having hacked the Equifax credit reporting agencies. The Chinese have denied this. It will be interesting to see if the U.S. deploys cyber-weaponry on Chinese computer and internet systems, as it has in Russia. In turn, it will be interesting to see if the “Full Court Press” strategy encompasses the sabotaging of Chinese nuclear power plants, Project HAARP environmental modification warfare or other draconian measures.
Four members of China’s military were charged on Monday with hacking into Equifax, one of the nation’s largest credit reporting agencies, and stealing trade secrets and the personal data of about 145 million Americans in 2017.
The charges underscored China’s quest to obtain Americans’ data and its willingness to flout a 2015 agreement with the United States to refrain from hacking and cyberattacks, all in an effort to expand economic power and influence. . . .
11. The CIA’s hacking tools are specifically crafted to mask CIA authorship of the attacks. Most significantly, for our the purposes of the present discussion, is the fact that the Agency’s hacking tools are engineered in such a way as to permit the authors of the event to represent themselves as Chinese. ” . . . . These tools could make it more difficult for anti-virus companies and forensic investigators to attribute hacks to the CIA. Could this call the source of previous hacks into question? It appears that yes, this might be used to disguise the CIA’s own hacks to appear as if they were Russian, Chinese, or from specific other countries. . . . This might allow a malware creator to not only look like they were speaking in Russian or Chinese, rather than in English, but to also look like they tried to hide that they were not speaking English . . . .”
This morning, WikiLeaks released part 3 of its Vault 7 series, called Marble. Marble reveals CIA source code files along with decoy languages that might disguise viruses, trojans, and hacking attacks. These tools could make it more difficult for anti-virus companies and forensic investigators to attribute hacks to the CIA. Could this call the source of previous hacks into question? It appears that yes, this might be used to disguise the CIA’s own hacks to appear as if they were Russian, Chinese, or from specific other countries. These tools were in use in 2016, WikiLeaks reported.
It’s not known exactly how this Marble tool was actually used. However, according to WikiLeaks, the tool could make it more difficult for investigators and anti-virus companies to attribute viruses and other hacking tools to the CIA. Test examples weren’t just in English, but also Russian, Chinese, Korean, Arabic, and Farsi. This might allow a malware creator to not only look like they were speaking in Russian or Chinese, rather than in English, but to also look like they tried to hide that they were not speaking English, according to WikiLeaks. This might also hide fake error messages or be used for other purposes. . . .
12. Pivoting to what Mr. Emory has termed the “weaponized media coverage” of the coronavirus outbreak, we note The New York Times’ stunningly slanted coverage of the 2016 campaign.
“The Times Owes an Apology [Letter to the Editor];” The New York Times; 10/25/2019 [Western Edition]; p. A26.
“But Her E‑mails . . .” (editorial, Oct. 23) I am disappointed that The Times did not use the opportunity to apologize for its obsessive coverage of this Hillary Clinton non-scandal in 2016. According to an article in the Columbia Journalism Review, “in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s e‑mails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.” Mrs. Clinton lost the election for myriad reasons, but it did not help that The Times’s coverage of this issue reinforced many voters’ suspicions that she was untrustworthy. Jeffrey Toobin, chief legal analyst for CNN, apologized this week for hyping the e‑mail story during that crucial moment. If The Times wants to regain the trust of its readers heading into 2020, it should do the same. JEREMY FASSLER, BROOKLYN
13. Before discussing Allen Dulles and his relationship to The New York Times, we set forth events illustrating the fundamental place of Sullivan & Cromwell in the development of American Big Money. Both Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles worked for Sullivan & Cromwell.
. . . . . . . . In 1882, it created Edison General Electric. Seven years later, with the financier J.P. Morgan as its client, it wove twenty-one steelmakers into the National Tube Company and then, in 1891, merged National Tube with seven other companies to create U.S. Steel, capitalized at more than one billion dollars, an astounding sum at that time. The railroad magnate E.H. Harriman, whom President Theodore Roosevelt had denounced as a “malefactor of great wealth” and “an enemy of the Republic,” hired the firm to wage two of his legendary proxy wars, one to take over the Illinois Central Railroad and another to fend off angry shareholders at Wells Fargo Bank. It won the first with tactics that a New York newspaper called “one of those ruthless exercises of the power of sheer millions,” and the second with complex maneuvers that, according to a book about the firm, amounted to “deceit, bribery and trickery [that] was all legal.”
Soon afterward, working on behalf of French investors who were facing ruin after their effort to build a canal across Panama collapsed, Sullivan & Cromwell achieved a unique triumph in global politics. Through a masterful lobbying campaign, its endlessly resourceful managing partner, William Nelson Cromwell, persuaded the United States Congress to reverse its decision to build a canal across Nicaragua and to pay his French clients $40 million for their land in Panama instead. Then he helped engineer a revolution that pulled the province of Panama away from Colombia and established it as an independent country, led by a clique willing to show its gratitude by allowing construction of a canal on terms favorable to the United States. One newspaper called him “the man whose masterful mind, whetted on the grindstone of corporate cunning, conceived and carried out the rape of the Isthmus.” . . .
14. A now famous article by Carl Bernstein (of Watergate fame) focuses on CIA presence in major U.S. media. We note, here, the deep historical and political relationship between Allen Dulles and The New York Times’s Arthur Hays Sulzberger. This, again, by way of background to the weaponized coverage of the coronavirus outbreak.
“The CIA and the Media” by Carl Bernstein; Rolling Stone; 10/20/1977. [21]
. . . . The New York Times. The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper’s late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy—set by Sulzberger—to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible. Sulzberger was especially close to Allen Dulles. “At that level of contact it was the mighty talking to the mighty,” said a high‑level CIA official who was present at some of the discussions. “There was an agreement in principle that, yes indeed, we would help each other. The question of cover came up on several occasions. It was agreed that the actual arrangements would be handled by subordinates.... The mighty didn’t want to know the specifics; they wanted plausible deniability. . . .
15. In in his 1985 volume American Swastika [22], the late author Charles Higham [23] provides us with insight into the Christian West concept, revealing the extent to which these SS/OSS negotiations set the template for the post-World War II world, as well as the degree of resonance that key Americans, such as Allen Dulles, had with Nazi ideology, anti-Semitism in particular. Weighing the long, profound relationship between Dulles and The Times, this is presented as something of a “navigational aid” to analysis of the weaponized coverage of the virus.
The postwar political and economic realities of the Dulles, Hohenlohe, Schellenberg meetings were further solidified when William (Wild Bill) Donovan entered into his “M” Project. Important to note in this context, is the dominant role in world affairs played by cartels [46], the fundamental element in the industrial and financial axis that was essential to the creation and perpetuation of fascism. Much of the Third Reich’s military industrial complex, the primacy of Germany in the postwar EU, as well as the correlation between postwar Europe as constructed in the Christian West negotiations and long-standing German plans [47] for European domination are derivative of the power of cartels. The Christian West and “M” Projects:
- Revealed that Allen Dulles’ views resonated with Third Reich anti-Semitism, and that his opinions were shared by other, like-minded American power brokers: ” . . . . He said that it would be unbearable for any decent European to think that the Jews might return someday, and that there must be no toleration of a return of the Jewish power positions. . . . He made the curious assertion that the Americans were only continuing the war to get rid of the Jews and that there were people in America who were intending to send the Jews to Africa. . . .”
- Set the template for the postwar Federal Republic of Germany and the EU: ” . . . . He [Dulles] reiterated his desire for a greater European political federation–and foresaw the federal Germany that in fact took place. . . . Germany would be set up as the dominating force in industry and agriculture in continental Europe, at the heart of a continental state run by Germany, the U.S.A., and Great Britain as a focus of trade. . . .”
- Were the vehicle for Allen Dulles to betray much of the Allied military plans for Southern Europe to the Third Reich: “. . . . Dulles now proceeded to supply Hohenlohe with dollops of secret intelligence, announcing that the U.S. Army would not land in Spain but, after conquering Tunisia, would advance from Africa toward the Ploesti oil fields to cut off the German oil supplies. He said it was likely the Allies would land in Sicily to cut off Rommel and control Italy from there, and thus secure the advance in the Balkans. Having given virtually the entire battle plan for Europe, top secret at the time, to one of Germany’s agents, Allen Dulles proceeded to the almost unnecessary rider that he had very good relations with the Vatican. . . .”
- Directly foreshadowed the confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union which became the Cold War. “. . . . In other meetings, Dulles . . . . predicted that ‘the next world war would be between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union.’ . . . .”
- Were the occasion for Dulles to laud the “genius” of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels: “He . . . . described a recent speech by Dr. Goebbels as ‘a work of genius; I have rarely read a speech with such rational pleasure.’ . . . .”
. . . . Dulles pressed ahead. He said that it would be unbearable for any decent European to think that the Jews might return someday, and that there must be no toleration of a return of the Jewish power positions. He reiterated his desire for a greater European political federation–and foresaw the federal Germany that in fact took place. . . . He made the curious assertion that the Americans were only continuing the war to get rid of the Jews and that there were people in America who were intending to send the Jews to Africa. This was Hitler’s dream of course: that the Jews would go to Madagascar and stay there. . . .
. . . . Dulles now proceeded to supply Hohenlohe with dollops of secret intelligence, announcing that the U.S. Army would not land in Spain but, after conquering Tunisia, would advance from Africa toward the Ploesti oil fields to cut off the German oil supplies. He said it was likely the Allies would land in Sicily to cut off Rommel and control Italy from there, and thus secure the advance in the Balkans. Having given virtually the entire battle plan for Europe, top secret at the time, to one of Germany’s agents, Allen Dulles proceeded to the almost unnecessary rider that he had very good relations with the Vatican. . . .
. . . . In other meetings, Dulles . . . . predicted that “the next world war would be between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union.” . . . . Dulles obtained a great deal of information relating to Germany and plans for its reconstruction after the war. He . . . . described a recent speech by Dr. Goebbels as “a work of genius; I have rarely read a speech with such rational pleasure.” . . . .
. . . . In July, [OSS chief William] Donovan and the OSS began to take matters into their own hands. No doubt inspired by the invigorating meeting in Switzerland, Donovan embarked on the so-called “M” project. . . .
. . . . By now, the German [Franz Von Papen] had read the details of the peace proposal on microfilm and learned that it was more or less on the same lines as the Dulles proposals. Germany would be set up as the dominating force in industry and agriculture in continental Europe, at the heart of a continental state run by Germany, the U.S.A., and Great Britain as a focus of trade. . . .
16. In the context of Allen Dulles’s orientation and his relationship with The New York Times, we present a look at The New York Times’ use of a Third Reich alumnus named Paul Hofmann as a foreign correspondent, serving as chief of The Times’ Rome bureau, and covering the Gray Lady’s coverage of the CIA’s participation in the overthrow of Patrice Lumumba.
. . . . As the Congo crisis reached its climax, a new correspondent for The New York Times showed up in Leopoldville with a distinctly anti-Lumumba bias. Paul Hofmann was a diminutive, sophisticated Austrian with a colorful past. During the war, he served in Rome as a top aide to the notorious Nazi general Kurt Malzer, who was later convicted of the mass murder of Italian partisans. At some point, Hofmann became an informer for the Allies, and after the war he became closely associated with Jim Angleton. The Angleton family helped place Hofmann in the Rome bureau of The New York Times, where he continued to be of use to his friends in U.S. intelligence, translating reports from confidential sources inside the Vatican and passing them along to Angleton. Hofmann became one of the Times’s leading foreign correspondents, eventually taking over the newspaper’s Rome bureau and parachuting from time to time into international hot spots like the Congo. . . .
17. Nothing illustrates this country’s media and their willingness to distort information than the NBC television broadcast arranged by Walter Sheridan. [27] Sheridan is a career intelligence officer, with relationship with the Office of Naval Intelligence, the CIA, the NSA and the FBI.
Exemplifying Sheridan’s methodology was the treatment meted out to Fred Leemans, who was the climactic person interviewed by Sheridan in his special. Note the open intimidation of Leemans and his family, threatening them if they did not perjure themselves, betray Garrison, and cooperate with both Sheridan and Clay Shaw’s counsel!
. . . . One of the more startling declarations that the ARRB uncovered was an affidavit by a man named Fred Leemans. Leemans was a Turkish bath owner who originally told garrison that a man named Clay Bertrand had frequented his establishment. Leemans was the climactic interview for Sheridan’s special. He testified on the show that the DA’s office had actually approached him first, that he never knew that Shaw used the alias Bertrand, that everything he had previously said to the DA’s office were things he was led to say by them, and that they had offered to pay him 2,500 dollars for his affidavit in which in which he would now say that Shaw was Bertrand and that Shaw came into his establishment once with Oswald. In other words, all the things Novel had been saying in his public declarations about Garrison were accurate. At the end of his interview, Leemans told Sheridan and the public that everything he had just revealed on camera was given to NBC freely and voluntarily. Leemans even said that he had actually asked Sheridan for some monetary help but Sheridan had said he did not do things like that.
In January of 1969, Leemans signed an affidavit in which he declared the following as the true chain of events:
“I would like to state the reasons for which I appeared on the NBC show and lied about my contacts with the District Attorney’s office. First, I received numerous anonymous threatening phone calls relative to the information I had given to Mr. Garrison. The gist of these calls was to the effect that if I did not change my statement and state that I had been bribed by Jim Garrison’s office, I and my family would be in physical danger. In addition to the anonymous phone calls, I was visited by a man who exhibited a badge and stated that he was a government agent. This man informed me that the government was presently checking the bar owners in the Slidell area for possible income tax violations. This man then inquired whether I was the Mr. Leemans involved in the Clay Shaw case. When I informed him that I was, he said that it was not smart to be involved because a lot of people that had been got hurt and that people in powerful places would see to it that I was taken care of. One of the anonymous callers suggested that I change my statement and state that I had been bribed by Garrison’s office to give him the information about Clay Shaw. He suggested that I contact Mr. Irvin Dymond, attorney for Clay L. Shaw and tell him that I gave Mr. Garrison the statement about Shaw only after Mr. Lee [Garrison’s assistant DA] offered me 2,500 dollars. After consulting with Mr. Dymond by telephone and in person, I was introduced to Walter Sheridan, investigative reporter for NBC, who was then in the process of preparing the NBC show. Mr. Dymond and Mr. Sheridan suggested that I appear on the show and state what I had originally told Mr. Dymond about the bribe offer by the District Attorney’s office. I was informed by Mr. Dymond that should the District Attorney’s office charge me with giving false information as a result of the statement I had originally given them, he would see to it that I had an attorney and that a bond would be posted for me. In this connection, Mr. Dymond gave me his home and office telephone numbers and and advised me that I could contact him at any time of day or night should I be charged by Garrison’s office as a result of my appearing on the NBC show. My actual appearance on the show was taped in the office of Aaron Kohn, Managing Director of the Metropolitan Crime Commission, in the presence of Walter Sheridan and Irvin Dymond.”
This is one of the most revealing documents portraying the lengths to which Sheridan would go in tampering with witnesses. It also demonstrates that Shaw’s lawyers—Bill and Ed Wegmann, Irvin Dymond, and Sal Panzeca—knew almost no boundary in what kind of help they would accept to win their case. Third, it reveals that Shaw’s lawyers had access to a network of attorneys that they could hire at any time for any witness they could pry loose from Garrison. Because, as the declassified ARRB documents reveal, there was a CIA cleared attorney’s panel that was at work in New Orleans. Attorneys that the Agency vetted in advance so they would be suitable for their covert use and could be trusted in their aims. The fact that Shaw’s lawyers were privy to such CIA secret knowledge, and wee utilizing it, shows just how willing and eager they were to indulge themselves in covert help—and then lie about it. . . .