Peter Schiff appeared on Real America with Dan Ball to talk about the bank bailout, the unfolding financial crisis, the Fed and inflation. He said this is a sequel to 2008 and like all sequels, it’s going to be worse.
Dan started the interview by referencing Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s assertion that the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank was caused by “deregulation.” Peter said this deregulation “exists in the fantasy of her mind,” and pointed out that banking is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the world.
It would be much safer if it was regulated by free market forces instead of government.”
It’s not a coincidence that both the borrowers and the lenders are broke. You know, the reason for that is the Fed. The Fed kept interest rates artificially low for more than a decade encouraging people to go deeper and deeper into debt and banks to extend them the credit. And now that they’re forced to raise interest rates, something that was always going to happen — they have created another financial crisis, which is something I’ve been warning about for years.”
Of course, the media doesn’t want to call it a financial crisis. Instead, they call it a “banking crisis.”
The financial crisis of 2008 was a banking crisis. Nobody wants to say what it is because they don’t want to invoke memories and comparisons to 2008. But this is a sequel to 2008. And like all sequels, this one is going to be worse.”
Peter explained that the 2008 financial crisis was due to the Fed holding interest rates artificially low at 1% from 2002 until late 2004. That gave rise to a proliferation of adjustable-rate mortgages, zero-doc loans, no money down, and all kind of other crazy lending schemes. This ultimately blew up the real estate bubble. Predictably, a lot of those loans went bad when the Fed started normalizing rates. (It eventually got rates to a peak of 5.25% in 2006. ) That precipitated the 2008 financial crisis.
The government and the Fed managed to cut the financial crisis short with zero percent interest rates and quantitative easing. Then it left rates at zero for more than a decade.
The Fed has made far more monetary mistakes since the 2008 financial crisis than prior. And so, it has inflated a much bigger credit bubble. Now the banks are in far worse shape than they were in 2008, especially the ‘too big to fail’ banks that we bailed out and are now much bigger than they were back then and even more insolvent. So, as a result of what the Fed has done after the 2008 financial crisis, this new financial crisis that just got started will be much worse. And my fear, which is already being validated by last week’s balance sheet, is that this crisis is going to be so bad that the Fed is going to pull out all of the stops and print as much money as possible to bail everybody out. Then the inflation that we saw in 2021 and 2022 is just the tip of a huge iceberg and we’re going to be looking at double-digit inflation rates as far as the eye can see.”
Peter also talked about the insolvency of the FDIC. It doesn’t even have enough money to cover deposits up to $250,000 as promised. Peter pointed out that during the Great Depression when there was no FDIC, people only lost about 2% of their deposits, even with all the bank failures.
The banking system was much sounder before we had an FDIC than it is now. Because back then, banks had an incentive to be responsible because their customers held them accountable. But now there is no accountability.”
Peter said the push to raise FDIC limits even higher is nothing but doubling down on a bad policy.
It’s just going to create a bigger moral hazard. But they’re trying to undo the damage from the moral hazard they created by bailing out some banks and leaving the impression that some might be vulnerable. Now they’ve created a run on solvent banks as people rush to put their money into insolvent banks.”
All of this raises a bigger question: where is the government going to get the money for this?
That’s just another unfunded liability that has to be piled on top of a massive unfunded debt on top of the funded debt that’s unpayable already. So, it’s all going to be inflated away. That’s what people have to worry about. Everybody’s bank account is at risk because inflation is going to destroy the purchasing power of your money. It doesn’t matter if your bank fails because the money that you deposited in the bank, that’s going to fail.”
This is not legal or medical advice and for information only… Legal letter from Robert Barnes:
Dear Boss,
Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law.
First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the “option to accept or refuse administration” of the Covid-19 vaccine. ( … .edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3″ target=”_blank” class=”link” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 ) This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. ( http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ ). As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must “be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision” for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).
Secondly, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).)
Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. ( https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/faqs#vaccine ). The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.( https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )
Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making.Keywords: Physiology, Psychology, Health, SARS-CoV-2, Safety, EfficacyGo to:
Introduction
Facemasks are part of non-pharmaceutical interventions providing some breathing barrier to the mouth and nose that have been utilized for reducing the transmission of respiratory pathogens [1]. Facemasks can be medical and non-medical, where two types of the medical masks primarily used by healthcare workers [1], [2]. The first type is National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified N95 mask, a filtering face-piece respirator, and the second type is a surgical mask [1]. The designed and intended uses of N95 and surgical masks are different in the type of protection they potentially provide. The N95s are typically composed of electret filter media and seal tightly to the face of the wearer, whereas surgical masks are generally loose fitting and may or may not contain electret-filtering media. The N95s are designed to reduce the wearer’s inhalation exposure to infectious and harmful particles from the environment such as during extermination of insects. In contrast, surgical masks are designed to provide a barrier protection against splash, spittle and other body fluids to spray from the wearer (such as surgeon) to the sterile environment (patient during operation) for reducing the risk of contamination [1].
The third type of facemasks are the non-medical cloth or fabric masks. The non-medical facemasks are made from a variety of woven and non-woven materials such as Polypropylene, Cotton, Polyester, Cellulose, Gauze and Silk. Although non-medical cloth or fabric facemasks are neither a medical device nor personal protective equipment, some standards have been developed by the French Standardization Association (AFNOR Group) to define a minimum performance for filtration and breathability capacity [2]. The current article reviews the scientific evidences with respect to safety and efficacy of wearing facemasks, describing the physiological and psychological effects and the potential long-term consequences on health.Go to:
Hypothesis
On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a global public health emergency of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing illness of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) [3]. As of October 1, 2020, worldwide 34,166,633 cases were reported and 1,018,876 have died with virus diagnosis. Interestingly, 99% of the detected cases with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic or have mild condition, which contradicts with the virus name (severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2) [4]. Although infection fatality rate (number of death cases divided by number of reported cases) initially seems quite high 0.029 (2.9%) [4], this overestimation related to limited number of COVID-19 tests performed which biases towards higher rates. Given the fact that asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times higher than the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate is considerably less than 1% [5]. This was confirmed by the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from US stating, “the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 are similar to those of severe seasonal influenza” [5], having a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1% [5], [6], [7], [8]. In addition, data from hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and general public indicate that the majority of deaths were among older and chronically ill individuals, supporting the possibility that the virus may exacerbates existing conditions but rarely causes death by itself [9], [10]. SARS-CoV-2 primarily affects respiratory system and can cause complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), respiratory failure and death [3], [9]. It is not clear however, what the scientific and clinical basis for wearing facemasks as protective strategy, given the fact that facemasks restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia and increase the risk for respiratory complications, self-contamination and exacerbation of existing chronic conditions [2], [11], [12], [13], [14].
Of note, hyperoxia or oxygen supplementation (breathing air with high partial O2 pressures that above the sea levels) has been well established as therapeutic and curative practice for variety acute and chronic conditions including respiratory complications [11], [15]. It fact, the current standard of care practice for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is breathing 100% oxygen [16], [17], [18]. Although several countries mandated wearing facemask in health care settings and public areas, scientific evidences are lacking supporting their efficacy for reducing morbidity or mortality associated with infectious or viral diseases [2], [14], [19]. Therefore, it has been hypothesized: 1) the practice of wearing facemasks has compromised safety and efficacy profile, 2) Both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to reduce human-to-human transmission and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, 3) Wearing facemasks has adverse physiological and psychological effects, 4) Long-term consequences of wearing facemasks on health are detrimental.Go to:
Evolution of hypothesis
Breathing Physiology
Breathing is one of the most important physiological functions to sustain life and health. Human body requires a continuous and adequate oxygen (O2) supply to all organs and cells for normal function and survival. Breathing is also an essential process for removing metabolic byproducts [carbon dioxide (CO2)] occurring during cell respiration [12], [13]. It is well established that acute significant deficit in O2 (hypoxemia) and increased levels of CO2 (hypercapnia) even for few minutes can be severely harmful and lethal, while chronic hypoxemia and hypercapnia cause health deterioration, exacerbation of existing conditions, morbidity and ultimately mortality [11], [20], [21], [22]. Emergency medicine demonstrates that 5–6 min of severe hypoxemia during cardiac arrest will cause brain death with extremely poor survival rates [20], [21], [22], [23]. On the other hand, chronic mild or moderate hypoxemia and hypercapnia such as from wearing facemasks resulting in shifting to higher contribution of anaerobic energy metabolism, decrease in pH levels and increase in cells and blood acidity, toxicity, oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, immunosuppression and health deterioration [24], [11], [12], [13].
Efficacy of facemasks
The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material [2]. With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists [25].
Clinical scientific evidence challenges further the efficacy of facemasks to block human-to-human transmission or infectivity. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus [26]. The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose ect…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people [26]. This was further supported by a study on infectivity where 445 asymptomatic individuals were exposed to asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier (been positive for SARS-CoV-2) using close contact (shared quarantine space) for a median of 4 to 5 days. The study found that none of the 445 individuals was infected with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase [27].
A meta-analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28]. Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta-analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28]. A recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings [29].
Another meta-analysis of 44 non-RCT studies (n = 25,697 participants) examining the potential risk reduction of facemasks against SARS, middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) and COVID-19 transmissions [30]. The meta-analysis included four specific studies on COVID-19 transmission (5,929 participants, primarily health-care workers used N95 masks). Although the overall findings showed reduced risk of virus transmission with facemasks, the analysis had severe limitations to draw conclusions. One of the four COVID-19 studies had zero infected cases in both arms, and was excluded from meta-analytic calculation. Other two COVID-19 studies had unadjusted models, and were also excluded from the overall analysis. The meta-analytic results were based on only one COVID-19, one MERS and 8 SARS studies, resulting in high selection bias of the studies and contamination of the results between different viruses. Based on four COVID-19 studies, the meta-analysis failed to demonstrate risk reduction of facemasks for COVID-19 transmission, where the authors reported that the results of meta-analysis have low certainty and are inconclusive [30].
In early publication the WHO stated that “facemasks are not required, as no evidence is available on its usefulness to protect non-sick persons” [14]. In the same publication, the WHO declared that “cloth (e.g. cotton or gauze) masks are not recommended under any circumstance” [14]. Conversely, in later publication the WHO stated that the usage of fabric-made facemasks (Polypropylene, Cotton, Polyester, Cellulose, Gauze and Silk) is a general community practice for “preventing the infected wearer transmitting the virus to others and/or to offer protection to the healthy wearer against infection (prevention)” [2]. The same publication further conflicted itself by stating that due to the lower filtration, breathability and overall performance of fabric facemasks, the usage of woven fabric mask such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for infected persons and not for prevention practice in asymptomatic individuals [2]. The Central for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made similar recommendation, stating that only symptomatic persons should consider wearing facemask, while for asymptomatic individuals this practice is not recommended [31]. Consistent with the CDC, clinical scientists from Departments of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology in Australia counsel against facemasks usage for health-care workers, arguing that there is no justification for such practice while normal caring relationship between patients and medical staff could be compromised [32]. Moreover, the WHO repeatedly announced that “at present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19) on the effectiveness face masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection of respiratory viruses, including COVID-19”[2]. Despite these controversies, the potential harms and risks of wearing facemasks were clearly acknowledged. These including self-contamination due to hand practice or non-replaced when the mask is wet, soiled or damaged, development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne and psychological discomfort. Vulnerable populations such as people with mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, hearing problems, those living in hot and humid environments, children and patients with respiratory conditions are at significant health risk for complications and harm [2].
Physiological effects of wearing facemasks
Wearing facemask mechanically restricts breathing by increasing the resistance of air movement during both inhalation and exhalation process [12], [13]. Although, intermittent (several times a week) and repetitive (10–15 breaths for 2–4 sets) increase in respiration resistance may be adaptive for strengthening respiratory muscles [33], [34], prolonged and continues effect of wearing facemask is maladaptive and could be detrimental for health [11], [12], [13]. In normal conditions at the sea level, air contains 20.93% O2 and 0.03% CO2, providing partial pressures of 100 mmHg and 40 mmHg for these gases in the arterial blood, respectively. These gas concentrations significantly altered when breathing occurs through facemask. A trapped air remaining between the mouth, nose and the facemask is rebreathed repeatedly in and out of the body, containing low O2 and high CO2 concentrations, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia [35], [36], [11], [12], [13]. Severe hypoxemia may also provoke cardiopulmonary and neurological complications and is considered an important clinical sign in cardiopulmonary medicine [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Low oxygen content in the arterial blood can cause myocardial ischemia, serious arrhythmias, right or left ventricular dysfunction, dizziness, hypotension, syncope and pulmonary hypertension [43]. Chronic low-grade hypoxemia and hypercapnia as result of using facemask can cause exacerbation of existing cardiopulmonary, metabolic, vascular and neurological conditions [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Table 1 summarizes the physiological, psychological effects of wearing facemask and their potential long-term consequences for health.
Table 1
Physiological and Psychological Effects of Wearing Facemask and Their Potential Health Consequences.
Physiological Effects
Psychological Effect
Health Consequences
• Hypoxemia• Hypercapnia• Shortness of breath• Increase lactate concentration• Decline in pH levels• Acidosis• Toxicity• Inflammation• Self-contamination• Increase in stress hormones level (adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol)• Increased muscle tension• Immunosuppression
• Activation of “fight or flight” stress response• Chronic stress condition• Fear• Mood disturbances• Insomnia• Fatigue• Compromised cognitive performance
• Increased predisposition for viral and infection illnesses• Headaches• Anxiety• Depression• Hypertension• Cardiovascular disease• Cancer• Diabetes• Alzheimer disease• Exacerbation of existing conditions and diseases• Accelerated aging process• Health deterioration• Premature mortality
In addition to hypoxia and hypercapnia, breathing through facemask residues bacterial and germs components on the inner and outside layer of the facemask. These toxic components are repeatedly rebreathed back into the body, causing self-contamination. Breathing through facemasks also increases temperature and humidity in the space between the mouth and the mask, resulting a release of toxic particles from the mask’s materials [1], [2], [19], [26], [35], [36]. A systematic literature review estimated that aerosol contamination levels of facemasks including 13 to 202,549 different viruses [1]. Rebreathing contaminated air with high bacterial and toxic particle concentrations along with low O2 and high CO2 levels continuously challenge the body homeostasis, causing self-toxicity and immunosuppression [1], [2], [19], [26], [35], [36].
A study on 39 patients with renal disease found that wearing N95 facemask during hemodialysis significantly reduced arterial partial oxygen pressure (from PaO2 101.7 to 92.7 mm Hg), increased respiratory rate (from 16.8 to 18.8 breaths/min), and increased the occurrence of chest discomfort and respiratory distress [35]. Respiratory Protection Standards from Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Department of Labor states that breathing air with O2 concentration below 19.5% is considered oxygen-deficiency, causing physiological and health adverse effects. These include increased breathing frequency, accelerated heartrate and cognitive impairments related to thinking and coordination [36]. A chronic state of mild hypoxia and hypercapnia has been shown as primarily mechanism for developing cognitive dysfunction based on animal studies and studies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [44].
The adverse physiological effects were confirmed in a study of 53 surgeons where surgical facemask were used during a major operation. After 60 min of facemask wearing the oxygen saturation dropped by more than 1% and heart rate increased by approximately five beats/min [45]. Another study among 158 health-care workers using protective personal equipment primarily N95 facemasks reported that 81% (128 workers) developed new headaches during their work shifts as these become mandatory due to COVID-19 outbreak. For those who used the N95 facemask greater than 4 h per day, the likelihood for developing a headache during the work shift was approximately four times higher [Odds ratio = 3.91, 95% CI (1.35–11.31) p = 0.012], while 82.2% of the N95 wearers developed the headache already within ≤10 to 50 min [46].
With respect to cloth facemask, a RCT using four weeks follow up compared the effect of cloth facemask to medical masks and to no masks on the incidence of clinical respiratory illness, influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections among 1607 participants from 14 hospitals [19]. The results showed that there were no difference between wearing cloth masks, medical masks and no masks for incidence of clinical respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections. However, a large harmful effect with more than 13 times higher risk [Relative Risk = 13.25 95% CI (1.74 to 100.97) was observed for influenza-like illness among those who were wearing cloth masks [19]. The study concluded that cloth masks have significant health and safety issues including moisture retention, reuse, poor filtration and increased risk for infection, providing recommendation against the use of cloth masks [19].
Psychological effects of wearing facemasks
Psychologically, wearing facemask fundamentally has negative effects on the wearer and the nearby person. Basic human-to-human connectivity through face expression is compromised and self-identity is somewhat eliminated [47], [48], [49]. These dehumanizing movements partially delete the uniqueness and individuality of person who wearing the facemask as well as the connected person [49]. Social connections and relationships are basic human needs, which innately inherited in all people, whereas reduced human-to-human connections are associated with poor mental and physical health [50], [51]. Despite escalation in technology and globalization that would presumably foster social connections, scientific findings show that people are becoming increasingly more socially isolated, and the prevalence of loneliness is increasing in last few decades [50], [52]. Poor social connections are closely related to isolation and loneliness, considered significant health related risk factors [50], [51], [52], [53].
A meta-analysis of 91 studies of about 400,000 people showed a 13% increased morality risk among people with low compare to high contact frequency [53]. Another meta-analysis of 148 prospective studies (308,849 participants) found that poor social relationships was associated with 50% increased mortality risk. People who were socially isolated or fell lonely had 45% and 40% increased mortality risk, respectively. These findings were consistent across ages, sex, initial health status, cause of death and follow-up periods [52]. Importantly, the increased risk for mortality was found comparable to smoking and exceeding well-established risk factors such as obesity and physical inactivity [52]. An umbrella review of 40 systematic reviews including 10 meta-analyses demonstrated that compromised social relationships were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, depression, anxiety suicide, cancer and overall physical illness [51].
As described earlier, wearing facemasks causing hypoxic and hypercapnic state that constantly challenges the normal homeostasis, and activates “fight or flight” stress response, an important survival mechanism in the human body [11], [12], [13]. The acute stress response includes activation of nervous, endocrine, cardiovascular, and the immune systems [47], [54], [55], [56]. These include activation of the limbic part of the brain, release stress hormones (adrenalin, neuro-adrenalin and cortisol), changes in blood flow distribution (vasodilation of peripheral blood vessels and vasoconstriction of visceral blood vessels) and activation of the immune system response (secretion of macrophages and natural killer cells) [47], [48]. Encountering people who wearing facemasks activates innate stress-fear emotion, which is fundamental to all humans in danger or life threating situations, such as death or unknown, unpredictable outcome. While acute stress response (seconds to minutes) is adaptive reaction to challenges and part of the survival mechanism, chronic and prolonged state of stress-fear is maladaptive and has detrimental effects on physical and mental health. The repeatedly or continuously activated stress-fear response causes the body to operate on survival mode, having sustain increase in blood pressure, pro-inflammatory state and immunosuppression [47], [48].
Long-Term health consequences of wearing facemasks
Long-term practice of wearing facemasks has strong potential for devastating health consequences. Prolonged hypoxic-hypercapnic state compromises normal physiological and psychological balance, deteriorating health and promotes the developing and progression of existing chronic diseases [23], [38], [39], [43], [47], [48], [57], [11], [12], [13]. For instance, ischemic heart disease caused by hypoxic damage to the myocardium is the most common form of cardiovascular disease and is a number one cause of death worldwide (44% of all non-communicable diseases) with 17.9 million deaths occurred in 2016 [57]. Hypoxia also playing an important role in cancer burden [58]. Cellular hypoxia has strong mechanistic feature in promoting cancer initiation, progression, metastasis, predicting clinical outcomes and usually presents a poorer survival in patients with cancer. Most solid tumors present some degree of hypoxia, which is independent predictor of more aggressive disease, resistance to cancer therapies and poorer clinical outcomes [59], [60]. Worth note, cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with an estimate of more than 18 million new diagnosed cases and 9.6 million cancer-related deaths occurred in 2018 [61].
With respect to mental health, global estimates showing that COVID-19 will cause a catastrophe due to collateral psychological damage such as quarantine, lockdowns, unemployment, economic collapse, social isolation, violence and suicides [62], [63], [64]. Chronic stress along with hypoxic and hypercapnic conditions knocks the body out of balance, and can cause headaches, fatigue, stomach issues, muscle tension, mood disturbances, insomnia and accelerated aging [47], [48], [65], [66], [67]. This state suppressing the immune system to protect the body from viruses and bacteria, decreasing cognitive function, promoting the developing and exacerbating the major health issues including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer disease, rising anxiety and depression states, causes social isolation and loneliness and increasing the risk for prematurely mortality [47], [48], [51], [56], [66].Go to:
Conclusion
The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.Go to:
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Baruch Vainshelboim: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – original draft.Go to:
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.Go to:
References
1. Fisher E.M., Noti J.D., Lindsley W.G., Blachere F.M., Shaffer R.E. Validation and application of models to predict facemask influenza contamination in healthcare settings. Risk Anal. 2014;34:1423–1434. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]2. World Health Organization. Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19. Geneva, Switzerland; 2020.3. Sohrabi C., Alsafi Z., O’Neill N., Khan M., Kerwan A., Al-Jabir A. World Health Organization declares global emergency: A review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) Int J Surg. 2020;76:71–76. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]4. Worldometer. COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC. 2020.5. Fauci A.S., Lane H.C., Redfield R.R. Covid-19 – Navigating the Uncharted. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1268–1269. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]6. Shrestha S.S., Swerdlow D.L., Borse R.H., Prabhu V.S., Finelli L., Atkins C.Y. Estimating the burden of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in the United States (April 2009-April 2010) Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(Suppl 1):S75–S82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]7. Thompson W.W., Weintraub E., Dhankhar P., Cheng P.Y., Brammer L., Meltzer M.I. Estimates of US influenza-associated deaths made using four different methods. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2009;3:37–49. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]8. Centers for Disease, C., Prevention. Estimates of deaths associated with seasonal influenza — United States, 1976-2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010,59:1057-62. [PubMed]9. Richardson S., Hirsch J.S., Narasimhan M., Crawford J.M., McGinn T., Davidson K.W. Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area. JAMA. 2020 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]10. Ioannidis J.P.A., Axfors C., Contopoulos-Ioannidis D.G. Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-elderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters. Environ Res. 2020;188 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]11. American College of Sports Medicine . Sixth ed. Lippincott Wiliams & Wilkins; Baltimore: 2010. ACSM’s Resource Manual for Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Priscription. [Google Scholar]12. Farrell P.A., Joyner M.J., Caiozzo V.J. second edition. Lippncott Williams & Wilkins; Baltimore: 2012. ACSM’s Advanced Exercise Physiology. [Google Scholar]13. Kenney W.L., Wilmore J.H., Costill D.L. 5th ed. Human Kinetics; Champaign, IL: 2012. Physiology of sport and exercise. [Google Scholar]14. World Health Organization. Advice on the use of masks in the community, during home care and in health care settings in the context of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. Geneva, Switzerland; 2020.15. Sperlich B., Zinner C., Hauser A., Holmberg H.C., Wegrzyk J. The Impact of Hyperoxia on Human Performance and Recovery. Sports Med. 2017;47:429–438. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]16. Wiersinga W.J., Rhodes A., Cheng A.C., Peacock S.J., Prescott H.C. Pathophysiology, Transmission, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review. JAMA. 2020 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]17. Zhu N., Zhang D., Wang W., Li X., Yang B., Song J. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:727–733. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]18. Poston J.T., Patel B.K., Davis A.M. Management of Critically Ill Adults With COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]19. MacIntyre C.R., Seale H., Dung T.C., Hien N.T., Nga P.T., Chughtai A.A. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ open. 2015;5 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]20. Patil K.D., Halperin H.R., Becker L.B. Cardiac arrest: resuscitation and reperfusion. Circ Res. 2015;116:2041–2049. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]21. Hazinski M.F., Nolan J.P., Billi J.E., Bottiger B.W., Bossaert L., de Caen A.R. Part 1: Executive summary: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2010;122:S250–S275. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]22. Kleinman M.E., Goldberger Z.D., Rea T., Swor R.A., Bobrow B.J., Brennan E.E. American Heart Association Focused Update on Adult Basic Life Support and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality: An Update to the American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2018;137:e7–e13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]23. Lurie K.G., Nemergut E.C., Yannopoulos D., Sweeney M. The Physiology of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Anesth Analg. 2016;122:767–783. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]24. Chandrasekaran B., Fernandes S. “Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil’s sword?” – A physiological hypothesis. Med Hypotheses. 2020;144 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]25. Konda A., Prakash A., Moss G.A., Schmoldt M., Grant G.D., Guha S. Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks. ACS Nano. 2020;14:6339–6347. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]26. Leung N.H.L., Chu D.K.W., Shiu E.Y.C., Chan K.H., McDevitt J.J., Hau B.J.P. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nat Med. 2020;26:676–680. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]27. Gao M., Yang L., Chen X., Deng Y., Yang S., Xu H. A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers. Respir Med. 2020;169 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]28. Smith J.D., MacDougall C.C., Johnstone J., Copes R.A., Schwartz B., Garber G.E. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2016;188:567–574. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]29. Chou R., Dana T., Jungbauer R., Weeks C., McDonagh M.S. Masks for Prevention of Respiratory Virus Infections, Including SARS-CoV-2, in Health Care and Community Settings: A Living Rapid Review. Ann Intern Med. 2020 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]30. Chu D.K., Akl E.A., Duda S., Solo K., Yaacoub S., Schunemann H.J. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020;395:1973–1987. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]31. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies for Communities with Local COVID-19 Transmission. Atlanta, Georgia; 2020.32. Isaacs D., Britton P., Howard-Jones A., Kesson A., Khatami A., Marais B. Do facemasks protect against COVID-19? J Paediatr Child Health. 2020;56:976–977. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]33. Laveneziana P., Albuquerque A., Aliverti A., Babb T., Barreiro E., Dres M. ERS statement on respiratory muscle testing at rest and during exercise. Eur Respir J. 2019;53 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]34. American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory, S ATS/ERS Statement on respiratory muscle testing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166:518–624. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]35. Kao T.W., Huang K.C., Huang Y.L., Tsai T.J., Hsieh B.S., Wu M.S. The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease. J Formos Med Assoc. 2004;103:624–628. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]36. United States Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Respiratory Protection Standard, 29 CFR 1910.134; 2007.37. ATS/ACCP Statement on cardiopulmonary exercise testing Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;167:211–277. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]38. American College of Sports Medicine . 9th ed. Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Health; Philadelphia: 2014. ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. [Google Scholar]39. Balady G.J., Arena R., Sietsema K., Myers J., Coke L., Fletcher G.F. Clinician’s Guide to cardiopulmonary exercise testing in adults: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;122:191–225. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]40. Ferrazza A.M., Martolini D., Valli G., Palange P. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing in the functional and prognostic evaluation of patients with pulmonary diseases. Respiration. 2009;77:3–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]41. Fletcher G.F., Ades P.A., Kligfield P., Arena R., Balady G.J., Bittner V.A. Exercise standards for testing and training: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;128:873–934. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]42. Guazzi M., Adams V., Conraads V., Halle M., Mezzani A., Vanhees L. EACPR/AHA Scientific Statement. Clinical recommendations for cardiopulmonary exercise testing data assessment in specific patient populations. Circulation. 2012;126:2261–2274. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]43. Naeije R., Dedobbeleer C. Pulmonary hypertension and the right ventricle in hypoxia. Exp Physiol. 2013;98:1247–1256. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]44. Zheng G.Q., Wang Y., Wang X.T. Chronic hypoxia-hypercapnia influences cognitive function: a possible new model of cognitive dysfunction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Med Hypotheses. 2008;71:111–113. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]45. Beder A., Buyukkocak U., Sabuncuoglu H., Keskil Z.A., Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia (Astur) 2008;19:121–126. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]46. Ong J.J.Y., Bharatendu C., Goh Y., Tang J.Z.Y., Sooi K.W.X., Tan Y.L. Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment – A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID-19. Headache. 2020;60:864–877. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]47. Schneiderman N., Ironson G., Siegel S.D. Stress and health: psychological, behavioral, and biological determinants. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005;1:607–628. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]48. Thoits P.A. Stress and health: major findings and policy implications. J Health Soc Behav. 2010;51(Suppl):S41–S53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]49. Haslam N. Dehumanization: an integrative review. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2006;10:252–264. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]50. Cohen S. Social relationships and health. Am Psychol. 2004;59:676–684. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]51. Leigh-Hunt N., Bagguley D., Bash K., Turner V., Turnbull S., Valtorta N. An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. Public Health. 2017;152:157–171. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]52. Holt-Lunstad J., Smith T.B., Layton J.B. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]53. Shor E., Roelfs D.J. Social contact frequency and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. Soc Sci Med. 2015;128:76–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]54. McEwen B.S. Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:171–179. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]55. McEwen B.S. Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation: central role of the brain. Physiol Rev. 2007;87:873–904. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]56. Everly G.S., Lating J.M. 4th ed. NY Springer Nature; New York: 2019. A Clinical Guide to the Treatment of the Human Stress Response. [Google Scholar]57. World Health Organization. World health statistics 2018: monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals Geneva, Switzerland; 2018.58. World Health Organization. World Cancer Report 2014. Lyon; 2014.59. Wiggins J.M., Opoku-Acheampong A.B., Baumfalk D.R., Siemann D.W., Behnke B.J. Exercise and the Tumor Microenvironment: Potential Therapeutic Implications. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2018;46:56–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]60. Ashcraft K.A., Warner A.B., Jones L.W., Dewhirst M.W. Exercise as Adjunct Therapy in Cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2019;29:16–24. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]61. Bray F., Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Siegel R.L., Torre L.A., Jemal A. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]62. Brooks S.K., Webster R.K., Smith L.E., Woodland L., Wessely S., Greenberg N. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet. 2020;395:912–920. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]63. Galea S., Merchant R.M., Lurie N. The Mental Health Consequences of COVID-19 and Physical Distancing: The Need for Prevention and Early Intervention. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180:817–818. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]64. Izaguirre-Torres D., Siche R. Covid-19 disease will cause a global catastrophe in terms of mental health: A hypothesis. Med Hypotheses. 2020;143 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]65. Kudielka B.M., Wust S. Human models in acute and chronic stress: assessing determinants of individual hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis activity and reactivity. Stress. 2010;13:1–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]66. Morey J.N., Boggero I.A., Scott A.B., Segerstrom S.C. Current Directions in Stress and Human Immune Function. Curr Opin Psychol. 2015;5:13–17. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]67. Sapolsky R.M., Romero L.M., Munck A.U. How do glucocorticoids influence stress responses? Integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory, and preparative actions. Endocr Rev. 2000;21:55–89. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Crime against humanity, an offense in international criminal law, adopted in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nürnberg Charter), which tried surviving Nazi leaders in 1945, and was, in 1998, incorporated into the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Crimes against humanity consist of various acts—murder, extermination, enslavement, torture, forcible transfers of populations, imprisonment, rape, persecution, enforced disappearance, and apartheid, among others—when, according to the ICC , those are “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.” The term also has a broader use in condemning other acts that, in a phrase often used, “shock the conscience of mankind.” World poverty, human-made environmental disasters, and terrorist attacks have thus been described as crimes against humanity. The broader use of the term may be intended only to register the highest possible level of moral outrage, or the intention may be to suggest that such offenses be recognized, formally, as legal offenses.
Considered either as a legal offense or as a moral category, the concept of crimes against humanity embodies the idea that individuals who either make or follow state policy can be held accountable by the international community. It thus modifies traditional notions of sovereignty according to which state leaders and those who obeyed them enjoyed immunity. Political and legal theorists have justified that challenge to the idea of sovereignty in several ways. For some, a crime against humanity is simply an inhumanity of an especially gross type. For others, major atrocities have the potential to damage international peace, for they are either a prelude to external aggression or have effects that spill over state borders. For still others, genocide is at the core of crimes against humanity; the term crime against humanity was first officially used in condemning the Armenian Genocide and was first adopted in law as a response to the Holocaust. Genocidal attacks on people on the basis of group membership implicitly deny the victims’ human status, according to that view, thus affronting all human beings. Yet others reject those views and focus rather on the basic nature of state authority: states are justified only by their capacity to protect their citizens, and, when their powers turn atrociously against a state’s own citizens, they lose all warrant, and those who direct and obey them become subject to judgment and sanction by the entire human community. How to distribute blame between those who direct and those who follow is, however, a contested issue in both morality and law.
There are seminal moments in American history that test every fiber of our nation’s soul.
We are facing one now.
Revolutionary forces are causing every American citizen to question which direction the country is heading. To determine the outcome, we must examine our nation’s history to project ourselves forward into the future.
Once again, tyranny and treachery are in our midst, and although we feel we’ve descended into a hellish state of existence, we must never forget, hell is conquerable.
Prayer is the greatest weapon and a consciousness of God is the ultimate “thought of the day.”
The idea or notion of a heaven on Earth is the very real sense of being free. Freedom is oxygen. Like the air we breathe that keeps our lungs full and our hearts beating, the celestial feeling of freedom brings a sense of peace to our souls.
Freedom must never be taken for granted. Securing our freedom demands a high price — and that price requires hard work and sacrifice. Both will bind us all by the value they produce, but only if we are willing to seek new opportunities and new ideas.
Those who have sacrificed the most, those who have given the last true measure of devotion that derives from the love of faith, family and the cause of freedom — for all of us to be free, and for the betterment of our republic and the free world — cannot be allowed to have died in vain.
Our future, the future of our children and grandchildren and the future of our country are at stake. God will not give way to the care of the devil or allow us to be left to the evil vices of those who would steal our freedom in the dark of night.
He will not.
Instead, God will stand with us, as he always does.
Hard work and personal sacrifice still very much matter. Being a good person and showing kindness to others still matter.
If our nation is to survive this crucible moment, we need to fall back on the God-given values and ideals that are the very foundation of our constitutional republic. Let us not fear the uncertainty that comes with the unknown, instead accept it and fight through that sense of fear.
And we must remember: The power of hell, while strong, is limited. God is the ultimate judge and decision maker. His anointed providence is our country, the United States of America.
As long as we accept God in the lifeblood of our nation, we will be OK. If we don’t, we will face a hellish existence.
The May 25th killing of George Floyd, an unarmed African-American man, at the hands of a white police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota shocked the world and set off mass protests against racism and police brutality in dozens of cities from the mid-western United States to the European Union, all in the midst of a global pandemic. In the Twin Cities, what began as spontaneous, peaceful demonstrations against the local police quickly transformed into vandalism, arson and looting after the use of rubber bullets and chemical irritants by law enforcement against the protesters, while the initial incitement for the riots was likely the work of apparent agent provocateurs among the marchers. Within days, the unrest had spread to cities across the country including the nation’s capital, with U.S. President Donald Trump threatening to invoke the slavery-era Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy the military and National Guard on American soil, federal powers not used since the 1992 Los Angeles riots following the Rodney King case.
The debate over the catalyst for the uprising into its period of lawlessness has drawn a range of theories. The suspicious placement of pallets of bricks in the proximity of numerous protest sites have spurred rumors of sabotage by everything from white supremacist groups to “Antifa” to law enforcement itself. Predictably, liberal hawks such as Susan Rice, the former National Security Advisor in the Obama administration, made ludicrous assertions suggesting “Russian agents” were behind the unrest, a continuation of the narrative that the Kremlin has been behind inflaming racial tensions in the U.S. that began during the 2016 election. While Democrats like Rice and Senator Kamala Harris of California have revived an old trope dating back to the Civil Rights movement of Moscow exploiting racial divisions in the U.S., Trump and the GOP have similarly resurrected the ‘outside agitators’ myth attributed to segregationists of the same era. Hypocritically, many of those claiming to be in support of the protests have denounced the latter theory while endorsing the former, when both equally show contempt for the legitimate grievances of the demonstrators and deny their agency. However, both false notions overlook the more likely hidden factors at play attempting to hijack the movement for its own purposes.
Believe it or not, there could be a kernel of truth in accusations coming mostly from the political right as to the possible role of the notorious liberal billionaire investor and “philanthropist” George Soros and his Open Society Foundation (OSF). Ironically, if any of the right-wing figures of whom Soros is a favorite target were aware of his instrumental role in the fall of communism staging the various CIA-backed protest movements in Eastern Europe that toppled socialist governments, he would likely not be such a subject of their derision. The Hungarian business magnate’s institute, like other NGOs involved in U.S. regime change operations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), is largely a front for the CIA to shield itself while destabilizing U.S. adversaries, the spy agency’s preferred modus operandi since the exposure of its illicit activities in previous decades by the Rockefeller Commission and Church Committee in the 1970s. In the post-Soviet world, nations across Central Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and beyond have become well acquainted with the political disruptions of the international financier and his network. In particular, governments that have leaned toward warm relations with Moscow during the incumbency of President Vladimir Putin have found themselves the victims of his machinations.
Under Putin’s predecessor Boris Yeltsin, Soros made a killing off the mass privatization of the former state-run assets in the Eastern Bloc, as journalist Naomi Klein explained in The Shock Doctrine:
“George Soros’s philanthropic work in Eastern Europe — including his funding of (Harvard economist and economic advisor Jeffrey) Sachs’s travels through the region — has not been immune to controversy. There is no doubt that Soros was committed to the cause of democratization in the Eastern Bloc, but he also had clear economic interests in the kind of economic reform accompanying that democratization. As the world’s most powerful currency trader, he stood to benefit greatly when countries implemented convertible currencies and lift capital controls, and when state companies were put on the auction block, he was one of the potential buyers.”
In contrast, the Putin administration over a period of two decades has since restored the Russian economy through the re-nationalization of its oil and gas industry. Its two energy giants, Gazprom and Rosneft, are state-controlled companies serving as the basis of the state machinery‘s reassertion of control over the Russian financial system, a move that has gotten Mr. Putin branded a “dictator” by the West. As a result, most of the notorious Russian oligarchs enriched overnight during the extreme free market policies of the 1990s have since left the country, now that such rapid accumulation of wealth to the rest of the nation’s detriment is no longer permitted. While economic inequality in Russia may persist, it is nowhere near that of the Yeltsin era where the average life expectancy was reduced by a full decade.
In the last decade, the United States has gotten its own taste of the incitement and agitations that have previously fallen upon governments across the global south. Instead, domestically the CIA cutouts in the non-profit industrial complex have played a pivotal counterrevolutionary role in co-opting and ultimately derailing such uprisings meant to bring systemic change to the U.S. political system. In late 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement emerged at Zuccotti Park in New York City’s financial district against the deepening global economic inequality following the Great Recession and the protests quickly spread to other cities and continents. In just a few months, the sit-in was expelled from Lower Manhattan and the anti-capitalist movement itself largely was diverted towards reformism and away from its original radical intentions. It was also revealed the origins of OWS and its marketing campaign were traced to Adbusters, a media foundation that was the recipient of grants from the Democratic Party-connected Tides Foundation, a progressive policy center which receives significant endowments from none other than George Soros and the OSF.
Emerging just two years later, the roots of Black Lives Matter were not just in community organizing but partially took inspiration from the Occupy movement. Unfortunately, the similarities between them were not limited to a shared lack of clarity in their demands but facing the same dilemma of being absorbed into the system. While OWS was quickly suppressed after hopeful beginnings, the BLM leadership became career-oriented apparatchiks of the Democratic Party and left grass-roots organizing behind. Through the non-profit industrial complex, the Democratic Party has mastered bringing various social movements under its management on behalf of Wall Street in order to funnel public funds into private control through various foundations. Along with the Ford Foundation which has given BLM enormous $100 million grants, Soros and the OSF have been one of the principal offenders. Still, many who correctly identify right-wing protests such as the Tea Party movement and the recent ‘anti-lockdown’ demonstrations as the work of astro-turfing by the Koch Brothers and Heritage Foundation seldom apply the same scrutiny to seemingly authentic progressive movements assimilated by corporate America.
One figure who mysteriously appeared on the scene in the early days of OWS connected to Soros was the Serbian political activist Srđa Popović, the founder of Otpor! (“resistance” in Serbian) and the Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS) political organizations which led the protests in 2000 which ousted the democratically-elected President of Serbia, Slobodan Milošević, known as the “Bulldozer Revolution.” Not long after Popović’s consulting of activists in Zuccotti Park, Wikileaks documents revealed the Belgrade-born organizer’s significant ties to U.S. intelligence through the global intelligence platform Stratfor (known as the “shadow CIA”), exposing the real motives behind his involvement in U.S. politics of outwardly supporting OWS while trying to sabotage the popular movement. Since their role as instruments of U.S. regime change in Serbia, Otpor! and CANVAS have received financial support from CIA intermediaries such as the NED, OSF, Freedom House and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), as well as the Boston-based Albert Einstein Institute founded by the American political scientist, Gene Sharp.
Srđa Popović
Despite ostensibly professing to use the same civil disobedience methods of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., Gene Sharp‘s manual for “non-violent resistance” entitled From Dictatorship to Democracy has been the blueprint used by political organizations around the world that have only served the interests of Western imperialism. Beginning with the Bulldozer Revolution in Serbia, the successful formula which ousted Milošević spread to other Central Asian and Eastern European nations overthrowing governments which resisted NATO expansion and the European Union’s draconian austerity in favor of economic ties with Moscow. These were widely referred to in the media as ‘Color Revolutions’ and included the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia, the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine and its 2014 Maidan coup d’état follow-up, as well as the 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, among others.
Subsequently, Srđa Popović and CANVAS also lent their expertise in Egypt during the predecessor to its Arab Spring in the April 6 Youth Movement which appropriated Otpor!’s raised fist logo as its emblem. In preparation for the organization of anti-government demonstrations, the activists poured over Gene Sharp’s work in coordination with Otpor! whose fingerprints can be found all over the Arab Spring uprisings which began as protests to remove unpopular leaders in Egypt and Tunisia but were carefully reeled in to preserve the despotic Western-friendly systems that had put them to power initially. Where Sharp’s “non-violent” template failed, countries with U.S. adversaries in power such as Libya and Syria saw their protests rapidly morph into a resurgence of Al-Qaeda and a terrorist proxy war with catastrophic consequences. This recipe has also been exported to Latin America in attempts to remove the Bolivarian government in Venezuela, with self-declared ‘interim president’ and opposition leader Juan Guaido having received training from CANVAS.
While the right seems to have a bizarre misconception that the parasitic hedge fund tycoon is somehow a communist, there is an equal misunderstanding on the pseudo-left where it has become a recurring joke and subject of mockery to naively deny Soros’s undeniable influence on world affairs and domestic protest movements. Less certain, however, are the claims from conservatives that Soros is a supporter of “Antifa” which Trump wants to designate as a domestic terrorist organization, a dangerous premise given the movement consists of a very loose-knit and decentralized network of activists and hardly comprises a real organization. Various autonomous chapters and groups across the U.S. may self-identify as such, but there is no single official party or formal organization with any leadership hierarchy. While the original Antifa movement in the 1930s Weimar Republic was part of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), the current manifestation in the U.S. has a synonymous association with black bloc anarchism (even inverting the colors of the original red and black flag), though it is really made up of a variety of amateurish political tendencies.
Amidst the ongoing nationwide George Floyd protests, the demonstrations in Seattle, Washington culminated in the establishment of a self-declared “autonomous zone” by activists in the Northwestern city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood — known as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ). In response, Trump doubled down on his threats to quash protests with the use of the military while blaming “anarchists” in “Antifa” for the unrecognized commune occupying six city blocks around an abandoned police precinct. Anyone who has paid close attention to the war in Syria for the last nine years will find this highly ironic, given the U.S. military support for another infamous “autonomous zone” of Kurdish nationalists in Northern Syria’s Rojava federation. The Kurdish sub-region and de facto self-governing territory purports to be a “libertarian socialist direct democracy” style of government and has been the subject of romanticized praise by the Western pseudo-left despite the fact that the autonomous administration’s paramilitary wing, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), were until recently a cat’s paw for American imperialism as part of the U.S.-founded coalition, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
Not coincidentally, many of those who use the Antifa vexillum are enthusiastic supporters of and even volunteer mercenaries fighting with the YPG/SDF in an ‘International Freedom Battalion’ which claims to be the inheritors of the legacy of the International Brigades which volunteered to defend the Spanish Republic from fascism in the Spanish Civil War. Unfortunately, these cosplayers forgot that the original International Brigades were set up by the Communist International, not the Pentagon. Meanwhile, despite their purported “anti-fascism”, there are no such conscripts to be found defending the Donetsk or Luhansk People’s Republics of eastern Ukraine against literal Nazis in the War in Donbass where the real front line against fascism has been. Instead, they fight alongside a Zionist and imperial proxy to help establish an ethno-nation state while the U.S. loots Syria’s oil.
Prior to Trump’s decision last October to withdraw troops from northeastern Syria which preceded a Turkish invasion, Ankara and the U.S. repeatedly butted heads over Washington’s decision to incorporate the Kurds into the SDF, since the YPG is widely acknowledged an off-shoot of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the militant and cult-like political group regarded as a terrorist organization that has been at war with Turkey for over forty years. It is also no secret that jailed PKK founder Abdullah Öcalan’s theories of “democratic confederalism” are heavily influenced by the pro-Zionist Jewish-American anarchist theorist, Murray Bookchin. So when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan told Trump that there were links between the U.S. protests and the PKK, there was a tiny but core accuracy in his exaggerated claim. As Malcolm X said, “chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad.”
The George Floyd protests, like previous uprisings in Ferguson and Baltimore, certainly began spontaneously, nor does any of this discount the legitimate issue of ending the militarization of U.S. law enforcement which disproportionately victimizes black Americans. Nevertheless, time and again we have seen how bona fide social movements become political footballs or quickly go to their graves. Like BLM, it is practically inevitable the protests will become a partisan tool for the Democratic Party in the coming 2020 election when it has no concrete political articulations of its own, even if it does bring substantive change to domestic policing. In January, Trump was impeached for temporarily withholding security aid to the Ukraine and Democrats advocated his removal because he is regarded as insufficiently hawkish toward Moscow. Since 2016, they have actively diverted all opposition to Trump into their own reactionary anti-Russia campaign and soft-coup attempt in the interests of the military- intelligence community, a shared agenda with Soros. When all of corporate America, the media, and even the NED have publicly declared their support for a movement, it is no longer just about its original cause of getting justice for Mr. Floyd, whose funeral became a virtual campaign rally for Trump’s opponent, Joe Biden. It is too early to say determinedly whether what is taking place in the U.S. is indeed a ‘Color Revolution’, but by the time we realize it may too late.
Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His writing has appeared widely in alternative media. Max may be reached atmaxrparry@live.com
Audio Panton, Cogito Singularis - Listen to everything, Think for yourself 