This conflagration is swelling into a greater conflict.Those are American mercenaries, speaking ENGLISH.
The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation published footage of the transfer of armored vehicles, artillery and personnel to the Kharkiv direction. BTR-82A armored personnel carriers, army trucks, “Msta-B” howitzers moving along the highway are being dismantled. Heavy helicopters are also involved in the transfer.
The transfer of forces is apparently taking place in connection with the latest actions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. According to some reports, our military had to leave at least part of the previously liberated town of Balakleia. It is also confirmed that the Ukrainian Armed Forces occupied Shevchenkovo and Senkovo on the right bank of the Oskol River.
The situation in the Kupyansk region is dire, but the military is holding it together. Residents of the Kharkiv region have been evacuated to the LPR and Russia due to shelling by the armed forces of Ukraine, the head of the region said. According to him, the military is trying to push Ukrainian forces out of the suburbs of Balakleia.
According to Zakhar Prilepin, our fighters have mastered the Kupyansk-Izyum road, and are also on the defensive in the central direction of the front towards Slavyansk. “Mood: Calm. Men work. Thank you for the visible help that has begun to appear,” he wrote.
Earlier, Prilepin complained that Moscow was not using all the power it has: “We are asking you not to turn Izyum into the Brest Fortress. The people will stand, but behind them is Russia, which has 150 million people and an army of two million. I would like to see all of this from Raisin.
As the commander of the Sherwood Forest volunteer battalion explained, the most obvious plan of the VSU is the complete encirclement of the Izyum Group of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation with the withdrawal of the VSU to the Oskolsky Reservoir simultaneously from the north and south. It is easier to do this from a southern direction from Slavyansk (via Svyatogorsk or Raigorodok) than by fighting for Balakleya, he noted.
There can be no talk of any “breakthrough” by the Ukrainian Armed Forces during their “counter-offensive”, Vasyl Nebenzya said at a meeting of the UN Security Council last night. He explained that in the run-up to the latest meeting of NATO defense ministers in Ramstein, Germany, VSU activity increased to “beg” for new weapons.
At the same time, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin said that Ukraine had achieved some success near Kherson and Kharkiv.
In the meantime, information appeared about the first mini-cell, where the units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces were deployed. The territory around Sinikha, Senkovo, Vorontsovka, Fedorovka, Lesnaya stenka, where the forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine were previously broken through, was captured by the fighters of the 60th unit of the OMSB “Veterans” and the forces assigned to them are encircled.
Watching from the DPR, military commander Dmitry Seleznyov shared his impressions of the ongoing events:
It has long been known that the National Guard of Ukraine, as well as tank units from Chernihiv, were transferred in the direction of Kharkiv. There are also mercenaries. Although they try to fight not on the front line, but where they are sure that they will be able to retreat, sometimes they are killed – corpses are found. There are also Western military instructors. The HIMARS MLRS now hitting Kupyansk are controlled by the US military, not Ukrainians.
All these movements of VSU did not go unnoticed. Analysts talked about the danger of encirclement of our Ryzyum Group two months ago. Of course, this is not a disaster, but it is definitely an emergency. The armed forces of Ukraine have already reached the Oskol dam and the cities of Kupyansk and Izyum are under threat.
There is a version that this is a kind of “bait” for the armed forces of Ukraine. For example, now that their units have advanced 20-30 kilometers deep into our defenses and communications have stretched, our military will be able to “cut the boilers”. The consequences can be like at Kherson…
Dmitry Seleznev: I don’t believe much in cunning plans. It is clear that the front line that our military has to guard is very long. The breakthrough can happen anywhere. Judging by what is happening, we are moving units from one sector to another, strengthening the front in one place, but exposing it in another. It is fortified near Kherson, exposed near Kharkiv. We don’t have enough reserves. So it is necessary to introduce new reserves, to change something. Time to start getting serious.
It is no longer a secret that Russia is actually at war with the West. All the weapons that Ukraine had were almost gone. Now there is a kind of “depreciation” of the spent military reserves of Ukraine by the Western arsenals. The Armed Forces have American and French howitzers, armored personnel carriers, drones, ammunition, means of communication. Only the military, the “smoke meat”, are Ukrainian there. We defeated the Ukrainian army a long time ago. We are now at war with NATO. Everything is run by NATO generals.
It is necessary to take measures so that Kyiv does not get weapons. I would completely cut off Europe’s gas. They fight against us. Maybe this is planned, just waiting for winter to get more painful. It is necessary to destroy the bridges, power plants, communications and all infrastructure of the enemy. By the way, we have already given enough reasons for this. I don’t even want to talk about the notorious “decision centers”.
The head of the Center for the Study of Social-Applied Problems of National Security, retired colonel Alexander Zhilin, is also sure that Russia is at war with the West:
Now Ukraine’s military potential is growing every month, if not every week. Supplies from the West are colossal, instructors are employed in the military units. As far as I understand, according to a number of signs of intelligence, strategic planning, and even tactical planning, is already carried out not only by the Pentagon, but also by NATO structures. They act, unfortunately, very sensibly.
The combined grouping of more than 40 nations supplies Kyiv with all the intelligence it needs, from satellite to data to help with planning and munitions delivery. In fact, they fight with common, and we only with our resources.
The Anglo-Saxons did what was requested. Today, Ukraine is an instrument of a heated battle between the West and Russia. Ukrainians die there, not Englishmen and Americans. They only supply them with ammunition, equipment and so on. The ideal scheme for war with Russia. Couldn’t we have calculated this beforehand? It was obvious.
And looking at what is happening near Balakleia, in the region of Kupyansk or Izyum. This is no longer of any fundamental importance. Most importantly, the hot phase is organized and launched. And what was built as a project “Ukraine – anti-Russia” is already cemented with blood, mutual hatred. That’s how they bastards work.
I fear we may now declare a mobilization in the hope of winning by manpower. But in our time it is impossible to act like in the Second World War. If Marshal Zhukov could operate in large formations, now they will be immediately swept away by these American HIMARS. Some other solutions are needed. Conflict can be brutal, but it doesn’t have to be long.
The financial war between Russia with China’s tacit backing on one side, and America and her NATO allies on the other has escalated rapidly. It appears that President Putin was thinking several steps ahead when he launched Russia’s attack on Ukraine.
We have seen sanctions fail. We have seen Russia achieve record export surpluses. We have seen the rouble become the strongest currency on the foreign exchanges.
We are seeing the west enter a new round of European monetary inflation to pay everyone’s energy bills. The euro, yen, and sterling are already collapsing — the dollar will be next. From Putin’s point of view, so far, so good.
Russia has progressed her power over Asian nations, including populous India and Iran. She has persuaded Middle Eastern oil and gas producers that their future lies with Asian markets, and not Europe. She is subsidising Asia’s industrial revolution with discounted energy. Thanks to the west’s sanctions, Russia is on its way to confirming Halford Mackinder’s predictions made over a century ago, that Russia is the true geopolitical centre of the world.
There is one piece in Putin’s jigsaw yet to be put in place: a new currency system to protect Russia and her allies from an approaching western monetary crisis. This article argues that under cover of the west’s geopolitical ineptitude, Putin is now assembling a new gold-backed multi-currency system by combining plans for a new Asian trade currency with his new Moscow World Standard for gold.
Currency developments under the radar
Unreported by western media, there are some interesting developments taking place in Asia over the future of currencies. Earlier this summer, it emerged that Sergei Glazyev, a senior Russian economist and Minister in charge of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EAEU), was leading a committee planning a new trade currency for the Eurasian Economic Union.
As put forward in Russian and EAEU media, the new currency is to be comprised of a mixture of national currencies and commodities. A weighting of some sort was suggested to reflect the relative importance of the currencies and commodities traded between them. At the same time, the new trade settlement currency was to be available to any other nation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the expanding BRICS membership. The ambition is for it to become an Asia-wide replacement for the dollar.
More specifically, the purpose is to do away with the dollar for trade settlements on cross-border transactions between participants. It is worth noting that any dollar transaction is reflected in US banks through the correspondent banking system, potentially giving the US authorities undesirable economic intelligence, and information on sanction-busting and other activities deemed illegal or undesirable by the US authorities. Furthermore, any transaction involving US dollars becomes a matter for the US legal system, giving US politicians the authority to intervene wherever the dollar is used.
As well as removing these disadvantages, through the inclusion of a basket of commodities there appears to be an acceptance that the new trade currency must be more stable in terms of its commodity purchasing power than exists with that of the dollar. But we can immediately detect flaws in the outline proposal. The mooted inclusion of national currencies in the basket is not only an unnecessary complication, but any nation joining it would presumably trigger a wholesale rebalancing of the currency’s composition.
Including national currencies is a preposterous suggestion, as is any suggestion that the commodity element should be weighted by trade volumes transacted between participating states. Instead, an unweighted average of energy, precious metals, and base metals makes more sense, but even that does not go far enough. The reasons are illustrated by the two charts in Figure 1.
The upper chart shows baskets of different categories of commodities indexed and priced in dollars. Between them, they represent a wide range of commodities and raw materials. These baskets are considerably less volatile than their individual components. For example, since April 2020 oil has risen from a distorted minus figure to a high of $130, whereas the energy basket has risen only 6.3 times, because other components have not risen nearly as much as crude oil and some components might be rising while others might be falling. Agriculture raw materials are comprised of cotton, timber, wool, rubber, and hides, not raw materials liable to undesirable seasonality. But the average of the four categories is considerably more stable than its components (the black line).
We are moving towards price stability. However, all commodities are priced in US dollars, which being undesirable, cannot be avoided. Pricing in gold, which is legal money, eventually resolves this problem because it can be fixed against participating currencies. The result of pricing the commodity categories in gold and the average of them is shown in the lower chart.
Since 1992, the average (the black line) has varied between 0.37 and 1.66, and is currently at 0.82, or 18% less than in January 1992. This is as stable as it gets, and even this low volatility would probably be less if the dollar wasn’t itself so volatile and the gold price manipulated by nay-saying western authorities. To further illustrate these points, Figure 2 shows the dollar’s volatility in terms of crude oil.
Before the abandonment of Bretton Woods in 1971, the price of oil hardly changed. Since then, measured by gold the dollar has lost 98% of its purchasing power. Furthermore, the chart shows that it is the dollar which is extremely volatile and not oil, because the price of oil in gold is relatively constant (down only 20% from 1950), while in dollars it is up 33.6 times with some wild price swings along the way. Critics of measuring prices in gold ignore the fact that legal money is gold and not paper currencies or bank credit: attempts by governments and their epigones to persuade us otherwise are propaganda only.
Therefore, Glazyev should drop currencies from the proposed basket entirely and strive to either price a basket of non-seasonal commodities in gold, or alternatively simply reference the new currency to gold in a daily fix. And as the charts above confirm, there is little point in using a basket of commodities priced in dollars or gold when it is far simpler for the EAEU nations and for anyone else wishing to participate in the new trade currency to use a trade currency directly tied to the gold price. It would amount to a new Asian version of a Bretton Woods arrangement and would need no further adjustment.
Attributing them to excessive credit, from recent statements by President Putin it is clear he has a better understanding of currencies and the west’s inflationary problems than western economists. Intellectually, he has long demonstrated an appreciation of the relationship between money, that is only gold, and currency and credit. His knowledge was further demonstrated by his insistence that the “unfriendlies” pay for energy in roubles, taking control of the media of energy exchange into Russia’s own hands and away from those of his enemies.
In short, Putin appears to understand that gold is money and that the rest is unreliable, weaponizable, credit. So, why does he not just command a new trade currency to be created, backed by gold?
Enter the new Moscow gold standard
Logic suggests that a gold-backed currency will be the outcome of Glazyev’s EAEU committee’s trade currency deliberations after all, because of a subsequent announcement from Moscow concerning a new Russian bullion market.
In accordance with western sanctions, the London Bullion Market refused to accept Russian mined and processed gold. It was then natural for Russia to propose a new gold market based in Moscow with its own standards. It is equally sensible for Moscow to set up a price fixing committee, replicating that of the LBMA. But instead of it being the basis for a far larger unallocated gold deposit account offering by Russian and other banks, it will be a predominantly physical market.
Based in Moscow, with a new market called the Moscow International Precious Metals Exchange, the Moscow Gold Standard will incorporate some of the LBMA’s features, such as good delivery lists with daily, or twice daily fixings. The new exchange is therefore being promoted as a logical replacement for the LBMA.
But could that be a cover, with the real objective being to provide a gold link to the new trade currency planned by Glazyev’s EAEU committee? Timing suggests that this may indeed be the case, but we will only know for sure as events unfold.
If it is to be backed by gold, the considerations behind setting up a new trade currency are fairly straightforward. There is the Chinese one kilo bar four-nines standard, which is widely owned, has already been adopted throughout Asia, and is traded even on Comex. Given that China is Russia’s long-term partner, that is likely to be the standard unit. The adoption of the Chinese standard in the new Moscow exchange is logical, simplifying the relationship with the Shanghai Gold Exchange, and streamlining fungibility between contracts, arbitrage, and delivery.
Geopolitics suggest that the simple proposition behind the establishment of a new Moscow exchange will fit in with a larger trans-Asia plan and is unlikely to move at the glacial pace of developments between Russia and China to which we have become accustomed. The gold question has become bound up in more rapid developments triggered by Russia’s belligerence over Ukraine, and the sanctions which quickly followed.
There can be little doubt that this must be leading to a seismic shift in gold policy for the Russian Chinese partnership. The Chinese in particular have demonstrated an unhurried patience that befits a nation with a sense of its long history and destiny. Putin is more of a one-man act. Approaching seventy years old, he cannot afford to be so patient and is showing a determination to secure a legacy in his lifetime as a great Russian leader. While China has made the initial running with respect to gold policy, Putin is now pushing the agenda more forcefully.
Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the strategy was to let the west make all the geopolitical and financial mistakes. For Putin perhaps, the lesson of history was informed by Napoleon’s march to the gates of Moscow, his pyrrhic victory at Borodino, and his defeat by the Russian winter. Hitler made the same mistake with Operation Barbarossa. From Putin’s viewpoint, the lesson was clear — Russia’s enemies defeat themselves. It was repeated in Afghanistan, where the American-led NATO enemy was conquered by its own hubris without Putin having to lift so much as a finger. That is why Russia is Mackinder’s Pivot Area of the World Island. It cannot be attacked by navies, and supply line requirements for armies make Russia’s defeat well-nigh impossible
Following the Ukraine invasion, Putin’s financial strategy has become more aggressive, and is potentially at odds with China’s economic policy. Being cut off from western markets, Putin is now proactive, while China which exports goods to them probably remains more cautious. But China knows that western capitalism bears the seeds of its own destruction, which would mean the end of the dollar and the other major fiat currencies. An economic policy based on exports to capitalistic nations would be a passing phase.
China’s gold policy was aways an insurance policy against a dollar collapse, realising that she must not be blamed for the west’s financial destruction by announcing a gold standard for the yen in advance of it. It would be a nuclear equivalent in a financial war, only an action to be taken as a last resort.
Developments in Russia have changed that. It is clear to the Russians, and most likely the Chinese, that credit inflation is now pushing the dollar into a currency crisis in the next year or two. Preparations to protect the rouble and the yuan from the final collapse of the dollar, long taught in Marxist universities as inevitable, must assume a new urgency. It would be logical to start with a new trade settlement currency as a testbed for national currencies in Asia, and for it to be set up in such a way that it would permit member states to adopt gold standards for their own currencies as well.
Possession of bullion is key
The move away from western fiat currencies to gold backed Asian currencies requires significant gold bullion ownership at the least. The only members, associates, and dialog partners of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the EAEU whose central banks have not increased their gold reserves since the Lehman failure when the credit expansion of dollars began in earnest, are minor states. Since then, between them they have added 4,645 tonnes to their reserves, while all the other central banks account for only 781 tonnes of additional gold reserves.
But central bank reserves are only part of the story, with nations running other, often secret national bullion accounts not included in reserves. The appendix to this article shows why and how China almost certainly accumulated an undeclared quantity of bullion, likely to be in the region of 25,000 tonnes by 2002 and probably more since.
Since 2002, when the Shanghai Gold Exchange opened and China’s citizens were permitted for the first time to own gold, gold delivered into public hands has totalled a further amount of over 20,000 tonnes. While the bulk of this is jewellery and some has been returned to the SGE as scrap for re-refining, it is clear that the authorities have encouraged Chinese citizens to retain gold for themselves, which traditionally has been real money in China.
According to Simon Hunt of Simon Hunt Strategic Services, as well as declared reserves of 2,301 tonnes Russia also holds gold bullion in its Gosfund (the State Fund of Russia) bringing its holdings up to 12,000 tonnes. This is significantly greater than the 8,133 tonnes declared by the US Treasury, over which there are widespread doubts concerning the veracity of its true quantity.
Obviously, the Asian partnership has a very different view of gold from the American hegemon. Furthermore, in recent months evidence has confirmed what gold bugs have claimed all along, that the Bank for International Settlements and major bullion operators such as JPMorgan Chase have indulged in a price suppression scheme to discourage gold ownership and to divert bullion demand into synthetic unallocated accounts.
The secrecy that surrounds reporting of gold reserves to the IMF raises further suspicions over the true position. Furthermore, there are leases and swaps between central banks, the BIS, and bullion dealers that lead to double counting and bullion recorded as being in possession of governments and their central banks but being held by other parties.
As long ago as 2002 when the gold price was about $300 per ounce, Frank Veneroso, who as a noted analyst spent considerable time and effort identifying central bank swaps and leases, concluded that anything between 10,000 and 15,000 tonnes of government and central bank gold reserves were out on lease or swapped — that is up to almost half the total official global gold reserves at that time. His entire speech is available on the Gold Antitrust Action Committee website, but this is the introduction to his reasoning:[i]
“Let’s begin with an explanation of gold banking and gold derivatives.
“It is a simple, simple idea. Central banks have bars of gold in a vault. It’s their own vault, it’s the Bank of England’s vault, it’s the New York Fed’s vault. It costs them money for insurance – it costs them money for storage— and gold doesn’t pay any interest. They earn interest on their bills of sovereigns, like US Treasury Bills. They would like to have a return as well on their barren gold, so they take the bars out of the vault and they lend them to a bullion bank. Now the bullion bank owes the central bank gold—physical gold—and pays interest on this loan of perhaps 1%. What do these bullion bankers do with this gold? Does it sit in their vault and cost them storage and insurance? No, they are not going to pay 1% for a gold loan from a central bank and then have a negative spread of 2% because of additional insurance and storage costs on their physical gold. They are intermediaries—they are in the business of making money on financial intermediation. So they take the physical gold and they sell it spot and get cash for it. They put that cash on deposit or purchase a Treasury Bill. Now they have a financial asset—not a real asset—on the asset side of their balance sheet that pays them interest—6% against that 1% interest cost on the gold loan to the central bank. What happened to that physical gold? Well, that physical gold was Central Bank bars, and it went to a refinery and that refinery refined it, upgraded it, and poured it into different kinds of bars like kilo bars that go to jewellery factories who then make jewellery out of it. That jewellery gets sold to individuals. That’s where those physical bars have wound up—adorning the women of the world…
“We have gotten, albeit crude, estimates of gold borrowings from the official sector from probably more than 1/3 of all the bullion banks. We went to bullion dealers, and we asked, “Are these guys major bullion bankers, medium bullion bankers, or small-scale bullion bankers?” We classified them accordingly and from that we have extrapolated a total amount of gold lending from our sample. That exercise has pointed to exactly the same conclusion as all of our other evidence and inference—i.e., something like 10,000 to 15,000 tonnes of borrowed gold.”
Veneroso’s findings were stunning. But two decades later, we have no idea of the current position. The market has changed substantially since 2002, and today it is thought that swaps and leases are often by book entry, rather than physical delivery of bullion into markets. But the implications are clear: if Russia or China cared to declare their true position and made a move towards backing their currencies with gold or linking them to gold credibly, it would be catastrophic for the dollar and western fiat currencies generally. It would amount to a massive bear squeeze on the west’s longstanding gold versus fiat policy. And remember, gold is money, and the rest is credit, as John Pierpont Morgan said in 1912 in evidence to Congress. He was not stating his opinion, but a legal fact.
In a financial crisis, the accumulated manipulation of bullion markets since the 1970s is at significant risk of becoming unwound. The imbalance in bullion holdings between the Russian Chinese camp and the west would generate the equivalent of a financial nuclear event. This is why it is so important to understand that instead of being a longstop insurance policy against the Marxist prediction of capitalism’s ultimate failure, it appears that the combination of planning for a new trade currency for Asian nations centred on members of the EAEU, coinciding with the introduction of a new Moscow-based bullion standard, is now pre-empting financial developments in the west. That being the case, a financial nuclear bomb is close to being triggered.
China’s gold policy
China actually took its first deliberate step towards eventual domination of the gold market as long ago as June 1983, when regulations on the control of gold and silver were passed by the State Council. The following Articles extracted from the English translation set out the objectives very clearly:
Article 1. These Regulations are formulated to strengthen control over gold and silver, to guarantee the State’s gold and silver requirements for its economic development and to outlaw gold and silver smuggling and speculation and profiteering activities.
Article 3. The State shall pursue a policy of unified control, monopoly purchase and distribution of gold and silver. The total income and expenditure of gold and silver of State organs, the armed forces, organizations, schools, State enterprises, institutions, and collective urban and rural economic organizations (hereinafter referred to as domestic units) shall be incorporated into the State plan for the receipt and expenditure of gold and silver.
Article 4. The People’s Bank of China shall be the State organ responsible for the control of gold and silver in the People’s Republic of China.
Article 5. All gold and silver held by domestic units, with the exception of raw materials, equipment, household utensils and mementos which the People’s Bank of China has permitted to be kept, must be sold to the People’s Bank of China. No gold and silver may be personally disposed of or kept without authorization.
Article 6. All gold and silver legally gained by individuals shall come under the protection of the State.
Article 8. All gold and silver purchases shall be transacted through the People’s Bank of China. No unit or individual shall purchase gold and silver unless authorised or entrusted to do so by the People’s Bank of China.
Article 12. All gold and silver sold by individuals must be sold to the People’s Bank of China.
Article 25. No restriction shall be imposed on the amount of gold and silver brought into the People’s Republic of China, but declaration and registration must be made to the Customs authorities of the People’s Republic of China upon entry.
Article 26. Inspection and clearance by the People’s Republic of China Customs of gold and silver taken or retaken abroad shall be made in accordance with the amount shown on the certificate issued by the People’s Bank of China or the original declaration and registration form made on entry. All gold and silver without a covering certificate or in excess of the amount declared and registered upon entry shall not be allowed to be taken out of the country.
These articles make it clear that only the People’s Bank was authorised to acquire or sell gold on behalf of the state, without limitation, and that citizens owning or buying gold were not permitted to do so and must sell any gold in their possession to the People’s Bank.
Additionally, China has deliberately developed her gold mine production regardless of cost, becoming the largest producer by far in the world.[ii] State-owned refineries process this gold along with doré imported from elsewhere. Virtually none of this gold leaves China, so that the gold owned today between the state and individuals continues to accumulate.
The regulations quoted above formalised the State’s monopoly over all gold and silver which is exercised through the Peoples Bank, and they allow the free importation of gold and silver but keep exports under very tight control. The intent behind the regulations is not to establish or permit the free trade of gold and silver, but to control these commodities in the interest of the state.
This being the case, the growth of Chinese gold imports recorded as deliveries to the public since 2002, when the Shanghai Gold Exchange was established and the public then permitted to buy gold, is only the more recent evidence of a deliberate act of policy embarked upon thirty-nine years ago. China had been accumulating gold for nineteen years before she allowed her own nationals to buy when private ownership was finally permitted. Furthermore, the bullion was freely available, because in seventeen of those years, gold was in a severe bear market fuelled by a combination of supply from central bank disposals, leasing, and increasing mine production, all of which I estimate totalled about 59,000 tonnes. The two largest buyers for all this gold for much of the time were private buyers in the Middle East and China’s government, with additional demand identified from India and Turkey. The breakdown from these sources and the likely demand are identified in the table below:
In another context, the cost of China’s 25,000 tonnes of gold equates to roughly 10% of her exports over the period, and the eighties and early nineties in particular also saw huge capital inflows when multinational corporations were building factories in China. However, the figure for China’s gold accumulation is at best informed speculation. But given the determination of the state to acquire gold expressed in the 1983 regulations and by its subsequent actions, it is clear China had deliberately accumulated a significant undeclared stockpile by 2002.
So far, China’s long-term plans for the acquisition of gold appear to have achieved some important objectives. To date, additional deliveries to the public through the SGE now total over 20,000 tonnes.
China’s motives for taking control of the gold bullion market have almost certainly evolved. The regulations of 1983 make sense as part of a forward-looking plan to ensure that some of the benefits of industrialisation would be accumulated as a risk-free national asset. This reasoning is similar to that of the Arab nations capitalising on the oil-price bonanza only ten years earlier, which led them to accumulate their hoard, mainly held in private as opposed to government hands, for the benefit of future generations. However, as time passed the world has changed substantially both economically and politically.
2002 was a significant year for China, when geopolitical considerations entered the picture. Not only did the People’s Bank establish the Shanghai Gold Exchange to facilitate deliveries to private investors, but this was the year the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation formally adopted its charter. This merger of security and economic interests with Russia has bound Russia and China together with a number of resource-rich Asian states into an economic bloc. When India, Iran, Mongolia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan join (as they now have or are already committed to do), the SCO will cover more than half the world’s population. And inevitably the SCO’s members are looking for an alternative trade settlement system to using the US dollar.
At some stage China with her SCO partner, Russia, might force the price of gold higher as part of their currency strategy. You can argue this from an economic point of view on the basis that possession of properly priced gold will give her a financial dominance over global trade at a time when we are trashing our fiat currencies, or more simply that there’s no point in owning an asset and suppressing its value for ever. From 2002 there evolved a geopolitical argument: both China and Russia having initially wanted to embrace American and Western European capitalism no longer sought to do so, seeing us as soft enemies instead. The Chinese public were then encouraged, even by public service advertising, to buy gold, helping to denude the west of her remaining bullion stocks and to provide market liquidity in China.
What is truly amazing is that the western economic and political establishment have dismissed the importance of gold and ignored all the warning signals. They do not seem to realise the power they have given China and Russia to create financial chaos as a consequence of gold price suppression. If they do so, which seems to be only a matter of time, then London’s fractional reserve system of unallocated gold accounts would simply collapse, leaving Shanghai as the only major physical market.
This is probably the final link in China’s long-standing gold strategy, and through it a planned domination of the global economy in partnership with Russia and the other SCO nations. But as noted above, recent events have brought this outcome forward.
As shadow banks become authentic governments of countries, the nations gradually turn into foreign capital corporations or companies, which enslave the workforce. Capital or money doesn’t have a nationality. Its homeland is the accounts, hidden by its owners so as not to pay taxes. Traditionally these accounts were in Switzerland or in the Virgin Islands, but are now scattered around the world in many centers, turned into the cash boxes and are the true homeland of that one percent that monopolizes the riches of the planet.
This is especially true for small countries such as Honduras, which probably never was a proper country, but rather a group of ranches owned by a bunch of families and now on its way to definitively become a foreign capital corporation without nationals. Left behind are only wretched employees with miserable wages. The foreign capital company strips all of the homelands of its excess inhabitants, who then have to migrate on foot looking for other lands. The only nationals that Honduras has at the moment are Orlando Hernandez and his cadre of cocaine traffickers who are the only ones who feel at home in the country (although they would probably prefer to live in Miami and be North Americans) and perhaps the high-ranking US military stationed at the base of Palmerola. They are probably the only ones who can walk the streets of Tegucigalpa boasting with impunity of their elite privileges preserved only by the fear or ignorance of the people; an ignorance that they do everything in their power to encourage. I do not include the rank and file soldiers of the base, because surely they will spend their time dreaming of returning home from time to time; returning home to their own country, that probably has also turned into an immense foreign capital corporation with four or five subsidiaries (Blackrock, Vanguard Group … and of course the Carlyle group, the most emblematic). Nationals without a homeland or with a shrunken one like Syria may perhaps console themselves a little for their misfortune, thinking that the capital in the hands of some Arab sheiks is converting middle-class or lower-class Americans into employees of Ben Salman with slowly diminishing salaries. However scarce the rights enjoyed by the Hondurans that manage to enter the stepmother country of adoption that could be the USA, they’ll always have more than in their own country, where they have none and where their death isn’t news. Now finally they have become “news” after many decades of being anonymous victims, thanks to an epic journey on foot, crossing the hostile lands of Central America and North America: lands hostile to those who don’t have more capital than only their hands or their wit, as long as they do not use it to foment crime and robbery. It is possible that those Mexicans who contemplate this diaspora, and are also subject to the abuse of local mafia bosses backed by Washington, feel wrongly lucky. Thinking that they are on one higher rung of the global pyramid, and I don’t mean the Aztec one, but the pyramid of the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by the directors of the Vanguard group or Carlyle, is a false sense of consolation. It only allows the Mexicans to deceive themselves because the foreign capital corporations will continue oppressing them all the same. This hopeless consolation does serve the bigwigs of the banks and corporations in that the Mexicans don’t become fully aware of the oppression that they suffer and don’t decide to rebel against it.
Meanwhile, the nation of Honduras is on its way to becoming universal, because it is a model that Chiquita’s prominent executives want to export to the entire world. They do not want to only ship bananas. They are also committed to exporting slavery and misery as this is part of the model. And the Mexicans and the Americans themselves are becoming Hondurans exceptionally quickly, and if the immigrants don’t hurry to get into the northern country as soon as possible, they could find a nation as tyrannical as their own, but of a much bigger size. Because the real mission that Trump has entrusted to the army on the border with Mexico is not only to stop their progress but to keep intact the mirage that his is a free and prosperous nation, when it stopped being such, a few years ago.
The Bush administration by means of a rigged election, took good care of cutting the constitutional guarantees with its false war on terrorism (which is nothing more than a war against the liberties of America and the rest of the world). This started the long road to privatize the homeland and deliver their wealth into the hands of a few entrepreneurs who frequently disguise themselves as politicians and who change the legislation at will and for their own benefit. It seems very revealing to me that a banana company like Chiquita (because the banana one is the company and not the nation) is in charge of keeping at bay the thirst for freedom and justice of the Honduran people.
In this way, the Hondurans are diminished, and a distorted image of them is projected to the world that allows their oppressors to keep them in the status of serfs or ignorant peasants who serve only to work a land that doesn’t belong to them, with semi-starvation wages. If Honduras is a banana republic, it is because the banana foreign capital companies like Chiquita strangle its development. The role played by Chiquita in the financing of the death squads of Colombia is well demonstrated when they were condemned to pay a “symbolic” fine of 25 million dollars for financing the self-defense groups in that country.
The directors of Chiquita could have saved the money paid to the death squads by raising the salary and improving the coverage of their employees (instead of cutting it as they intend to do now in La Lima). We must ask ourselves, then, why didn’t they do it?. Does such behavior gratify the ego of executives who take a sadistic pleasure in subduing and oppressing their employees under the soles of their feet to feel themselves important? Are they psychiatric fodder? Are they perverts who desperately need someone to knock them down on a couch to be psychoanalyzed? Is that the only explanation? Or would such an initiative have found the rejection of the Colombian elites, of a no less sinister profile, who contemplate any improvement in the living conditions of the humble classes of that country as a threat? Do they fear that this improvement will arouse the envy of other sectors of the population that could claim, in turn, more just living conditions for themselves? The relationship between corporate fascism and sadomasochism is very clear. It is not necessary to consult with any specialist in mental illnesses about that. The problem, or one of them, is that the victims of the sadism of the fascists do not usually present themselves on a voluntary basis. About the sadism of the assassins, I do not want to joke because it’s too terrible.
Regarding this, the Argentine psychoanalytic school has failed us; it didn’t penetrate into the heart of horror, it didn’t sit the assassins on the couch, and sadly neither in the dock to dig into the garbage of their minds, more tormenting than tormented, and profoundly sick with an infectious disease that looks remarkably like the rage. You only have to read their threatening statements. But perhaps psychoanalysis wanted to transform the patient so that it would integrate better or worse in a sick society, and not to transform the sick society as a whole, and I mean into everyone’s society. Because in the new neo-liberal order, psychopaths spring up like mushrooms. Psychopathy is the crop that gets favored most, together with that of transgenic soybeans. They are transgenic psychopaths fed with Kelloggs watered with glyphosate.
We must ask ourselves these things because it is not enough to accuse the corporations of all the evils of this world. Their bad practices thrive in societies of authoritarian tradition that prevail in most Latin American countries (and increasingly everywhere) where the armed man is worshiped, and solidarity or the disinterested struggle for the common good is considered a dishonor. It is a cult of death and weapons that spread everywhere with fascism, and that also corrodes American society. The “perverse” exaltation of the bully, on the part of both men and women, intensifies with the crisis and threatens to plunge us all into a new global conflagration of apocalyptic consequences. The new times, and the new model propose the villain as a hero. We can not get tired of repeating it: the money to pay the thugs and murderers was foreign, but the murderers are native.
Chiquita has changed ownership (supposedly, because it is impossible to know who is hiding behind that innocent-looking name), but it does not seem to be willing to change its practices. And now it is engaged in breaking the strikes, utilizing the Honduran army, which is actually the army of Chiquita. We saw this in La Lima, Colonia San José not long ago,where 400 workers were shot, and several of them were tortured. Chiquita Honduras dismissed 105 workers in retaliation, and 34 arrest warrants were issued against the leaders of the strike committee.
The links that Chiquita Brands maintained with prominent figures of the American political and economic panorama are very clear. Many accuse it of being behind the coup that ousted Zelaya. Chiquita was represented by a powerful US law firm, Covington & Burling LLP and its consulting firm, McLarty Associates. President Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, was a Covington partner and defense attorney for Chiquita when the company was accused of hiring the death squads in Colombia. George W. Bush’s ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, currently Trump’s national security adviser, worked as a lawyer for that firm, and the vice president of McLarty Associates was none other than John Negroponte, who played a leading role in the Contra war against Sandinista Nicaragua.
The organizations and individuals that conspire in Honduras are undoubtedly the same ones that want to put an end to the Nicaraguan democracy by disguising themselves as a non-profit or an altruistic organization, now named the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. The old School of the Americas, where General Romeo Vásquez did his studies as coup supporter, has graduated to a new name just as Vásquez graduated “cum laude” in the techniques of torture, intimidation, and extermination. The fact that such a school remains open despite its bloody history of dishonor and infamy, gives us an idea of how highly it is esteemed in the new world order (which is the same as the old one, but only worse). The degree of impunity which war criminals walking free enjoy, is rampant. We need a non-profit or philanthropic organization that tells us which NGOs are worthy of the name, and that does not include the Cosa Nostra or the Ndrangheta among its members, who will very soon call themselves philanthropic organizations. I recommend Front Line Defenders, committed to the clarification of the murder of the defender of the land, and president of Muca, Jose Angel Flores as well as the defender Mr. Silmer. Another black chapter in the history of Honduras that deserves a separate essay.
If we try to find out the nationality of a corporation like Chiquita, we enter an authentic labyrinth where it is difficult not to get lost. According to some sources it is – in theory – Swiss. Switzerland, the homeland of evaded fortunes is an ideal country and opaque as no other to hide your gains, but its headquarters is in the canton of Vaud and in Florida, which means that it has at least a double nationality. The Safra Cutrale group that acquired it not long ago is an international network of companies that has its headquarters in Sao Paulo, that is, in Brazil, the perfect country to establish the headquarters of a corporation like that one, now that Bolsonaro and the ultra-right is ruling it. Did the executives of Chiquita decide to make the company Brazilian because, in a country as corrupt as that one, where judges send to prison whoever pleases them based on the false testimonies on the part of criminals without credence, their crimes would never come to light?
Safra and Cutrale, the new owners of Chiquita, not only commercialize bananas, but they also commercialize transgenic soybeans, which is a crop that spreads like fascist cancer through Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil, and just as neoliberalism, takes hold of those countries. The cultivation of soybeans thrives and already represents 50 percent of the arable land in Argentina. This, however, compromises food security and contributes to spreading the hunger that its defenders say they intend to fight. Violent expulsion of farmers from their lands and introducing changes in legislation that favor the cultivation of these crops, support the concentration of land and wealth in a few hands. It is hugely ironic that the profits of such crops are dedicated to paying the national debt contracted by corrupt politicians or members of the army following the wise advice of the IMF. As many already know, this institution is expert in ruining the economy of countries with the only objective being to fatten their accounts and those of the financial funders who are very savvy in tricks of all kinds. These fraudulent practices deserve a separate essay.
Transgenic soybeans (generously irrigated with Monsanto’s carcinogenic insecticide) not only threaten Argentina’s food security, but it is also a threat to health throughout the world since such poisonous pesticide has been found in alarming proportions in a multitude of foods consumed everywhere. The oppression in the Americas don’t come free of charge for the rest of us: we get it served on a tray, food dressed with carcinogenic. Pharmaceutical lobbies (Monsanto merged with Bayern not long ago) are very active bribing or pressuring European MEPs (like Richard Ashworth and John Agnew) who dine together in restaurants serving organic food. Of course, the glyphosate is left for the masses.
Thus, if Honduras is described as a banana republic, we can already speak of a soy republic in Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina, or would it be better to call them soy dictatorships? Monsanto impoverishes us all as it impoverishes the variety of seeds and degrades and sickens them; suppressing small farmers and suppressing diversity in agriculture and putting countries on their knees before the big foreign capital corporations of the food, pharmaceutical and armaments complex. The foreign based bankers can only but smile.
Honduras is a priority; together with El Salvador and Guatemala it is the cornerstone where the lies and the tyranny in the Americas, need many schools. Its freedom is the freedom of all of us. That is why it is so important that we help it to free itself so that Honduras exports not only bananas but liberty and justice to the rest of the continent.
An unquestioned assumption amongst America’s Establishment is that the global dominance that America inherited from having been the last of the major world powers to enter World War II, and from having suffered (by far) the least damage from that War, needs to continue in perpetuity, and that it needs to become total U.S. dominance over the entire planet, and especially dominance over the world’s largest nation, Russia, which is 1.77 times larger than America (the world’s third-largest country) is.
(Russia is 1.74 times larger than Canada, the world’s second-largest country, is; and is 1.78 times larger than China, which is the world’s fourth-largest. It is 2.01 times larger than the 5th-largest, Brazil; and is 2.20 times larger than the 6th-largest, Australia. It is 5.20 times larger than the 7th-largest, India. So, there are only 6 giant countries: Russia, Canada, America, China, Brazil, and Australia.) The term that many scholars use to refer to this belief — this objective, that America’s dominance over the entire world would be good instead of bad — is “hegemony”. Here, this belief will be explained.
Historically, any nation’s Establishment (its aristocracy and their employees and other agents) seeks to control as much of the world’s natural resources as possible, and this craving by them is the leading cause of wars. Russia, as the world’s largest nation, is also the world’s richest in natural resources. That is the main reason why the thousand-or-so people who control America (who mainly are America’s billionaires, America’s richest and best-connected individuals) want, more than anything else, to control Russia, which they don’t YET control. Their top mutually shared (virtually unanimous, if not 100% unanimous) assumption is that, however this is to be done, America needs to achieve control over Russia — that it is a good, instead of a bad, objective to pursue. If any member of America’s Establishment does NOT hold this objective, then that person would be shunned by all of his or her colleagues, and would consequently become targeted by all of them for defeat or conquest, destroying that person’s reputation and/or enterprises. Consequently, none comes forth publicly in opposition to this objective, which is called “U.S. hegemony” when it is not being labelled instead by benign-sounding ideological terms or phrases such as “democracy,” “freedom,” “the American way,” “the liberal international order,” or “the rules-based international order,” all of which presume that America’s continued and increased control over the world will help, instead of hinder, such alleged “values” — which really are global conquest, however that is to be achieved. So, the public join in: they (as workers for, or other agents of, those extremely wealthy individuals), likewise favor continued, and increased, U.S. global rule, hegemony. This goal is accepted by America’s public, as-if it were the very meaning of being an American ‘patriot’, and to oppose it is thus ‘unpatriotic’. This belief, in the virtuousness of extending yet further the American empire, is also the reason why the highest-respected of all institutions in America is “the military.”
Prior to 1898, America had been only a confused but largely democratic country, and not yet an imperialistic capitalist, or “fascist,” country, such as it has been ever since then, except during the Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945), when America was — for only that brief time-span — the most fully democratic country that it has ever been. Almost immediately after WW II, America became, even more than it ever had been, an imperialistic capitalist country, effectively controlled by its military-industrial complex, which never before even had existed. This is the reason why U.S. President Harry S. Truman (inspired by the advice that he had received from his hero, Dwight David Eisenhower — “Ike” — the most gifted liar of anyone who became America’s President, except for Barack Obama) created, in 1947, both the U.S. Department of ‘Defense’ (America’s first-ever standing army — which had been condemned by America’s Founders, but Truman and the U.S. Congress dismissed that concern) and the CIA (for producing coups, which America started doing in 1948 Thailand).
Ever since 25 July 1945 (only months after FDR’s 12 April 1945 death), America has been a fascist-imperialist country, under the ideological guise of being ‘anti-communist’ until 1991, when communism ended in Russia and President G.H.W. Bush committed the U.S. and its allies secretly on 24 February 1990 to being simply anti-Russian, even without any continuing ideological excuse, at all, remaining. This new America is today’s version of Nazi Germany, hyper-militaristic, a nation with global ambitions of conquest: aspiring for control over all countries.
Here is a good list of this new, fascist-imperialist, America’s, invasions, ever since the end of WW II — ever since, actually, 25 July 1945 (when the decision was first made for the U.S. Government to take over the entire planet). Few, if any, of those 161 foreign deployments of U.S. troops served U.S. national security (such as the U.S. regime claimed), but all served U.S. billionaires and were propagandized-for by U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media, at the time, so as to fool the public into believing that this was being done for “national defense” and “democracy” and “human rights” and “freedom,” when it was actually being done for imperialism to benefit America’s billionaires — to increase their access to the least expensive natural resources. As can be seen from that list, the U.S. Government is, now, and long has been (ever since 25 July 1945), controlled by its Military-Industrial Complex, or, more precisely, by America’s hundreds of billionaires who own control over America’s top 100 ‘defense’ (aggression) firms. Those are the only people who gain from U.S. imperialism. Everybody else loses from it, and many millions of people lose their lives because of it — because of these billionaires, who hide their identities behind fronts such as “BlackRock” and “Vanguard” and “State Street”, so that their guilt won’t become known, for what they do, and how they do it.
In addition to conquests by means of invasions, the hegemoniacal President Truman also initiated the long and continuing string of U.S. coups by the CIA, which he created in 1947 as an adjunct to the U.S. ‘Defense’ Department, in order to do dirty work for both that Department and the State Department. The CIA-edited and written Wikipedia (which blacklists — blocks from linking to — sites that aren’t CIA-approved) has a (probably intentionally) incomplete list of “U.S. coups” that excludes both the earliest one, which overthrew and replaced Thailand’s Government in 1948, and the latest one, which overthrew and replaced Ukraine’s Government in 2014, and the Wikipedia article is (likewise probably intentionally) mis-titled “United States involvement in regime change” (a title that few people will Web-search for), instead of “U.S. coups” (a title that many people Web-search for). Obviously, the CIA doesn’t want people to be able easily to find the list of U.S. coups that it contains. However, that list of 45 U.S. coups (all of which occurred, of course, after 1947) is the most-nearly-complete one that is presently on the Web, and you can see that list here. All of the instances of “United States involvement in regime change” that pre-date the CIA’s creation in 1947 were of a fundamentally different type, not U.S. coups, because there didn’t even exist, prior to the CIA, a U.S. agency to plan and carry out coups. So, there have been at least 47 U.S. coups since 1947 (those 45, plus the 1948 one in Thailand, and the 2014 one in Ukraine).
After World War II ended, the U.S. regime slaughtered or assisted in slaughtering, between 1945 and 2007 (and not even counting more recently, such as in Syria and Yemen), “between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world”. (This count also doesn’t include the numbers, such as in Iraq after the 1990 war, which died as a result of U.S.-initiated sanctions against countries that America’s billionaires wanted to bring under their control that weren’t yet under their control.)
As a consequence of the reality of post-1944 America’s being fascist-imperialist (and its consequent record of doing far more invasions, coups, and sanctions, than any other country does), overwhelmingly the highest percentage of people polled throughout the world on questions of which country poses the greatest or biggest threat to peace in the world say that that country is the United States. No other country comes even close. Soon after Hitler left off, Trumanite America continued on, and far more successfully, but for America’s billionaires, instead of for Germany’s.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
Like other religions, Islam is a religion of peace and does not permit acts of terrorism such as bomb blasts suicide attacks etc. But, the Holocaust warriors and the typical Jews who created holy warriors are misguiding the international community by equating the ideology of Islam with terrorism. Control of these Jews on the mainstream media houses of the world is so strong that terms such as Islamic militants, Jihadist groups and holy warriors (Mujahideen) have become popular. While reporting regarding global and regional events of terrorism, they do not use the terms like Hindu militants and Jewish terrorism or Christian militants.
Everyone knows that Al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban were created by the American CIA to fight against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
In this respect, former British Foreign secretary, Robin Cook stated, “Throughout the 1980s, he [Bin Laden] was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.”
The then US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and said about the militants (Mujahideen), “We know of their deep belief in God, and we are confident their struggle will succeed…because, you are fighting against the infidel Russians.”
However, after obtaining the political and economic interests of the US-led Israel, Washington had left Afghanistan in particular and Pakistan in general to face the fallout of a prolonged conflict—terrorism and instability. These Mujahideen who pulled the Russians out of Afghanistan, later become the Taliban, Al-Qaeda (New version) and the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State group (Daesh, ISIS, ISIL). They got the label of terrorists.
Notably, massacre of Jews through various tactics of torture in the concentration camps, erected by Hitler before and during the World War 11 is still shocking and condemnable. It was a big tragedy, popularly known as the Holocaust, conducted by the forces of state terrorism. But, before and in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, the Zionist-Israeli-led America has been taking unjustified revenge of the Holocaust from the Muslims in particular and the Christians in general, including persons of some other religious communities, who were not responsible for the Holocaust. These Holocaust warriors have been trying to convert the entire world into holocaust, as terror-related attacks have shown in various Islamic countries, including America, Europe and other Western countries.
Zionist-controlled American leading think-tanks and media have propagated that “genocide of 5 million Jews was carried out at the extermination camps, using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers of Germany, Poland, Austria and Alsace”, while some Jewish-influenced Western scholars have estimated the genocide of the 7.8 million Jews.
On the other side, impartial writers, researchers and authors have opined, “Following the rise of Hitler there were no more than 4 million Jews, living in areas occupied by the Third Reich at the height of its power. Yet on June 30, 1965, the West German government announced that some 3,375,000 Jewish holocaust “survivors” had applied for reparations money. The International Red Cross had already reported in 1946 that of registered Jewish camp inmates no more than 300,000 could have died, and their audit to December 31, 1984 records a total 282,077 registered deaths of all internees in all German Concentration Camps from all causes.”
Regarding the present holocaust, it had already started when the US emerged as the sole superpower in the unipolar world after the disintegration of the former Russia. American former President Bush, (The Senior) replaced the old bipolar order with the New World Order, with the US acting as a kind of global policeman to protect the political and economic interests of Israel and the American Jews who are owners of many big cartels—multinational corporations, arms factories, oil companies, banks etc., including print and electronic media of the US in particular and the world in general. By dominating American internal policies, Zionist Jews mould country’s foreign policy for their own interests. And, by changing America into corporate industry, they have converted the world into corporate industry.
In the unipolar world, the United Nations became an instrument of the US policy to establish American hegemony in the world. In order to obtain the hidden agenda of Jews, the US imposed its sudden terms of globalization such as free markets, privatization and de-nationalization etc. on the ill-prepared developing countries and the Muslim states which left behind shattered nations and a global financial crisis, increased poverty in most of these countries, which resulted into deaths of many persons due to diseases and lack of medical treatment. It further widened the gap between the poor and the rich countries or G-7 countries. The corporations and international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank which are indirectly controlled by the Jews have continued to drive the project of globalization through the sole superpower. Besides, America’s child-killing sanctions against Iraq and Iran; late action to curb ethnic cleansing in Kosovo—genocide of the Bosnian Muslims annoyed the Muslims all over the world.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, American former President Bush (The Senior) in connivance with his Zionist-advisers and neoconservatives took the Islamic fundamentalism as a great threat. Since then, sometimes, Al-Qaeda has continuously been used by the US and some Western countries as a scapegoat to malign Pakistan, as the latter is the only nuclear country in the Muslim World. Sometimes, they accused Iran of harbouring terrorism, and to propagate against Tehran’s peaceful nuclear progragmme—sometimes to achieve the goals of external policy and sometimes to pacify their public, including the opposition in relation to the prolonged war in Afghanistan and the anti-Muslim ‘different war’. In all cases, the purpose behind has been to safeguard the interests Israel and Zionists who consider themselves God’s chosen people to rule over the world.
As regards the double game, on November 13, 2009, a Reuters report quoting Labeviere’s book “Corridors of Terror” (Released in November 2003) points to negotiations between Bin Laden and CIA, which took place two months prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks-at the American Hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, when Bin Laden was under a kidney dialysis treatment.
Meanwhile, while making Osama and Al-Qaeda as scapegoats, a number of fake video messages were telecast on various TV channels and websites by some Zionist Jews to obtain Israel’s anti-Muslim goals. For example, during the November 2004 elections in the US, a fake video tape helped the ex-president George W. Bush to get lead over John Kerry.
It is well-known that in a tape released on December 27, 2001, the authenticity of which is not in question, Osama denied any involvement in the September 11 tragedy. However, later, two video tapes appeared to validate his guilt in relation to 9/11, because the main aims of the Bush administration were to provoke American public against the Muslims and to justify the fake global war on terror—the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq to possess energy resources of Central Asia and Iraq, including proxy wars in other Middle Eastern countries. Besides other actions of Bush era such as America’s state-sponsored terrorism in the volatile Islamic countries, persecution of Muslims through torture, detentions and arrests, CIA and FBI-operated facilities, promotion of sectarian violence and divide between Sunnis and Shias in the Islamic World—radicalizing the Western Christians against the Muslims.
It was because of the dual strategy of Bush through phony war on terror, and on the other side, response of Al-Qaeda militants by clandestine terror attacks, as shown through a number of the past suicidal missions such as on Indonesian resort island of Bali, Saudi Arabia, Spain etc., and a series of bomb attacks on London’s transport network, including those ones in other Afro-Asian countries have clearly pointed out that Al-Qaeda was organized on world level. But, the outfit lost control on its affiliated militant groups. Al-Qaeda’s decimated old guard may no longer be able to mount elaborately detailed plots, executed by other trained terrorists of various new groups which claim their links with Al-Qaeda, but, are not under its direct command. For example, in Somalia—splitting away of a hardliner-faction Al-Shabaab is an offshoot of the Islamic Courts Union, though the US defined Al-Shabaab as Al-Qaida allies.
In this connection, in March 2004, the former CIA Director, George Tenet said, “Al-Qaeda has become a loose collection of regional networks working autonomously-[they] pick their own targets, they plan their own attacks…in this new phase of franchise terrorism, Al-Qaeda has been described as an idea rather than an organization.”
It is mentionable that some Holocaust deniers claim, “The mass extermination of the Jews by the Nazis never happened…the Nazi command had a policy of deporting Jews, not exterminating them”, while some remark that the number of Jewish losses has been greatly exaggerated…that the Holocaust was not systematic nor a result of an official policy…only 600,000 Jews were killed rather than six million. All Jews were not killed through gas chambers, but also due to hunger, diseases and depression.”
On the one hand, the Jews have made the Holocaust the greatest device of gaining sympathy, while, on the other, they have used it for wars, anti-Muslim policies, expansion and foreign-aid, and to fulfill the Zionist ambition of greater Israel. With the support of American-Zionist Jews who manipulate the Holocaust, Israel has also become the sixth strongest military power of the world owing to the US assistance.
Once Henry Kissinger stated “legitimacy is not natural or automatic, but created.” Under the cover of the 9/11 tragedy, the US President George W. Bush who was in collaboration with the neo-conservatives and the Zionist Jews, orchestrated the drama of global war on terror to obtain the illegitimate interests of Israel by targeting the Islamic countries and persecution of the Muslims.
Bush who used the words, “crusade against the evil-doers” adding to the perception that the ongoing ‘different war’ against terrorism is actually a war against the Muslim countries also warned the world to choose sides by saying, “either you are with us or with terrorists.” It was due to employment of pressure-diplomacy on the weak states—Muslim countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Libya etc., including almost all the Arab states joined Bush’s anti-terrorism war. By manipulating the 9/11 carnage, Bush also got the sympathies of almost all the major Western countries, including NATO states which also joined the fake global war on terror.
By justifying the unjustified war on terror, several Muslim countries were deliberately destabilized and converted into concentration camps to attain the political, economic and religious goals of the Jews and Israel. For the purpose, double game and false flag operations which still continue became the part of the American CIA, Israeli Mossad and Indian RAW.
In case of Iraq, many of the Iraqis including some members of the former Interim Governing Council were shocked at the violence in Fallujah. Even the US weekly, ‘Newsweek’ admitted in its publication of April 19/April 26, 2004 that the US forces “used very heavy hand in Fallujah where more than 400 people were killed. Four members of the [former] Governing Council resigned in a protest against America’s crackdown in Fallujah…according to doctors figure of the deaths was impossible to check and it is more than 400…an airstrike dropped a 500 pound bomb. Arab language TV claimed that the bomb killed more than a score of civilians at prayer.”
Like Afghanistan, American soldiers also massacred several wounded people and civilians in Iraq. In November, 2004, a number of world’s televised channels including those of America showed footage of a US marine who was shooting and killing an already captive and wounded Iraqi prisoner at close range in a mosque in Fallujah where civilians had taken shelter.
No one can deny the fact that these were the worst examples of the US-led state terrorism or use of abnormal force.
It is of particular attention that the US-led troops, assisted by CIA have carried out indiscriminate mass round-ups in catching up suspected Muslim men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq, including some Arab countries without evidence. Mossad has helped the CIA officials in arresting the Muslim men, having beard and ladies, wearing scarves. Besides Guantanamo Bay and Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, CIA torture cells were present in several Islamic countries and were also set up in ships where US secret agencies and military personnel employed various methods of torture on the militants and suspected persons like physical violence and even murder. American notorious private military firm Blackwater also eliminated countless Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When America implemented the suggested plan of Rand Corporation and sparked a civil war (Sectarian violence) between the Sunnis and Shias in wake of war on terror to promote the objectives of Israel in the Muslim World, the horrible scenes of deaths were witnessed in Pakistan and especially in Iraq. In March, 2013, an investigative report by the British Guardian/BBC disclosed that acting under the direction of the top US officials; the CIA utilized a global network of secret prisons, foreign intelligence agents and torture centers in various Islamic countries including Belgium, Thailand etc. where torture was conducted directly by American intelligence operatives.
The report also mentioned atrocities of the US-backed entities, carried out in Bagram Airbase (Afghanistan), Guantanamo and Iraq—unleashed a deadly sectarian militia which terrorized the Sunni community and germinated a civil war between Sunnis and Shias, and claimed tens of thousands of lives.
It revealed, “At the height of that sectarian conflict, 3,000 bodies a month were strewn on the streets of Iraq. Rounding up Sunnis in American pickup trucks, the captives were thrown into secret prisons established in libraries, airports, and ministries. Anti-occupation politicians, human rights activists, and journalists were murdered. The purpose was also to terrorize ordinary Iraqis who opposed the US occupation.”
In this regard, the report focuses on the role of retired Colonel James Steele who worked with the Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. David Petraeus who also served as Obama’s CIA director. Steele sent regular memos to Donald Rumsfeld who forwarded them to Vice-President Dick Cheney and President George Bush, while, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died and millions were displaced as a result of the chaos and brutal practices.
As exact details of the death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq are not available due to the Jewish controlled media and their dominated concerned strategic institutes, some independent organizations have published their reports on the basis of randomly selected interviews of the household persons and the military officials. Some reports suggest that more than 3 million people including civilians died in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Following his predecessor, President Barack Obama had also continued the ruthless killings of the Muslims to complete the unfinished agenda of the Zionist Jews and Israel. Apart from air strikes on funerals, marriage-ceremonies and mosques in Afghanistan, and extrajudicial killings of the innocent people through illegal CIA-operated drone attacks in Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen etc. in general and Pakistan in particular, he converted Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen etc. into concentration camps. As part of the US double game, CIA which created Al-Qaeda and then ISIL, including Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and Syrian rebel groups in fighting against the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iraqi regime is responsible for the mass murder of more than 7 million Muslims and Christians who were killed in civil wars—ground and aerial strikes of the US-led Western countries, including various terrorism-related assaults like suicide attacks and bomb blasts, conducted by Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Besides, during the phony global war on terror, in these countries and Afghanistan and Iraq, especially in Syria, millions of Muslims became homeless. The plight of refugees—countless deaths, particularly of children owing to lack of medical treatment and starvation has displayed the holocaust on larger scale.
It is worth-mentioning that through the war against terrorism, President Bush and Obama provided a golden chance to Israel and India to accelerate the systematic genocide of the Palestinians and Kashmiris in the occupied territories of Palestine and Kashmir. Their forces have been employing military terrorism such as curfews, crackdowns, sieges, massacre and targeted killings to maintain alien rule on these territories.
In the recent years, the US-backed military regime in Burma (present Myanmar) has broken all the record of religious cleansing by encouraging Rakhine extremist Buddhists who butchered thousands of the Burmese Muslims belonging to the Rohingya Muslim through various brutal methods of torture. Eye witnesses disclosed that Buddhist extremists who are in majority in the country, torched several mosques, shops and houses of Muslims, while Burmese military and police have been found involved in genocide, targeted killings, disappearances and rape of Muslim women. Indian RAW which is in collaboration with the CIA and Mossad was behind the genocide of the Muslims.
According to reports, nearly one and half million Rohingya Muslims have been murdered since June 28, 2012, while more than 20,0000 are missing.
It is noteworthy that since September 2015, Russian-led coalition of Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army-the National Defense Forces (NDF) and Lebanon-based Hezbollah has broken the backbone of the CIA-Mossad-assisted ISIS terrorists, Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and the rebel groups. Russian-supported Assad’s forces and Iraqi troops have retaken several territories from the control of the rebels and the ISIS terrorists who are on flee in Syria and Iraq. Recently, Iraqi forces have recaptured the city of Mosul by defeating the ISIL militants. Very soon, through the skilful diplomacy, Russian President Vladimir Putin will liberate entire Iraq and Syria from the control of the US and Israeli supported non-state actors. Moscow which is destroying the pillars of the New World Order has also exposed the sinister designs of Washington and Tel Aviv against the Muslims and the international community.
In this backdrop, there is an interrelationship of the terror attacks in the US, Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Philippines etc., and elsewhere in the world, which were false flag terror assaults, conducted by Mossad in connivance with the agents of Indian RAW and those of the vulnerable CIA operatives.
Through all these false flag terror operations, the US and Israel wanted to obtain their covert aims against Russia and the Muslims. Mossad had also provided the US President Donald Trump with an opportunity to manipulate various terror assaults of Europe and America to win the US presidential election and to reunite America and Europe, as a rift was created between America and its Western allies, especially Europe on a number of issues. And, pro-Israeli President Donald Trump have left no stone unturned in implementing anti-Muslim policies, while speaking openly against the Muslims and Syrian refugees.
Nevertheless, Israeli Mossad which was in collaboration with the vulnerable CIA operatives, particularly, organized terror assaults in the US and Europe. As part of the double game, these terror attacks were conducted by these secret agencies, especially Mossad with the assistance of the ISIS terrorists who used the home-grown terrorists of these countries. Main aims of the Mossad were to reunite Europe and America and keep NATO united, and to divert the attention of their public from internal crises and a prolonged war in Afghanistan. Other purposes of Tel Aviv were to muster the support of America’s Western allies against Russia in relation to the Syrian war and to instigate the Western Christians, particularly those of Europe against the Muslims. Exaggeration of the threat of Islamophia and persecution of the Muslims in America and these countries might be cited as instance.
Another regrettable point is that irresponsible attitude of Indian, Israeli and some Western politicians has introduced dangerous socio-religious dimension in their societies by equating the “war on terror” with “war on Islam” and acts of Al-Qaeda and ISIS with all the Muslims. Their media have also been contributing to heighten the currents of world politics on cultural and religious lines with the negative projection of Islam.
Although overtly President Trump has softened his external policy regarding Muslims and Islamic countries to some extent, yet covertly, he is acting upon the conspiracy of Mossad and RAW, which is, intentionally or unintentionally, being followed by America’s Western partners against the Muslims. If not checked in time by the peace-loving Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews and Buddhists, these policies of the President Donald Trump who is particularly completing the extremist agenda of Israel are likely to result into more recruitment in the militant outfits, especially in the ISIS group, inspiring the extremist Muslims for more terrorism-related attacks. Israel, who will never accept the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, will prefer to seek the final revenge by bringing about a major war between the Muslim and the Christian worlds or to cause a nuclear war between Russia and the US-led some Western countries.
Nonetheless, the Holocaust warriors who created holy warriors to fight against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan are likely to create more holy warriors, while dividing the nations on religious lines which would convert the whole world into holocaust.
Regular readers know by now that I am a big fan of the demographic-structural theory (DST) proposed by cliodynamicist historians such as Jack Goldstone and Peter Turchin. The reason I find it so interesting is because of how intellectually satisfying it is. Most theories of history are linear and progressive, and their proponents often struggle to force a progressive narrative onto otherwise cyclical and chaotic series of historical events. Demographic-structural theory, through its explicitly cyclical approach to understanding the rise and fall of empires, not only makes more sense intellectually, but also has the added advantage of having a great deal of explanatory power. The theory closely fits what we actually observe from the empirical evidences we have available and can then be successfully applied to analyses of the histories of other polities as well.
In addition to explanatory power, DST also has predictive power as well. While DST…
The world would benefit enormously if Joe Biden terminated its ascent by coming to terms with China and Russia, Brian Cloughley writes.
At the recent semi-successful United Nations COP26 conference on climate change there was an unexpected revelation that the U.S. and China had engaged in some thirty virtual meetings on the subject over the past year. Their decision to “jointly strengthen climate action” was very welcome from the environment point of view, and even more welcome because it demonstrated that Washington and Beijing could actually get along in one aspect of international relations. It also raised the question as to whether they could ever sit down together and discuss the equally pressing problem of looming conflict.
When U.S. climate envoy John Kerry announced the agreement he acknowledged that although “the United States and China have no shortage of differences” it seemed that “on climate, cooperation is the only way to get this job done.” In this, however, he seemed to be taking a different track to President Joe Biden, who played into the ever-welcoming hands of Washington hawks on November 2 when he castigated Presidents Xi and Putin for non-appearance at the COP gathering. This, he declared, was a “big mistake” and contrasted with the fact that “we showed up” but “they didn’t show up… It is a gigantic issue and they just walked away. How do you do that and claim to have any leadership mantle?”
It is barely credible that the President of the United States would state that the Presidents of the world’s other most important countries are not effective leaders. The BBC’s record of his diatribe is disturbing, as it demonstrates a desire for confrontation rather than a genuine preparedness to calm things down. He said that “the fact that China is trying to assert, understandably, a new role in the world as a world leader — not showing up, come on.” He continued by declaring that Russia’s wilderness was burning while President Putin “stays mum” about the problem. He did not know, or deliberately ignored the fact that, as the BBC reported, “before Mr Biden’s speech Mr Putin virtually addressed a meeting on forest management at the COP26 summit on Tuesday, saying that Russia takes the ‘strongest and most vigorous measures to conserve’ woodlands.”
There was little surprise that as COP26 was drawing to a close, President Xi warned against a return to “Cold War-era” divisions when it was made known that he and President Biden would meet on November 15. He said plainly that “attempts to draw ideological lines or form small circles on geopolitical grounds are bound to fail,” and China’s Ambassador to the United States, Qin Gang, expanded on the subject at a function in Washington of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, saying that China “always bears in mind the fundamental interests of the people of both countries and the whole world, and handles China-U.S. relations from a strategic and long-term perspective”.
Most people are aware that China has a long-term view on its place in the world, and even President Biden, in his message to the gathering, declared that “from tackling the Covid-19 pandemic to addressing the existential threat of climate crisis, the relationship between the U.S. and China has global significance. Solving these challenges and seizing these opportunities will require the broader international community to come together as we each do our part to build a safe, peaceful and resilient future.” He did not, however, place any emphasis on bilateral negotiations, which was left to President Xi, who wrote that “China-U.S. relations are at a critical historical juncture. Both countries will gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation. Cooperation is the only right choice.”
President Xi’s desire that China should get together with the United States specifically to plan a joint way ahead for a peaceful future has not been echoed in Washington where, as reported by the Straits Times, “the White House deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated that Washington and Beijing had ‘an agreement in principle’ to have a virtual summit before the end of the year.” Her explanation was that “this is part of our ongoing efforts to responsibly manage the competition between our countries,” while stressing that it was “not about seeking specific deliverables.” In other words, don’t let anybody get their hopes up that Mr Biden would pursue collaboration that will lead to improved bilateral relations. He might not go so far down into the insult sewer as to reiterate his previous public declaration that Mr Xi doesn’t have a “leadership mantle”, but it is unlikely there will be long-term substance.
It is not surprising that Mr Biden is reluctant to compromise, because the Pentagon and its associates have already notified the world they consider China to be menacing and that the United States should “meet the pacing challenge presented by the PRC’s increasingly capable military and its global ambitions”.
In its November 3 Report to Congress, the Pentagon details “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China” and presents the Pentagon’s case for continuing to expand the U.S. military and acquire even more staggeringly expensive weaponry. As the New York Times reported, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, said that China “is clearly challenging us regionally, and their aspiration is to challenge us globally… they have a China dream, and they want to challenge the so-called liberal rules-based order.” The Washington Post noted the Report’s concern about China’s global vision, in that it “already has established a military base in Djibouti, on the Horn of Africa. To support its goals, it wants to build more facilities overseas and is considering more than a dozen countries that include Cambodia, Pakistan and Angola. Such a network could interfere with U.S. military operations and support offensive operations against the United States.”
The Pentagon’s warning that China’s establishment of a military base in a foreign country constitutes a threat is absurd to the point of risibility, especially in the context of the U.S. military footprint which extends to “750 military base sites estimated in around 80+ foreign countries and colonies/territories.” Further, it is calculated that the U.S. spends more on its military than the combined defence budgets of eleven major countries : China, India, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Australia.
It is not surprising that William Hartung and Mandy Smithberger wrote in TomDispatch on November 9 that “The arms industry’s lobbying efforts are especially insidious. In an average year, it employs around 700 lobbyists, more than one for every member of Congress… A 2018 investigation by the Project On Government Oversight found that, in the prior decade, 380 high-ranking Pentagon officials and military officers had become lobbyists, board members, executives, or consultants for weapons contractors within two years of leaving their government jobs.” And of even more concern for the workings of democracy it is sinister, in the words of Dan Auble, that “defence companies spend millions every year lobbying politicians and donating to their campaigns. In the past two decades, their extensive network of lobbyists and donors have directed $285 million in campaign contributions and $2.5 billion in lobbying spending to influence defence policy.”
Good luck to Mr Biden. Let us hope that he will sacrifice popularity for peace and that he will bear in mind the words of his illustrious predecessor President Eisenhower, sixty years ago, that “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” Indeed it has risen. But the world would benefit enormously if Joe Biden terminated its ascent by coming to terms with China and Russia.
Administrative complexity in the US health system has been identified as the source of enormous spending and potential cost savings.1 In a new report, Sahni and colleagues2 provided a detailed evaluation of administrative cost-savings opportunities, including an estimated $175 billion that could be addressed without new laws or regulatory changes.
Health care is complicated because complexity is profitable. In the US health care system, payers, health systems, physicians, other clinicians, drug companies, pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers all earn more revenue because of administrative complexity. Moreover, unlike virtually any other sector of the economy, except higher education, health care can raise prices annually faster than inflation.3 This means that revenues, margins, and profits can all improve without addressing administrative efficiency. In most other sectors, organizations can only improve margins if they improve labor productivity or simplify administration.4
That administrative spending is greater in health care than other service industries is not new. Of the $3.8 trillion spent in 2019, an estimated $935 billion was on administrative spending.1 This percentage, approximately 25%, has been roughly constant for more than a decade.5 This Viewpoint explores the misaligned incentives that have made it difficult to make progress in reducing administrative spending and suggests potential changes necessary for administrative simplification to occur.
The Economic Incentives of High Administrative Spending
First, the current health care administrative system is the natural byproduct of economic forces rewarding payers, health systems, physicians, other clinicians, drug companies, pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers to maximize their profits. For example, payers profit from administrative complexity, using prior authorization and claims processes to reduce medical costs and designing custom benefit designs to achieve a specific premium price. Health systems profit from administrative complexity such as through opaque pricing, differential prices based on insurance coverage, and coding or risk adjustment activities to increase revenue.
The way health care services in the US are most often reimbursed with the fee-for-service payment system fuels this wasteful administrative give-and-take between payers and health entities. For instance, health care organizations are motivated to spend money on more sophisticated billing strategies to capture more revenue from payers, and payers are motivated to spend money on sophisticated review strategies to avoid paying claims to health care organizations and clinicians. These equal and opposite forces increase each year while canceling each other out and creating no aggregate value. While organizations innovate to improve the productivity of these billing or claims review activities, productivity improvements generally drive more activity rather than reduce total expense. For example, as offshore labor made medical claim reviews and denial appeals less expensive, payers have used this approach to review more claims, and health care organizations and clinicians have appealed claim denials more frequently. At times, the same business-process-outsourcing firm may provide services (such as call centers) for payers as well as services (such as call centers) for health care organizations.
Second, regulators (such as state departments of insurance and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) add administrative complexity as they act to protect patients from harm, ensure access and fairness, and protect public health. To achieve these goals, regulators collect data and quality metrics, formalize appeal and grievance processes, monitor payment accuracy, and conduct audits. Even regulations that require insurers to spend 85% of premiums on medical care—intended to cap administrative costs plus profits at 15%—decrease insurers’ incentive to reduce medical expenses, which in turn weakens the incentive for health care organizations to reduce their administrative costs.
Third, the US health care market structure blocks attempts to standardize. Payers are governed and organized at the state and county levels, whereas many health systems are primarily local organizations with concentrated market power in a single medical service area. Health plans need local health systems to join their networks to create marketable insurance products and do not have much leverage to force health care centers and clinicians to adopt processes or technologies that could lower administrative spending.
Aligning Technology With Economic Incentives to Help Lower Administrative Costs
Against these challenges, health care organizations are applying new technologies like remote process automation and artificial intelligence to address administrative processes and costs. Remote process automation is an approach for automating recurring processes, and because it is inexpensive to set up, it could be applied to many different processes. A common use is to manage prior authorization requests across many different payers. Artificial intelligence is also frequently deployed against complex administrative processes because it can iteratively solve problems and “learn.” A common administrative use for artificial intelligence is to assist with coding because the software can learn from payment and denial experiences that codes maximize revenue. Still, these technologies are ultimately workarounds, automating how the structural complexity is handled but not simplifying health care.
Although both artificial intelligence and remote process automation technologies have received much attention, another approach for addressing administrative complexity involves building technology-enabled customer service organizations. For example, in Medicare Advantage, some companies like Humana are offering one-stop patient “navigator” service functions that can handle nearly any question or problem. These approaches attempt to buffer patients, health care centers, and clinicians from insurance benefit design, network, and payment complexity. Even with these approaches, the underlying complexity persists, and the navigator services may increase administrative spending on customer service in exchange for higher satisfaction scores.
Reducing administrative spending will require changes in the regulation of and payment for health care. Actions to limit price increases, perhaps by indexing health care prices to the consumer price index, could also substantially increase motivation to reduce administrative spending. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation could pursue programs to test all-payer prices, hospital price oversight (such as adopted in Maryland), or Medicare–indexed hospital price caps based on local market dominance to drive margin pressure, motivating health care organizations to manage administrative expenses.6 Another policy lever could be enhanced Federal Trade Commission–Department of Justice enforcement and surveillance of hospital mergers at the local level, which would make it more difficult for health systems to raise prices.
Because incentive alignment is an effective mechanism for large and rapid change, one of the most important actions is to coordinate and accelerate the move away from fee-for-service payment models. Multipayer coordination could create an even stronger incentive. If payers adopt model contracts with the same quality metrics and definitions, data extraction and reporting could be automated. Standard prior authorization lists mandated electronic prior authorizations, and standardized payment denial and appeal protocols could all enable technology to automate these labor-intensive processes and reduce cost and complexity. Another cost-saving approach would be to reduce from 1400 the number of quality metrics reported.7
The US health care system is complicated but can be made simpler. To achieve this goal, the most important contributing factor is to make simpler, less expensive administration a profit imperative. All payers need to be enlisted in support of standardization around payment models, payment rules, and reporting metrics. Additionally, policies that limit price increases to the rate of inflation could create the profit margin pressures that have led to ongoing labor productivity and administrative simplification in other sectors.
Article Information Corresponding Author: Bob Kocher, MD, Venrock, 3340 Hillview Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 (email@example.com).
Published Online: October 20, 2021. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.18292
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Kocher reported being a partner at Venrock, which invests in technology and health care companies including Devoted Health, and serving on the boards of Devoted Health, Premera Blue Cross, and several other companies. Mr Chigurupati reported being an employee of and holding stock options in Devoted Health.
Kocher RP. Reducing administrative waste in the US health care system. JAMA. 2021;325(5):427-428. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.24767
Throughout the pandemic, American political and public-health leaders have been following Rahm Emanuel’s classic dictum for power-seeking officials: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Now they’ve adopted a corollary: you never want a crisis to end.
So they are prolonging the national misery instead of easing it, which could be done with a few simple strategies. Explain to the public that the virus will never disappear but is no longer a mortal threat to the vast majority of Americans. Encourage the minority still at risk to get vaccinated by honestly discussing who is in jeopardy and what scientists have learned about infections. Promote treatments proven to prevent infection and speed recovery while avoiding unproven treatments and mandates that cause collateral damage and generate mistrust. Above all, make it clear to Americans that we finally have reason to celebrate: what once seemed an unprecedented danger is now just one of many pathogens that we know how to live with.
But the nation’s crisismongers aren’t about to relinquish their hold over the public, so they’ve set new goals that are as unachievable as they are unnecessary and harmful. Making vaccines available to every American adult is no longer sufficient; now the crisis cannot end until the entire population has been vaccinated. Instead of focusing efforts on vaccinating the vulnerable, officials obsess on compelling universal obedience, even if that means squandering vaccines on people who already have acquired natural immunity or are at minimal risk of serious illness.
The same progressives who regularly denounce “systemic racism” and “Western imperialism” are now enforcing policies that disproportionately punish minorities and the poor, both in the United States (the majority of black teenagers and young adults in New York have been banished from much of public life by the city’s new vaccine-passport policy) and in the rest of the world. The hypocrisy was deftly captured in a tweet by Martin Kulldorff, the Harvard epidemiologist: “If you favor university vaccine mandates for low-risk American and European students, when there is not enough vaccine for older high-risk people in Asia, Africa and Latin America, please remove your #BLM tags from your Twitter/Facebook profiles.”
Children are being sentenced to another round of unnecessary mask mandates and probably more school closures based on evidence-free warnings from Anthony Fauci and others that the Delta variant will be more deadly to them than the original virus. While the variant is more infectious, the evidence does not show it to be any more lethal. In fact, the current mortality rate among American children with Covid is lower than it was last year—and last year many more children died of the flu than of Covid. One of the most thorough studies, in England, shows that the survival rate for those under 18 with Covid is 99.995 percent. But instead of emphasizing these reassuring statistics, public-health officials like Jerome Adams, the former surgeon general, keep looking for new ways to scare parents and children.
“I’m an anesthesiologist,” he tweeted last weekend. “And a dad. And I can assure you in both capacities that your child will be far more comfortable if they’re in a face mask, than on a ventilator. If you’re making a choice on behalf of a child, please choose based on their comfort, vs yours.” He offered no new evidence that children are at heightened risk from the virus, much less any evidence that a mask would make any difference, but he did make sure to include a gruesome photograph of a child on a ventilator.
It was a new low in public-health demagoguery, but unfortunately not so different from the fearmongering of other officials, the press, and social-media platforms. They lament that a minority of the public remains reluctant to get vaccinated without recognizing that their own tactics are likely a chief cause of this reluctance. They have been misleading people for so long—and censoring challenges to their misinformation—that it’s no wonder polls show that an overwhelming majority of unvaccinated Americans say they don’t trust Fauci or the CDC.
Many of these unvaccinated people have mistaken ideas about vaccine side effects, but they’re not wrong when they tell pollsters that the dangers of the virus have been exaggerated and exploited for political purposes. The White House and its Democratic allies in the press have seized on the seasonal surge in the Sun Belt to attack Republicans for not mandating masks—while largely ignoring surges in Democratic strongholds with mask mandates and other restrictions, like Hawaii, Oregon, and San Francisco.
This political cherry-picking of data has been the norm during the pandemic. During surges last year, Florida and Sweden’s failure to lock down and mandate masks was blamed for the outbreaks—never mind that both places did better than average in limiting mortality over the course of the year. In Sweden, which kept its schools open without masks or social distancing during the spread of the Delta variant this year, the overall mortality rate this year has actually been lower than normal.
The CDC continues to undermine its credibility by claiming strong evidence for the efficacy of lockdowns and mask mandates. Dozens of studies have found that lockdowns are ineffective, and one recent analysis of trends in the United States and other countries found that lockdown policies are associated with an increase in excess deaths. The evidence offered by the CDC for mask mandates is weak, as Jeffrey H. Anderson has documented, and the most rigorous research—from more than a dozen randomized clinical trials—suggests that masks are ineffective (and possibly counterproductive) at stopping viral spread. One recent study, which tracked Covid case growth across the United States, concluded that “mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level Covid-19 spread during Covid-19 growth surges.”
Even Robert Redfield, who made unsubstantiated claims for mask efficacy last year while he was directing the CDC, now concedes that there is a “paucity of data” to support mask mandates. When asked if the CDC is wrong to be recommending masks for schoolchildren, he replied, “I’m saying that I haven’t been able to review data that supports that recommendation.”
His successors at the agency, unfortunately, seem less interested in reviewing data than in hiding it. As David Zweig reported in New York, when researchers from the CDC compared Covid-mitigation techniques at 169 elementary schools in Georgia, they found no statistically significant reduction of infections in schools that required masks for students, enforced social distancing, or installed barriers between desks. Those were important findings because it was the first such large study, but the CDC did not even mention them in the summary of research that it published. Instead, the agency went on recommending masks for all students.
The European Union’s equivalent of the CDC, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, has sensibly recommended against masking students under age 12 because of the physical, psychological, and social harms to children, but American officials have made no effort to weigh the costs and benefits. The National Institutes of Health hasn’t even bothered to study the negative impacts of its mask policies on children. Dozens of other researchers, though, have demonstrated an array of problems called “Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome.” The problems include decrease in blood oxygen saturation; increase in blood carbon dioxide; increase in heart and respiratory rates; difficulty breathing; dizziness; headache; drowsiness; and decreased ability to concentrate and think.
Masking children at minimal risk from the virus was justified last year on the grounds that it might prevent infections of vulnerable adults who had no defense against the virus. But now that vaccines are readily available, why harm children for the sake of adults who have deliberately chosen not to protect themselves? Since when do children bear responsibility for adults’ decisions?
The mask mandates for children can’t be justified on ethical or scientific grounds, but they persist because they serve the interests of a certain class of adults. The purpose of this hygiene theater was described with blunt accuracy by Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor and one of the few politicians who has actually been following the science during the pandemic. “Politicians,” he explained, “want to force you to cover your face as a way for them to cover their own asses.”
One of the main activities of liberal governments is to extract money in taxes from the populations they control. Nominally this is in order to provide “essential services”. Arguably, they do provide some essential services. However, a secondary aspect has developed. Providing these essential services turns out to be massively enriching for rather non-visible elites […]
The CFR is the upper echelon of the globalist organizations (as you will see members of the CFR are on the Board of Directors of the World Economic Forum, Morgan Stanley, the CIA, America University, the Carlyle Group, Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., Kissinger Associates, Inc., BlackRock, Warburg Pincus, National Academy of Medicine, McKinsey Global Institute, Alphabet, Princeton University and CNN amongst others. The organization was established in 1921.
The self-ascribed purpose of the CFR is as follows:
“The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries.
Founded in 1921, CFR carries out its mission by maintaining a diverse membership, with special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders; convening meetings at its headquarters in New York and in Washington, DC, and other cities where senior government officials, members of Congress, global leaders, and prominent thinkers come together with Council members to discuss and debate major international issues; supporting a Studies Program that fosters independent research, enabling CFR scholars to produce articles, reports, and books and hold roundtables that analyze foreign policy issues and make concrete policy recommendations; publishing Foreign Affairs, the preeminent journal on international affairs and U.S. foreign policy; sponsoring Independent Task Forces that produce reports with both findings and policy prescriptions on the most important foreign policy topics; and providing up-to-date information and analysis about world events and American foreign policy on its website, CFR.org.”
Their self-ascribed claim of being “independent” and being “non-partisan are complete bullshit. Have a look at this diagram which shows the depth of the penetration of reach of this organization:
Notes from the Essay:
The authors of the paper state “that along with U.S.-Soviet competition and the Cold War, the COVID-19 pandemic represents the most serious challenge to the U.S.-led international order. They call this “a moment of radical international uncertainty” that “occurs at a troubling time geopolitically, including the withdrawal of the United States from global leadership.”
In other words, they are in lockstep with the language of the Great Reset – just like everyone else.
It is especially noted that Kissinger’s motivation in geopolitical struggles often included the benefit of a future relationship with China:
“During his years in once, Kissinger above all else sought to apply his concept and objectives of world order to the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union and to prepare for the emergence of China as an eventual world power.”
The End of World Order and American Foreign Policy – Page 6
The two primary authors of the article give an assessment of geopolitical state of affairs since the pandemic began to emanate worldwide:
“the pandemic has undermined order by straining governments, dividing societies, exacerbating societal inequalities, heightening tensions between the United States and China, and demonstrating the vast gap between global problems and the world’s ability to address them through existing international institutions.“
The End of World Order and American Foreign Policy – Forward V
This is also a regurgitation of the language coming out of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, as the entire core of the Great Reset is to repurpose geopolitical politics, rework international institutions and – also – in line with the Kalergi Plan – establish a one world culture where the Americans, Soviets (former nations of the USSR) and the Chinese work towards miscegenation and race mixing to lose their own borders, language, cultures, heritage – abandon any/all in-group preferences – to evolve into the “One World Culture” called for by the Rothschild consortium created, Bolshevik inspired, Zionist run United Nations.
The following are some of my favorite fear porn quotes from the release – which basically they are laying the framework for an endemic to run concurrent with the forever wars in Syria, Afganistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere:
“This is a moment of radical international uncertainty. Despite many commentaries to the contrary, it is difficult to predict what the long-term impact of the COVID-19 crisis will be on the quest for world order” – which is basically saying “this fucking thing sucks for you but it gives us work to do”
“By contrast, although this crisis occurs at a troubling time geopolitically, including the withdrawal of the United States from global leadership, until the pandemic it was a period of interdependence and prosperity for many countries.”
– this is a reassurance that the last bastion of freedom – the Constitutional rights afforded to Americans will perish as a result of the fall of American global hegemony. Freedom of expression, association, speech and assembly, the right to bear arms in the advent of a tyrannical government, private property ownership, the right to a fair trial, certain educational, religious, medicinal and cultural freedoms – KISSINGER IT ALL GOODBYE ONCE THE LAUNCH OF THE DIGITAL ID IN TANDEM WITH THE DIGITAL CURRENCY ISSUED FROM THE BANK OF INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS COMES INTO PLAY.
These following questions are wonderful:
“Will medical shortcomings trigger mass migration?”
...there used to a time when the UN allowed asylum for refugees. Refugees are people that are in mortal danger if they return to their war-torn homelands. However, over the course of the past decade, the United Nations has done a brilliant job of meme’ing a refugee and an economic migrant into the same thing. This statement basically says that “western nations have the moral imperative to take “migrants” from all over the entire planet AND AND it will be their duty to provide proper medical treatment….and it must be free of cost to the migrants or else it is a RASICM (per the ADL).
Will mass digital surveillance become more attractive if it offers an alternative to economic shutdown?
….seriously they write like this? Of course it becomes more attractive to the ones gathering intelligence by mass surveillance. This is just a foreshadowing of the coming Communitarianism.
You know I wanted to do this deep analysis of this CFR bulletin because it was interesting at first but the entire thing is just loud cheer FOR GLOBOHOMO. NEO-LIBERAL, DEBT-LADEN, RACELESS, BORDERLESS, GENDERLESS, CHILDLESS, GODLESS, UBI-FUNDED CONSUMERIST CAPITAL WHERE EVERYTHING IS MEANT TO EXPLODE.
THE CFR IS THE ENEMY, I HAVE FOLLOWED THEM FOR TWENTY YEARS. THEY ARE ZIONIST MOUTHPIECES. THEY ARE ONES THAT SEND OUT THE MEMOS. THE MEMOS OF THE GLOBOHOMOGAYPLEX.