Tuesday, March 31, 2020

Hafez’s impact on literature, culture of Western society



Tehran (ISNA) – Khwajeh Shams al-Din Muhammad Hafez Shirazi was a Persian mystic and poet who was born in the city of Shiraz in 1310. 

Most of his poems are Ghazal (which the subject includes both love and religious beliefs or mysticism) and his elocution is similar to Khajawi Kermani.













He was one of the most influential poets of his time. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, 
his poems were translated into European languages, and his name somehow reached Western literary circles. Hafez national commemoration day is October 21.
Professor of Comparative Literature in Imam Reza University of Mashhad, Dr. Maryam Kouhestani in an interview with ISNA talked about, the poetic style of Hafez which is concentrated on three issues of love, mysticism and panegyric. The most important characteristic of the Hafez’s style is the dispersion of the subject and the independence of the verses which is still discussed by the Hafez scholars.
There is no doubt about the influence of the Qur'anon Hafez thought and belief. In the field of form and structure, the most important feature of Hafez's poems, the independence of the verses, are most influenced by the Qur'anic Āyahs (verses). This is the characteristic of the Hafez revolution in the verses. The realm of meaning, Hafez; is in the position of a thoughtful poet whose poetry represents his worldview, merged the ancient and Islamic culture of Iran with religion, theology, philosophy, and mysticism.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), the most renowned poet of German literature was deeply interested in Eastern literature and above all, Hafez poems which increasingly awakened his interest in Persian literature. The first impulse of Goethe in imitating Hafez was a framework to compose romantic poems but later the mystical aspects of Hafez poems attracted him. The influence of Hafez Ghazaliat (the collection of his poems/ghazals) on Goethe was so profound that he composed his collection of poems in order to imitate Hafez and named it the -“West-Eastern Divan”-. By imitation of Hafez, Goethe called his collection of poems -“the Divan”- and named this collection, which consists of twelve sections, with Persian names. He titled the sections of his book in the following order:  the Singer (Moganni Nameh), Hafiz (Hafis Nameh), Love (Uschk Nameh), Reflection (Tefkir Nameh), Ill Humour (Rendsch Nameh), Maxims (Hikmet Nameh), Timur (Timur Nameh), Zuleika (Suleika Nameh), Cupbearer (Saki Nameh), Parables (Mathal Nameh), Parsees (Parsi Nameh), and Paradise (Chuld Nameh. Goethe also tried to rhythme, meter and rhyme of the Hafez’s poetic style. He praises Hafez for his broad-mindedness and intellectuality.
The remarkable point that impresses the reader of the West-Eastern Divan is that Hafez is not a Persian-speaking poet for Goethe; he represents great human beings throughout the ages. The important feature of his work is combination of Eastern culture with Western structure and the cohesion of them in his book.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), a great American philosopher and poet was also fascinated by Saadi and Hafiz among Iranian poets. Emerson started to know Hafez thought reading Goethe's West-Eastern Divan. For Emerson, Hafez became a perfect poet whom he called a “poet for poets”. He spent fourteen years reading Hafez poems. To recognize the spirit of Hafez's poetry in English literture, Emerson first translated "Sagittarius" into English and called it "From Hafiz's Persian Poetry". He was the founder of Transcendentalism, a philosophical movement which was based on spirituality and intellectualism at the time. He was vastly under the auspices of the Hafez‘s notions. Emerson was the primary practitioner of the movement, which existed loosely in Massachusetts in the early 1800s before becoming an organized group in the 1830s.

France and Hafez

William Jones was the first Englishman who translated some of Hafez's gazals into English. He also translated thirteen gazals of Hafez into French.
The inspiration of Eastern culture was so strong that many French poets were impressed by Eastern literature. Among them Victor Hugo (1802-1885) was profoundly affected by Persian poets especially Saadi, Hafez and Ferdowsi. Hugo was much inspired by Hafez poems through reading the West-Eastern Divan by Goethe. He composed his “Les Orientales” by inspiration of Saadi and Hafez’s notions. In the preface of this book, Hugo highly colored several poems of Hafez and Saadi.
Jean Lahore (1840-1909) was one of the French symbolist poets who knew Hafez through translations and was inspired by Hafez in his collection of poems entitled "Pandar".
Andre Gide (1869-1951 was acquainted with Hafez through Goethe. In the preface to of his famous book, “The Fruits of the Earth”, he brought a line of Hafez poem.
Armand Renaud (1836-1895) was very inspired by Hafez. He composed a set of twelve poems under the name of “Les Nuits persanes”. In the preface to his collection, Renaud noted his interest in Eastern culture and literature and entitled one of the twelve sets as “Iranian Night”.
Theophile Gauthier (1811-1872), the founder of the Parnassianism was also fascinated by Hafez, He began the preface of his famous Divan, "Enamels and Engravings" with a fascinating poem about Hafez that shows his enchantment of Hafez’s poems.
The French poet, painter and musician, Tristan Klingsor (1874-1966) was fascinated by Hafez and sang a love song to him.

England and Hafez

William Jones (1746-1794), the English Orientalist was the first translator of some of Hafez's gazals into English. Although Jones's translation of Hafez's poems were very eloquent and praised by many literary critics; he had deviated from the principle ideas of the poems in his translation, which has the taste and the style of English poetry.
John Richardson (1740-1795), was the editor of the first Persian-Arabic-English dictionary. He was a member of the East India Company, who was fascinated by Eastern literature and worked as a periodical writer and editor. In 1774, he translated a number of Hafez's gazals. Like Jones, he was not faithful in the the rhetorical figures of the poems and transferred Hafez's the notions through his own understanding of the poems and mingled them with the taste and style of English poetry.
Henry Wilberforce Clarke in 1891 translated the Divan of Hafez into English prose. The translation was accompanied by extensive notes, a clear biography of the Hafez, and detailed notes explaining practically some lines of the poems. His translation was hard to understand and had with many ambiguous figures.
One of Hafez's best translations was made by a lady named Gertrade Lowthian Bell in 1898. In her translation, she focused on the mystical and social aspects of Hafez's poems; therefore, it is a known as one of the best translation which seems to be close to the original version of Hafez Divan.
John Payne (1842-1916), an English poet and translator. He was best known for his translation of “Diwan Hafez” and ‘The Arabian Nights”. He translated the entire Divan of Hafez into verse in 1901. He also translated the quatrains of Omar Khayyam. Payne once said that Hafez, Dante and Shakespeare were the three greatest poets of the world.

Trump, Putin Will Discuss The End Of U.S. Shale Oil



Three weeks ago, when the Russian and Saudi war on U.S. shale oil started, we wrote:
In the first week of January crude oil reached $69/bl but it has since dropped to $45/bl as the coronavirus crisis destroyed the global demand. The Saudis tried to make a deal with Russia, the second largest exporter after Saudi Arabia, to together cut oil production to keep the price up. But Russia rejected a new OPEC cut. It wants to keep its production up and it will use the crisis to further undermine U.S. oil fracking production. As the whole fracking boom in the U.S. is build on fraud the move might well be successful.
Russia does not have a budget deficit and is well positioned to survive lower crude oil prices without much damage. Saudi Arabia is not.
Only a week later oil was already at $30/barrel and we predicted that it would go down to $20/bl.
On Monday the U.S. WTI oil price index reached that mark. Oil prices in other places are falling even further:
Canadian heavy crude has become so cheap that the cost of shipping it to refineries exceeds the value of the oil itself, a situation that may result in even more oil-sands producers shutting operations.Western Canadian Select crude in Alberta dropped to a record-low close of $5.06 a barrel on Friday, according to Bloomberg data going back to 2008 ...
The corona virus crisis has led to drop in global demand by some 20%. The world production and consumption in normal times was at about 100 million barrel per day. Consumption is now below 80 million bl/d. But after the OPEC+ agreement failed Saudi and Russia both started to pump as much as they could to regain market shares. Together they are increasing their production by some 3-4 million barrels per day. All that oil has to go somewhere.
Trump announced that he would use the cheap prices to fill the U.S. strategic oil reserve. But the spare room in the reserve storage at that time was only some 150 million barrels. As it can only be filled at a rate of 2 million barrels per day the topping off of the reserve is insignificant in the current market.
The oil producers at first pumped their oil into storage tanks to be sold later. When those filled up they rented supertankers to store the oil at sea. But empty supertankers are now also getting rare and the price for them is increasing:
The CEO of the world’s largest tanker owner, Frontline Ltd., said on Friday that he’d never known such demand to hire ships for long-term storage. Traders could book ships to put 100 million barrels at sea this week alone, he estimated, but even that could accounts for less than a week’s oversupply.
The only solution will be a shut down of the more expensive oil fields. Canada and Brazil are already doing it. U.S. shale producers who are bleeding cash will now have to follow.
That is clearly what Russia wants:
As soon as U.S. shale leaves the market, prices will rebound and could reach $60 a barrel, Rosneft’s Igor Sechin said recently. As fate would have it, in what many would have until recently considered an impossible scenario, a lot of U.S. shale might do just that.Breakeven prices for U.S. shale basins range between $39 and $48 a barrel, according to data compiled by Reuters. Meanwhile, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) is trading below $25 a barrel and has been for over a week now.
The Trump administration has asked the Saudis to produce less oil but as the Saudi tourist industry is currently also dead the Saudi clown prince needs every dollar he can get. The Saudis will continue to pump and they will sell their oil at any price.
The White House is now concerned that it will completely lose its beloved shale oil industry and all the jobs connected to it.
Russia of cause knows this and a few days ago it made an interesting offer:
A new OPEC+ deal to balance oil markets might be possible if other countries join in, Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund said, adding that countries should also cooperate to cushion the economic fallout from coronavirus.
...
“Joint actions by countries are needed to restore the(global) economy... They (joint actions) are also possible in OPEC+ deal’s framework,” Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), told Reuters in a phone interview.
...
“We are in contact with Saudi Arabia and a number of other countries. Based on these contacts we see that if the number of OPEC+ members will increase and other countries will join there is a possibility of a joint agreement to balance oil markets.”
Dmitriev declined to say who the new deal’s members should or could be. U.S. President Donald Trump said last week he would get involved in the oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia at the appropriate time.
A logical new member of an expanded crude oil cartel would be one of the biggest global producer that so far was not a member of that club - the U.S. of A.
We now learn that Trump is ready to talk about that or other concepts:
As Ria reports (in Russian) the topics of upcoming phone call [between Putin and Trump] will be Covid-19, trade (???) and, you guessed it, oil prices.
Trump, who sanctioned the Russian-German Nord-Stream II pipeline while telling Germany to buy U.S. shale gas, is now in a quite bad negotiation position. Russia does not need a new OPEC deal right now. It has many financial reserves and can live with low oil prices for much longer than the Saudis and other oil producing countries. Trump would have to make a strategic offer that Russia could not resist to get some cooperation on oil prices.
But what strategic offer could Trump make that would move Putin to agree to some new deal?
Ukraine? Russia is not interested in that unrulable, bankrupt and fascist infested entity.
Syria? The Zionist billionaires would stop their donations to Trump if he were to give up on destroying it.
Joining an OPEC++ deal and limit U.S. oil production? That would be an anti-American intervention in free markets and Congress would never agree to it.
And what reason has Russia to believe that Trump or his successor would stick to any deal? As the U.S. is non-agreement-capable it has none.
The outcome of the phone call will therefore likely be nothing.
The carnage in the oil markets will continue and will ravage those producer countries that need every penny while the corona virus is ravaging their people. Meanwhile the U.S. shale market will go bust.

An Idea We Take for Granted Has Made the Outbreak Much Worse

This pandemic has been made worse and continues to be made worse by toxic nationalism, ironic considering the virus truly doesn’t give a shit about our borders, says Lee Camp, CN’s newest columnist.
Lee CAMP
Something every American takes for granted has made the coronavirus outbreak much worse. That thing sits ingrained in our minds since we could barely take two steps without a face full of carpet. But before I get to that, let’s set the scene.
I don’t have to tell you that things are bad. We’re in the middle of a global pandemic, our economy (based almost completely on everyone buying things they don’t need at prices they can’t afford) has tanked, a record 3.3 million Americans just filed for unemployment, and perhaps scariest of all – World Wrestling Entertainment has continued performing some of their events despite the lack of an audience.
If you thought watching emotionally stunted men with oily saran-wrap skin pulsing with steroids grab each other in bear hugs while whispering sweet nothings into each other’s ears was strange with a live audience of thousands screaming for blood, then you can’t imagine the level of bizarre it reaches without anyone there. It seems oddly romantic now. It feels like they’re about to share a deep tongue kiss at any moment. And I’m not sure the world doesn’t need that kind of passion right about now.
Although there’s also something reassuring about the fact that even in these stark times sweaty angry hugging men persist. I like to think that when the cockroaches reign supreme, weeds grow up through the remnants of the roads and playgrounds and shopping malls and hot stone massage parlors, the final humans live in underground bunkers dressed in gas-mask chic (mainly grays and blacks but still sporting a hint of color in the glasses rims or the neck tattoos or the homemade battle axe sheaths), and the economy is based on Gross Domestic Protein Pellets (the only remaining food source) – even THEN, the professional bulky men will continue to perform stunning aerial traumatic brain injuries for the joy and excitement of whoever’s left. (This would presuppose no one informed said men the TV cameras had been cannibalized for parts 10 years prior.)
Point is – things are bad right now. But you probably already know every last detail about Coronavirus, which is why I’m not going to give you those. Instead, I want to focus on a hidden story, a taboo topic your mainstream media anchors would sooner eat their own neck ties than discuss.
Toxic Notion
This pandemic has been made worse and continues to be made worse by toxic nationalism, ironic considering the virus truly doesn’t give a shit about our borders. It doesn’t care if you put up a fence or you speak a different language or you’re an immigrant from somewhere else or you got circumcised in a ceremony with a shaman and some bagpipes and a bucket of ripe mangoes.
The virus doesn’t care.
Yet again we’re letting our human delusions dictate our response to a physical world completely unaware of and unyielding to such fairy tales. Acting like nationalism matters when facing a killer disease is like trying to combat a phalanx of sword-wielding samurais with nothing but nostalgia.
When the Coronavirus was first talked about in the U.S., our government and media used it as a chance to disseminate anti-China rhetoric, widely known as the fuel for racism. Our nation’s best propaganda outlet, The New York Times (I mean that with all disrespect), put it this way – “To Tame Coronavirus, Mao-Style Social Control Blankets China.”
Oh, social control? They mean like – “Everyone stay six feet away from everyone else. No one go to a restaurant or bar or visit your grandparents or wave hi to an old person on a bus. Don’t travel anywhere. Thou shalt not interact with thy fellow human nor covet thy neighbor’s ass.” You mean like that kind of social control? You mean the restrictions we Americans now abide by?
I’m sorry, fearless Times writers, but racism is not your best bet against a raging disease. Very few “-isms” stop ultramicroscopic metabolically inert infectious agents. I myself have tried using buddhism, sadomasochism, feudalism, autoerotic asphyxiationism, and antidisestablishmentarianism. They’ve all let me down. Although the feudalism did show some promise against a slight case of rickets I had as a child.
Medical Staff at Wuhan Railway Station. (Wikimedia Commons)
Yet, our ruling elite continue to act as if this is an issue of nations. In fact our buffoon of a president continues to call it “The Chinese Virus” because he’s a very simple-minded man. He can only think in “bad” and “good.” He thinks “China bad.” So telling him that a virus doesn’t care about anyone’s nationality fails to compute for him. The two sickly hamsters neglecting to run around the wobbly wheels inside his cranium look at each other for a brief moment and then go back to licking their asses.
Times 180
Our Salamander-in-Chief cannot comprehend that China has actually succeeded in slowing down this virus and their actions helped buy America valuable extra time before it spread to our shores. Even The New York Times, our Propaganda-in-Chief, finally admitted “China Bought the West Time. The West Squandered It.”
This is one of the Times’ patented come-to-Jesus moments when they suddenly pull a 180, tires squealing, and realize the truth that most people understood weeks if not months if not years before. They’ve performed this same maneuver with WMD in Iraq, the harms of climate change, the lack of harms of marijuana, police brutality, sexual harassment in the workplace, whether women must ride horses “side saddle,” and whether the Matrix is any good.
This latest about-face on China will not last, just as none of their various awakenings actually change the intent of the corporate media. It’s more of a, “Yeah, sorry about all that racist shit we printed a month ago. We’ve completely changed our ways… until a week from now when we’ll go back to pushing for white supremacist wars in which the American military excitedly blows up Arab people.”
I think the point I’m trying to make is that talking about how one country is better or worse or weaker or whatever during this pandemic is like if a herd of angry rhinos were stampeding toward you and you just kept yelling that you have on nicer shoes than the guy next to you.
Rhinos. Don’t. Care.
Right now – this moment – is a horrible and also crucial time. It’s showing us not just the incredibly ridiculous flaws in capitalism, but it’s also demonstrating our shared humanity. We must join together, fight this thing, and shed our toxic nationalism. But our sociopathic leaders won’t dare do that.
Pulled Ap
Mintpress along with other outlets is reporting that in the middle of the Coronavirus outbreak America has actually cranked up the heat on its hybrid war against Venezuela. Reporter Leonardo Flores wrote, “US sanctions on Venezuela have already forced the country to spend three times as much for testing kits as non-sanctioned countries.” On top of that, the Justice Department just put a $15 million bounty on President Nicolas Maduro’s head.
Iran has also suffered tremendously because of our sanctions on them. They can’t deal with the virus appropriately without the medical supplies – and two weeks ago Google pulled Iran’s official app meant to help their people deal with Coronavirus. Perhaps they did this specifically to harm Iranians; perhaps they were jealous Iran has an app to help fight the virus while all we seem to have is a squirt gun filled with Purell and a strict order against high-fives.
Basically, our government officials and the tech company execs lying sticky and prone in bed with them want to make sure as many people die from Coronavirus as possible – in Iran and Venezuela and North Korea and any other countries we don’t like because those countries refuse to freely cough up their oil or lithium or rare earth metals or independence.
But I can’t stress this enough: The virus doesn’t care where the fuck you’re from.
Outbreak in Iran, where US sanctions continue. (Wikipedia)
Some countries have figured this out, turning to other nations for help. A couple weeks ago Cuban and Chinese doctors showed up in Italy to aid their health officials. As Telesur reported Cuba has the interferon Alpha-2B, which is a powerful treatment for the virus, and China has shown the ability to overcome the infections.
But here’s something you won’t hear on your mainstream outlets and all your corporate assholets. Here’s something that’s forbidden: Maybe – just maybe – this pandemic shows us it’s time to evolve past the idea of NATIONS.
(I’ll give you a moment while your mind reels at the thought crime this author has committed. …Then, if you’re brave enough, please read on.)
We act like nations are a given – as if there’s no other way to organize our species, no other way to behave except to have your flag’s colors tattooed across your nipples and your national anthem burned into your soft mushy brain matter. But in fact, nations have not always been the way we humans have divided ourselves. The idea of nations isn’t even particularly old.
When we think of ideas or manners of behaving that have withstood the test of time so much so they seem to be common sense, we think of actions and beliefs that are thousands of years old. That list includes walking on two legs, carrying your infant around, having sex, defending yourself, building shelter, cooking food, and yanking excess hair off your body (mainly out of the nostrils) in order to score the previously mentioned sex. All of these things have been done by our species for eons.
But dividing ourselves into nations most certainly has not. Nation states didn’t really exist until the late 18th century. John Breuilly of the London School of Economics says, “Far from timeless, the nation-state is a recent phenomenon… Before the late 18th century, there were no real nation-states… neither passports nor borders as we know them existed.”
And even as nations began developing, they weren’t that important to a lot of people. He continues, “Many eastern European immigrants arriving in the US in the 19th century could say what village they came from, but not what country: it didn’t matter to them. …Ancient empires are coloured on modern maps as if they had firm borders, but they didn’t.”
So only a little over 200 years ago human categorization changed and nations became the hot new thing. “In 1800 almost nobody in France thought of themselves as French. By 1900 they all did.”
An idea that took hold 200 years ago has come to rule all of our minds, like a parasite. We can’t imagine being separated, delineated or categorized in other ways even as we acknowledge that internally we’re very fractured. Many African Americans may feel quite different from certain white Americans, yet we won’t hear media reports stating that globally black people are dealing with Coronavirus like this and white people like that.
In some cases separating us differently than by nation would make a lot of sense. Rich people are far more likely to survive Coronavirus than poor people. Wealthy people the world over are more likely to have access to testing, treatment, good doctors, ventilators, etc. Poor people all over the planet are more likely to try to “tough it out” at home because they don’t have a doctor or can’t afford one.
Disinfecting Teheran subway. (Wikimedia Commons)
Freeing Our Minds
What if we decided there were no nations but instead the working people of the world were one group and the corporate owners of the world were another group. If humans were divvied up that way instead, the working people of China would be able to help the working people of Italy or America and vice versa without nationalistic propaganda. (Of course this raises other problems such as that the corporate owners would certainly hoard all the ventilators since they are generally sociopaths.)
But we are subliminally told by our mainstream media never to side with the people of another nation. First and foremost care about America. Yet in reality, if we free our minds beyond the mental prison of toxic nationalism, do any of us have anything against a shoe salesman in China or a garbage man in Cuba? I seriously doubt it. You’re not at war with that shoe salesman. You don’t have any reason to hate him or even wish him ill will. So truthfully the extremely rich of the world are at war with each other while 99% of the various populations are along for the ride – some knowingly and some blissfully unaware.
As we continue to do everything we must to stop this virus, keep in mind – our world is evolving. And that can be a good thing. The authors of the book “The Universe Next Door” from NewScientist state, “Most hierarchical systems tend to become top-heavy, expensive and incapable of responding to change.” Our current America fits all of these characteristics and then some. The American empire is exceedingly top heavy, expensive, and incapable of responding to change. In fact, the Democratic establishment have spent billions in these primaries to make absolutely sure they do not allow the change Bernie Sanders represents to infiltrate the system. Much like a massive battleship or Chris Christie, the American empire takes an overwhelmingly long time to change course even slightly. The current inertia is just too great.
When you end up with a top-heavy, expensive hierarchy that can’t adapt, it creates a lot of tension. Back to NewScientist – “The resulting tension may be released through partial collapse. …Collapse, say some, is the creative destruction that allows new structures to emerge.”
Well, I have news for you. We are definitely in the middle of a partial collapse. For Christ’s sake – Kentucky Fried Chicken is closed! KFC would stay open during a nuclear meltdown while charging extra for the green tinted mashed potatoes.
During this partial collapse, new structures could emerge if we break out of our antiquated thought prisons. Right now is not about nations or fences or political parties. It’s about you, and me, and our neighbors, and our friends, and our shared humanity.

Donald Trump Flipflops Through the Pandemic

If Trump is skilled at anything it’s blaming others for America’s woes, but Covid-19 is putting even that to the test
Bygeorge KOO
The latest news on President Donald Trump, America’s flipflop-in-chief, is that he had a good conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping. They agreed to battle Covid-19 together and Trump swore off referring to the “Chinese virus” from then on.
Of course, Trump has had a history of alternately praising and blasting China for the way it has dealt with the virus. Thus it remains to be seen as to how long his flip will last before he flops again.
Trump’s liar-in-chief and top diplomat, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, has not yet pulled up his reins but continues to attack China and insist that Beijing has covered up the reality of the coronavirus crisis. He has singlehandedly blocked any attempt at forming international solidarity to fight the contagion by insisting on naming the “Wuhan virus” as the cause of the pandemic.
Pompeo has also been the point man for the Trump administration on driving the assertion that the US has been victimized by China’s coverup of the outbreak. Whether China actually covered up anything has become an increasingly harsh bone of contention between China and the US.
As I reported last week, Nature published a timeline of events related to the outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan and left no gaps that could have been the source of a communication blackout. There was perhaps a week to 10 days in early December when local officials wrestled to understand the sort of contagion they were facing and did not immediately file a report to Beijing.
No room for coverup
Had health officials in Wuhan known then what they learned later, the short interval of silence could have made a difference, but that pales in comparison with the months that followed. The entire world came to know about the looming pandemic, yet the Trump team sat on their hands and just worked on an orchestrated blame game.
This week, Asia-Review posted an even more detailed timeline. It said that on December 27, 2019, Dr Zhang Jixian, an ICU (intensive-care unit) doctor at Hubei Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, filed a report to the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission describing patients suffering from pneumonia of an unknown cause.
Three more patients entered the hospital the next day showing similar symptoms, and that set in motion the events reported in Nature and Asia-Review. Asia Review concluded: “China’s response to the outbreak of Covid-19 has been exceedingly transparent, swift, effective and life-saving.
“However, the narrative has been hijacked by a few Western media outlets to propagate a coverup using nitpicked events that were twisted to fit their narrative.”
China set about doing the genetic sequencing of the novel coronavirus on January 9 and shared its finding of the genetic sequence with an international database on January 11. Hardly the action of a coverup.
The New York Times et al seem to base their accusations of China’s lack of transparency on the first half of December when nothing was said, but at that time the medical workers in Wuhan did not know what they had on their hands.
Then the West lionized Dr Li Wenliang as the heroic whistleblower unfairly suppressed by the Chinese authorities. What actually happened was that the trained ophthalmologist thought he had observed cases of SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and shared his concern with his chat group. Wuhan police called him in on December 31 and gave him a cautionary reprimand, and Dr Li went back to work the same day. The Wuhan authorities subsequently and posthumously apologized to Li’s family.
Distraction from own incompetence
A companion posting by Asia-Review appears to have hit the nail of this controversy on its head. The headline says it all, “How the US used ‘Chinese virus’ as a distraction from their own incompetence.”
Consistency has never been a virtue with Trump but his views on how he is controlling Covid-19 are surprisingly unwavering. On January 22, he said, “We have it totally under control.” A month later on February 25, Trump said, “I think that’s a problem that’s going to go away.… In fact, we’re very close to a vaccine.” On March 8, “We have a perfectly coordinated and fine-tuned plan at the White House for our attack on Coronavirus.”
But despite Trump’s optimism, cases of infection in the US suddenly surged to the top of the world, exceeding even Italy and China. As the situation grew dire, it became clear that his fine-tuned plan did not include having stockpiles of ventilators or masks and personal protective equipment. He has endangered America’s health and safety.
On the one hand, Trump continues to disparage and question the needs of the state governors. Since he can’t meet their needs, that’s all he can do. On the other hand, he sees that China has become a generous and active provider of masks, ventilators, test kits, protective suits and other medical equipment to many countries in need.
Trump is no dummy. He sees that making nice with China is definitely in his interest. Now.
Just last week, Trump finally used the Defense Production Act to compel General Motors to make ventilators. He could have done so many weeks earlier but apparently had hoped to coax GM without invoking the act. To invoke the act was to admit that the epidemic was slipping out of his control, a major flipflop of embarrassing proportions.
Peter Navarro to the rescue
On Friday, Trump announced the appointment of Peter Navarro, heretofore his disastrous China trade adviser, as the national Defense Production Act policy coordinator. Trump didn’t say much about Navarro’s duties but presumably getting GM to deliver ventilators in quantity and in a timely manner will be part of his mandate.
Navarro is known for his strong anti-China feelings and played a significant role in erecting the tariff barriers between the two countries. He is not known for success either as a politician or for management experience in the private sector. He is merely one of many Trump appointees without requisite qualifications.
This appears to be Navarro’s windfall dream job. He loves national TV exposure, any time he can get it. A day before his appointment, CNN had him on to explain the shortfall in ventilators. He started by praising Trump’s leadership to high heaven. Then he worked hard to cast blame on China. Finally, the exasperated CNN anchor cut him off by saying, “Peter, you are not answering the questions and wasting time.”
Despite the rude rebuff Navarro did not act offended but pleaded that he be given the time to talk and explain. His last-gasp remark before fading from the screen was that he would be pleased to come back any time to talk to CNN.
When governors of New York, California, Texas and other states begin screaming for ventilators not delivered, Peter will get a lot of airtime to squirm under the national limelight.
Trump is either unable or unwilling to face the explosion of the epidemic to come. He wants the country to go back to work, fill the subways, trains and buses, reopen the restaurants and forget about “social distancing” – and let’s not forget, regular church services by Easter. He thinks he is exempt from the laws of nature.
He will regret his decision to put the economy ahead of bringing the disease under control. He may understand the leverage of real-estate financing and the enhanced return by avoiding paying taxes, but he won’t have any place to turn when the exponential growth of infections overwhelms the hospitals.
When the number of the seriously ill exceeds the number of ventilators and beds in a hospital, the doctors will be forced to decide who gets to live and who will die.
The American public will demand answers and Trump will be ready: He’s “brilliant” and “capable” and it’s not his fault.
Not enough ventilators? Navarro will be the first to walk the plank. National public health in shambles? Vice-President Mike Pence must have screwed up. International prestige at a new low? Need to inject new blood as the secretary of state.
The pandemic will test Trump’s skill in spreading the blame. He is really good at it. Even his predecessor Barack Obama gets his share for not anticipating the coronavirus during his time in office. If Trump can sell that to the American voters, he will get four more years in the White House.

Open Letter to Chinese Government Highlights MSM Hypocrisy

Daniel LAZARE
The Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal have written an open letter to the Chinese government urging it to reverse its “damaging and reckless” decision to expel their reporters amid a spiraling COVID epidemic.
The letter makes all the usual points about a “free flow of reliable news and information” in the middle of a growing international emergency. And however clichéd, such sentiments are correct since access to the broadest possible sources of information is indeed essential if the world is to make it through the crisis.
But the letter would have been a lot more convincing if the three papers had spoken up on Mar. 2 when the Trump administration moved to expel sixty Chinese journalists working for five news organizations that the White House regards as little more than state propaganda outfits.
Moreover, they’d be on even firmer footing if they had not actively cheered on the most dangerous anti-media effort of all, the U.S. crackdown on the TV news service RT, formerly known as Russia Today, that began in November 2017.
The crackdown on RT was in some ways even worse than McCarthyism since the latter was at least about something real and important, which is to say a Communist movement that controlled roughly forty percent of the global population and was pressing in on capitalism from every side. If the ruling class seemed spooked, it was facing a challenge of unprecedented dimensions.
But the threat this time around was about something entirely made up, i.e. the belief that Russia had supposedly used various dark arts to trick Americans into voting for Trump. The nonsense began in January 2017 when the CIA, NSA, and FBI “assessed” that Vladimir Putin had interfered in the previous year’s election in order “to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability” and, in the process, boost Trump. The report was entirely devoid of evidence, yet the press took it as gospel. Even worse, the intelligence report included a seven-page annex accusing RT of engaging in “criticism of U.S. and Western governments as well as the promotion of radical discontent,” running “numerous reports on alleged U.S. election fraud and voting machine vulnerabilities,” contending that U.S. election results cannot be trusted and do not reflect the popular will,” and hosting third-party candidates who contend that “the U.S. two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a ‘sham.’”
Imagine – a foreign news service daring to suggest that U.S. politics were flawed! If papers like the Times or Post had the slightest inkling of self-respect, they would have laughed themselves silly over such hyper-sensitivity and told the CIA to grow a thicker skin. But they didn’t. Instead, they worked themselves up into ever greater levels of indignation. Within a few months, the New York Times was warning that “if there is any unifying character to RT, it is a deep skepticism of Western and American narratives of the world and a fundamental defensiveness about Russia and Mr. Putin” and that, thanks to snazzy graphics and snappy repartee, the network had put together “the most effective propaganda operation of the 21st century so far, one that thrives in the feverish political climates that have descended on many Western publics.”
Of course, one might observe that outlets like CNN and MSNBC are characterized by a deep skepticism of Russian narratives, so what’s the difference? But that wouldn’t be fair since everyone knows that America is right and Russia wrong and that any comparison between the two is automatically invalid, isn’t it?
Not to be outdone, the Washington Post – official slogan: “Democracy dies in darkness” – ran not one but two op-eds (here and here) calling on the federal government to require RT to register as a foreign agent, a step the Trump administration would dutifully take just two months later.
So the big two turned out to be more aggressive than the Trump administration in reducing journalistic diversity and using the power of the state to undermine a foreign competitor. Finally, just a month ago, the Times ran a front-page article declaring – queue the ominous music – that Radio Sputnik, RT’s sister outlet, had begun “broadcasting on three Kansas City-area radio stations during prime drive time.” Horror of horrors, the station was bombarding Missourians with Russki propaganda criticizing impeachment, the media, and the U.S. political system in general and informing that, in the words of one Sputnik host, that “the masses of poor and working people don’t have access to even the most essential things.”
Where did Radio Sputnik come up with such a notion? Doesn’t everyone know that perfect equality reigns in the United States and that anyone who says otherwise must be working for a foreign power?
In fact, while America never tires of touting its devotion to the First Amendment, it loses control when a foreign news service turns tables by engaging in journalism that is cheeky and irreverent. It wants a free press, which is to say one that is free to repeat over and over again how perfectly wonderful America really is. But it does not believe in a free press that allows foreigners to say the contrary.

Is the U.S. Able to Handle COVID-19? – Global Prospects Hang on This Question

 Alastair Crooke
As the lockdowns across Europe began to bite, the U.S. Establishment began its ‘wobble’. The more elegant amongst élite circles pointed to a dangerous mis-match in timelines: The medical advice has been: ‘lockdown until the virus begins to subside’, but that advice encompassed too, the possibility of Covid-19 returning later in the year in a Phase Two, thus requiring further personal distancing. Hands shot high in absolute horror amongst some business and Wall Street leaders: Could the U.S. economy sustain such a prospect? Might not a long shutdown inflict permanent damage? Would there even be an economy left – to resurrect – in the wake of ‘peak Coronavirus’?
The mis-match thesis then acquired a third strand: To immediate economic fears standing in contradistinction to longer term medical perspectives was added the third question: Are Americans culturally ‘built’ for lockdown (that is to say, will an individualistic, libertarian-minded – and armed society – acquiesce to being ordered to stay home over a long period)?
Not surprisingly, President Trump – with an advancing Election, and his colours pinned to the mast of sound economic management – hit on the formula that the ‘cure cannot be worse than the disease’: Let’s have the economy open by Easter (12 April – i.e. 15 days hence), he declared.
The issue of the virus is not manufactured, (though there are still many in the U.S., who regard it as an overblown scare), nor is the dilemma of the divergent timelines. Actually – a great deal hangs on how these timelines play out – our global economic and political prospects, no less.
Just about everyone and his dog now claims to have modelled Covid-19. But in truth, we still know very little on which to accurately predict the virus’ course. The ‘data’ is made unreliable: firstly, because not only does the virus have different mutations, but secondly, owing to it acting in two quite different modes: One is mild, or even asymptomatic (the 80%); and the second mode is serious (requiring hospitalisation) – and for a minority of the 20% – deadly.
But consequently, we simply do not know how much of the population is infected, or is still to be infected – precisely owing to its very mildness or, its asymptomatic characteristics amongst the 80 percent-ers. There hasn’t been enough testing – and anyway, given its mild or non-noticeable iteration, many people may have it, but don’t test.
So the data modelling is more ‘art’, than predictive, and therefore introduces economic uncertainty. The damage to the economy is obvious from the first, but the question least considered is the importance of the third strand: Is Trump right when he says that America ‘is not built for lockdown’?
He may be right, in one sense; but if he opts to prioritise a quick opening of the economy over the welfare of the American people, he may face incalculable consequences – should Covid-19 bite him in the backside: Either by mutating (as did the Spanish ‘flu in August 1918); or simply, by beginning a second phase through a resurgence of community infection later in the year.
Plainly, Trump is of the ‘fears are exaggerated’ school of thought, and seems poised to bet his Presidency on it. In this era, viral social media images of hospitals overwhelmed, and of patients fighting to breathe their last, unaided, and lying on the floor, jam-packed in corridors, or in converted gyms – can become politically toxic. The counter- response that the financial system is struggling for oxygen, under lockdown, too, may strike many people as a ‘little lacking’ in common humanity – perhaps?
The dilemma is cruel. And maybe the social timeline ‘strand’ has more substance, than is generally granted? Americans are libertarian in many ways (not least, in their determination to carry arms). This is reflected also, in their deliberate eschewing of a public health programme, and in the purposefully limited support provided to the hourly paid – who are laid off. It is the ethos of individualism, a work ethic and the consequence of a ‘libertarian’ constitution.
The St Louis Chair of the Fed has predicted 30% unemployment and 50% of the economy at standstill by the end of June. Is it sustainable to have these furloughed workers dying in the street, because they cannot afford America’s ‘boutique’ health-service for the wealthy? (we’ve seen videos of people unexpectedly falling down in the street, dying, as passers-by skirt the afflicted victim – from both China and Iran). Such videos would be inflammatory in the U.S.
What happens if ‘lockdown’ were extended, and the unemployed were to attack supermarkets for food they cannot afford; or because the supermarket shelves are empty (this has happened in Europe)? What would videos of the U.S. National Guard look like as they arrive, armed for war, to put down the ‘looters’? What happens if the rioters angry at their plight – and without money – use their right to bear weapons to fight against the National Guardsmen? Can the U.S. national fabric handle such strains? Might it not disintegrate?
Here, the U.S. differs from Europe. America has not, since the Civil War, had to experience the harsh circumstances in hospitals approximating to wartime, on its own soil.
So, is Trump right, then, to prioritise keeping the U.S. economy open? Well, firstly, the notion that bits of the economy can be opened where infection-rates are low, whilst other parts are locked down, seems odd: Covid-19 – we do know – is highly infectious. Those who show no symptoms – whether they are under 50 years, or under 40 years-old – would not preclude them from being silent ‘super-carriers’ of the disease. We have not heard there is a test for anti-bodies, which might signal that an individual enjoys immunity. But unless an area has no infections, putting even one carrier into a workplace, would be sufficient to trigger a localised community infection.
Perhaps then, Trump might be right that anything other than a short (and possibly ineffective) lockdown is not manageable in the U.S.: That it might tear apart an already polarised, armed and inegalitarian, social fabric. There is then, a substantial point here: How far, and for how long, can an U.S. or European society accept a ‘command’ or martial-law administration – before citizens rebel, and head to the beaches for summer? What then?
Is it possible that can Trump may emerge from these events as the ‘saviour of the U.S. economy’? Here, we touch on the key question of the adaptability of élites. Are the U.S. élite capable of true transformation of consciousness as circumstances alter? On the answer to this question will hang the geo-political future. It was the inability of the Soviet elites to give up on their corrupt and privileged status quo that led to the implosion of the USSR in 1987.
We are often told that Americans are great innovators and graspers of opportunity. But today, the U.S. élites are utterly intent on preserving a status quo – as the viability and even the reality of that status quo is being questioned by important insiders. For the élite majority, though, the mind-set is intransigent and adamant. The status quo suits them well. They do not wish to see to see it reformed or changed. They refuse to think differently.
Eventually, the coronavirus will subside; but what will America look like when it does? For the moment, the élites believe that America will look just as it did, in February, before the impact of the pandemic hit U.S. markets. So, we have had the Fed, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan all doing the same thing, over and over again, hoping that the economy will snap-back to ‘normal’. But it isn’t working.
The Fed fears a collapse in credit (with due reason), but ‘normality’ is not returning from the rush of liquidity hosed across credit markets. In the 2008 crisis, the Fed responded with all sorts of easing. This time the Fed is throwing the ‘kitchen sink’ at markets, offering ‘facilities’ for almost every asset class. At the present rate of growth, the Fed balance sheet will be $6 Trillion in days – and reach a total equivalent to almost 50% of the U.S. GDP by June. Another, unimaginable chunk of debt.
The problem is that the Fed’s measures will fail as stimulus – because it is not a problem of demand shortfall, but of supply-shock – as the globe implements ‘shut-down’ in order to slow infection. But, with recession or depression looming, asset prices are collapsing. Bloomberg has noted that core tenets such as what constitutes a safe asset, or the expectation of returns over the next decade, are all being thrown out of the window – as Central Banks strive to avert a global recession: The latter have unleashed a money tsunami, unlike anything seen before, and the fear of inflation is rising, together with a sense that all the old metrics of what constitutes safe investments are gone for good.
Meanwhile the U.S. Congress has passed a $2 trillion bill to counter the effects of Covid-19. It was well received for a while in the U.S. markets, before they fell again. The bill may help keep a part of the big business status quo alive, for now, but the bottom line is that these spending bills – as Jim Rickards notes – “provide spending but they do not provide stimulus”. And all that spending – like that of the Fed – essentially will behelicopter money: i.e. monetised debt.
The essential dilemma is that the Central Bankers’ Holy Grail – stimulus – depends on consumers, who constitute 70% of the U.S. economy; and on whether they decide consume – and to what extent. And that will depend upon their psychology in the post-Covid-19 era, and not on what the Fed does, or does not, do now.
If consumers get used – during lockdown – to doing without; to economising; they may well decide that increased savings and debt reduction, are the best ways to prepare for straitened times. 83% of U.S. businesses are small or medium sized companies. Some may survive and resume work, but others will not re-open after the lockdown. It will be a different atmosphere: a different economic era.
Of course, the élites want to go ‘back to normal’ as quickly as possible, but the ‘bottom line’ emerging from the Fed’s failure to staunch market paralysis is that that which the élites had thought to be ‘normal’ is proving not to have been normal at all. It is now apparent as having been a financialised bubble – and Covid-19 happens to have been the pin that popped it. This bubble was just the biggest, in a long line of Fed-blown bubbles (NASDAQ, sub-prime mortgages, etc.) – and now, the final ‘everything-bubble’ has burst. There’s nothing now left for the Fed to ‘bubble up’. It’s probably over.
Here’s the larger – global – point. Again, it revolves around psychology: Have these events been the ‘pin’ which also pops some sort of mass psychological bubble (a sealed Cartesian, mental retort)? Will public faith in the status quo crash, along with the financialised ‘everything-bubble’? Will a momentary flash of enlightenment to the house-of-cards reality that Americans had been living, cause them to start seeing their world afresh, and in its raw, hard reality? If so, the world order stands on the cusp of change.
For some time now, a general popular disquiet has been incubating. The question is whether, in the cold post-Covid-19 reality, Americans will begin to cease their acquiescence to – and their co-operation with – the status quo.
This might mean trouble as America and some European states try to manage the pandemic through invoking the necessity of a war-time command-governance. Will people accept such a command system, if they see its principal purpose being the return to a failed status quo ante?