Saturday, March 7, 2020

Some Emerging Truths About Ukraine and the Crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17

Global Research, March 06, 2020
New Eastern Outlook 2 March 2020

On 17 July 2014 a Malaysian Airlines flight was en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur when it was shot down over Ukrainian territory with the loss of all passengers and crew. The majority of the passengers were Dutch citizens, although there were significant other nationals represented, including in particular Australian citizens and residents.

The Ukrainian territory over which the tragedy occurred was the centre of fighting between its largely Russian speaking inhabitants and Kiev government forces, acting on the instructions of the Kiev government that had earlier that year seized power in an American financed coup.

An international group of countries set up an investigation into the crash. An early indicator that the investigation was likely to be less than objective came from its membership: the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium and Ukraine. As the countries suffering the largest casualties, the presence of The Netherlands and Australia was understandable.

There was no obvious reason for including Belgium, although that countries position as NATO headquarters provides at least one clue. Why Ukraine was included was also a puzzle. On the then known facts, or at least what was thought to be the facts, Ukraine was at the very least a prime suspect in the shooting down. The exclusion of Malaysia, the plane’s owner and operator, who also lost citizens, was at the time inexplicable. The reasons only became known much later. Malaysia refused to be a party to an extraordinary agreement between the other four nations that gave an effective veto to the Ukrainians against any adverse findings.

Contrary to basic principles of investigation, the quartet of countries immediately blamed Russia, alleging that a Russian missile has been fired at the plane, causing its destruction and the death of all on board. Not then and never since has any remotely plausible argument been advanced as to what possible motive Russia could have for shooting down the civilian airliner of a friendly country.

In the now more thanfive- and one-half years since the tragedy, the original blame game has not ceased. A new report has recently been released however, that has shed considerable light on what really happened. This report follows earlier revelations from the Malaysians that they had sent a team to the Ukraine to recover the plane’s black boxes, managing to do so with the assistance of local rebels fighting the Ukrainian government forces.

Had the Malaysians not been successful, establishing the truth of what happened would have been much more difficult. Thanks also to the efforts of an independent Dutch group, a great deal more information has become available, none of which casts the original quartet of countries in a favourable light.

The conduct of the inquiry, the evidence that was established and then suppressed by the original investigators, the allegations repeated without question in the western media, and the manifestly false allegations have now been revealed in a major study by an independent Dutch group led by the investigative journalist Max van der Werff. Their results can be read on the website.

That this report, with its devastating revelations, has not been reported in the western mainstream media confirms that rather than being an inquiry into the truth about a tragedy, the investigation always had as a primary objective, to blame Russia.

It will be recalled that the allegations against Russia hinge on the alleged presence of a Russian missile system in the crash location on the relevant date. This allegation was actively promoted by the notorious mouthpiece of the United Kingdom security services who publishes under the nom de plume Bellingcat.

Bellingcat was a major promoter of the version of events that a Russian missile crew had crossed the border from Russia into Ukraine, and then fired its missile with the devastating consequences of destroying the aircraft and killing all its passengers and crew, and then returning across the border back into Russia.

Bellingcat published some photographs of the Russian missile system, and the western mainstream media duly reported the allegations that the photographs were of the offending missile system, without the least bit of fact checking, either with local citizens who would have witnessed the alleged movements of such a conspicuous weapon system, or any verifiable military records. It is now known that local eye witnesses were interviewed by the Dutch investigators.

Those eye witnesses referred to seeing Ukrainian fighter jets operating in the sky at the relevant time.  This directly contradicted the Ukrainian government claim that none of their fighter jets were operational on that day. Such an obvious and easily disproven lie raises questions about what else the Ukrainians may be lying about.

As might be expected, the Dutch Military Intelligence Service carried out its investigation into the circumstances surrounding the crash. Their investigation produced a report that has been leaked to the van der Werff investigation team. That data shows quite clearly that at the material time the flight path of MH 17 was outside the operational range of both Ukrainian and Russian missile systems.

The report of the Dutch military investigation team (MIVD) quoted by van der Werff confirms that there were no Russian BUK missiles or radar systems in Ukraine on or about 17 July 2014.  The Dutch report further confirmed that no BUK missiles were detected as having been fired on that day.  Nor had anything been fired from the Russian side of the border.

This information was consistent with data obtained by two Australian investigators, Shaun Ellis and Timothy Johns, conducting an inquiry under the code name “Operation Arkanella”. None of these findings, which clearly contradict the allegations of Russian responsibility, have ever been published in the western mainstream media.  It raises the obvious question of why the lie of Russian complicity in the tragedy has been raised and maintained ever since, when it is clearly contradicted by the evidence the Dutch-Australian investigations discovered.

The known Russian missile systems were in proximity to substantial population centres. There were no reports in any format of any missiles being fired on the relevant day. This conclusion is clearly reported in the official report of the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service. Their report clearly states: “it becomes apparent that flight MH 17 was flying beyond the range of all identified and operational Ukrainian and Russian locations where 9K37m1Buk M1 Systems were deployed.” Again, it raises the obvious question: how is this information reconciled with the propaganda attack on Russia, then and ever since?

This report was published on 21 September 2016, i.e. more than three years ago. Not a word of it has been published by the western media who persist in their “blame Russia” version despite having no verifiable evidence let alone motive, to sustain such an allegation.

If we are able to exclude a missile as the cause of MH 17’s demise, that inevitably leaves only either an accident (which may be emphatically excluded) or intervention by fighter aircraft. Even the Ukrainians and their Western allies have never alleged that a Russian fighter jet was involved.

Rather, the Ukrainian government has always maintained that none of its military aircraft were flying at the time. This claim has long been disputed by civilians living in the area who have given repeated accounts of the activity of Ukrainian fighter jets in the area at the relevant time.

The area where the shooting down of MH17 occurred was an active war zone. It is known that both United States and Russian satellites were in stationary orbit over the region at the relevant time.  It raises the obvious question as to why these data have not been released.  One can understand the US reluctance as the data would disclose the complicity of their ally Ukraine in the tragedy. It is less clear why the Russian authorities have not released their data. The evidence after all is in their favour.

What the satellite data would show is exactly what was established by the Dutch and Australian investigators at the time.  That is, MH17 was shot down by Ukrainian fighter jets.

Van der Werff’s report includes the transcript of an interview with one such keywitness,a Brigadier of the Dutch Police. That witness gave detailed evidence as to the activities of Ukrainian fighter jets in the area at the relevant time on the day of the tragedy. Again, this clearly refutes the Ukrainian claims.

When one adds together the known facts revealed in the Dutch documents as well as other sources, certain irresistible inferences can be drawn. The most obvious is that MH 17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet. That single fact, from which so much else followed, has never been reported in the mainstream media despite it being the irresistible inference drawn by Dutch investigators more than three years ago.

That the suppression of the truth has been a major factor in the anti-Russian campaign waged by the Netherlands, Australia and Ukraine is obvious. That the lies, obfuscations and misinformation should be perpetrated by the mainstream media is a sad commentary on the deplorable state of affairs that media has now sunk to.


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

James O’Neill, an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

The original source of this article is New Eastern Outlook
Copyright © James ONeillNew Eastern Outlook, 2020


Coronavirus: Remember the “Fake” 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic: Manipulating the Data to Justify a Worldwide Public Health Emergency

Global Research, March 06, 2020
Global Research 25 August 2009

Author’s Introduction

On January 30th 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in relation to China’s novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) categorized  as a viral pneumonia.  The virus outbreak was centred in the city of Wuhan, a city in Eastern China with a population in excess of 11 million.

In the week prior to January 30th decision, the WHO Emergency Committee “expressed divergent views”. There were visible divisions within the Committee. On January 30th, a far-reaching decision was taken in an irresponsible fashion without the support of expert opinion at a time when the coronavirus outbreak was limited to Mainland China.

At its first meeting, the Committee expressed divergent views on whether this event constitutes a PHEIC or not. At that time, the advice was that the event did not constitute a PHEIC, but the Committee members agreed on the urgency of the situation and suggested that the Committee should continue its meeting on the next day, when it reached the same conclusion.

This second meeting takes place in view of significant increases in numbers of cases and additional countries reporting confirmed cases. (Excerpts WHO Committee Report, January 30, 2020)

There wer 150 confirmed cases outside China, when the decision was taken. 6 in the United States, 3 in Canada, 2 in the UK, etc.

150 confirmed cases over a population of 6.4 billion (World population of 7.8 billion minus China’s 1-4 billion). What is a risk of being infected? Virtually zero.

That does not constitute a justification for launching a Worldwide fear campaign. In recent developments, the number of confirmed cases has increased particularly in South Korea, Iran and Italy.

The WHO did not act to reassure and inform World public opinion.

Quite the opposite: A “Fear Pandemic” rather than a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)  was launched.

Outright panic and uncertainty were sustained through a carefully designed media disinformation campaign.

Almost immediately this led to economic dislocations, a crisis in trade and transportation with China affecting major airlines and shipping companies.  A hate campaign against ethnic Chinese in Western countries was launched, followed by the collapse in late February of stocks markets, not to mention the crisis in the tourist industry.

This would have not happened without the disinformation campaign coupled with the deliberate intent of the US government to undermine China’s economy.

What motivated the Director-General of the WHO to act in this way?

Who was behind this historic January 30th decision of the WHO’s Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Cui Bono?

But this was not the first time that the WHO decided to act in this way.

Remember the unusual circumstances surrounding the April 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic.

An atmosphere of fear and intimidation prevailed. The data was manipulated.

Based on incomplete and scanty data, the WHO Director General nonetheless predicted with authority that: “as many as 2 billion people could become infected over the next two years — nearly one-third of the world population.” (World Health Organization as reported by the Western media, July 2009).

It was a multibillion bonanza for Big Pharma supported by the WHO’s Director-General Margaret Chan. 

In June 2009, Margaret Chan made the following statement:

“On the basis of … expert assessments of the evidence, the scientific criteria for an influenza pandemic have been met. I have therefore decided to raise the level of influenza pandemic alert from Phase 5 to Phase 6.  The world is now at the start of the 2009 influenza pandemic. … Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO), Press Briefing  11 June 2009)

What “expert assessments”?

In a subsequent statement she confirmed that:

“Vaccine makers could produce 4.9 billion pandemic flu shots per year in the best-case scenario”,Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO), quoted by Reuters, 21 July 2009)


A financial windfall for Big Pharma Vaccine Producers including GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Merck & Co., Sanofi,  Pfizer. et al.

The same Big Pharma companies are also behind the coronavirus pandemic.

Fake News, Fake Statistics, Lies at the Highest Levels of Government

The media went immediately into high gear (without a shred of evidence). Fear and Uncertainty. Public opinion was deliberately misled

Swine flu could strike up to 40 percent of Americans over the next two years and as many as several hundred thousand could die if a vaccine campaign and other measures aren’t successful.” (Official Statement of Obama Administration, Associated Press, 24 July 2009).

“The U.S. expects to have 160 million doses of swine flu vaccine available sometime in October”, (Associated Press, 23 July 2009)

Wealthier countries such as the U.S. and Britain will pay just under $10 per dose [of the H1N1 flu vaccine]. … Developing countries will pay a lower price.” [circa $40 billion for Big Pharma?] (Business Week, July 2009)

But the pandemic never happened.

There was no pandemic affecting 2 billion people…

Millions of doses of swine flu vaccine had been ordered by national governments from Big Pharma. Millions of vaccine doses were subsequently destroyed: a financial bonanza for Big Pharma, an expenditure crisis for national governments.

There was no investigation into who was behind this multibillion fraud. 

Several critics said that the H1N1 Pandemic was “Fake”

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.” (Forbes, February 10, 2010)

And in January 2010, the WHO responded with the following statement

The Western media which provided daily coverage of  the pandemic, remained mum (with some exceptions) on the issue of financial fraud and disinformation.

I should emphasize that the present Public Health Crisis concerning China’s novel coronavirus is of an entirely different nature to that of H1N1.

But there important lessons to be learnt from the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic: 

The fundamental issue we must address pertaining to both present as well as previous public health emergencies:

Can we trust the Western media?

Can we trust the World Health Organization (WHO)?

Can we trust the US government  including the US Centers  for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), all of which are serving the interests of Big Pharma (at tax payers’ expense).


Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, March 6, 2020


The following article was published more than ten years ago on August 25, 2009

It was granted a Project Censored Award, Sonoma State University in 2009-10

The  H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic: Manipulating the Data to Justify a Worldwide Public Health Emergency

by Michel Chossudovsky

August 25, 2009

“Over the course of the next few months, with the assistance of our partners in the private and public sector and at every level of government, we will move aggressively to prepare the nation for the possibility of a more severe outbreak of the H1N1 virus. We will do all we can to plan for different scenarios. We ask the American people to become actively engaged with their own preparation and prevention. It’s a responsibility we all share.”  (US Government Advisory, CDC Vaccines, Vaccine Allocation and Vaccine Research )

A Worldwide public health emergency is unfolding on an unprecedented scale. 4.9 billion doses of H1N1 swine flu vaccine are envisaged by the World Health Organization (WHO).

A report by President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology  “considers the H1N1 pandemic ‘a serious health threat; to the U.S. — not as serious as the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic but worse than the swine flu outbreak of 1976.”:

“It’s not that the new H1N1 pandemic strain is more deadly than previous flu threats, but that it is likely to infect more people than usual because so few people have immunity” (Get swine flu vaccine ready: U.S. advisers)

Responding to the guidelines set by the WHO, preparations for the inoculation of millions of people are ongoing, in the Americas, the European Union, in South East Asia and around the World. Priority has been given to health workers, pregnant women and children. In some countries, the H1N1 vaccination will be compulsory.

In the US, the state governments are responsible for these preparations, in coordination with federal agencies. In the State of Massachusetts, legislation has been introduced which envisages hefty fines and prison sentences for those who refuse to be vaccinated. (See VIDEO; Compulsory Vaccination in America?)

The US military is slated to assume an active role in the public health emergency

Schools and colleges across North America are preparing for mass vaccinations. (See CDC H1N1 Flu | Resources for Schools, Childcare Providers, and Colleges)

In Britain, the Home Office has envisaged the construction of mass graves in response to a rising death toll. The British Home Office report calls for  “increasing mortuary capacity”  An atmosphere of panic and insecurity prevails. (See Michel Chossudovsky Fear, Intimidation & Media Disinformation: U.K Government is Planning Mass Graves in Case of H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic)

Table contained in an official Home Office Report, reported by the British media. The complete report has not been released

Reliability of the Data

The spread of the disease is measured by country-level reports of confirmed and probable cases.

How reliable is this data. Does the data justify a Worldwide public health emergency, including a $40 billion dollar vaccination program which largely favors a handful of pharmaceutical companies? In the US alone, the costs of H1N1 preparedness are of the order of 7.5 billion dollars.( See Vaccines, Vaccine Allocation and Vaccine Research)

Following the outbreak of the H1N1 swine flu in Mexico, the data collection was at the outset scanty and incomplete, as confirmed by official statements.( See Michel Chossudovsky, Is it the “Mexican Flu”, the “Swine Flu” or the “Human Flu”? Michel Chossudovsky Political Lies and Media Disinformation regarding the Swine Flu Pandemic)

The Atlanta based Center for Disease Control (CDC) acknowledged that what was being collected in the US were figures of  “confirmed and probable cases”. There was, however, no breakdown between “confirmed” and “probable”. In fact, only a small percentage of the reported cases were “confirmed” by a laboratory test.

On the basis of scanty country-level information, the WHO declared a level 4 pandemic on April 27. Two days later, a level 5 Pandemic was announced without corroborating evidence (April 29). A level 6 Pandemic was announced on June 11.

There was no attempt to improve the process of data collection in terms of lab. confirmation. In fact quite the opposite. Following the level 6 Pandemic announcement, both the WHO and the CDC decided that data collection of individual confirmed and probable cases was no longer necessary to ascertain the spread of swine flu.  As of July 10, one month after the announcement of the level six pandemic, the WHO discontinued the collection of  confirmed cases. It does not require member countries to send in figures pertaining to confirmed or probable cases.

WHO will no longer issue the global tables showing the numbers of confirmed cases for all countries.  However, as part of continued efforts to document the global spread of the H1N1 pandemic, regular updates will be provided describing the situation in the newly affected countries. WHO will continue to request that these countries report the first confirmed cases and, as far as feasible, provide weekly aggregated case numbers and descriptive epidemiology of the early cases. (WHO, Briefing note, 2009)

Based on incomplete and scantly data, the WHO nonetheless predicts with authority that: “as many as 2 billion people could become infected over the next two years — nearly one-third of the world population.” (World Health Organization as reported by the Western media, July 2009).

Dr. Margaret Chan, Director General of the WHO

The statements of the WHO are notoriously contradictory. While creating an atmosphere of  fear and insecurity, pointing to am impending global public health crisis, the WHO has also acknowledged that the underlying symptoms are moderate and that “most people will recover from swine flu within a week, just as they would from seasonal forms of influenza” (WHO statement, quoted in the Independent, August 22, 2009).

The WHO’s July 10 guidelines have set the stage for a structure of scantiness and inadequacy with regard to data collection at the national level. National governments of member States of the WHO are not required to corroborate the spread of the A H1N1 swine flu, through laboratory tests.

The WHO table below provides the breakdown by geographical region. These figures, as acknowledged by the WHO are no longer based on corroborated cases, since the governments are not required since July 11 to “test and report individual cases”. In an utterly twisted logic, the WHO posits that because the governments of WHO member countries are not required to test and report individual cases, with a view to ascertaining the spread of the virus, that “the number of cases reported actually understates the real number of cases.” (See note at foot of Table). The question is: what is being reported by the countries?  How does one ascertain that the reported cases are H1N1 as opposed to seasonal influenza?

Map of affected countries and deaths as of 13 August 2009 [png 313kb]




*Given that countries are no longer required to test and report individual cases, the number of cases reported actually understates the real number of cases.

Source WHO | Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 – update 62 (revised 21 August 2009)

The WHO confirms that the above data is based on qualitative indicators:

“The qualitative indicators monitor: the global geographic spread of influenza, trends in acute respiratory diseases, the intensity of respiratory disease activity, and the impact of the pandemic on health-care services.”

These qualitative indicators are, according to the WHO, as follows:


Geographical spread

Geographical spread refers to the number and distribution of sites reporting influenza activity.

– No activity: no laboratory-confirmed case(s) of influenza, or evidence of increased or unusual respiratory disease activity.
– Localized: limited to one administrative unit of the country (or reporting site) only.
– Regional: appearing in multiple but <50% of the administrative units of the country (or reporting sites).
– Widespread: appearing in ≥50% of the administrative units of the country (or reporting sites).
– No information available: no information available for the previous 1-week period.


Trend refers to changes in the level of respiratory disease activity compared with the previous week.
– Increasing: evidence that the level of respiratory disease activity is increasing compared with the previous week.
– Unchanged: evidence that the level of respiratory disease activity is unchanged compared with the previous week.
– Decreasing: evidence that the level of respiratory disease activity is decreasing compared with the previous week.
– No information available.

• Intensity

The intensity indicator is an estimate of the proportion of the population with acute respiratory disease, covering the spectrum of disease from influenza-like illness to pneumonia.

– Low or moderate: a normal or slightly increased proportion of the population is currently affected by respiratory illness.
– High: a large proportion of the population is currently affected by respiratory illness.
– Very high: a very large proportion of the population is currently affected by respiratory illness.
– No information available.

• Impact

Impact refers to the degree of disruption of health-care services as a result of acute respiratory disease.

– Low: demands on health-care services are not above usual levels.
– Moderate: demands on health-care services are above the usual demand levels but still below the maximum capacity of those services.
– Severe: demands on health care services exceed the capacity of those services.
– No information available.

Source: WHO | Annex 4 of the Interim WHO guidance for the surveillance of human infection with A(H1N1) virus

The entire construct involves a non-sequitur.

In the text box below are the qualitative indicators used. What is being tabulated is 1. the spread of influenza, 2. the spread of respiratory diseases and 3. the impacts on health care services activity.

The spread of the H1N1 swine flu is not being evaluated through any concrete indicator.

An examination of the maps (click links on table below) does not suggest any particular pattern or trend, which might ascertain the spread of H1N1.

For many of the reporting countries the information is not available or indicates no particular trend.

The question is: how can this information reasonably be used to ascertain the spread of a very specific form of influenza, namely A H11N1


Geographic spread of influenza activity during week 31 and 32

Geographic spread of influenza activity during week 31 [png 157kb]

Geographic spread of influenza activity during week 32 [png 269kb]

Trend of respiratory diseases activity compared to the previous week during week 31 and week 32

Trend of respiratory diseases activity compared to the previous week during week 31 [png 155kb]

Trend of respiratory diseases activity compared to the previous week during week 32 [png 266kb]

Intensity of acute respiratory diseases in the population during week 31 and week 32

Intensity of acute respiratory diseases in the population during week 31 [png 153kb]

Intensity of acute respiratory diseases in the population during week 32 [png 262kb]

Impact on health care services during week 31 and week 32

Impact on health care services during week 31 [png 151kb]

Impact on health care services during week 32 [png 259kb]

Source: WHO | Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 – update 62 (revised 21 August 2009)

“Confirmed and Probable Cases” in the US

On July 24, following the WHO July 10 decision to shift from quantitative to qualitative assessments and not to require governments to ascertain the data through lab testing, the Atlanta based CDC also announced that it had discontinued the process of data collection pertaining to “confirmed and probable cases”:

“How many cases of novel H1N1 flu infection have been reported in the United States? When the novel H1N1 flu outbreak was first detected in mid-April 2009, CDC began working with states to collect, compile and analyze information regarding the novel H1N1 flu outbreak, including the numbers of confirmed and probable cases of disease. From April 15, 2009 to July 24, 2009, states reported a total of 43,771 confirmed and probable cases of novel influenza A (H1N1) infection. Of these cases reported, 5,011 people were hospitalized and 302 people died. On July 24, 2009, confirmed and probable case counts were discontinued. Aggregate national reports of hospitalizations and deaths will continue at this time. (See CDC, ,CDC H1N1 Flu | Questions and Answers About CDC’s Online Reporting)

Instead of collecting data –which would have provided empirical backing to its assessments on how the H1N1 virus was spreading– the CDC announced that it had developed a model “to try to determine the true number of novel H1N1 flu cases in the United States”.

The model took the number of cases reported by states and adjusted the figure to account for known sources of underestimation (for example; not all people with novel H1N1 flu seek medical care, and not all people who seek medical care have specimens collected by their health care provider)….

Why did CDC discontinue reporting of individual cases? Individual case counts were used in the early stages of the outbreak to track the spread of disease. As novel H1N1 flu became more widespread, individual case counts became an increasingly inaccurate representation of the true burden of disease. This is because many people likely became mildly ill with novel H1N1 flu and never sought treatment; many people may have sought and received treatment but were never officially tested or diagnosed; and as the outbreak intensified, in some cases, testing was limited to only hospitalized patients. That means that the official case count represented only a fraction of the true burden of novel H1N1 flu illness in the United States. CDC recognized early in the outbreak that once disease was widespread, it would be more valuable to transition to standard surveillance systems to monitor illness, hospitalizations and deaths. CDC discontinued official reporting of individual cases on July 24, 2009. (Ibid, emphasis added)

Biased Predictions

What is the precise nature of the data transmitted by the states to the CDC? The CDC calls for the transmission of  “aggregate national reports of hospitalizations and deaths”.

If the information is conceptually incorrect or incomplete at the outset, predictions and/or simulations will be inevitably be biased.

Without systematic lab confirmation, it is impossible to specify the nature of the virus because the symptoms of H1N1 are broadly similar to those of common influenza. In other words, do the data collected and transmitted by the states to the CDC confirm cases of H1N1 swine flu or do they indicate the prevalence of seasonal influenza?

The CDC posits that the data sent to them by the states is “underestimated”. It then hikes up these figures of “unconfirmed” cases, many of which are cases of seasonal influenza. The “corrected figures” are then inserted into the model:

Using this approach [CDC model],  it is estimated that more than one million people became ill with novel H1N1 flu between April and June 2009 in the United States. The details of this model and the modeling study will be submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. (Ibid)

The model is then used to predict the spread of swine flu and to justify a national health emergency. “Swine flu could strike up to 40 percent of Americans over the next two years and as many as several hundred thousand could die if a vaccine campaign and other measures aren’t successful.” (Official Statement of the US Administration, Associated Press, 24 July 2009).

Anybody who is familiar with model building and computer simulations, is acutely aware that if the data and assumptions which are fed into the model are incorrect at the outset, the results will inevitably be biased.

What we are dealing with is a process of statistical manipulation, which has far-reaching implications and which could potentially create an atmosphere of panic, particularly if it is coupled, as in the UK, with announcements that “mass graves are being set up to deal with a rising death toll.


The Atlanta based CDC’s model’s simulations and predictions as to the spread of H1N1 swine flu are then used to plan the implementation of a nationwide vaccination program.

Based on the model’s “predictions”, mass vaccination of half of the US population is required, with the possible provision for quarantines under civilian and/or military jurisdiction. In the case of the United Kingdom, confirmed by British press reports, the government has predicted a rising death toll requiring the provision of mass graves.

According to reports, the US government expects to have 85 million doses of the new vaccine by the end of October. In total, the US government has ordered 195 million doses from Big Pharma.

“Recommendation: Priority groups to receive the novel H1N1 vaccine

On July 29, 2009, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—an advisory committee to CDC—recommended that novel H1N1 flu vaccine be made available first to the following five groups (News Release)

Pregnant women Health care workers and emergency medical responders
People caring for infants under 6 months of age
Children and young adults from 6 months to 24 years
People aged 25 to 64 years with underlying medical conditions (e.g. asthma, diabetes)

Combined, these groups would equal approximately 159 million individuals.” (See Tests, Vaccines, Medications, & Masks

According to the WHO, Western countries have already ordered one billion doses of the vaccine.

 “Northern hemisphere countries have so far ordered more than one billion doses of swine flu vaccine, the World Health Organisation said Tuesday, sparking warnings over shortages,” Agence France-Presse reports. While some countries, including Greece, The Netherlands, Canada and Israel, have ordered enough vaccine to inoculate their citizens, “[o]thers, such as Germany, the United States, Britain and France, have put in orders that would cover between 30 and 78 percent of people,” (AFP, August 19, 2009).

The WHO has made similar predictions: “Vaccine makers could produce 4.9 billion pandemic flu shots per year in the best-case scenario”, Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO), quoted by Reuters, 21 July 2009)

The United Kingdom: “Suspected Cases” versus “Confirmed Cases”

Even prior to the WHO decision to suspend reporting and compilation of confirmed cases, the process of data collection in the UK revealed some highly unusual patterns.

“There are big gaps in UK data on swine flu, many of them because so few virological confirmations of H1N1 seem to be being undertaken anywhere. But virology matters – and if more tests had been done, we might begin to understand why the number of people in hospital for swine flu in England is so much greater than in Scotland.” Where have all the virologists gone? | Straight Statistics

In Scotland, the collection of data was based on “confirmed cases” (lab testing), whereas in England it was based on “suspected cases” (no lab testing). In both cases, we are dealing with hospitalization. For the same time period, according to the study, England had 3,906 incident hospitalizations for “suspect swine-flu”, compared with Scotland’s 43 for “confirmed H1N1”.

England has approximately ten times more population than Scotland. On a per capita basis, however, there are 9.1 times more people in England with “suspected H1N1” flu than in Scotland, based on “confirmed cases”: 43  confirmed cases in Scotland, 3906 in England (suspected cases), a ratio of more than 1 to 9. 

Has the H1N1 epidemic “evolved differently in Scotland and England, in extent and/or timing.”? There is no evidence to this effect. Or is this discrepancy of 9 to 1, partially the result of bias in the data for England which is based on “suspected cases”. Where have all the virologists gone? | Straight Statistics See also Call for more H1N1 data | Straight Statistics

It is on the basis of these “suspected cases” that unsubstantiated and irresponsible statements are being made by senior government health officials.

What this implies is that the hospital based data on “suspected cases” referred to above, which was already the source of bias, is no longer being collected by health personnel.


In Britain, the collection of “suspected cases” (which is known to be biased) was abandoned in favor of a system which does not require a diagnosis by a health professional, nor the testing of a lab specimens.

Since the WHO ruling on July 10, establishing new guidelines for data collection, the British authorities no longer focus on hospital based “suspected cases”, they are now collecting the data through “dedicated call centres”.

They have launched a national service where if you have flu like symptoms, you can call up dedicated call centres or check online whether you have swine flu. So, you don’t have to go to your GP, you can access antivirals quickly and don’t infect others by travelling around. (Most rapid spread of H1N1 virus in UK)

In Britain, the transition has been from “confirmed cases” (lab confirmation)  to “suspected cases” (established by health professional, not requiring testing) to “self categorization”

As the pandemic progresses, the process of data collection becomes increasingly loose and unprofessional. One would normally expect the opposite, that following the announcement of Worldwide level 6 pandemic, that the process of data collection would be developed and improved as means to formulating a public health action plan.  .

The process of data collection under the National Pandemic Flu Service is now based on “self-assessment” or self-categorization. Anybody who thinks he/she has flu-like symptoms can contact the National Pandemic Flu Service, by telephone ou through the internet, and can receive an antiviral prescription (e.g. Tamiflu) without the intermediation of a health professional and without even seeing a doctor.  You can do it on the internet or by calling up the phone help line:

“The [British] National Pandemic Flu Service is a self-care service that will assess your symptoms and, if required, provide an authorisation number which can be used to collect antiviral medication from a local collection point. For those who do not have internet access, the same service can be accessed by telephone”

According to British health sources communicated to this author, persons who receive a prescription for Tamiflu through the National Pandemic Flu Service over the phone or through the National Health Service Telephone Call Service will be categorized and recorded as a “suspected case” of  H1N1 swine flu.


Typical symptoms: sudden fever (38C or above) and sudden cough
1. Other symptoms include: Tiredness and chills
2. Headache, sore throat, runny nose and sneezing
3. Stomach upset, loss of appetite, diarrhoea
4. Aching muscles, limb or joint pain
Source: NHS and BBC.

The moment you enter your name into the system over the internet or by phone, which allows you to collect anti-viral  medication (e.g. tamiflu), you may be categorized as a suspected or probable case of H1N1.  (see the UK National Pandemic Flu Service guidelines in Annex 1 below)

As discussed in the England versus Scotland analysis, there is already a 9 to 1 discrepancy between “suspected” and “confirmed” cases, both of which are hospital based.

The system of data collection in the UK through “self-categorization” has no scientific basis whatsoever. It is totally meaningless, given the fact that the H1N1 has the same symptoms as seasonal influenza. (We have, however, not been able to ascertain at the stage the extent to which the self-assessment information is being tabulated and used to establish trends pertaining to the H1N1 flu pandemic)

The pattern in other countries differs from that outlined in relation to Britain. In the US, a system of testing at the state level still prevails.

Concluding Remarks

Reports from Britain by prominent physicians (to the author) suggest that doctors and epidemiologists in the UK are being threatened. They risk being fired by the National Health authorities if  they speak out and reveal the falsehoods underlying the data as well as government statements.

It is essential that physicians, epidemiologists and health workers speak out through their respective associations and refute the statements of government health officials who are tacitly acting on behalf of Big Pharma, as well as denounce the manipulation of the data. It is also important to warn the public on the dangers of untested H1N1 flu vaccines.

What we are dealing with is a big lie. A process of generating fake data which is then used to justify a nationwide vaccination program.

The political and corporate interests behind this Worldwide public health emergency must be the target of citizens’ actions.

This public health emergency is not intended to protect humanity.

The World is at the crossroads of a major economic and social crisis. The Worldwide public health emergency serves to divert public opinion from the real crisis which is affecting the World’s people. This crisis is characterised by rising poverty and unemployment and the collapse in social services, not to mention a a US-NATO multitrillion dollar high tech “war without borders” which includes the preemptive  “first strike” use of nuclear weapons.

The dramatic causes and consequences of the “real crisis” which in real sense threaten the future of humanity must remain unheralded. Both the Economic Crisis and the Middle East Central Asian war are the object of routine and persistent media distortion and camouflage. In contrast, the H1N1 swine flu –despite its relatively mild and benign impacts– is depicted as major “Save the World” endeavor.

Author and economics professor Michel Chossudovsky is Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, Montreal, He has taught at universities and academic institutions in North America, Western Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Pacific. He has also worked as a consultant on issues pertaining to public health and the economics of health for the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA),  the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). He has also acted as adviser to governments of developing countries. 


The guidelines of UK National Pandemic Flu Service are indicated below:

If you have flu-like symptoms and are concerned that you may have swine flu:

– you have a serious underlying illness

– you are pregnant

– you have a sick child under one year old

– your condition suddenly gets much worse

– your condition is still getting worse after seven days (or five days for a child)

Note: The National Pandemic Flu Service is a self-care service that will asses your symptoms and, if required, provide an authorisation number which can be used to collect antiviral medication from a local collection point. For those who do not have internet access, the same service can be accessed by telephone on:

  • Telephone: 0800 1 513 100
  • Minicom: 0800 1 513 200

For more information on the National Pandemic Flu Service go to Flu Service – Q&A

Key actions

Swine flu is spreading fast in the UK. Prepare now by:

  • Learning to recognise the symptoms of swine flu
  • Establishing ‘flu friends’ – friends and relatives who can help if you fall ill
  • Keeping  paracetamol-based cold remedies in the house
  • Having a thermometer available so you can check your temperature if needed

Note: If you have elderly or vulnerable neighbours please check on them. They may need your help but be reluctant to ask for it. It is important you do what you can.

Source Swine flu alert from the NHS


The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2020


Friday, March 6, 2020

MbS Arrests Top Royals On 'Treason' At Moment World's Attention On Coronavirus

MbS Arrests Top Royals On 'Treason' At Moment World's Attention On Coronavirus

A huge development out of Saudi Arabia late Friday via the Wall Street Journal which reports Saudi authorities have detained two prominent royals close to the throne  namely, the ageing King Salman's brother, Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz al Saud, and Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz al Saud (often referred to as MBN).

"The Saudi royal court accused the two men of plotting a coup to unseat the king and crown prince, according to people familiar with the situation," WSJ reports. One of MBN’s brothers, Nawaf, was also reported to be arrested.

Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, right. Getty Images.

Black-clad and masked commandos raided the homes of the two men Friday morning on charges of treason, in what's being widely interpreted as part of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's (MbS) broader "purge" of potential powerful rivals and centers of influence, which first began in 2017 when scores of princes and top officials were locked up in the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton.

Perhaps entirely to be expected, Saudi authorities gave no details or evidence of the alleged coup attempt even though a "treason" conviction means they face execution, as the WSJ notes further:

The two men who potentially had once been in line for the throne are now under threat of lifetime imprisonment or execution, said people familiar with the situation. The details of the alleged coup attempt couldn’t be learned.

Crucially both Prince Ahmed and MBN previously spent time as minister of the interior, a very powerful post with direct oversight over troops and Saudi intelligence.

Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz. File image via Middle East Monitor.

Bin Nayef, it must be remembered, had initially been in line to be king before being stripped of his powers as Interior Minister in 2017 and King Salman declaring his son MbS heir to the throne.

Following the state-sanctioned (and no doubt MbS-ordered) murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Oct. 2018, any drastic or aggressive consolidation of power related action out of MbS had cooled significantly for a while compared to the period of the near daily headlines coming out of the kingdom in 2017 through early 2018 amid the crackdown.

Though political and business leaders in the West essentially shunned MbS at major public events for much of the year following Khashoggi's death, bin Salman was quietly "rehabilitated" by the elites and it's recently seemed 'business as usual'. 

It appears MbS is now once again going back on the offensive, perhaps also given the world's attention is now focused far away from the crown prince's political machinations as the Coronavirus fast becomes a global pandemic.  

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2020 - 20:05


Thursday, March 5, 2020

Stockman: Next Comes The "Turbulent Twenties"

Stockman: Next Comes The "Turbulent Twenties"

Authored by David Stockman via,

The past 30 years of False Prosperity is over...

The coronavirus is now exposing a far more deadly disease: Namely, the poisonous brew of easy money, cheap debt, sweeping financialization and unbridled speculation that has been injected into the American economy by the Fed and Washington politicians.

It has turned Wall Street into a dangerous gambling casino while leaving Main Street buried under mountainous debts, faltering investment in growth and productivity and the hand-to-mouth economics of spending more than you earn.

It has also left the American economy exceedingly vulnerable to external shocks. That’s because 80% of households have no appreciable rainy day funds and businesses have hollowed out their balance sheets and artificially extended their supply chains to the four corners of the earth in order to goose short-run profits and share prices.

However, this unprecedented fragility is becoming evident as public health authorities around the world aggressively move to contain the Covid-19 contagion. This will mean separating workers from their workplaces, consumers from the malls, diners from the restaurants, travelers from the airlines, hotels and resorts and much more like and similar disruptions to the supply-side of the economy.

In short, the world’s supply chains are buckling and freezing-up, thereby causing production and incomes to fall abruptly. In turn, shrunken incomes and cash flows will pull the legs out from under the edifice of debt and speculation that has been piled atop the American economy.

So both a renewed financial and economic crisis and an abrupt change of course lie dead ahead. The 30-year era of False Prosperity is over.

Accordingly, the Turbulent Twenties have begun. This will be a decade when the chickens come home to roost. It will be a time when the cans of delay and denial may no longer be kicked down the road to tomorrow.

To the contrary, the 2020s will mark an era when today’s economic and political fantasies are crushed by America’s accumulated due bills.

Bubbles will be burst. Speculators will get carried out on their shields. Easy money wealth will evaporate. Fiscal trauma will ensue. The national joy ride will end.

The decade of reckoning that lies ahead is rooted first and foremost in the fecklessly incurred mega-debts of the private and public sectors alike. Together they have soared to the staggering sum of $75 trillion.

That’s 5X more than the $14 trillion outstanding three decades ago.

Yet the proceeds from these massive borrowings were not used to invest and provide for tomorrow, but to live high on the hog today. After three decades of such artificial debt-fueled “prosperity”, the very warp and woof of American society has been deformed.

For example, eighty percent of U.S. households live essentially hand-to-mouth. But that’s not because they are naturally imprudent; it’s because they have been incentivized to borrow and spend, while being punished for saving and setting aside for life’s unforeseen contingencies and setbacks.

Likewise, the C-suites of corporate America have been rewarded for strip-mining their balance sheets and cash flows in order to pump money into Wall Street for stock buybacks and M&A.

But this has caused investment in productive plant, equipment, technology and human resources to be shortchanged. Consequently, the growth capacity of the main street economy has been progressively eviscerated.

And most especially, the public sector has been fiscally ruined.

During the 32-years since Alan Greenspan launched the present era of reckless and relentless monetization of the public debt in 1987, there have been only four balanced budgets sandwiched between 28 years of sheer fiscal promiscuity.

That has already taken the Federal debt from $3 trillion to $23 trillion, and it’s now heading, inexorably, toward $43 trillion by the end of the 2020s. The public debt-to-GDP ratio will then reach a Greek-style 150%.

Worse still, the nation’s political system studiously ignores this obvious fiscal malignancy. That’s because the Fed and other central banks have removed the sting of rising interest rates and the “crowding out” of private investment.

So politicians have succumbed to the latest version of free lunch economics.

This has permitted, in turn, national governance to degenerate into bitter partisan warfare that has festered so long that it now threatens the very future of constitutional government.

Rather than facing tough policy choices, the Dems have retreated into identity politics and sanctimonious racialist moralizing. They’ve abandoned virtuous pursuit of the public good for cheap virtue signaling to their base.

Likewise, the GOP has prioritized building border walls and keeping people out of  America’s historic melting pot on the fear they might not vote Republican. But in feeding red meat to their political base, they’ve abandoned the GOP’s real job—functioning as watchdog of the treasury and guardian of sound money.

Beyond the water’s edge, the bipartisan duopoly has immersed itself in the projects of Empire and pretensions to being the world’s indispensable nation and global gendarme. So doing, it has actually undermined homeland security while saddling the nation with trillions of debt to fund Forever Wars that are illegal, immoral and pointless.

These perversions of governance ultimately resulted in the freakish 2016 election in which the GOP accidentally nominated a bombastic outsider—a Great Disrupter who had not been house-trained by the Washington establishment.

Yet the very prospect of a Trump presidency caused the incumbent Dems to baldly and illegally deploy the surveillance tools of the national security apparatus to detour his candidacy. And then to attempt to abort his presidency via the RussiaGate and UkraineGate/Impeachment hoaxes once the voters had spoken.

At the same time, even as the Donald has brashly and pugnaciously fought the unconstitutional coup against his presidency, he, too, has gone about the business of filling the Swamp even deeper, rather than draining it as he promised on the campaign trail.

In fact, the Federal Leviathan—including its national security branch—has never been bigger, fatter and more wasteful than under Trump.

The Donald has increased Federal spending in constant dollars (2019 $) by $180 billion per year during his term to date. That compares to $120 billion per year under George Bush the Younger, $80 billion under Obama and $40 billion per year under Clinton.

So there isn’t anything which resembles MAGA coming down the pike during the 2020s and beyond. Trump has only made the inherited trend of soaring debts and diminishing growth measurably worse with his four-pronged assault on sound economics.

Trade Wars. Border Wars. Fiscal Debauchery. Easy Money attacks on the Fed.

These are not the route to MAGA. They are the path to bigger government in Washington, dangerous bubbles on Wall Street and diminished prosperity, opportunity and liberty on Main Street.

Accordingly, it is now way too late for a stick save from either political party or any state institution bivouacked in the Imperial City. And that especially includes the madcap money printers at the Federal Reserve.

The fact is, the engines of free market capitalism have been corroded and paralyzed by three decades of bad money and bad policy.

What has passed for “recovery” since the Great Recession has been only a temporary debt-fostered reprieve. Likewise, the soaring stock market reflects the greatest monetary deformation in history, not the rational discounting of a beneficent future.

Accordingly, ten malefic trends will dominate national life during the long night of reckoning which lies ahead.

  1. The spectacular failure of Keynesian central banking;

  2. A prolonged, painful reversal of the three-decade long hyper-inflation of financial asset prices that has resulted in the Everything Bubble;

  3. The violent implosion of America’s fiscal accounts;

  4. An intensified central bank war on savers, fixed income retirees and holders of cash;

  5.  Peak Debt-induced suffocation of domestic economic growth;

  6. Ferocious global economic headwinds arising from the demise of the Red Ponzi;

  7. An outbreak of unprecedented partisan acrimony rendering Washington completely dysfunctional and imperiling America’s very constitutional foundation;

  8. The lapse of Imperial Washington into belligerence, retreat and failure all around the planet;

  9. The Baby Boom retirement tsunami, which will cause entitlement spending to soar and generational conflict to erupt like never before; and

  10. A virulent outbreak of class warfare and redistributionist political conflict unprecedented in American history owing to a stagnating economic pie.

Moreover, there is a powerful reason to keep abreast of these Turbulent Ten trends.

To wit, these baleful developments are not just possibilities. They are well nigh certainties!

And they are ultimately rooted in a common cause.

Namely, the three decade long explosion of debt, speculation and financialization that was initiated in October 1987 when Alan Greenspan bailed out Wall Street gamblers and launched what has become a toxic worldwide regime of Keynesian central banking.

Consequently, America’s current $74 trillion mountain of public and private debt has become contagious.

On a worldwide basis, total debt outstanding now totals $255 trillion or a staggering 3X global GDP of $85 trillion. It now constitutes the greatest barrier to continued growth, prosperity and financial stability in all of economic history.

Even more crucially, these brobdingnagian figures did not materialize during the last three decades because everyday people suddenly lost their senses and became addicted to unsustainable levels of debt, leverage and financial speculation.

To the contrary, the people here and abroad were misled, induced and baited into burying themselves under crushing debts by agents of the state—especially its central banking branch.

The tools of deceit were falsified interest rates, artificially inflated asset prices and a hoary theory that debt-fueled “stimulus” injections by the state can create a permanent increase in economic growth and societal wealth.

No they can’t!

These mountains of debt can temporarily goose GDP, of course, because GDP accounting is inherently incomplete: It views the economy as simply a matter of sequential  flows—quarter after quarter, year upon year– without regard to balance sheets and the accumulated carry cost of debt over time.

Moreover, this Keynesian blindness to balance sheets and their systematic impairment has gotten far more consequential since Greenspan launched a wholly new form of monetary central planning in October 1987.

Under the latter, the price of debt has been deeply and systematically falsified by the central banks, thereby providing a powerful artificial incentive to borrow and a misleading signal to debtors about its longer-run implications.

Balance sheets have been deeply impaired for households and governments especially because they do not borrow in order to acquire productive assets capable of defraying the accumulating cost of carry. Instead, all the added debt went into living high on the hog today.

Nor has the private business sector escaped the damage caused by deep repression of interest rates. That’s because the cost of benchmark debt (i.e. the 10-year U.S. treasury note) is really the master “cap rate” or valuation multiple for the entire financial system.

Artificial and sustained repression of cap rates, therefore, results in proportionately higher asset prices and increased price/earnings multiples—meaning that cheaper debt and richer share prices are one of the most toxic consequences of Keynesian central banking.

It provides powerful incentives to the corporate C-suites to borrow at sub-economic costs and use the proceeds to fund stock buybacks, thereby increasing per share earnings and goosing the value of top executives’ own ample stock options.

Likewise, cheap debt causes a huge distortion in the M&A market. Acquisitions are made to look “accretive” not because the make business sense or because there are true, sustainable synergies, but because they carry cost of purchase debt is so low.

Needless to say, these forms of financial engineering redistribute financial wealth to the top 1% and 10% of households. The latter own 40% and 85% of the stock, respectively, and they have gained mightily since Greenspan initiated the present era of Keynesian central banking in the late 1980s.

At the end of the day, the relentless and ever deepening financial repression—especially during the decade since the financial crisis— has generated precious little gain in national output and jobs beyond what capitalism does on its own.

For example, manufacturing production is still 2% below pre-crisis levels of November 2007. And total industrial production has crept just 4% higher over 12 years.

Moreover, even the huge one-time inflation of financial asset prices on Wall Street didn’t embody sustainable real wealth because it was primarily based on multiple expansion, not earnings growth.

Exactly 31-years ago in early 1989, for instance, the S&P 500 index stood at 295 where it represented 12X earnings of $25 per share.

At the same PE multiple today, the index would weigh in at just 1600 or less than half of the 3240 level where it ended 2019.

Stated differently, 56% of the S&P 500 gain since 1989 is owing to PE multiple expansion, not earnings growth, and it materialized during a three decade interlude when the long-term growth capacity of the US economy was being ground to the vanishing point.

That is, PE multiples should have been falling, not soaring to the nosebleed section of history.

Indeed, this “bad money” regime of the Keynesian central bankers has now finally taken itself hostage.

The central bankers have fostered such massive and egregious bubbles that they are literally terrified by the prospect of another stock market meltdown like those of 2000-2002 and 2008-2009.

In turn, the latter would bring a renewed bout of desperate restructurings, layoffs and asset liquidations in the C-suites and a new round of recession on main street.

So the Fed has simply launched a Hail Mary which is so transparent and incendiary that it will surely catalyze the final blow-off top early in the 2020s.

After it had distorted, falsified and inflated financial asset prices beyond all recognition—the Fed dithered and delayed shrinking its balance sheet, thereby putting the lie to Bernanke’s solemn pledge that after the unusual and exigent conditions of the financial crisis had passed they would reduce the Fed’s massive trove of Treasury and GSE debt to pre-crisis levels.

It didn’t. After a tepid 15% balance sheet retrenchment through August 2019, the Fed actually turned tail and ran in the face of bitter attacks from the White House and unrelenting pressure from the bully boys and crybabies of Wall Street.

And now the last bit of sanity in the Eccles Building has vanished. From a low of $3.76 trillion on August 28, the Fed has already pumped $406 billion into the bond pits. That represents a staggering $1.1 trillion annualized rate of balance sheet expansion.

That’s money printing on steroids. It is also the great monetary match. Stated differently, the repo ruckus last September was the warning bell that the 30-year era of Bubble Finance was fixing to blow.

But the fools in the Eccles Building, blindly fixated on enforcing their interest rate pegs, effectively got out a gasoline hose and fueled what is now the blow-off top.

And that will pave the way for the Turbulent Twenties, and for the unfolding of all the baleful factors listed above.

There has rarely been such a fraught moment in American history.

During the Turbulent Twenties ahead we are heading for the double whammy of a political/constitutional crisis and a thundering financial breakdown at the same time.

Indeed, this perfect storm will gravely impact the personal liberty and economic welfare of every American citizen—so you need to understand what’s coming down the pike and how it will impact Washington and Wall Street alike.

You also need to understand that there has been no Trump b0om, whatsoever—even if the Donald was right during the campaign. That’s when he castigated Washington’s failed economic policies and labeled the faux prosperity of 2016 as a big fat ugly bubble that was fixing to implode on the American people.

Still, just because Donald Trump targeted the symptoms correctly that doesn’t mean he had a plan to fix the American economy or the skills and know-how to move the turgid, essentially paralyzed, machinery of the Federal government constructively forward.

In fact, the mainstream media has the whole story wrong. The Donald is not remotely the force of nature he’s been made to seem by the Trump-obsessed journalists and talking heads.

To the contrary, he’s actually a political flyweight, megalomaniacal incompetent and bile-ridden bully who stumbled into the Oval Office against all odds; and then lucked-out a second time by riding high on the final three-year crest of a deeply impaired and unsustainable economic recovery and monumental stock market bubble.

And here is where experience comes in. Since starting in Washington as a legislative assistant in 1970, we have seen every business cycle and President up close and personal.

So we know that the Donald committed the most egregious rookie mistake in the history of the American presidency.

That is, he insouciantly embraced a financial bubble that was destined to crash and took ownership of a struggling, geriatric business cycle expansion that had “recession ahead” written all over its forehead.

After all, the Donald was sworn in during month #90 of what was already the third longest business expansion in American history. It is now month #126 and it will be month #138 when his first term ends.

Here’s the thing. We are already at a point never, ever reached before.

Even the tech boom of the 1990s—previously the longest ever cycle—ended in recession during month #119, and back then there were plenty of tailwinds to keep it going.

Those year 2000 tailwinds, of course, have now become ferocious 2020s headwinds.

Europe is rolling over into recession. The Red Ponzi is floundering under its massive load of $40 trillion of debt and staggering malinvestments.

And the US economy is imperiled by $74 trillion of public and private debt and egregious Wall Street bubbles whose days are clearly numbered.

Moreover, recessions have not been outlawed by the economic gods and there are overwhelming odds that the next one will hit sometime soon as the 2020s unfold.

And when it does, Wall Street, the US economy and the Donald’s fantasy of MAGA will come tumbling down with it.

Accordingly, we think the Donald will mainly be remembered not as the restorer of MAGA nor as the statesman who rescued America from a day of reckoning that has been building for more than three decades.

Instead, the Donald is destined to be remembered as the Great Disrupter. His lasting contribution will be that he rambunctiously discredited the handiwork of Imperial Washington.

And that will prove to be progress itself as the Turbulent Twenties unfold.

After all, it is the self-serving consensus of the bipartisan ruling class in favor of permanent war, unchained entitlements, fiscal incontinence, unsustainable debt-fueled household spending, rampant corporate financial engineering and Keynesian monetary repression and “wealth effects” based central banking that lies at the roots of our current economic malaise.

At the same time, it should be crystal clear by now that Trump has no real program to restore domestic prosperity and that he has actually made matters inestimably worse with his four misbegotten wars on the American economy.

We are referring to the above referenced Trade War on domestic consumers; Border War on needed immigrant labor; political war on the Fed when it was belatedly trying to normalize; and what amounts to a war on the nation’s solvency embedded in the Donald’s runaway additions to the soaring national debt.

As to the “undrainable swamp”, it should never be forgotten that its deep-end lies on the Pentagon side of the Potomac. Yet the Donald has fed the military/industrial- surveillance complex like never before, thereby defeating his own stated goal.

That is, America’s desperately needed pivot to fiscal and national security sanity was stopped cold by Trump’s mindless $140 billion per year boost to an already vastly excessive and waste-ridden national defense budget.

And now that crucial pivot has been further blocked by a reckless economic and political war against Iran that will do exactly nothing to further the security and safety of the American homeland.

Needless to say, even if the Donald’s policies were better focused, his efforts to make MAGA never had a chance owing to the utterly groundless Russia-collusion investigation, the Mueller witch hunt and now the UkraineGate/Impeachment farce.

These political attacks are groundless, but nevertheless have functioned to disable Trump’s presidency.

In fact, the Donald’s fluke elevation to the Oval Office has finally caused the Deep State to come out of hiding and bare its fangs against American democracy itself.

So doing, it has finally awakened the sleepwalkers of the Foxified Right about the immense dangers of the Warfare State and the sweeping surveillance and police state apparatus that has been created in the service of the neocons’ misbegotten war on terrorism and quest for Empire.

Moreover, the terrifying capabilities, resources and (purported) credibility of the nation’s $75 billion per year intelligence community were literally hijacked by Obama officials led by then CIA director, John Brennan.

It is now more than evident that they illegally pursued a plot to first forestall Trump’s election, and then to re-litigate the outcome and eviscerate his Presidency after the voters had spoken.

At the end of the day, however, the result will be a thoroughly paralyzed government in Washington.

As the 2020s unfold, therefore, the latter will prove to be utterly incapable of stopping the twin fiscal menace of the Warfare State and Welfare State—a monster that the Donald has made immeasurably worse.

After taking the $2 trillion per year of uncontrolled entitlements off the table, Trump then added insult to injury via his unfunded $1.7 trillion tax cut and massive defense and domestic spending increases.

All told, the result will be a guaranteed $20 trillion explosion of the Federal debt (on top of the existing $23 trillion) over the coming decade.

Stated differently, crunch time is coming to the casino and that’s what is sure to bring the Donald down.

The stock market is heading not only for another 50% correction (1600 on the S&P 500), but also a long L-shaped bottom rather than a quick V-shaped rebound which occurred after 2009.

So the combination of the mess he inherited and the compounding damage from his four misguided wars on the American economy add-up to a looming catastrophe.

To be sure, we do not know exactly when the brown stuff will hit the fan. But we do know that Washington’s Empire abroad and phony prosperity at home are terminally failing and that the sell-by date draws near.

We also know that whatever comes next, it won’t be MAGA. Not by a long shot.

Indeed, once upon a time the prospect of $43 trillion of public debt—even a decade down the road— was literally unfathomable.

In fact, in one of our favorite remembrances from our White House days, we recall telling President Reagan in the photo below that America was on the verge of having a $1 trillion national debt.

That was in January 1981, and at the time crossing the $1 trillion mark was almost a nightmarish prospect.

But President Reagan was not intimidated. He properly insisted that this looming Rubicon was emblematic of the mess he had inherited, and that under his watch the nation’s soaring public debt would finally be stopped cold.

Alas, it wasn’t. By the time he left office, the national debt was pushing $3 trillion, and it was off to the races from there.

When Bill Clinton packed his bags to leave the White House the public debt was $5.7 trillion, then soared to $10.7 trillion by the end of George W. Bush’s two terms, stood at $19.9 trillion when Obama moved on and has already passed $23.0 trillion on the Donald’s watch.

But here’s the thing. President Trump is no Ronald Reagan. If the Gipper couldn’t stop the Washington deficit and debt brigades, there is not a snowball’s chance in the hot place that the Donald will.

In truth, unlike all of the Gipper’s successors, who relentlessly added to the debt during their turn at the helm but at least gave lip service to the notion of fiscal rectitude, the Donald just flat-out doesn’t care and he’s taking the GOP with him into fiscal fantasy-land.

What this means is that America is now fast drifting toward the Debtberg. It is only a matter of time before the impending collision shatters the faux prosperity and wanton complacency that prevails on both Wall Street and in Washington.

Still, it is not too late to get prepared.

*  *  *

For those concerned about the economic threat David has has highlighted, we highly recommend considering subscribing to his Contra Corner financial newsletter, published daily.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/05/2020 - 16:45