Bulletin N° 917



“How Big Oil Conquered the World”


November 2018

by James Corbett



“Why Big Oil Conquered the World”


February 2019

by James Corbett





Subject:  Out of the ashes of Capitalism arises . . . ?




August 2, 2020

Grenoble, France



Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,


Fundamental to modern marketing is the technique: “To create a problem; then sell the remedy.” The various national security policies sold to the public since the Vietnam War era – the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, the War on Islam, the War on Covid-19  – all speak to the desperate effort to create new capital investment opportunities that can guarantee high profits for the owners.  

William R. Polk’s study, Crusade and Jihad (2018) places in its historical context this imperialist problematic of the past one thousand years, offering insights into the capacities of militarism and nationalism as useful ideologies that have served to perpetuate class rule, even in pre-capitalist times of empire building. In the third part of this book, titled “The Shift to Secular Nationalism,” the author discusses the North-South conflict before the turn of the last century, when the Christian West intensified its military expansion into the southern hemisphere, preparing to rob the “sick man of Europe” (the Ottoman Empire) of its territorial possessions in the Muslim world. At this point, the rise of a “secular ideology” within the ruling classes on both sides of the struggle found fertile ground in which to take root.  

     The outbreak of the First World War in August 1914 caught the Allies with major conflicting interests and unresolved disputes that had arisen from the competition for empire. In Asia, India was the ultimate prize. Britain had it, and Russia was pushing steadily toward it. So, during most of the previous century, the two imperial powers had often been on the point of hostilities. We may think of the ‘front’ in this cold war as a band running form the Mediterranean across the Black Sea and through Afghanistan toward China. So, starting from the west, Britain was determined to keep the Russian fleet bottled up in the Black Sea. To do that, the British had to keep the Turkish straits out of Russian control. And to do that, they had to keep the ‘sick man of Europe,’ as they thought of the Ottoman Empire, at least alive. This had been the major reason for Britain’s 1839-1840 destruction of the growing power of Mehmet Ali Pasha of Egypt. When he attacked the Ottoman Empire, he threatened to upset the strategic balance. British action against Mehmet Ali did not stop the Russians.

     Fear of Russian ‘aggression’ was a major cause of the 1853-1856 Crimean War. For the Russians, that war had been humiliating. Russian Generals reacted by striking out at the targets they could reach in Central Asia and the Caucasus . . . . But Russian statesmen never gave up the dream of India. Russian and British soldiers and adventurers probed at one another for a generation throughout the middle of the nineteenth century in the covert war we know as the Great Game.

     The Great Game was the heady stuff of romance, and the public loved the tales of derring-do, but it truly was a game: it amounted to little in real terms. Real war came close when Russian armies crashed into and conquered Panjdeh province in Afghanistan in 1885. Panjdeh was the last step in a twenty-year series of Russian advances through Central Asia toward India. Incorporating it in the Russian Empire upset the strategic balance, or so the British thought. They regarded Afghanistan as the anchor of British policy in the east, just as the Ottoman Empire was the bulwark of the west. Britain was determined to keep both of them out of Russian hands.

     Russo-British conflict over these weak states was inevitable. Even when relations at the top, among the emperors (who were all cousins), were cordial, and even when both governments felt threatened by what they saw as the possibility of an uprising of the Muslim people they had conquered, their statesman and generals regarded one another as enemies. In short, during most of the century before the outbreak of the First World War, Russian saw Brittain as a duplicitous, avaricious, and cunning rival, while the English saw Russia as the Cossack on horseback, riding south toward India, and, at least in the popular imagination, as an Asiatic tyranny, not a member of civilized Europe but the heir to Genghis Khan’s Mongols. To convert imperial Russia from an enemy into an ally would be Britain’s major diplomatic challenge at the outbreak of the First World War.

     British hostility to the Russians in Asia was mirrored in Africa, where the ambitions of the British and French clashed. It began when Napoleon conquered Egypt. He had planned to use it as a base of operations against the British, who had taken away the French colonies in India during the French Revolution. [Note: In fact, these colonies were lost before the French Revolution, after the British victory over the French in America in 1763.] On the heels of Napoleon, the British invaded Egypt and forced the French withdrawal. Thwarted in the east, France set to work acquiring an empire in North Africa, beginning with the conquest of Algeria in 1830. The French then moved south and east into Senegal in the 1850s and pushed into the interior, creating what became known as Equatorial or sub-Saharan Africa.

     An attempt was made by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck of Germany in 1884 to head off conflict among the European powers by clarifying the ambitions of Britain and France in Central Africa and recognizing the claims of Belgium, Portugal, and Germany farther south. The conference he assembled of their rulers and statesmen did not result in a treaty and did not stop either Britain or France. Their ‘scramble for Africa’ was what Bismarck, at least in his public stance, had tried to get them to avoid. Each was energized by the impulse of imperialism, the ambitions of its officials, and the clamoring of the public to forge ahead.

     The French had tried to cooperate with Britain in 1882 to invade Egypt, but they pulled back from the joint invasion and consequently watched Britain emerge with another rich colony. The French felt cheated and came to view Egypt somewhat like the Russians had viewed India: a wallet in the pocket of the British Empire. How to get Egypt back into play in the game of international strategy was a sort of upside-down African version of the Anglo-Russian competition in Asia. It was the subject of power plays, shifting alliances, and threats of war for at least a generation. In hindsight we can see that the fears that drove all three of the imperial powers were largely imaginary. Perhaps the most absurd of all was the British fear that France was positioning itself in Central Africa to starve Egypt.

     The British professed to believe that France was thrusting across Africa to establish a base on the White Nile where it could build a dam to chock off the waters of the Nile on which Egypt depended. Such a task was then far beyond the capacity of any country. Indeed, it still is. But fear of French imperialism played well in the press, and the British government exploited it to push ahead with its own aims in the Nile valley. British officials and the press imagined a huge French army plunging across Africa to the Nile to attack Egypt from the south. This incredible appreciation of British intelligence was an echo of the British belief that a Russian Cossack army was always ready to race down across mountains and deserts to attack India. The reality of Africa was that in 1898 the French managed, in months of exhausting marches in which they hacked their way through jungles and struggled across deserts, to get 120 Senegalese auxiliaries (tirailleurs) and half a dozen French officers to the little village of Fashoda on the Nile. Their exhaustion and the British government’s declarations forced the French to admit publically that they had no power on the Nile. The French withdrew. But the very absurdity of their bellicose statements confirmed the underlying hostility of the two imperial powers.(pp.194-196)


Polk goes on to explain how the internecine struggle between the European powers was transcended by the fear of Muslim revolt against the imperialists.

     Despite their differences, Britain, France, and Russia each had a strong reason to cooperate with one another. When the Ottoman Empire called for a holy war, each of the imperial powers expected revolts: Britain in India and Egypt, France in North Africa, and Russia in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Each ruled over millions of Muslims, and each was warned by its security services that the Muslims were ‘seething.’ Each expected an upsurge of nationalism – whether ethnic as in ‘Pan-Turkism’ or religious as in ‘Pan-Islamism’ – and regarded it, at least before the terrible battles of the war, as even more dangerous than its European adversaries. Fear of jihad was augmented by imperial ambition. In varying degrees, all three powers were affected by both fear and greed, but it was Britain that played the lead role.(pp.198-199)

. . .

Before the war had actually broken out and the idea of the Sykes-Picot Agreement had been conceived, the British government in India and the British administration of Egypt were establishing their own policy. It would lead to the second of the three sets of actions Britain initiated during the First World War. We should think of it as the southern strategy.

     The southern stagey was a tactical modification of the longtime imperial policy. The modification had two objectives: the first was to block an anticipated attack of Ottoman forces, which presumably would aim to close the Suez Canal in the West; and damage or cut the pipeline from the Masjed Soleiman oil field in southwest Iran to the Persian Gulf port, thus potentially immobilizing the Royal Navy. If these anticipated actions succeeded, Britain feared that it might lose the war. So even before war spread to the Middle East, the British sent a task force of the Indian army to seize the outlet to the Persian Gulf and augmented their forces in Egypt.

. . .

The first and second aspects of British strategy during the war were not the end of the story. The first led . . . to the establishment of a new agreement between the victorious allies; the second strategy proved to have generated forces among those it sought to rule that became too expensive for Britain and France to maintain, at least in the traditional form of imperialism. It was the third line of strategy, the promotion of Zionism, that would prove to be the one the British could not control.(pp.205-208)

The ideology of nationalism slowly expanded from the northern hemisphere into the South. The agents of this expansion included newly indoctrinated Jews carrying the convictions of Zionism, which served British ruling class interests at the time. Polk describes the popular mobilization around British imperialist aims in the Middle East following the First World War in Chapter 20, “Palestine, the Much Promised Land.”

     Palestine brings into sharp focus and adds a new dimension to the relationship of the North and the South. This is because the cause was in Europe, while the result was in the Middle East. Zionism, which is bitterly opposed by the natives of Palestine, was a response to savage and long-established European anti-Semitism.

     No European society treated Jews as full members, and most exhibited generations or even centuries of nearly always ugly and often vicious treatment of Jews. Even relatively benign governments exploited, segregated, or banished Jews (and such other minorities as Gypsies, Muslims, and deviant Christians). Less benign governments encouraged pogroms and tolerated or practiced mass murder. Northern history reveals a pervasive, powerful, and nearly perpetual record of intolerance of all forms of ethnic, cultural, and religious difference. There were periods of relative tolerance, but they were sporadic and unpredictable as generation followed generation. In the later years of the nineteenth century, anti-Semitism increased in virulence as large numbers of Ashkenazi Jews moved westward from Russia into Poland, Austria, Germany, and France. Flight did not save them. As one early Zionist, referring to the massive migration of Jews from Russia and Poland to Western Europe, said, ‘The Jew carried anti-Semitism on his back wherever he went.”

     Jews also were affected by the currents of nationalism and, like the Egyptians, Iranians, Turks, Berbers, and Arabs, began to think of themselves as a ‘nation.’ Whereas before they had occasionally sought a temporary haven (a nachtaysl), they began to seek what Theodor Herzl called a Judenstaat. Herzl and his followers believed that having a separate, faith-based nation-state would be a permanent solution to anti-Semitism. This was the essential aim and justification for Zionism. The president of the Anglo-Jewish Association, Claude Montefiore, spoke to the group in London on November  30 1917, saying, ‘The Zionist movement [to create a nation-state] was caused by anti-Semitism.’

     Nineteenth-century Europeans and Russians understood and approved of the concept of the nation-state. The French, Germans, Italians, and various communities in the Balkans were reforming and rethinking themselves into ‘nations.’ Not surprisingly, Zionists – at first vigorously opposed by the other Jews – decided to do as the Europeans were doing, getting for themselves a territory on which to found a state. Europeans, who were pleased to get rid of their Jews, suggested various possible sites. Usually the areas offered was far away and in someone else’s territory – Argentina, Australia, Manchuria, or East, North, and West Africa. Only the Russians offered a place in their own territory. But the only one on which the Zionists could agree was the Holy Land. To encourage them to focus only on Palestine, Israel Zangwill coined a description of their aim and the land of Palestine as ‘a country without a people for a people without a land.’

     Unfortunately, while Zangwill’s was a powerful slogan, it masked a different reality. Given the technology available at the time, the scarcity of water, and the relative poverty of the inhabitants, Palestine was already densely populated. For comparison, it had about five times the contemporary population density of the United States. Until massive amounts of money and new technologies became available in the 1930s, population and land were in balance but at a lower level than in wetter, richer areas.

     Herzl’s and Zangwill’s words disturbed the imperialists  and particularly the English. They were willing to help the Jews set up a colony, which might be militarily useful and perhaps even profitable, but they were uneasy about the establishment in the South of a truly independent state. Three answers to the anticipated objections were tried: First, Herzl himself had stressed that a Jewish state would be a ‘rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarians.’ That is, they would become allies in the great imperialist task the English and French had assumed, the white man’s burden of the mission civilisatrice. The second answer was to deny that Zionism aimed to create a state. Nahum Sokolow, then the general secretary of the Zionist Organization, wrote in Die Welt on January 22, 1909, ‘There was no truth whatever in the allegation that Zionism aimed at the establishment of an independent Jewish State.’ The third effort to win support was to cater to the English fear of Jewish immigration. In his presidential address at the Tenth Zionist Congress in 1911, David Wolffsohn proclaimed the aim of Zionism to be ‘not a Jewish State but a homeland.’ This homeland would deflect at least some of the millions of Jews who had fled Russia to settle far away from England and thus avoid compromising its established Jewish community or competing against English laborers.

     So the decision was reached to downplay the German word for state, staat, as in Judenstaat, and substitute for it the word heimstatt, a ‘homeland.’ It suggested something less than a state. In that spirit, the early Zionist Leo Pinsker described the Zionist aim to be the formation of a ‘colonist community,’ a kolonistengemeinwesen. The Hebrew equivalent of the German word for a colonist community was given by Chaim Weizmann as the Yishuv. Thus was born the concept set out in the 1917 Belfour Declaration of a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ in Palestine.

     The British government was not fooled. Two ministers spoke out, but in the privacy of the cabinet. Lord Kitchener commented that it was unrealistic to think that the half a million Arabic-speaking Palestinians would be content to play the role Jews had assigned to their ancestors the Canaanites, as ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water.’ And Lord Balfour, the author of the Balfour Declaration, told his colleagues on August 11, 1919, that ‘as far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers [that is, Britain and France] have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which at least by letter, they have, not always intended to violate.’ Unmoved, the British government, which was in occupation of Palestine, created a civil administration on July 1, 1920. To implement the Balfour Declaration, it appointed a well-known English Zionist, Sir Herbert Samuel, as the civil commissioner. His first task was to begin large-scale immigration of Jews. It was not until two years later, on July 24n 1922, that the Council of the League of Nations approved a mandate for Britain in Palestine. Meanwhile, although without League and Nation approval, British policy was being implemented.

     The attitude of the British administration toward the Palestinians was set out in a (British) government of Palestine memorandum some years later:

The Arabs of Palestine are predominantly Moslem in religion. Generally speaking their outlook is Asiatic; they are traditionalist, and by Western standards are inclined to place the transcendental before the practical. Their pride in the possession of a common language affords a tie with all parts of the Arab world which is a factor which should not be underestimated. Although by tradition feudal, and hence somewhat lacking in cohesion, they were not, however, unaffected by the impulse to self-determination which made itself apparent in the provinces of the Ottoman Empire in the early days of the present century and this has left its mark on their political thought and conduct.... The bulk of the Arab community is composed of peasants and small land-owners, hard-headed and stubborn and with a profound sense of attachment to the land.

     At the beginning of the British mandate, the Palestinians had not yet caught the bug of nationalism. They were divided by religion, residence, and wealth. Most of the eight hundred thousand Arabic-speaking natives were villagers who, like their neighbors in Egypt and Syria, thought of their village s as their ‘nations,’ their warans. The eighty thousand resident Jews were mostly pilgrims or merchants and lived mainly in Jerusalem or Haifa.

. . .

     The Muslim community was relatively homogenous, but it lacked the experience of managing many of its affairs. Its schools and clinics were state organizations, and it had no recognized leaders other than Ottoman officials. Also, unlike the Christians and Jews, both of whom had generations of experience in dealing with foreigners, Muslims had no experience in external relations or ties with foreigners. At every level, foreign relations had been the prerogative of the Ottoman Empire. Unlike Christians and Jews, Muslims were not a ‘nation’; they were integrated into the population of the emprie.(pp.219-223)


William Polk’s focus in secular nationalism in the matrix of aggressive imperialist expansion serves as a warning today of what awaits us in the event of a political vacuum created by total economic and social collapse.


The 22 + items below are selected essays and articles that reflect the legitimacy crisis of the ruling class, whose poverty of ideas is visible for all to see. This sobering encounter should suffice to alert us to the need to formulate our own ideas about our needs and future well being. Our strength lies in our bonds with one another and our mutual respect for self-determination, as the rulers of failing capitalist society appear to be without hope and intent on self-annihilation.





Francis Feeley


Professeur honoraire de l'Université Grenoble-Alpes
Ancien Directeur de Researches
Université de Paris-Nanterre
Director of The Center for the Advanced Study
of American Institutions and Social Movements
The University of California-San Diego





USA must drop charges against Julian Assange



Authorities in the USA must drop the espionage and all other charges against Julian Assange that relate to his publishing activities as part of his work with Wikileaks. The US government’s unrelenting pursuit of Julian Assange for having published disclosed documents that included possible war crimes committed by the US military is nothing short of a full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression.


Julian Assange is currently being held at Belmarsh, a high security prison in the UK, on the basis of a US extradition request on charges that stem directly from the publication of disclosed documents as part of his work with Wikileaks. Amnesty International strongly opposes any possibility of Julian Assange being extradited or sent in any other manner to the USA. There, he faces a real risk of serious human rights violations including possible detention conditions that would amount to torture and other ill-treatment (such as prolonged solitary confinement). The fact that he was the target of a negative public campaign by US officials at the highest levels undermines his right to be presumed innocent and puts him at risk of an unfair trial.

Julian Assange’s publication of disclosed documents as part of his work with Wikileaks should not be punishable as this activity mirrors conduct that investigative journalists undertake regularly in their professional capacity. Prosecuting Julian Assange on these charges could have a chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression, leading journalists to self-censor from fear of prosecution.


Sign the petition now and protect the right to freedom of expression.


UK Refuses to Release Information on Assange Judge Who Has 96 Percent Approval Rate in Extradition Cases


by Mark Curtis and Matt Kennard





Fact Check: Progressive Hero Margaret Sanger Was a Racist Eugenicist


with James Corbett



Where Do We Go from Here?



by Howard Brand


It is quite clear to me that the current ruling class has no intention of giving up their ruling position without a concerted fight.


Keith Knight and James Corbett Dissect Voluntary Servitude




Worst Decline on Record for US


with Richard Wolff



The Camo Economy: How Military Contracting Hides Human Costs and Increases Inequality


by Heidi Peltier


High profits allow military contractors to pay high wages, which contributes to rising inequality. While the average wage across all occupations in the U.S. last year was about $53,000, at Lockheed Martin the average wage was about $115,000, over twice as much.


War Resisters

A revolutionary nonviolence view on US uprisings

Protesters Demonstrate In Ferguson, Missouri Against Death Of George Floyd By Police Officer In Minneapolis : Photo d'actualité



What we are seeing on the streets are not “peaceful” but rather nonviolent protests seeking to confront and disrupt the violence of U.S. police.





DARPA’s Man in Wuhan


by Raul Diego


Michael Callahan’s career began in USAID and in the bioweapons labs of the former Soviet Union, advancing the agenda of the global bioweapons and pharmaceutical cartels. He would take what he learned there to execute a massive expansion of DARPA’s biodefense portfolio and today finds himself squarely in the center of the origins of the coronavirus pandemic.


Perspectives on the Pandemic

(1 of 3) | Episode #10


with Judy Mikovits & Robert Kennedy Jr.



Local TV stations across the country set to air discredited 'Plandemic' researcher's conspiracy theory about Fauci


by Oliver Darcy, CNN Business


From Bioethics to Eugenics


by James Corbett





The Impossible Dream


by Michael Brenner


The former national security adviser reveals a national goal that is simple and blunt: American dominance of the world, writes Michael Brenner.


Edward Bernays and Group Psychology: “Manipulating the Masses”




Racism, Sexism, Classism: Incoherence of ‘Mainstream’ Ethical Debate. Obfuscating Crimes against Humanity


by Media Lens





Media consolidation runs wild in free enterprise system


with Larry King



'Cancel Culture' hypocrites cancel open debate and foreign countries


with Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté



Foundations Fund Phony
'Left' Media Gatekeepers

(Link to the chart of foundations funding "left" media gatekeepers:)



News From Underground

From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020
Subject: [MCM] Bari Weiss resigns from the Social Justice Police Gazette, a/k/a the New York Times


Kudos to Bari Weiss, for sticking with her principles, and quitting the Gray Lady's faux-left cult. 

She's not the only Times survivor fed up with that paper's suffocating groupthink and abysmal 

journalism. Here, again, is what former Timesman Alex Berenson had to say about the paper.


On the Times' fierce promotion of the lockdown policy, Alex wrote:


I think this is a very strong effort by the public health establishment to beat down any questions about the efficacy and side effects of lockdowns, an effort abetted and even driven by places like the Times. Nearly the entire media is on board here, and the issue has become incredibly politicized. When I worked for the Times, it leaned left, but it was basically center-left, a voice of the establishment, and the bias was more in the story selection than anything else. Reporters were expected to (and did) write with relative objectivity, avoid snark and opinion, make sure they gave the subjects of articles or the targets of investigations a chance to respond. 


We knew the rules and we basically followed them. Didn't mean we couldn't write strong investigative pieces (I wrote plenty), but we didn't have politics on every page. That's gone now.


As for myself—longtime Times subscriber, and author of four Times op eds, and co-author of a fifth—I find myself wishing every day that I could spare myself the agony of scanning it; but, as a student of propaganda, I have an intellectual and civic duty to peruse it, so I have to suck it up, in hopes of getting others to perceive how really bad it is.





Resignation Letter



Dear A.G.,

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times. 

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong. 

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. 

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati. 

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry. 

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper. 

None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them. 







 “Capitalism and Social Unrest”


with Richard Wolff



As world sees desperate Trump torching the US, will more of US's potential opposition recognize oncoming social disaster and join the active opposition?




How to Motivate Workers


with Richard Wolff



One Nation Under House Arrest: How Do COVID-19 Mandates Impact Our Freedoms?


by John W. Whitehead


“The coming economic crash will be like NOTHING in history”


 with Richard Wolff





The billionaire CEO says "Black Lives Matter" but refuses to give his predominantly Black warehouse workers paid sick leave.

From: Robert Reich [mailto:robert@imcivicaction.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020
Subject: Jeff Bezos’ tokenism


The billionaire CEO says "Black Lives Matter" but refuses to give his predominantly Black warehouse workers paid sick leave.


  • Jeff Bezos says "Black Lives Matter" but refuses to give his predominantly Black warehouse workers paid sick leave.


  • Jamie Dimon says JPMorgan must "be inclusive in our work" but only 4 percent of his bank's top executives are Black.


  • BlackRock CEO Larry Fink says that racism "must be addressed on both a personal and systemic level" but his firm is one of the largest investors in the private prison operators GEO Group and CoreCivic.


  • Walmart CEO Doug McMillon recently announced Walmart would create a center on racial equality, but the company has overworked and mistreated its Black employees for decades.


When you peel back their PR stunts and press releases, the truth comes into focus: far from being the solution to systemic racism in America, these billionaires and their corporations are actively perpetuating it.

Our latest video exposes the hypocrisy of corporate virtue signaling.

Don’t be fooled by glitzy press releases and flashy PR stunts. Wall Street and corporations profit from and reinforce systemic racism in America.

We have the power — as their consumers, clients, and employees — to demand these companies stop their racist practices. 

It’s time they back up their lofty rhetoric with fundamental change.

Raise your voices, and stay vigilant.

Thanks for watching,
Robert Reich
Inequality Media Civic Action



What Lies Ahead: Permanent Job Losses, Poverty in America, Financial and Political Instability


by Dr. Jack Rasmus




U.S. Economy Drops by 32.9% in Second Quarter, the Worst Plunge on Record: 'Horrific'


by Rachel DeSantis


"Economic Update: Sports And Capitalism"


with Richard Wolff





“I Felt Like I Was Going to Die”: Civil Rights Icon John Lewis Recalls 1965 “Bloody Sunday” in Selma


(8 :45)


Rep. John Lewis on the Freedom Rides, Surviving KKK Attacks, 1963 March on Washington & Malcolm X







“America: The Farewell Tour”


with Chris Hedges

Town Hall Seattle, Oct. 9, 2018



“The Great American Reset of 2020”


with Jim Rickards and Robert Kiyosaki





News From Underground

From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020
Subject: [MCM] Why the WHO faked a pandemic


This piece is from ten years ago, concerning the swine flu pandemic

that wasn't. Michael Fumento, its author, describes himself as "an 

attorney, author, and journalist who has been documenting epidemic

hysterias for 35 years." His other writings in that vein—including one

posted on July 9, on the hysteria today—are at:



Having said that, I feel obliged to note that, if COVID-19 is indeed a 

bioweapon, as ever more evidence suggests, and if the end-game here

is to get all the world injected with the impending witch's brew of human

DNA and Bill Gates' nanoparticles, we would be foolish to ignore the

possibility, or likelihood, that some new pathogen—a COVID-20, say—

might not be loosed upon us in the coming months. (It could be that

bubonic plague, reportedly discovered in Mongolia just last week:



That scenario seems all the likelier for Bill/Melinda's gleeful forecast

of "the next one," which "will get attention this time." If that moment

doesn't necessarily prove that something still more evil this way comes,

it definitely proves that those two fake humanitarians are actually a

pair of psychopaths, who ought to be indefinitely quarantined, ASAP, 

for our protection:





p.s. Lest Forbes be persuaded to take this piece down, I recommend

downloading it at once.

Feb 5, 2010,04:35pm EST

Why The WHO Faked A Pandemic

Michael Fumento

Michael FumentoSubscriber

This article is more than 10 years old.




The World Health Organization has suddenly gone from crying "The sky is falling!" like a cackling Chicken Little to squealing like a stuck pig. The reason: charges that the agency deliberately fomented swine flu hysteria. "The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible," the agency claims on its Web site. A WHO spokesman declined to specify who or what gave this "description," but the primary accuser is hard to ignore.

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 Wodarghas declared that the "false pandemic" is "one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century."

Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax. "We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far] in terms of public health," he said.

They're right. This wasn't merely overcautiousness or simple misjudgment. The pandemic declaration and all the Klaxon-ringing since reflect sheer dishonesty motivated not by medical concerns but political ones.

Unquestionably, swine flu has proved to be vastly milder than ordinary seasonal flu. It kills at a third to a tenth the rate, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. Data from other countries like France and Japan indicate it's far tamer than that.

Indeed, judging by what we've seen in New Zealand and Australia (where the epidemics have ended), and by what we're seeing elsewhere in the world, we'll have considerably fewer flu deaths this season than normal. That's because swine flu muscles aside seasonal flu, acting as a sort of inoculation against the far deadlier strain.

Did the WHO have any indicators of this mildness when it declared the pandemic in June?

Absolutely, as I wrote at the time. We were then fully 11 weeks into the outbreak and swine flu had only killed 144 people worldwide--the same number who die of seasonal flu worldwide every few hours. (An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 per year by the WHO's own numbers.) The mildest pandemics of the 20th century killed at least a million people.

Click on the link for the rest: https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/world-health-organization-swine-flu-pandemic-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html#4acde16848e


Data suggest Florida's record-breaking coronavirus days may have been inflated by as much as 30%






News From Underground

From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020
Subject: [MCM] There's something very wrong with Dr. Tony "Flip-Flop" Fauci (and the ditto-heads who stick with him, because he isn't Trump)


In March, Fauci said--correctly--that face masks offer no protection against the coronavirus. The virions are way too small for the pores in cloth and paper masks to keep them out, and the N95 can never fit your face hermetically enough to keep the virus out.


Then Fauci abruptly changed his tune, and has been singing those same wrong notes ever since, even though his current stand is groundless---and dangerous. He even wears a CLOTH mask (the MOST unhealthy kind) when on camera.


He pulled the same volte-face on the COVID-19 mortality rate, first arguing---correctly---that it would be comparable to the annual mortality rate of influenza; and then he turned around and said the opposite, and has been saying THAT ever since, even as the COVID-19 death rate has steadily declined.


So what's up with Dr. Fauci---and with all the lemmings who've consistently agreed with him, no matter what he's said? Is whatever he says right, just because he seems to be at odds with Trump? 


Something's clearly very wrong with him, and them.








News From Underground

From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020
Subject: [MCM] NBC News spent weeks on a virologist's struggle with COVID-19—but he never had it


More propaganda fiction from the "respected" news outlet that, in April of 2019, ran the tale that "spoiled brat" Julian Assange had smeared the walls of his Ecuadorian asylum with his own "fecal matter" (a lie that was inaudibly refuted by embassy staffers); has repeatedly, and mawkishly, pumped out White Helmet lies as gospel truth; pushed "Russia-gate" as fervently, and groundlessly, as Rachel Maddow did (and still does), while casting skeptics as the dupes of foreign "Twitter bots"; has run numerous false stories on the ineffectiveness and dangers of hydroxychloroquine; and, lately, has been doubling down on the fantasy that Russia paid "bounties" to the Taliban

to kill US troops in Afghanistan. 


Such is the crapola churned out endlessly by NBC "News"—and the sort of "journalism" that has magnified the COVID-19 threat beyond all reason, and with such dire consequences that NBC News, NBC/Universal and the latter's owner, Comcast, should all be tried for crimes against humanity. 
















NBC News Spent Weeks Reporting On A Contributor’s Journey Battling Coronavirus – But He Never Had It

Dr. Joseph Fair admitted he never tested positive for COVID-19. (Screenshot YouTube TODAY, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWRVXxTdgYs)




July 10, 20206:06 PM ET


NBC News spent weeks documenting its science contributor’s battle with COVID-19, but now he admits that he never tested positive for it.

Dr. Joseph Fair, a virologist, believed he had the virus and appeared on air numerous times to discuss his struggle with illness in May and June. On Tuesday, Fair admitted that he tested negative for the virus multiple times but had originally believed he had it regardless. Fair also tested negative upon taking an antibody test.

Click on the link for the rest: https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/10/nbc-news-contributor-battle-coronavirus-negative-antibodies/


Whitney: Looks Like Sweden Was Right After All


by Tyler Durden


Why is the media so fixated on Sweden’s coronavirus policy? What difference does it make?


Sweden settled on a policy that they thought was both sustainable and would save as many lives as possible. They weren’t trying to ‘show anyone up’ or ‘prove how smart they were’. They simply took a more traditionalist approach that avoided a full-scale lockdown. That’s all.


UCSF doctors fought Covid-19 in Navajo Nation



 All Roads Lead to Dark Winter


by Whitney Webb


The leaders of two controversial pandemic simulations that took place just months before the Coronavirus crisis – Event 201 and Crimson Contagion – share a common history, the 2001 biowarfare simulation Dark Winter. Dark Winter not only predicted the 2001 anthrax attacks, but some of its participants had clear foreknowledge of those attacks.


Big Tech Giants are Forcing Their Way into America's Public Health System


by Raul Diego


A consortium of the most powerful tech players like IBM, Microsoft and Facebook are teaming up with hospital networks with links to the Vatican and tech lobbying groups to shape the conversation about the future role of technology in the public sphere.


Dr. Robert Gallo on Vaccines, Plus the Democrats' Campaign Strategy


 on Useful Idiots






Africa to Become Testing Ground for “Trust Stamp” Vaccine Record and Payment System


by Raul Diego


A new biometric identity platform partnered with the Gates-funded GAVI vaccine alliance and Mastercard will launch in West Africa and combine COVID-19 vaccinations, cashless payments, and potential law enforcement applications.





Inside the wicked saga of Jeffrey Epstein: the arrest of

Ghislaine Maxwell




Jeffrey Epstein was blackmailing politicians for Israel’s Mossad, new book claims



The Maxwell Family Business: Espionage


by Whitney Webb


Ghislaine Maxwell is hardly the only Maxwell sibling to continue their father’s controversial work for intelligence, with other siblings carrying the torch specifically for Robert Maxwell’s sizable role in the PROMIS software scandal and subsequent yet related hi-tech espionage operations.


NYT: “Bill Gates Repeatedly Met With Jeffrey Epstein”



Bill Gates aurait été incité par Jeffrey Epstein à faire un don au MIT, voici les liens entre les deux hommes



Why a Shadowy Tech Firm With Ties to Israeli Intelligence Is Running Doomsday Election Simulations


by Whitney Webb


A shadowy tech firm with deep ties to Israeli intelligence and newly inked contracts to protect Pentagon computers is partnering with Lockheed Martin to gain unprecedented access to the heart of America’s democracy.


How an Israeli Spy-Linked Tech Firm Gained Access to the US Gov’t’s Most Classified Networks


by Whitney Webb


Through its main investors, SoftBank and Lockheed Martin, Cybereason not only has ties to the Trump administration but has its software running on some of the U.S. government’s most classified and secretive networks.


How a police spy's stunning testimony threatens the official US-Israeli AMIA bombing narrative


by Gareth Porter


Revelations by a former police spy upend the official story blaming Iran for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, and suggest a cover-up by dirty war elements may have let the real culprits off the hook.



From: Moshé Machover
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020


Begin forwarded message:


From: AURDIP <contact@aurdip.fr>



Date: 30July2020


 Voir cette Infolettre dans votre navigateur



I'm writing this by candlelight – Lebanon's economic crisis is a social catastrophe


by Naji Bakhti



Democratic Candidate James Averhart Personally Oversaw Solitary Confinement of

Chelsea Manning




From: Of Jim O'Brien via H-PAD
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020
Subject: Notes 7/27/20: Links to recent articles of interest


Links to Recent Articles of Interest


Links to Recent Articles of Interest

"A Brief History of Dangerous Others"
By Richard Kreitner and Rick Perlstein, NYR [New York Review of Books' Daily, posted July 27
On the long history of "outside agitators" in the US, from slavery days to today's Black Lives Matter protests. Richard Kreitner writes for The Nation and has a forthcoming history of secessionist movements in the US. Rick Perlstein has written several books on American conservatism including The Invisible Bridge: the Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan (Simon & Schuster, 2014).

"How to Ruin an Empire"
By Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy, posted July 23
A cogent analysis of self-inflicted wounds for the US since the mid-1990s, "a train wreck of recurring blunders that has accelerated and worsened under Donald Trump," most spectacularly during the pandemic.The author teaches international affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government..

"Trump's Push to Skew the Census Builds on a Long History of Politicizing the Count"
By Paul Schor, Washington Post, posted July 23
The author teaches US history at the Universite de Paris and is the author of Counting Americans: How the U.S. Census Classified the Nation (Oxford U. Press, 2017).

"Trump Has Brought America's Dirty Wars Home"
By Stuart Schrader, The New Republic, posted July 21
"The authoritarian tactics we've exported around the world in the name of national security are now being deployed in Portland." The author teaches sociology at Johns Hopkins University and is the author of Badges Without Borders: How Global Counterinsurgency Transformed American Policing (U. of Caiifornia Press, 2019).

"Don't Tear Down the Wrong Monuments; Don't Attack Every Holiday"
By Jim Loewen, History News Network, posted July 21
A short, very readable essay on the nearly simultaneous Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg on the eve of Independence Day, 1863, and how they are remembered. The author has written several best-selling books on history and American race relations.

"Shocked by Russia Supporting the Taliban? You Shouldn't Be"
By Andrew J. Bacevich, The American Conservative, posted July 15
"It requires a considerable amount of hypocrisy to profess shock at Putin taking advantage of difficulties we created for ourselves." The author is a professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University.

"Mask Resistance During a Pandemic Isn't New - In 1918 Many Americans Were 'Slackers'"
By J. Alexander Navarro, The Conversation, posted July 13
The author is assistant director of the Center for the History of Medicine, University of Michigan.

"Facing America's History of Racism Requires Facing the Origins of 'Race' as a Concept"
By Andrew Murray, Time, posted July 10
The author is a professor of humanities at Wesleyan University and author of The Anatomy of Blackness: Science and Slavery in the Age of Enlightenment (Johns Hopkins U. Press, 2011).

"Americans Are the Dangerous, Disease-Carrying Foreigners Now"
By Erika Lee, Washington Post, posted July 8
Historical background on US immigration policies based on fear of immigrants bringing contagious diseases. The author is director of the Immigration History Research Center at the University of Minnesota and author of America for Americans: A History of Xenophobia in the United States (Basic Books, 2019).

"In 'Russian Bounty' Story, Evidence-Free Claims from Nameless Spies Became Fact Overnight"
By Alan MacLean, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), posted July 3
Critiques the mainstream press reporting of unverified claims about Russian bounties paid to the Taliban. The author is the author of Propaganda in the Information Age (Routledge, 2019).

Thanks to Rusti Eisenberg and an anonymous reader for flagging some of the above articles. Suggestions can be sent to jimobrien48@gmail.com.



Learning From the Past: History Provides Clues into Israel’s West Bank Annexation


by Miko Peled


Since 1948, Israel has annexed, occupied, taken, destroyed, built, and renamed everything from individual homes and property to public spaces, to historic monuments. And it has no intention, or reason, to stop.


The Free Speech Fetish is American Exceptionalism on Steroids


by Danny Haiphong





“How Social Distancing Rules Are Created”


with JP





News From Underground

From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020
Subject: [MCM] There's something very wrong with Dr. Tony "Flip-Flop" Fauci (and the ditto-heads who stick with him, because he isn't Trump)


In March, Fauci said--correctly--that face masks offer no protection against the coronavirus. The virions are way too small for the pores in cloth and paper masks to keep them out, and the N95 can never fit your face hermetically enough to keep the virus out.


Then Fauci abruptly changed his tune, and has been singing those same wrong notes ever since, even though his current stand is groundless---and dangerous. He even wears a CLOTH mask (the MOST unhealthy kind) when on camera.


He pulled the same volte-face on the COVID-19 mortality rate, first arguing---correctly---that it would be comparable to the annual mortality rate of influenza; and then he turned around and said the opposite, and has been saying THAT ever since, even as the COVID-19 death rate has steadily declined.


So what's up with Dr. Fauci---and with all the lemmings who've consistently agreed with him, no matter what he's said? Is whatever he says right, just because he seems to be at odds with Trump? 


Something's clearly very wrong with him, and them.



News From Underground

From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020
Subject: [MCM] CDC: COVID-19 deaths for week ending 6/27 were DOWN 91.9% from mid-April peak


This means it's basically over, for all the daily terrorism by Gates/Fauci and their media.


So how long will it take for this key datum to sink in? 




CDC: COVID-19 Deaths for Week Ending June 27 Down 91.9% From Mid-April Peak

A COVID-19 test site volunteer wearing personal protective equipment speaks with people waiting in line at a walk-in coronavirus test site in Los Angeles, California on July 10, 2020. (Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)

by Susan Jones


A COVID-19 test site volunteer wearing personal protective equipment speaks with people waiting in line at a walk-in coronavirus test site in Los Angeles, California on July 10, 2020. (Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)


(CNSNews.com) - In the week that ended on June 27, there were 1,363 deaths in the United States involving COVID-19, which was a 91.9 percent drop from the peak of 16,895 COVID-involved deaths reported for the week that ended on April 18, according to the provisional COVID-19 death counts published by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.




Working Woman Testifies About Reality Of Poverty In The U.S.



America’s Social Hell


by Chris Hedges


Stagnation of Wages & Banking Practices


 with Richard Wolff




Black Lives Matter, Universalism and Hopes for the Left


with Noam Chomsky and Susan Neiman



Fascist "leaders" facilitate capitalism - the business of subordinating people and nature to its profit-drive. Glaring example: Bolsonaro's burning


by Richard Wolff








From: Cat McGuire
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 12:32 AM
Subject: Major new 911 report reveals 36 reporters on the scene at ground zero heard explosions


Bravo to Graeme MacQueen, Ted Walter, and interviewer Andy Steele!


To everyone BCC'd in this email, I highly recommend you listen to Andy's interview with Ted and Graeme who spent 2 years researching and writing How 36 Reporters Brought Us the Twin Towers’ Explosive Demolition on 9/11  


Or you can read the text version of their report.


Ted and Graeme document how 36 media reporters in the early hours of the attack heard explosions . . . and then how later in the day, the entire trajectory of the story changed on a dime. It's as if a magic wand from on high waved away the reporters' first-person, eye-witness, boots-on-the-ground accounts and replaced them with a sanitized fictional version passed down from Corporate of the Official Story of September 11, 2001.


As Graeme and Ted wrote:  The widely held belief that the Twin Towers collapsed as a result of the airplane impacts and the resulting fires is, unbeknownst to most people, a revisionist theory. Among individuals who witnessed the event firsthand, the more prevalent hypothesis was that the Twin Towers had been brought down by massive explosions.


Thank you Graeme and Ted for this innovative, scholarly report, and for your outstanding contribution to 911 truth. Keep up the great work! Cat


PS -- Also highly recommended by Graeme MacQueenThe 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy





Don’t. Side. With. The. Powerful


by Caitlin Johnstone


How Israel obstructs COVID-19 care in East Jerusalem


by Whitney Webb


COVID19, The Great Reset & The New Normal


by Derrick Broza


Has Covid-19 Initiated the Final, Fatal Crisis of Capitalism?


with Margaret Kimberley and Glen Ford

(audio, 23:49)


Lloyds profits wiped out as bank warns about economic outlook

Lloyds Bank


by BBC


Lloyds Banking Group has warned the lockdown is having a greater economic shock than expected.

Britain's biggest retail bank has put aside another £2.4bn in case more people and firms default on loans.

The provision was far higher than analysts expected, and meant Lloyds slumped to a pre-tax loss of £602m for the first half of the year, from a £2.9bn profit in 2019.

The bank's share price tumbled by more than 7% on Thursday after the update.

Lloyds' has now set aside a total of £3.8bn in the first half for bad loans, and admitted on Thursday that this could swell to as much as £5.5bn for the full year.

It is also expects mortgage defaults to reach £603m, compared with £30m in the first six months of last year based, in part, on "the additional reduction in house price forecasts" for the UK.

Commenting on the total figure for the first half, Lloyds said: "The increased impairment charge was primarily due to future potential losses arising from the revised economic outlook for the UK economy as a result of the coronavirus outbreak."

'Hard slog'

Lloyds said it had lent over £9bn to companies through a number of government-backed schemes including the Bounce Back Loan and Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan schemes.

It also said it had granted more than 1.1 million payment holidays to retail customers and some 33,000 capital repayment holidays to small businesses and corporates "to alleviate temporary financial pressures".

·         Barclays: We want our people back in the office

·         Are Britain's banks strong enough for coronavirus?

Richard Hunter, head of markets at Interactive Investor, said: "The current environment is proving to be a hard slog for Lloyds, and the difficulties are unfortunately set to continue,

"Since its last update, Lloyds estimates that the economic outlook has deteriorated further, partly because of the immediate impact of the pandemic in its second quarter, but also due to the likelihood of significantly higher defaults on loans in the next few months as various government support schemes subside."


China urged to develop its own international payment system to counter risk of US financial sanctions


by Frank Tang





15 lessons from 15 years of BDS


by Alys Samson Estapé


Wage crisis worsens in Gaza


by Fedaa al-Qedra


LancetGate: "Scientific Corona Lies" and Big Pharma Corruption. Hydroxychloroquine versus Gilead's Remdesivir


by Prof Michel Chossudovsky





News From Underground

From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020
Subject: [MCM] GooTube has removed the entire "Highwire" channel


You can watch it at:




Del asks that we spread the word.







China’s Vision

in a Post-COVID World


by Peter Koenig


'The pandemic shows neoliberalism doesn't work': Interview with Sandinista leader on 41st anniversary of Nicaragua's revolution


with Ben Norton and Carlos Fonseca Terán






“US Arrogance is a Gas”


by Finian Cunningham


The Absurdity of American Empire


with Laura Flanders and Chris Hedges

September 2012



Watch Bill Gates, Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett on “the socialism versus capitalism debate”


May 2019