thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-05-30--Herd Immunity and the biological enemy

Herd Immunity and the biological enemy

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible .
Share with kin , friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise .
Capitalism ’ s natural dynamics in the midst of a global pandemic have shown it to be inept and sociopathic .
How could anyone be shocked ?
Today , “ herd immunity ” has become a household notion .
Despite the abandonment of the idea by the British government , it continues to be raised in the face of the serious difficulties encountered by public health services in Western Europe and in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Guardian , the UK government was “ to allow the virus to pass through the entire population so that we acquire herd immunity.
” And the Prime Minister of that country , Boris Johnson , shamelessly warned the British people that the inevitable loss of loved ones was to be anticipated consequent to that strategy .
The basic idea of herd immunity ( or herd protection ) , as it has come to be used in the media , is that by letting the virus pass unimpeded through the population , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hopefully disabling the propagation of the virus even for those have not been infected .
The problem , of course , is that in the process of passing freely , many people , particularly the elderly , the immuno-compromised , people with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes , cancers and others , might succumb to the virus in large numbers .
Beyond biology , the data shows that minorities ( African Americans and Latinos ) present higher rates of infection and fatalities , while the working class is still doing work outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often at greater risk of infection than those working from home .
The idea of herd immunity created much discomfort in the scientific community and eventually , the British government relinquished this strategy in light of its severe consequences , both economic and medical .
According to D. Dowdy and G. D ’ Souza of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health , in order to reach herd immunity for the coronavirus , over 70 % of the population would have to be immune .
They explain , “ Without a vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get infected before reaching this threshold .
Put another way , even in the current pace of the COVID-19 pandemic continues in the United States – with over 25,000 cases a day – it will be well into 2021 before we reach herd immunity .
If current death rates continue , over half a million Americans would be dead from COVID-19 by that time.
” Of course , the unethical aspect of the idea of herd immunity has not escaped many commentators as the notion of letting the weak die off in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not sit well with many .
Not only that , but dealing concretely with urgency for those severe cases on the doorstep of death would overwhelm healthcare delivery services and result in a medical catastrophe .
Moreover , the level of immunity for those surviving infection by the virus remains unclear to this day .
The certainty of immunity post-infection has not been demonstrated as cases of second infections have seemingly occurred .
The assumed period of immunity-post infection also remains unknown .
Clearly , there are very good reasons why the British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy of herd immunity .
`` We claim that the death of so many people can not be allowed to be treated as a simple , albeit tragic , happenstance .
Given these countries ’ achievements in medical sciences and technology and their economic wealth , this tragedy , is an absolute scandal , an absolute shame on a grand scale ... '' However , the medical concept of herd immunity differs from the concept of herd immunity that has now become commonly used .
From a medical standpoint , the epidemiological concept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been associated with the use of vaccination , whereby a vaccine is used to promote herd immunity , and in which case , the large number of immunized individuals would prevent the spread of the disease , thereby protecting even those individuals who are not immune to the illness .
Thus , we could say that in epidemiological milieus , herd immunity has not been mentioned as a stand-alone concept divorced from vaccination as it is now used generally .
Today , the notion of herd immunity continues to be taken out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to society at large .
This idea , no longer medically informed , has spread like wildfire throughout the main stream media , as well as Main Street , i.e.
, that there is a “ possibility ” of developing a “ natural ” immunity for the overall population .
In light of the economic downturn , rising unemployment , loss of income and medical insurance , food shortages and so on , the demand for a reopening of the economy , to abort shelter-in-place , lockdown , and other quarantine measures , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the idea of herd immunity .
Herd immunity remains an actual consideration , placing the economic cost of the pandemic in direct conflict with the cost of lives .
The economic crisis has forced authorities and individuals into a frightening choice between losing one ’ s means of economic survival and risking the spread of the virus and the loss of lives associated with it .
Such has been the choice confronting people and governing authorities in Western Europe and the United States , the so-called developed nations or “ First World.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ethical issues raised by some against the idea of “ natural ” herd immunity have been swept under the rug of the urgent and dire economic crisis .
I would like to address some historical , ethical and political aspects of the de-medicalized notion of herd immunity .
Particularly , I would like to illustrate how capitalism , when facing a situation of crisis , slips so readily towards fascism , and how easily so many people fall in line with it , not so much out of a rational choice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessity for their “ survival , ” most often economic .
Taken out of its epidemiological and medical context ( i.e.
, as associated with vaccination procedures ) , what we could term “ natural ” herd immunity is clearly an instance of social Darwinism .
The latter is born from the application of Darwin ’ s ideas onto the social world .
Accordingly , what Darwin understood about the natural world could also be applied to society .
In particular , such ideas were promoted by Herbert Spencer ( 1820-1903 ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that human societies developed like natural organisms .
According to this view , the struggle for survival witnessed in nature could be witnessed as well in society wherein , to use Spencer ’ s words , the law of the “ survival of the fittest ” could be applied to social life .
As would be the case with “ natural ” herd immunity and the COVID-19 , only the fittest individuals would survive as it would be supposedly occurring in the natural world .
Frighteningly , this notion has come to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topic of debate in the mainstream in light of the economic crisis consequent to the pandemic .
This is frightening because the most infamous use of social Darwinism can be found historically in the social policies of the third Reich of Nazi Germany , especially in its racial policies that lead to tragically well-known genocides .
Referring to the greater “ natural ” order , Adolf Hitler stated in his text Mein Kampf , “ whoever would live , let him fight , and he who does not want to do battle in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deserve life.
” Following a vulgar interpretation of “ natural selection , ” only the fittest , the winners , deserve to live Thus , those immunologically deficient , read unfit to fight off the virus , deserve to be abandoned , read eliminated , albeit “ naturally ” in the case of the pandemic for the sake of allowing the greater majority to get back their economic means of survival .
If the Nazi genocides of Jews , Roma , Poles , Soviets and others are well known , “ natural ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implementation of the “ Final Solution.
” The righteous law of “ survival of the fittest ” did not apply only to “ racial , ” ethnic , religious and political groups .
Earlier on , as of 1933 , the German authorities enforced the “ law for the prevention of progeny with hereditary disease.
” In accordance with this law , all people suffering from hereditary diseases , including mental illnesses , learning disabilities , physical deformities , epilepsy , blindness , deafness , and severe alcoholism were to be sterilized .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ unworthy of life ” or “ useless eaters , ” highlighting their burden upon society .
Many of such people would be terminated en masse .
Furthermore , by 1939 a decree was circulated commanding physicians and other medical professionals to report newborn infants and children under the age of 3 who were exhibiting mental or physical deficiencies .
If early on this only applied to infant and toddlers , it soon included all children under the age of 17 .
According to estimates , over 5,000 physically and mentally disabled children were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All these individuals , adults as well as children were defined by the Nazi authorities as “ biological enemies , ” insofar as they threatened the biological strength and survival of the German “ race.
” Such horrible and frightening events represent the direct and literal application of Spencer ’ s law of the “ survival of the fittest.
” The Nazi authorities of course took it upon themselves to classify and define those deemed to be fit and those deemed unfit within their “ theoretical ” framework ; a framework that led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by history , tragically remembered by many but seemingly forgotten by others .
Alluding to Nazi policies while addressing the human consequences of “ natural ” herd immunity may seem excessive .
To clarify any confusion , we are not here comparing the Holocaust to the present situation .
Rather we are alluding to the implementation of biological policies born from social Darwinism onto the German population at large throughout the 30s .
The reason for this comparison is to illustrate how fascist constructs can become implemented , starting with the normalization of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unacceptable , yet sufficiently limited and specific in scope that the majority of people , exempt of being subject to such policies , will unintentionally go along with it .
And once such notions become normalized , i.e .
justified and acceptable to most , intentionally or not , the slide towards more general policies , horrors like the ones perpetrated by the Nazis , become all the more too possible .
As of today , over 96,000 human beings have died in the United States from the coronavirus , over 36,000 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many of whom would certainly not have died had there been different public health policies .
Seemingly , the outrage on the part of the American , the French and the British people appear quite moderate if not reduced to the anger with authorities for imposing lockdowns and other quarantine measures and leaving people without the means of economic sustenance .
We claim that the death of so many people can not be allowed to be treated as a simple , albeit tragic , happenstance .
Given these countries ’ achievements in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealth , this tragedy , is an absolute scandal , an absolute shame on a grand scale .
Nevertheless , that alone , some might say , does not justify comparing the application of social Darwinism in Nazi Germany with social Darwinism as it manifests itself in the United States and Europe today .
However , the underlying conceptual structure in both cases remains the same , and the casualness with which the idea of “ natural ” herd immunity is mentioned certainly indicates how much of a slippery slope this is .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not actively enforced , the very choice of re-opening economies independently of epidemiological and public health recommendations remains couched in the very notion of herd immunity .
What then is the difference between the social Darwinism of the 30s ’ and 40s ’ with the one we are confronting today ?
We can answer this question by saying that the main difference lies in the intentionality of the perpetrators or seemingly so .
Unlike the Nazi institutions which intentionally and explicitly applied social Darwinism to justify and drive policies whose goal was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ i.e .
those deemed weak and unfit , such is not the case in the United States and Europe .
Namely , in the latter countries , there is no actual conspiracy , no explicit intent or any legal decisions on the part of the authorities in the US , France or the UK to eliminate any of those individuals deemed at risk or unable to defend themselves against the coronavirus .
However , the lack of intent does not eradicate the question of responsibility .
In the face of this unprecedented ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ unexpected ” ( It was to be expected according to many ) crisis , there seems to be , in all three countries mentioned , an absolute and unshakable faith in the abilities of societies to self-organize and to adapt efficiently in order to continue existing as they were , throughout unexpected events with their unintended consequences such as this medico-political crisis .
The absolute and complete faith in the self-regulated market with minimal government intervention radically excludes the very notion of planification or planning in any ways and leaves a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to embrace any adaptive changes necessary within the framework of free market organization .
Unfortunately , the biological aspect of this crisis introduces a variable , the virus , that can not be taken into account by this very framework .
Thus , confronting the consequences of the pandemic from the perspective of anticipation , readiness and planification is completely disparaged .
It is willfully and explicitly excluded and out of the question .
While planification is taken to be coercive and de facto a miscalculation , on the other hand , unanticipated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as indices of freedom , even when paradoxically those turn out to be destructive and deadly .
This kind of assumption lies in the belief that society will eventually optimize its resources in dealing with those unintended consequences .
Obviously , today this belief is radically put to the test by the present crisis and its obvious contradiction and its indirect violence are clearly unveiled , although readily and chronically disavowed .
Indeed , there is an absolute refusal of accountability by these governments and governing institutions at large to accept any responsibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriately to the present crisis .
This refusal to be accountable for managing the unexpected pandemic with its unintended consequences solely because the problem was unexpected and unintended , simply reflects a complete desisting from the responsibilities of democratic governance .
But therein lies an ideological premise , which ought to be clarified .
It is usually assumed that in a democracy , the people elect a government to serve the interest of most of the citizens , hence defining politicians as public servants ; such might not be the case with French @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indeed , this assumption might be simply wrong because it appears that governing institutions of these three nations do not take those responsibilities ( i.e.
, anticipating , planning and managing this public health crisis ) to be those of government , reflecting their relentless ideological commitment to capitalism and free market .
Thus , we can understand better Mr. Trump , Mr. Macron and Mr. Johnson ’ s lack of clear policy and their mismanagement of the crisis .
It simply does not figure on the list of their political and economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Bolsonaro , president of Brazil , who when asked about the rise of fatalities in his country , did not cover up his response with demagogy and spin , answering , “ So what ?
I mourn [ the deaths ] , what do you want me to do ?
My name is Messiah but I can not work miracles.
” There can be little doubt that he is simply stating the truth of his ideology .
Like Mr. Trump , Mr. Macron and Mr. Johnson , he appears to believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thousands by epidemy is not his responsibility whatsoever , and his response expresses the radical ideological desisting of neoliberal governing institutions from any accountability towards the very people who voted them into office .
Thus , if social Darwinism has been implemented intentionally by Nazi authorities , social Darwinism in the United States and Europe is born from the complete abdication by governing institutions of their responsibilities to protect their respective populations .
Yet , even if there are no intentions , either good or bad , by Western governments to implement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those unable to fight off the coronavirus , they still have to be held accountable for their abdication from implementing policies to protect their respective populations .
If the Nazis implemented deadly policies ideologically driven directly , explicitly and intentionally , the governments of the US , the UK and France implemented deadly strategies driven by an ideology of laissez faire , of minimal state intervention , or by a complete absence of clear policies .
This absence of intentionality or of clear policies on the part of governments does remain ideologically based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and capitalist ideology of the free market as the main organizing principle of social life .
Privatization , free enterprise , individual entrepreneurship , investing and consumerism , etc .
must either be at most free from government regulations , or else be protected by government ( bailouts subsidies , etc. )
.
In all cases , the US , the UK or France , governments have relinquished any accountability for their complete failures in addressing the crisis .
Moreover , they have completely desisted from acknowledging their responsibilities towards their respective populations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would governments abdicate their responsibilities ?
They did so because ideologically , they believe that it is not the government ’ s responsibility to address , anticipate and plan for crises like this pandemic .
In consequence to such thinking , healthcare delivery ( mitigation , assessments , testing , tracking , caring and curing ) , protections of employees , protective equipment provisions , etc .
are not the responsibility of government neither in the present nor in the future .
According to their ideology , the responsibilities lie with individuals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for profit or otherwise .
If governing institutions are keen on protecting markets and the economies , protecting the welfare of the populations they are supposed to serve is certainly not their primary purpose .
Therefore , we claim that this ideological and intentional abdication of social and political responsibility for the sake of holding ideological beliefs in private , free enterprise and free markets , does not absolve these governing institutions from responsibilities in any ways .
In fact , if one remains convinced in the idea of democratic social life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this ideology must accept responsibility for the suffering and loss of life of all those unable to adapt , defend against , or fight off the threat in order to survive in the “ eternal struggle ” for life/economic survival .
The implementation of neoliberal ideology leads directly to a form of unintentional social Darwinism , for which governing institutions must be held accountable .
Even if this social Darwinism is not the result of intentions , it remains nevertheless the result of an ideology of non-intervention , non-regulations , and non-planification , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of governing institutions could not be any more intentional .
Their abdication is the result of an ideological choice .
The social Darwinian implementation of herd immunity is the result of the government ’ s abandonment of its responsibility and its complete ideological embrace of the idea that a society will optimally adapt , no matter what the cost , to unintended consequences such as the spread of the coronavirus and consequential death of over 96,000 human beings in the United States , over 36,000 in the UK and over 28,000 in France @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their absolute faith in “ natural selection , ” which is supposedly congruent with economic survival .
Consequently , the death of those expendables , the unfit , those unable to fight off the virus , is the unintended yet accepted result of neoliberal ideology .
Whether deaths result from ideological intent or results from ideological omission and desisting ( by non-intervention , non-planification , non-anticipation ) , both are cases of social Darwinism resulting in the elimination of the weak unfit to live , the infected , the sick , the black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the poor , namely , those who have now become guilty of preventing the economy from reopening .
They have become the unspoken “ biological enemies.
” The slope is slippery indeed .
Even if “ natural ” herd immunity is not born from an explicit ideological policy , it remains considered by the multitudes of individuals and governing authorities around the world .
Those who are at risk of contracting the disease and the strategies destined to protect them and us ( quarantines ) become unfortunately identified as the very cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many .
Therefore , the protection of society paradoxically becomes the very goal of the many who are now ready to accept the loss of thousands of lives for the sake of the economy .
The vulnerable and the lower classes become , as usual , expendable for the sake of the economy .
Fascist principles of social Darwinism , the application of the law of “ survival of the fittest , ” are quick to follow and become justified without any official ideological content and policies such as those of the Nazis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normalizing of a truly fascist solution to the crisis , while people face the impossible and perverse choice between their economic livelihood and survival and taking the risk of being infected as well as infecting others .
These are the only choices offered to the people of the United states , Britain and France .
The frightening aspect of all this is that western societies appear mostly in acceptance of such prospects and if this may appear cruel , survival ( of the fittest ) seems to once again trump everything else , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our basic humanity .
Despite the obvious [ hostile ] propaganda , it is very clear today that well-organized and well-financed public institutions with central planning committed to the welfare of people appear to be the most efficient structures in dealing constructively with events like this pandemic .
Unfortunately , such notions are completely and relentlessly , despite the evidence , excluded from consideration , and an economy of survival of the fittest inescapably fills the political vacuum .
If economic survival of the fittest is an unquestioned foundation of economic freedom and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shift from the economic realm to the biological realm ends up going without saying .
This shift becomes not only readily conceivable , but also the only solution to the ideological inability of neoliberal government representatives to address situations requiring planification , planning and anticipating unexpected events with unintended consequences .
And this inability is presently leading these very Western nations and their terrified and desperate populations onto the inevitable path of open fascism , albeit a fascism not so much expressed through ideological constructs , but through a form that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the foundation of which has now been laid down for an acceptance of a “ natural ” herd immunity .
The loss of hundreds , of thousands of lives ends up being acceptable not so much for the survival of the “ race ” but for the so-called survival of the economy and those fit enough to survive .
As many states are progressively reopening their economies , herd immunity , if unmentioned , is indirectly implemented despite the warnings of the medical , epidemiological and public health communities .
Puke if you @

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.
Philippe Gendrault
Capitalism’s natural dynamics in the midst of a global pandemic have shown it to be inept and sociopathic. How could anyone be shocked?
Today, “herd immunity” has become a household notion. Despite the abandonment of the idea by the British government, it continues to be raised in the face of the serious difficulties encountered by public health services in Western Europe and in the United States. In mid-March, according to the Guardian, the UK government was “to allow the virus to pass through the entire population so that we acquire herd immunity.” And the Prime Minister of that country, Boris Johnson, shamelessly warned the British people that the inevitable loss of loved ones was to be anticipated consequent to that strategy.
The basic idea of herd immunity (or herd protection), as it has come to be used in the media, is that by letting the virus pass unimpeded through the population, the greater majority of people would become immune, hopefully disabling the propagation of the virus even for those have not been infected. The problem, of course, is that in the process of passing freely, many people, particularly the elderly, the immuno-compromised, people with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, cancers and others, might succumb to the virus in large numbers. Beyond biology, the data shows that minorities (African Americans and Latinos) present higher rates of infection and fatalities, while the working class is still doing work outside the home, and the poor are often at greater risk of infection than those working from home.
The idea of herd immunity created much discomfort in the scientific community and eventually, the British government relinquished this strategy in light of its severe consequences, both economic and medical. According to D. Dowdy and G. D’Souza of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, in order to reach herd immunity for the coronavirus, over 70% of the population would have to be immune. They explain, “Without a vaccine, over 200 million Americans would have to get infected before reaching this threshold. Put another way, even in the current pace of the COVID-19 pandemic continues in the United States – with over 25,000 cases a day – it will be well into 2021 before we reach herd immunity. If current death rates continue, over half a million Americans would be dead from COVID-19 by that time.”
Of course, the unethical aspect of the idea of herd immunity has not escaped many commentators as the notion of letting the weak die off in order to protect the greater numbers did not sit well with many. Not only that, but dealing concretely with urgency for those severe cases on the doorstep of death would overwhelm healthcare delivery services and result in a medical catastrophe. Moreover, the level of immunity for those surviving infection by the virus remains unclear to this day. The certainty of immunity post-infection has not been demonstrated as cases of second infections have seemingly occurred. The assumed period of immunity-post infection also remains unknown. Clearly, there are very good reasons why the British government overturned its original position towards the strategy of herd immunity.
"We claim that the death of so many people cannot be allowed to be treated as a simple, albeit tragic, happenstance. Given these countries’ achievements in medical sciences and technology and their economic wealth, this tragedy, is an absolute scandal, an absolute shame on a grand scale..."
However, the medical concept of herd immunity differs from the concept of herd immunity that has now become commonly used. From a medical standpoint, the epidemiological concept of herd immunity or herd protection has been associated with the use of vaccination, whereby a vaccine is used to promote herd immunity, and in which case, the large number of immunized individuals would prevent the spread of the disease, thereby protecting even those individuals who are not immune to the illness. Thus, we could say that in epidemiological milieus, herd immunity has not been mentioned as a stand-alone concept divorced from vaccination as it is now used generally.
Today, the notion of herd immunity continues to be taken out of its epidemiological and medical contexts and applied to society at large. This idea, no longer medically informed, has spread like wildfire throughout the main stream media, as well as Main Street, i.e., that there is a “possibility” of developing a “natural” immunity for the overall population. In light of the economic downturn, rising unemployment, loss of income and medical insurance, food shortages and so on, the demand for a reopening of the economy, to abort shelter-in-place, lockdown, and other quarantine measures, has been rising across states, along with the idea of herd immunity. Herd immunity remains an actual consideration, placing the economic cost of the pandemic in direct conflict with the cost of lives. The economic crisis has forced authorities and individuals into a frightening choice between losing one’s means of economic survival and risking the spread of the virus and the loss of lives associated with it. Such has been the choice confronting people and governing authorities in Western Europe and the United States, the so-called developed nations or “First World.”
Unfortunately, it appears that all the ethical issues raised by some against the idea of “natural” herd immunity have been swept under the rug of the urgent and dire economic crisis.
I would like to address some historical, ethical and political aspects of the de-medicalized notion of herd immunity. Particularly, I would like to illustrate how capitalism, when facing a situation of crisis, slips so readily towards fascism, and how easily so many people fall in line with it, not so much out of a rational choice, but out of fear, out of necessity for their “survival,” most often economic.
Taken out of its epidemiological and medical context (i.e., as associated with vaccination procedures), what we could term “natural” herd immunity is clearly an instance of social Darwinism. The latter is born from the application of Darwin’s ideas onto the social world. Accordingly, what Darwin understood about the natural world could also be applied to society. In particular, such ideas were promoted by Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), a British scientist and scholar who thought that human societies developed like natural organisms. According to this view, the struggle for survival witnessed in nature could be witnessed as well in society wherein, to use Spencer’s words, the law of the “survival of the fittest” could be applied to social life. As would be the case with “natural” herd immunity and the COVID-19, only the fittest individuals would survive as it would be supposedly occurring in the natural world. Frighteningly, this notion has come to be completely accepted as an appropriate and sensical topic of debate in the mainstream in light of the economic crisis consequent to the pandemic.
This is frightening because the most infamous use of social Darwinism can be found historically in the social policies of the third Reich of Nazi Germany, especially in its racial policies that lead to tragically well-known genocides. Referring to the greater “natural” order, Adolf Hitler stated in his text Mein Kampf, “whoever would live, let him fight, and he who does not want to do battle in this world of eternal struggle does not deserve life.” Following a vulgar interpretation of “natural selection,” only the fittest, the winners, deserve to live Thus, those immunologically deficient, read unfit to fight off the virus, deserve to be abandoned, read eliminated, albeit “naturally” in the case of the pandemic for the sake of allowing the greater majority to get back their economic means of survival. If the Nazi genocides of Jews, Roma, Poles, Soviets and others are well known, “natural” selective policies were entertained well before the implementation of the “Final Solution.” The righteous law of “survival of the fittest” did not apply only to “racial,” ethnic, religious and political groups. Earlier on, as of 1933, the German authorities enforced the “law for the prevention of progeny with hereditary disease.” In accordance with this law, all people suffering from hereditary diseases, including mental illnesses, learning disabilities, physical deformities, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, and severe alcoholism were to be sterilized. Such individuals were labelled as “life unworthy of life” or “useless eaters,” highlighting their burden upon society. Many of such people would be terminated en masse. Furthermore, by 1939 a decree was circulated commanding physicians and other medical professionals to report newborn infants and children under the age of 3 who were exhibiting mental or physical deficiencies. If early on this only applied to infant and toddlers, it soon included all children under the age of 17. According to estimates, over 5,000 physically and mentally disabled children were murdered through starvation and over medication. All these individuals, adults as well as children were defined by the Nazi authorities as “biological enemies,” insofar as they threatened the biological strength and survival of the German “race.”
Such horrible and frightening events represent the direct and literal application of Spencer’s law of the “survival of the fittest.” The Nazi authorities of course took it upon themselves to classify and define those deemed to be fit and those deemed unfit within their “theoretical” framework; a framework that led to all the horrific murderous activities recorded by history, tragically remembered by many but seemingly forgotten by others.
Alluding to Nazi policies while addressing the human consequences of “natural” herd immunity may seem excessive. To clarify any confusion, we are not here comparing the Holocaust to the present situation. Rather we are alluding to the implementation of biological policies born from social Darwinism onto the German population at large throughout the 30s. The reason for this comparison is to illustrate how fascist constructs can become implemented, starting with the normalization of notions, which are ethically untenable and unacceptable, yet sufficiently limited and specific in scope that the majority of people, exempt of being subject to such policies, will unintentionally go along with it. And once such notions become normalized, i.e. justified and acceptable to most, intentionally or not, the slide towards more general policies, horrors like the ones perpetrated by the Nazis, become all the more too possible.
As of today, over 96,000 human beings have died in the United States from the coronavirus, over 36,000 in the UK and over 28,000 in France, many of whom would certainly not have died had there been different public health policies. Seemingly, the outrage on the part of the American, the French and the British people appear quite moderate if not reduced to the anger with authorities for imposing lockdowns and other quarantine measures and leaving people without the means of economic sustenance.
We claim that the death of so many people cannot be allowed to be treated as a simple, albeit tragic, happenstance. Given these countries’ achievements in medical sciences and technology and their economic wealth, this tragedy, is an absolute scandal, an absolute shame on a grand scale.
Nevertheless, that alone, some might say, does not justify comparing the application of social Darwinism in Nazi Germany with social Darwinism as it manifests itself in the United States and Europe today. However, the underlying conceptual structure in both cases remains the same, and the casualness with which the idea of “natural” herd immunity is mentioned certainly indicates how much of a slippery slope this is. And if the topic of herd immunity is not actively enforced, the very choice of re-opening economies independently of epidemiological and public health recommendations remains couched in the very notion of herd immunity. What then is the difference between the social Darwinism of the 30s’ and 40s’ with the one we are confronting today? We can answer this question by saying that the main difference lies in the intentionality of the perpetrators or seemingly so. Unlike the Nazi institutions which intentionally and explicitly applied social Darwinism to justify and drive policies whose goal was to eliminate biological and other enemies, i.e. those deemed weak and unfit, such is not the case in the United States and Europe. Namely, in the latter countries, there is no actual conspiracy, no explicit intent or any legal decisions on the part of the authorities in the US, France or the UK to eliminate any of those individuals deemed at risk or unable to defend themselves against the coronavirus.
However, the lack of intent does not eradicate the question of responsibility. In the face of this unprecedented (It has happened many times before) and “unexpected” (It was to be expected according to many) crisis, there seems to be, in all three countries mentioned, an absolute and unshakable faith in the abilities of societies to self-organize and to adapt efficiently in order to continue existing as they were, throughout unexpected events with their unintended consequences such as this medico-political crisis. The absolute and complete faith in the self-regulated market with minimal government intervention radically excludes the very notion of planification or planning in any ways and leaves a society’s future open and free to embrace any adaptive changes necessary within the framework of free market organization. Unfortunately, the biological aspect of this crisis introduces a variable, the virus, that cannot be taken into account by this very framework. Thus, confronting the consequences of the pandemic from the perspective of anticipation, readiness and planification is completely disparaged. It is willfully and explicitly excluded and out of the question. While planification is taken to be coercive and de facto a miscalculation, on the other hand, unanticipated consequences are completely accepted and even hailed as indices of freedom, even when paradoxically those turn out to be destructive and deadly. This kind of assumption lies in the belief that society will eventually optimize its resources in dealing with those unintended consequences. Obviously, today this belief is radically put to the test by the present crisis and its obvious contradiction and its indirect violence are clearly unveiled, although readily and chronically disavowed.
Indeed, there is an absolute refusal of accountability by these governments and governing institutions at large to accept any responsibility for their incapacity, incompetence at responding appropriately to the present crisis. This refusal to be accountable for managing the unexpected pandemic with its unintended consequences solely because the problem was unexpected and unintended, simply reflects a complete desisting from the responsibilities of democratic governance. But therein lies an ideological premise, which ought to be clarified. It is usually assumed that in a democracy, the people elect a government to serve the interest of most of the citizens, hence defining politicians as public servants; such might not be the case with French, British and US governing institutions. Indeed, this assumption might be simply wrong because it appears that governing institutions of these three nations do not take those responsibilities (i.e., anticipating, planning and managing this public health crisis) to be those of government, reflecting their relentless ideological commitment to capitalism and free market. Thus, we can understand better Mr. Trump, Mr. Macron and Mr. Johnson’s lack of clear policy and their mismanagement of the crisis. It simply does not figure on the list of their political and economic responsibilities. This was made explicit by Mr. Bolsonaro, president of Brazil, who when asked about the rise of fatalities in his country, did not cover up his response with demagogy and spin, answering, “So what? I mourn [the deaths], what do you want me to do? My name is Messiah but I cannot work miracles.” There can be little doubt that he is simply stating the truth of his ideology. Like Mr. Trump, Mr. Macron and Mr. Johnson, he appears to believe that such occurrences, i.e. the death of thousands by epidemy is not his responsibility whatsoever, and his response expresses the radical ideological desisting of neoliberal governing institutions from any accountability towards the very people who voted them into office.
Thus, if social Darwinism has been implemented intentionally by Nazi authorities, social Darwinism in the United States and Europe is born from the complete abdication by governing institutions of their responsibilities to protect their respective populations. Yet, even if there are no intentions, either good or bad, by Western governments to implement explicit policies leading to the death of those unable to fight off the coronavirus, they still have to be held accountable for their abdication from implementing policies to protect their respective populations.
If the Nazis implemented deadly policies ideologically driven directly, explicitly and intentionally, the governments of the US, the UK and France implemented deadly strategies driven by an ideology of laissez faire, of minimal state intervention, or by a complete absence of clear policies. This absence of intentionality or of clear policies on the part of governments does remain ideologically based. It is based on the neoliberal and capitalist ideology of the free market as the main organizing principle of social life. Privatization, free enterprise, individual entrepreneurship, investing and consumerism, etc. must either be at most free from government regulations, or else be protected by government (bailouts subsidies, etc.). In all cases, the US, the UK or France, governments have relinquished any accountability for their complete failures in addressing the crisis. Moreover, they have completely desisted from acknowledging their responsibilities towards their respective populations. Why, one might ask, would governments abdicate their responsibilities? They did so because ideologically, they believe that it is not the government’s responsibility to address, anticipate and plan for crises like this pandemic. In consequence to such thinking, healthcare delivery (mitigation, assessments, testing, tracking, caring and curing), protections of employees, protective equipment provisions, etc. are not the responsibility of government neither in the present nor in the future. According to their ideology, the responsibilities lie with individuals, with private companies and other corporate entities, for profit or otherwise. If governing institutions are keen on protecting markets and the economies, protecting the welfare of the populations they are supposed to serve is certainly not their primary purpose. Therefore, we claim that this ideological and intentional abdication of social and political responsibility for the sake of holding ideological beliefs in private, free enterprise and free markets, does not absolve these governing institutions from responsibilities in any ways. In fact, if one remains convinced in the idea of democratic social life, the Western governing bodies abiding by this ideology must accept responsibility for the suffering and loss of life of all those unable to adapt, defend against, or fight off the threat in order to survive in the “eternal struggle” for life/economic survival.
The implementation of neoliberal ideology leads directly to a form of unintentional social Darwinism, for which governing institutions must be held accountable. Even if this social Darwinism is not the result of intentions, it remains nevertheless the result of an ideology of non-intervention, non-regulations, and non-planification, and this ideological choice on the part of governing institutions could not be any more intentional. Their abdication is the result of an ideological choice.
The social Darwinian implementation of herd immunity is the result of the government’s abandonment of its responsibility and its complete ideological embrace of the idea that a society will optimally adapt, no matter what the cost, to unintended consequences such as the spread of the coronavirus and consequential death of over 96,000 human beings in the United States, over 36,000 in the UK and over 28,000 in France.
Accordingly, governing institutions have revealed their absolute faith in “natural selection,” which is supposedly congruent with economic survival. Consequently, the death of those expendables, the unfit, those unable to fight off the virus, is the unintended yet accepted result of neoliberal ideology. Whether deaths result from ideological intent or results from ideological omission and desisting (by non-intervention, non-planification, non-anticipation), both are cases of social Darwinism resulting in the elimination of the weak unfit to live, the infected, the sick, the black and brown people, the working class and the poor, namely, those who have now become guilty of preventing the economy from reopening. They have become the unspoken “biological enemies.”
The slope is slippery indeed. Even if “natural” herd immunity is not born from an explicit ideological policy, it remains considered by the multitudes of individuals and governing authorities around the world. Those who are at risk of contracting the disease and the strategies destined to protect them and us (quarantines) become unfortunately identified as the very cause of the economic misery suffered by so many. Therefore, the protection of society paradoxically becomes the very goal of the many who are now ready to accept the loss of thousands of lives for the sake of the economy. The vulnerable and the lower classes become, as usual, expendable for the sake of the economy. Fascist principles of social Darwinism, the application of the law of “survival of the fittest,” are quick to follow and become justified without any official ideological content and policies such as those of the Nazis. We thus confront the acceptance and normalizing of a truly fascist solution to the crisis, while people face the impossible and perverse choice between their economic livelihood and survival and taking the risk of being infected as well as infecting others. These are the only choices offered to the people of the United states, Britain and France.
The frightening aspect of all this is that western societies appear mostly in acceptance of such prospects and if this may appear cruel, survival (of the fittest) seems to once again trump everything else, even, as history has shown, our basic humanity.
Despite the obvious [hostile] propaganda, it is very clear today that well-organized and well-financed public institutions with central planning committed to the welfare of people appear to be the most efficient structures in dealing constructively with events like this pandemic. Unfortunately, such notions are completely and relentlessly, despite the evidence, excluded from consideration, and an economy of survival of the fittest inescapably fills the political vacuum. If economic survival of the fittest is an unquestioned foundation of economic freedom and economic competition in capitalist economies, then the shift from the economic realm to the biological realm ends up going without saying. This shift becomes not only readily conceivable, but also the only solution to the ideological inability of neoliberal government representatives to address situations requiring planification, planning and anticipating unexpected events with unintended consequences. And this inability is presently leading these very Western nations and their terrified and desperate populations onto the inevitable path of open fascism, albeit a fascism not so much expressed through ideological constructs, but through a form that is free of content or constructs, and the foundation of which has now been laid down for an acceptance of a “natural” herd immunity. The loss of hundreds, of thousands of lives ends up being acceptable not so much for the survival of the “race” but for the so-called survival of the economy and those fit enough to survive. As many states are progressively reopening their economies, herd immunity, if unmentioned, is indirectly implemented despite the warnings of the medical, epidemiological and public health communities.
Dr. Philippe Gendrault, a Lacanian psychoanalyst, practices in the San Francisco, Calif., area.
Puke if you must
This bloodsoaked monster is probably the most evil person on planet earth https://t.co/nGq2H1EPHt — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 9, 2020


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-05-30--U.S. Empire: Biden and Kerry Gave Orders to Ukraine’s President

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post .
Be sure to share it widely .
This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches by historian Eric Zuesse On May 19th , an implicit international political warning was issued , but it wasn ’ t issued between countries ; it was issued between allied versus opposed factions within each of two countries : U.S. and Ukraine .
In the United States , it ’ s a Republican Party warning to the Democratic Party : a warning by Trump , against Biden and against Obama .
It ’ s saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goods on you , and we ’ re not releasing it yet .
But here ’ s a sample .
So , let ’ s deal.
” It ’ s a warning that comes from the current President of Ukraine , Volodmyr Zelenskiy , and that places into an exceptionally bad light his immediate predecessor , Petro Poroshenko , as having been a mere vassal of Trump ’ s immediate predecessor , Obama .
One can hear there , first , U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry , and then U.S. Vice President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Petro Poroshenko how to run his country so that the IMF would continue to guarantee ( back up by U.S.-and-allied taxpayers ) the investments by U.S.-and-allied private investors in Ukrainian Government debt ( bonds ) .
The alternative that Poroshenko faced was always that those investors would lose whatever they had invested , and that Poroshenko would then no longer be protected by the U.S. Government and by its allied governments .
These are only selected excerpts , and they constitute also a warning that unless the pro-Poroshenko and pro-Obama people soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , portions from U.S.-Ukraine diplomatic phone-conversations which were recorded that are even more incriminating against the Poroshenko-Obama people will likewise be made public .
In that sense , it ’ s like blackmail , but it is currently only political — instead of also legal — jeopardy .
Here are some of the noteworthy revelations in this , the first such release : secret U.S. appointment of Ukraine ’ s Prime Minister , and the transcript and explanation of it explaining to the emperor , Obama ( through the emperor ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that were blocking the IMF ’ s forced enserfment of the Ukrainian people .
( 22:15 : ) “ Without Samopomich , with the rejection of Tymoshenko and Lyashko , we don ’ t have [ enough ] for your ask [ of ] 226 ” votes ( a governing majority — which would enable Ukraine ’ s public to become yet-more exploited directly , and U.S.-and-allied publics to become more exploited indirectly because the downside financial risks of those international debts would then be transferred onto them ) .
( 22:40 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your ] Ambassador maybe to increase the pressure and to support Jaresko ’ s candidacy by Samopomich.
” ( 23:23 : ) “ Our U.S. partners give grants to Samopomich and give him [ it ] significant financial support.
” Poroshenko was telling Obama ( via Biden ) “ maybe to increase the pressure , ” if he wants to get Ukraine ’ s elected politicians to cooperate .
He was saying : They don ’ t want to lose their seats , but maybe more money from U.S. taxpayers might persuade them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seats ( via sufficiently high bribes and/or threats ) .
The U.S. officials , agents for U.S. President Barack Obama , are shown , in early 2016 , not negotiating with , but instructing , Ukraine ’ s President Petro Poroshenko , who , at 17:00- 22:50 , requests Biden to “ increase the pressure ” in order to get the ( extremist anti-Russian ) parliamentary factions of Tymoshenko , Lyashko , and Samopomich , to back the U.S.-demanded bills ( proposed laws ) that are in Ukraine ’ s parliament .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Jaresko [ on her ] facebook page talking about wanting to consider being Prime Minister with the technocratic government .
” Michael Bloomberg ’ s blog ( Bloomberg News ) had headlined , on 22 March 2016 , “ Ukraine 's Jaresko Says She 'd Be Willing to Head New Cabinet ” , and reported that neither President Poroshenko nor the ( secretly Obama-appointed — see video here of thatU.S .
appointment of Ukraine ’ s Prime Minister , and the transcript and explanation of it here ) then-current ( that U.S.-appointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would speak publicly regarding the initiative by the American Natalie Jaresko to become ( the American-appointed ) Yatsenyuk ’ s successor .
Poroshenko ’ s reply to Biden was to “ promise [ you ] to receive my proposal about the technocratic government of Jaresko.
” Bloomberg ’ s employees reported there that the IMF wanted her to become Yatsenyuk ’ s successor so that “ The reforms will be more radical , and it means more political risks , more possible conflicts with parliament ” ( because — though Bloomberg hid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government bonds would require yet more impoverishment of the Ukrainian public ) .
As Poroshenko told Biden at 20:00 , “ the reason of the political crisis is that the three fractions [ factions , or political parties ] from Samopomich , Tymoshenko and Lyashko , go out from [ leave ] the coalition , and we [ are ] left together with the [ U.S.-appointed ] Prime Minister in a minority .
I invite Samopomich and propose them to either to support Jaresko or to propose his [ its ] leader as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” So , although Poroshenko had not publicly endorsed Jaresko ’ s bid to become the next Prime Minister to replace the current American-appointed one , he did confirm privately to Biden that he supported either her or Samopomich ’ s pick to fill that spot .
But Poroshenko went on to say that Samopomich would cooperate but only this one time , and Poroshenko then explained to Biden , “ This is not possible under our Constitution ; they should sign up personally their membership in coalition , ” which they refused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was hereto the emperor , Obama ( through the emperor ’ s , Biden ) , the difficulties that were blocking the IMF ’ s forced enserfment of the Ukrainian people .
( 22:15 : ) “ Without Samopomich , with the rejection of Tymoshenko and Lyashko , we don ’ t have [ enough ] for your ask [ of ] 226 ” votes ( a governing majority — which would enable Ukraine ’ s public to become yet-more exploited directly , and U.S.-and-allied publics to become more exploited indirectly because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debts would then be transferred onto them ) .
( 22:40 : ) “ I asked to contact [ your ] Ambassador maybe to increase the pressure and to support Jaresko ’ s candidacy by Samopomich.
” ( 23:23 : ) “ Our U.S. partners give grants to Samopomich and give him [ it ] significant financial support.
” Poroshenko was telling Obama ( via Biden ) “ maybe to increase the pressure , ” if he wants to get Ukraine ’ s elected politicians to cooperate .
He was saying : They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seats , but maybe more money from U.S. taxpayers might persuade them to take the risk of losing their seats ( via sufficiently high bribes and/or threats ) .
Whether or not there are already ongoing negotiations between the Trump team and the Obama team regarding how America will be run ( or how America ’ s ‘ elections ’ will be run ) , is even less certain .
What has not been disclosed from those recordings is a weapon .

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post. Be sure to share it widely.
This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches by historian Eric Zuesse
On May 19th, an implicit international political warning was issued, but it wasn’t issued between countries; it was issued between allied versus opposed factions within each of two countries: U.S. and Ukraine. In the United States, it’s a Republican Party warning to the Democratic Party: a warning by Trump, against Biden and against Obama. It’s saying: “We’ve got the goods on you, and we’re not releasing it yet. But here’s a sample. So, let’s deal.”
It’s a warning that comes from the current President of Ukraine, Volodmyr Zelenskiy, and that places into an exceptionally bad light his immediate predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, as having been a mere vassal of Trump’s immediate predecessor, Obama.
The Ukrainian pro-Zelenskiy, anti-Poroshenko, and pro-Trump, faction, are warning the U.S. Democratic Party, which backed Poroshenko. This warning comes via an online pro-Zelenskiy Ukrainian TV station, InTimeUkraineTV , and it was issued in a 32-minute 19 May 2020 youtube:
One can hear there, first, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, tell Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko how to run his country so that the IMF would continue to guarantee (back up by U.S.-and-allied taxpayers) the investments by U.S.-and-allied private investors in Ukrainian Government debt (bonds). The alternative that Poroshenko faced was always that those investors would lose whatever they had invested, and that Poroshenko would then no longer be protected by the U.S. Government and by its allied governments.
These are only selected excerpts, and they constitute also a warning that unless the pro-Poroshenko and pro-Obama people soon start cooperating with the pro-Zelenskiy and pro-Trump people, portions from U.S.-Ukraine diplomatic phone-conversations which were recorded that are even more incriminating against the Poroshenko-Obama people will likewise be made public. In that sense, it’s like blackmail, but it is currently only political — instead of also legal — jeopardy.
Here are some of the noteworthy revelations in this, the first such release:
secret U.S. appointment of Ukraine’s Prime Minister, and the transcript and explanation of it explaining to the emperor, Obama (through the emperor’s messenger, Biden), the difficulties that were blocking the IMF’s forced enserfment of the Ukrainian people. (22:15:) “Without Samopomich, with the rejection of Tymoshenko and Lyashko, we don’t have [enough] for your ask [of] 226” votes (a governing majority — which would enable Ukraine’s public to become yet-more exploited directly, and U.S.-and-allied publics to become more exploited indirectly because the downside financial risks of those international debts would then be transferred onto them). (22:40:) “I asked to contact [your] Ambassador maybe to increase the pressure and to support Jaresko’s candidacy by Samopomich.” (23:23:) “Our U.S. partners give grants to Samopomich and give him [it] significant financial support.” Poroshenko was telling Obama (via Biden) “maybe to increase the pressure,” if he wants to get Ukraine’s elected politicians to cooperate. He was saying: They don’t want to lose their seats, but maybe more money from U.S. taxpayers might persuade them to take the risk of losing their seats (via sufficiently high bribes and/or threats). The U.S. officials, agents for U.S. President Barack Obama, are shown, in early 2016, not negotiating with, but instructing, Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko, who, at 17:00- 22:50, requests Biden to “increase the pressure” in order to get the (extremist anti-Russian) parliamentary factions of Tymoshenko, Lyashko, and Samopomich , to back the U.S.-demanded bills (proposed laws) that are in Ukraine’s parliament. At 19:20, Biden mentions the American Natalie “Jaresko [on her] facebook page talking about wanting to consider being Prime Minister with the technocratic government .” Michael Bloomberg’s blog (Bloomberg News) had headlined, on 22 March 2016, “Ukraine's Jaresko Says She'd Be Willing to Head New Cabinet” , and reported that neither President Poroshenko nor the (secretly Obama-appointed — see video here of thatU.S. appointment of Ukraine’s Prime Minister, and the transcript and explanation of it here ) then-current (that U.S.-appointed) Ukrainian Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, would speak publicly regarding the initiative by the American Natalie Jaresko to become (the American-appointed ) Yatsenyuk’s successor. Poroshenko’s reply to Biden was to “promise [you] to receive my proposal about the technocratic government of Jaresko.” Bloomberg’s employees reported there that the IMF wanted her to become Yatsenyuk’s successor so that “The reforms will be more radical, and it means more political risks, more possible conflicts with parliament” (because — though Bloomberg hid this — protecting the investors in Ukrainian Government bonds would require yet more impoverishment of the Ukrainian public). As Poroshenko told Biden at 20:00, “the reason of the political crisis is that the three fractions [factions, or political parties] from Samopomich, Tymoshenko and Lyashko, go out from [leave] the coalition, and we [are] left together with the [U.S.-appointed] Prime Minister in a minority. I invite Samopomich and propose them to either to support Jaresko or to propose his [its] leader as a [the] next Prime Minister.” So, although Poroshenko had not publicly endorsed Jaresko’s bid to become the next Prime Minister to replace the current American-appointed one, he did confirm privately to Biden that he supported either her or Samopomich’s pick to fill that spot. But Poroshenko went on to say that Samopomich would cooperate but only this one time, and Poroshenko then explained to Biden, “This is not possible under our Constitution; they should sign up personally their membership in coalition,” which they refused to do. The vassal, Poroshenko, was hereto the emperor, Obama (through the emperor’s, Biden), the difficulties that were blocking the IMF’s forced enserfment of the Ukrainian people. (22:15:) “Without Samopomich, with the rejection of Tymoshenko and Lyashko, we don’t have [enough] for your ask [of] 226” votes (a governing majority — which would enable Ukraine’s public to become yet-more exploited directly, and U.S.-and-allied publics to become more exploited indirectly because the downside financial risks of those international debts would then be transferred onto them). (22:40:) “I asked to contact [your] Ambassador maybe to increase the pressure and to support Jaresko’s candidacy by Samopomich.” (23:23:) “Our U.S. partners give grants to Samopomich and give him [it] significant financial support.” Poroshenko was telling Obama (via Biden) “maybe to increase the pressure,” if he wants to get Ukraine’s elected politicians to cooperate. He was saying: They don’t want to lose their seats, but maybe more money from U.S. taxpayers might persuade them to take the risk of losing their seats (via sufficiently high bribes and/or threats).
Whether InTimeUkraineTV, or any other Zelenskiy front, has these recordings going all the way back to the coup that handed control of Ukraine’s Government over to the United States Government, is not known, but the prior evidence suggests that it almost certainly is the case.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-05-30--6% of Confirmed Coronavirus-19 Cases End in Death.

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post .
Be sure to share it widely .
This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches by historian Eric Zuesse If nothing else , Covid-19 shows libertarianism is a crock .
However , it varies considerably by country .
Here are the ten countries having the most coronavirus cases , and , for each of these countries , the number of cases and of deaths which have resulted from its cases , and then the percentage-ratio of those deaths to its total number of cases : And here , that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of each line now will be added , first , the nation ’ s infection-rate ( number of cases per million of population ) ; and , second , the percentage that the number of cases there increased on May 28th ( this latter being an indication as to how rapidly Covid-19 is now spreading in that country ) ; and , third , that nation ’ s overall death-rate ( deaths per million population ) from the epidemic : Obviously , the best-governed countries would be those that have the lowest infection-rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase-rate , and the lowest overall Covid-19 death-rate .
Those are the three bottom-line measures , and , for each one of these countries , they are the last three numbers that are being shown here .
The biggest public-policy finding that is proven in the existing data is ( as I stated it in each of those prior two articles ) : • None In order to minimize the economic damage , controlling the epidemic is basic — whatever is sound policy for the public ’ s health is also sound economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice ( trade-off ) that exists between those two objectives does not exist .
I discussed Sweden and Denmark on May 11th because in almost all international rankings they are extremely similar , but their policies diverged strikingly on Covid-19 and have since produced as close as can be to a controlled experiment , Sweden taking a very libertarian policy-approach , and Denmark doing the opposite a democratic socialist approach .
Prior to May 11th , many commentators were arguing that Denmark ’ s measures were unnecessary because up till around May 1st @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and so those commentators were saying that Denmark would suffer economic harms for nothing , no health-gain ) .
But the result turned out to be the exact opposite : Sweden ’ s placing the economy above the public ’ s health turned out to hurt both their public ’ s health and their economy .
It was clear .
Furthermore , all of the countries ( China etc . )
that have the best bottomline numbers on coronavirus took extremely socialist approaches , totally obsessing on protection of public health , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including severe risk of losing public support ) to do so .
The finding is consistent throughout all of the bottom-line results that I have analyzed in the data , and the same conclusion has been shown for as long a time as I have been analyzing the bottom-line data .
That ’ s always the way I approach any analytical problem , but usually there aren ’ t enough bottom-line data that start to be showing themselves so quickly as has happened in regard to Covid-19 .
As soon as enough reliable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begin to form conclusions , I started publishing articles on them .
And , by now , the conclusions are pretty clear , in my opinion .
I ’ m always seeking to change my mind on everything , but I rarely do change my mind , because I don ’ t even begin to form a conclusion until there ’ s already lots of solid and trustworthy data , and then I start to consider them .
I don ’ t speculate , on anything .
I avoid speculation , as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion unless I have examined enough data and have verified enough of the data on my own ( so that when I do start to theorize I am ignoring all of it that ’ s fake ) and am finally able to understand what the key variables actually are , which have been shaping those numbers .
Only at that point do I even start to theorize .
Then I constantly refine my theory , as a larger amount of reliable data have become available .

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post. Be sure to share it widely.
This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches by historian Eric Zuesse
If nothing else, Covid-19 shows libertarianism is a crock.
As of the end of the day on May 28th (start of May 29th), there had been a global total of 5,900,880 confirmed cases of Covid-19 (or coronavirus-19), and 361,776 total deaths confirmed from that disease. That’s a 6.1% death-rate.
However, it varies considerably by country. Here are the ten countries having the most coronavirus cases, and, for each of these countries, the number of cases and of deaths which have resulted from its cases, and then the percentage-ratio of those deaths to its total number of cases:
1: USA , 1,768,461 / 103,330 / 5.8%
2: Brazil , 438,812 / 26,991 / 6.2%
3: Russia , 379,051 / 4,142 / 1.1%
4: Spain , 284,986 / 37,119 / 13.0%
5: UK , 269,127 / 37,837 / 14.1%
6: Italy , 231,732 / 33,142 / 14.3%
7: France , 186,238 / 28,662 / 15.3%
8: Germany , 182,452 / 8,570 / 4.7%
9: India , 165,386 / 4,711 / 2.8%
10: Turkey, 160,979 / 4,461 / 2.8%
Some other countries (which I have previously discussed and analyzed here ):
25: Sweden, 35,727 / 4,266 / 11.9%
47: Denmark, 11,512 / 568 / 4.9%
15: China, 82,995 / 4,634 / 5.6%
48: S. Korea, 11,344 / 269 / 2.4%
101: Venezuela, 1,325 / 11 / 0.1%
139: Taiwan, 441 / 7 / 0.2%
147: Vietnam, 327 / 0 / 0.0%
And here, that will be repeated, but at the end of each line now will be added, first, the nation’s infection-rate (number of cases per million of population); and, second, the percentage that the number of cases there increased on May 28th (this latter being an indication as to how rapidly Covid-19 is now spreading in that country); and, third, that nation’s overall death-rate (deaths per million population) from the epidemic:
1: USA, 1,768,461 / 103,330 / 5.8% / 5,346 / 1.3% / 312
2: Brazil, 438,812 / 26,991 / 6.2% / 2,066 / 5.5% / 127
3: Russia, 379,051 / 4,142 / 1.1% / 2,598 / 2.2% / 28
4: Spain, 284,986 / 37,119 / 13.0% / 6,096 / 0.4% / 580
5: UK, 269,127 / 37,837 / 14.1% / 3,966 / 0.7% / 558
6: Italy, 231,732 / 33,142 / 14.3% / 3,832 / 0.3% / 548
7: France, 186,238 / 28,662 / 15.3% / 2,854 / 1.8% / 439
8: Germany, 182,452 / 8,570 / 4.7% / 2,178 / 0.3% / 102
9: India, 165,386 / 4,711 / 2.8% / 120 / 4.4% / 3
10: Turkey, 160,979 / 4,461 / 2.8% / 1,911 / 0.7% / 53
Some other countries:
25: Sweden, 35,727 / 4,266 / 11.9% / 3,540 / 1.8% / 423
47: Denmark, 11,512 / 568 / 4.9% / 1,988 / 0.3% / 98
15: China, 82,995 / 4,634 / 5.6% / 58 / 0.0% / 3
48: S. Korea, 11,344 / 269 / 2.4% / 221 / 0.7% / 5
101: Venezuela, 1,325 / 11 / 0.1% / 47 / 6.0% / 0.4
139: Taiwan, 441 / 7 / 0.2% / 19 / 1.6% / 0.3
147: Vietnam, 327 / 0 / 0.0% / 3 / 0.0% / 0.0
Obviously, the best-governed countries would be those that have the lowest infection-rate, the slowest (if any) increase-rate, and the lowest overall Covid-19 death-rate. Those are the three bottom-line measures, and, for each one of these countries, they are the last three numbers that are being shown here.
The biggest public-policy finding that is proven in the existing data is (as I stated it in each of those prior two articles):
In order to minimize the economic damage, controlling the epidemic is basic — whatever is sound policy for the public’s health is also sound economic policy.
The supposed either-or choice (trade-off) that exists between those two objectives does not exist.
I discussed Sweden and Denmark on May 11th because in almost all international rankings they are extremely similar, but their policies diverged strikingly on Covid-19 and have since produced as close as can be to a controlled experiment, Sweden taking a very libertarian policy-approach, and Denmark doing the opposite a democratic socialist approach.
Prior to May 11th, many commentators were arguing that Denmark’s measures were unnecessary because up till around May 1st both countries differed ONLY in their policy-approaches (and so those commentators were saying that Denmark would suffer economic harms for nothing, no health-gain). But the result turned out to be the exact opposite: Sweden’s placing the economy above the public’s health turned out to hurt both their public’s health and their economy. It was clear.
Furthermore, all of the countries (China etc.) that have the best bottomline numbers on coronavirus took extremely socialist approaches, totally obsessing on protection of public health, and willing to pay any price (including severe risk of losing public support) to do so.
The finding is consistent throughout all of the bottom-line results that I have analyzed in the data, and the same conclusion has been shown for as long a time as I have been analyzing the bottom-line data.
That’s always the way I approach any analytical problem, but usually there aren’t enough bottom-line data that start to be showing themselves so quickly as has happened in regard to Covid-19. As soon as enough reliable data appeared in order for me to begin to form conclusions, I started publishing articles on them. And, by now, the conclusions are pretty clear, in my opinion. I’m always seeking to change my mind on everything, but I rarely do change my mind, because I don’t even begin to form a conclusion until there’s already lots of solid and trustworthy data, and then I start to consider them. I don’t speculate, on anything. I avoid speculation, as much as is possible. I have no opinion unless I have examined enough data and have verified enough of the data on my own (so that when I do start to theorize I am ignoring all of it that’s fake) and am finally able to understand what the key variables actually are, which have been shaping those numbers. Only at that point do I even start to theorize. Then I constantly refine my theory, as a larger amount of reliable data have become available.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-05-30--The Obama – Flynn Connection

The Obama – Flynn Connection

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible .
Share with kin , friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise .
It is more than a coincidence that as the coronavirus ( Covid 19 ) continues to peak and then peak again , millions of Americans remain In Shelter ; thereby out-of-the-loop about the most significant political corruption crisis in American history ; especially as on-going revelations born out of Russiagate have now found their way into the Obama Oval Office .
Even prior to the election , Donald Trump offended Democratic sensibility with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mixed with flamboyant expressions especially as compared to the more erudite Barack Obama who started war in four countries living in peace in 2008 and institutionalized a Tuesday morning “ kill ” list .
Since Trump ’ s election , the Dems have revealed a sense of desperation as they have proven a willingness to destroy the American republic .
They have played the psy op card to perfection with a coordinated campaign of orchestrated chaos in order to manipulate their own rank n file to spew hate and division .
Using treachery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party establishment have created an unprecedented national political ( and health ) crisis that is now threatening to boomerang onto one of their own favorite sons .
We now know that the crisis was more deeply conceived and coordinated than any average American could have ever imagined as the FBI and Department of Justice hierarchy , both controlled by embedded Democratic loyalists , pulled out all the stops to bring down a duly elected President .
* Some months after the fact , NBC News , reported that three anonymous Obama officials , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the November 8th election , Obama and Trump met for 90 minutes in the Oval Office .
To conduct such a high level meeting so soon , as absentee ballots were still being counted in some states , seems highly unusual .
Clearly , there was more than just a passing interest in meeting with a necessary timeliness that conveyed a level of immediacy , if not urgency .
Sources confirmed that it was Obama who broached the subject and warned Trump against hiring Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as being not ‘ suitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Having campaigned on normalizing relations with Russia and President Vladimir Putin , Trump appointed Flynn as Director of National Intelligence on November 16 .
Given the timeline , Trump had obviously not accepted Obama ’ s advice and , in fact , appears to have not given the suggestion any serious consideration .
Flynn , who also believed Putin to be more of a potential ally than China , had been Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2012 until 2014 .
He was fired by Obama for ‘ mismanagement ’ while publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ East and had a reputation for being critical of the Iraq War .
Clearly , Obama and Flynn have , as yet , an unexamined history .
Since Obama was obviously aware of Flynn ’ s stature in the Trump campaign , why did he feel the need to malign his appointment ?
Knowing how Obama felt about Trump and about Flynn , it is curious that Obama would not have seen an opportunity for Flynn to do damage to Trump ’ s foreign policy objectives .
Unless , Flynn might have revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature about Obama OR more importantly , at what point in the course of his duties as National Security Adviser , would Flynn have discovered the truth of the Obama Administration ’ s scurrilous seditious role to undermine and remove Trump as President ?
* On January 4 , 2017 , the FBI ’ s Washington Field Office issued a “ Closing Communication '' in deciding to close its investigation of Flynn since no evidence of collusion with Russia had been found .
By late January , the now disgraced Agent Peter Strzok @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paperwork was never filed and the Flynn file remained open .
* On anuary 5 , 2017 , a key strategic meeting was held in the Oval Office just prior to the Inauguration with President Barack Obama presiding .
Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan , National Security Adviser Susan Rice , Deputy AG Sally Yates , FBI Director Jim Comey , Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Vice President Joe Biden .
While it appears that the Dossier and Flynn ’ s December 29th conversation with Russian Ambassador Kislyak was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas of disagreement and unknowns .
After discussion , Obama dismissed those staffers not part of the incoming Trump Administration with only Yates and Comey remaining .
A recently declassified House Intel Committee testimony quotes Comey as asserting that it was Obama who raised the issue of Flynn while Yates , according to declassified testimony to the Mueller investigation , also asserted that Obama raised the Flynn matter during their after-meeting and that , for the first time , Obama informed her of his concerns about Flynn .
In a recently declassified email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rice added a different version of the event asserting that she and Biden also remained for the after-meeting and that it was Comey who raised the issue of Flynn , not the President .
An educated guess might be that the January 5 meeting provided the stark realization that Flynn represented a devastating threat to the Obama Administration ’ s disinformation campaign and that his presence must be removed from the Trump White House Soon after the meeting , allegations against Flynn escalated dramatically with an orchestrated attack to massively disrupt Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To advance the narrative , such a campaign required the active participation of every layer of the DNC the Democratic Mockingbird media , the intelligence community and the Silicon Valley establishment .
• None On January 10th the Steele Dossier was leaked and published by claiming Trump ’ s “ deep ties ’ with Russia as it acknowledged the document was unverified and contained errors .
• None published an article revealing the Flynn/Kislyak conversation and introduced the Russian hack/collusion conspiracy into the American political dialogue .
Both were examples of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come ; each explosive and inflammatory as they set the stage for a never-ending drum beat of manufactured news for the next three years .
* Also on January 12 , VP Joe Biden requested the unmasking of Gen Flynn joining an unprecedented 29 other Democratic officials who had previously requested Flynn ’ s unmasking .
* Written as a prelude to the January 24th “ ambush ” interview and recently declassified were scribbled notes by former counter intelligence head Bill Priestap that questioned the criminal entrapment of Flynn : “ what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired ?
” .
* On May 7 .
2020 , the DOJ dismissed charges against Flynn acknowledging that the FBI had ‘ no basis ’ to conduct the January 24 , interview and given the FBI ’ s proposed dismissal of Flynn ’ s case on January 4 , what was Comey ’ s reasoning and when did he decide to initiate the interview ?
Why did assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe assure Flynn there was no need for legal counsel to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue against closing the Flynn file since he conducted the January 24th interview and later reported to Comey that there was no evidence that Flynn was lying ?
Did the strategy shift as a result of the January 5th meeting without Strzok having been been informed ?
* Why did Susan Rice have a distinctly different recollection of who attended the January 5th after-meeting ?
How could three participants fundamentally disagree about what should be an easily obvious fact of who attended ?
* What are the specific details of Obama ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Why was there an after-meeting and who attended ?
Did Obama initiate or approve any further action with regard to Gen. Flynn , President Trump or the Trump Administration ?
One last question : What is the status of the official record of the January 5th meeting ( the audio and the official minutes ) ?
When will it be declassified and publicly available ?
Puke if you must

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.
Renee Parsons
It is more than a coincidence that as the coronavirus (Covid 19) continues to peak and then peak again, millions of Americans remain In Shelter; thereby out-of-the-loop about the most significant political corruption crisis in American history; especially as on-going revelations born out of Russiagate have now found their way into the Obama Oval Office.
Even prior to the election, Donald Trump offended Democratic sensibility with his garbled syntax, a less articulate vocabulary mixed with flamboyant expressions especially as compared to the more erudite Barack Obama who started war in four countries living in peace in 2008 and institutionalized a Tuesday morning “kill” list.
Since Trump’s election, the Dems have revealed a sense of desperation as they have proven a willingness to destroy the American republic. They have played the psy op card to perfection with a coordinated campaign of orchestrated chaos in order to manipulate their own rank n file to spew hate and division. Using treachery, deceit and Agent provocateurs, the party establishment have created an unprecedented national political (and health) crisis that is now threatening to boomerang onto one of their own favorite sons.
We now know that the crisis was more deeply conceived and coordinated than any average American could have ever imagined as the FBI and Department of Justice hierarchy, both controlled by embedded Democratic loyalists, pulled out all the stops to bring down a duly elected President.
* Some months after the fact, NBC News, reported that three anonymous Obama officials, confirmed that a mere 48 hours after the November 8th election, Obama and Trump met for 90 minutes in the Oval Office. To conduct such a high level meeting so soon, as absentee ballots were still being counted in some states, seems highly unusual.
Clearly, there was more than just a passing interest in meeting with a necessary timeliness that conveyed a level of immediacy, if not urgency. Sources confirmed that it was Obama who broached the subject and warned Trump against hiring Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as being not ‘suitable’ for such a sensitive post.
Having campaigned on normalizing relations with Russia and President Vladimir Putin, Trump appointed Flynn as Director of National Intelligence on November 16. Given the timeline, Trump had obviously not accepted Obama’s advice and, in fact, appears to have not given the suggestion any serious consideration. Flynn, who also believed Putin to be more of a potential ally than China, had been Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2012 until 2014. He was fired by Obama for ‘mismanagement’ while publicly disagreeing with Obama policy in the Middle East and had a reputation for being critical of the Iraq War. Clearly, Obama and Flynn have, as yet, an unexamined history.
Since Obama was obviously aware of Flynn’s stature in the Trump campaign, why did he feel the need to malign his appointment? Knowing how Obama felt about Trump and about Flynn, it is curious that Obama would not have seen an opportunity for Flynn to do damage to Trump’s foreign policy objectives. Unless, Flynn might have revealed an iota of a personal or political nature about Obama OR more importantly, at what point in the course of his duties as National Security Adviser, would Flynn have discovered the truth of the Obama Administration’s scurrilous seditious role to undermine and remove Trump as President?
* On January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication" in deciding to close its investigation of Flynn since no evidence of collusion with Russia had been found. By late January, the now disgraced Agent Peter Strzok argued against the dismissal. The necessary paperwork was never filed and the Flynn file remained open.
* On J anuary 5, 2017, a key strategic meeting was held in the Oval Office just prior to the Inauguration with President Barack Obama presiding. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Deputy AG Sally Yates, FBI Director Jim Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Vice President Joe Biden.
While it appears that the Dossier and Flynn’s December 29th conversation with Russian Ambassador Kislyak was a main topic of interest, there are areas of disagreement and unknowns. After discussion, Obama dismissed those staffers not part of the incoming Trump Administration with only Yates and Comey remaining.
A recently declassified House Intel Committee testimony quotes Comey as asserting that it was Obama who raised the issue of Flynn while Yates, according to declassified testimony to the Mueller investigation, also asserted that Obama raised the Flynn matter during their after-meeting and that, for the first time, Obama informed her of his concerns about Flynn.
In a recently declassified email dated January 20, 2017, Susan Rice added a different version of the event asserting that she and Biden also remained for the after-meeting and that it was Comey who raised the issue of Flynn, not the President.
An educated guess might be that the January 5 meeting provided the stark realization that Flynn represented a devastating threat to the Obama Administration’s disinformation campaign and that his presence must be removed from the Trump White House Soon after the meeting, allegations against Flynn escalated dramatically with an orchestrated attack to massively disrupt Trump’s ability to govern at all levels. To advance the narrative, such a campaign required the active participation of every layer of the DNC the Democratic Mockingbird media, the intelligence community and the Silicon Valley establishment.
Examples of that escalation:
On January 10th the Steele Dossier was leaked and published by BuzzFeed claiming Trump’s “deep ties’ with Russia as it acknowledged the document was unverified and contained errors.
On January 12th the Washington Post published an article revealing the Flynn/Kislyak conversation and introduced the Russian hack/collusion conspiracy into the American political dialogue.
Both were examples of the level of irresponsible journalism that was to come; each explosive and inflammatory as they set the stage for a never-ending drum beat of manufactured news for the next three years.
* Also on January 12, VP Joe Biden requested the unmasking of Gen Flynn joining an unprecedented 29 other Democratic officials who had previously requested Flynn’s unmasking.
* Written as a prelude to the January 24th “ambush” interview and recently declassified were scribbled notes by former counter intelligence head Bill Priestap that questioned the criminal entrapment of Flynn :
“what is our goal? ..truth/admission or get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”.
Unanswered Questions
* On May 7. 2020, the DOJ dismissed charges against Flynn acknowledging that the FBI had ‘no basis’ to conduct the January 24, interview and given the FBI’s proposed dismissal of Flynn’s case on January 4, what was Comey’s reasoning and when did he decide to initiate the interview? Why did assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe assure Flynn there was no need for legal counsel to be present?
* Why did Strzok argue against closing the Flynn file since he conducted the January 24th interview and later reported to Comey that there was no evidence that Flynn was lying? Did the strategy shift as a result of the January 5th meeting without Strzok having been been informed?
* Why did Susan Rice have a distinctly different recollection of who attended the January 5th after-meeting? How could three participants fundamentally disagree about what should be an easily obvious fact of who attended?
* What are the specific details of Obama’s participation during the entire January 5th meeting? Why was there an after-meeting and who attended? Did Obama initiate or approve any further action with regard to Gen. Flynn, President Trump or the Trump Administration?
One last question: What is the status of the official record of the January 5th meeting (the audio and the official minutes)? When will it be declassified and publicly available?
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member in the US House of Representatives in Washington, DC. Renee is a student of the Quantum Field. She may be reached at rdp@comcast.net
Puke if you must
This bloodsoaked monster is probably the most evil person on planet earth https://t.co/nGq2H1EPHt — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 9, 2020


Fund Cultured-Meat Research

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible .
Share with kin , friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise .
midst all the suffering of the human world , there 's an ongoing tragedy of incomprehensible scale that we choose to ignore .
I 'm talking about what we do to animals .
We kill billions and billions of them for food every year .
These sentient beings are raised in the most torturous conditions imaginable , before meeting their end on a mechanized slaughter-line .
midst all the suffering of the human world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incomprehensible scale that we choose to ignore .
I 'm talking about what we do to animals .
We kill billions and billions of them for food every year .
These sentient beings are raised in the most torturous conditions imaginable , before meeting their end on a mechanized slaughter-line .
It 's a moral crime with which there are few parallels in history .
Most of us know there 's something wrong with our treatment of animals , but we try not to think about it —burying such concern deep in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our compassion as misplaced sentimentality and create elaborate , frequently-unconscious rationales for why we should ignore it .
On an individual level , acknowledging nonhuman suffering seems to require too much .
It means eating unfamiliar foods and distancing oneself from the broader , meat-eating culture .
Similarly , on a societal level , the cost of recognizing the harm we do to animals feels too high .
It means reconstructing large sections of our economy which are dependent on nonhuman exploitation .
On an individual level , acknowledging nonhuman suffering seems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfamiliar foods and distancing oneself from the broader , meat-eating culture .
Similarly , on a societal level , the cost of recognizing the harm we do to animals feels too high .
It means reconstructing large sections of our economy which are dependent on nonhuman exploitation .
What many are not aware of is an emerging technology that will make aligning our values and actions easier .
Cultured meat is grown from animal cells without slaughtering nonhumans .
It has the potential to remove unimaginable misery from our food system with little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In some ways , this sounds too good to be true , like promises on a late-night infomercial .
But the science is real .
Dr. Mark Post created the first cultured-beef hamburger in 2013 .
It cost a whopping $ 280,000 .
Soon he thinks that price could be reduced to $ 10 .
Still , more research is required to make cultured meat economically competitive .
This is too important to leave to the private sector .
We need federal funding for cultured-meat development .
The Congressional Animal Protection Caucus has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bipartisan group dedicated to improving the welfare of nonhumans .
This should be their top priority .
Do n't get me wrong .
Eliminating shark-fin sales and horse soring are important goals , but they would affect a ludicrously small number of animals compared to bringing cultured meat to market .
Similarly , the Humane Society Legislative Fund is the premier lobbying organization of its kind .
So far as I 'm aware , their scorecards do n't ask senators or representatives whether they would support funding for cultured-meat research .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it should be weighted far more heavily than a legislator 's position on other issues .
Besides the animal-welfare benefits conferred by cultured-meat research , there would be significant improvements to the environment and human health .
As many are now learning , animal agriculture is a leading contributor to climate change .
Additionally , it 's the root cause of many zoonotic diseases , like the one currently spreading across the Earth .
Jon Hochschartner is the author of a number of books about animal-rights history , including The Animals ’ Freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forthcoming history of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty .
is the author of a number of books about animal-rights history , including The Animals ’ Freedom Fighter , Ingrid Newkirk , and a forthcoming history of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty .
Readers should demand their legislators fund cultured-meat research .
Similarly , if readers support a lobbying group for animals , they should insist the organization prioritize legislation to that effect .
Again , this is n't to say other animal issues are n't important , just that this one is so much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of nonhuman lives every year .
All captions by the editors not the authors

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.
BY JON HOCHSCHARTNER
Crossposted with Animal People Forum
OpEds A midst all the suffering of the human world, there's an ongoing tragedy of incomprehensible scale that we choose to ignore. I'm talking about what we do to animals. We kill billions and billions of them for food every year. These sentient beings are raised in the most torturous conditions imaginable, before meeting their end on a mechanized slaughter-line. midst all the suffering of the human world, there's an ongoing tragedy of incomprehensible scale that we choose to ignore. I'm talking about what we do to animals. We kill billions and billions of them for food every year. These sentient beings are raised in the most torturous conditions imaginable, before meeting their end on a mechanized slaughter-line. It's a moral crime with which there are few parallels in history. Most of us know there's something wrong with our treatment of animals, but we try not to think about it —burying such concern deep in the back of our mind. We dismiss our compassion as misplaced sentimentality and create elaborate, frequently-unconscious rationales for why we should ignore it.
On an individual level, acknowledging nonhuman suffering seems to require too much. It means eating unfamiliar foods and distancing oneself from the broader, meat-eating culture. Similarly, on a societal level, the cost of recognizing the harm we do to animals feels too high. It means reconstructing large sections of our economy which are dependent on nonhuman exploitation. What many are not aware of is an emerging technology that will make aligning our values and actions easier. Cultured meat is grown from animal cells without slaughtering nonhumans. It has the potential to remove unimaginable misery from our food system with little to no sacrifice on our part. In some ways, this sounds too good to be true, like promises on a late-night infomercial. But the science is real. Dr. Mark Post created the first cultured-beef hamburger in 2013. It cost a whopping $280,000. Soon he thinks that price could be reduced to $10. Still, more research is required to make cultured meat economically competitive. This is too important to leave to the private sector. We need federal funding for cultured-meat development.
The Congressional Animal Protection Caucus has more than 130 members. It's a bipartisan group dedicated to improving the welfare of nonhumans. This should be their top priority. Don't get me wrong. Eliminating shark-fin sales and horse soring are important goals, but they would affect a ludicrously small number of animals compared to bringing cultured meat to market.
Similarly, the Humane Society Legislative Fund is the premier lobbying organization of its kind. So far as I'm aware, their scorecards don't ask senators or representatives whether they would support funding for cultured-meat research. Not only should this question be asked, it should be weighted far more heavily than a legislator's position on other issues.
Besides the animal-welfare benefits conferred by cultured-meat research, there would be significant improvements to the environment and human health. As many are now learning, animal agriculture is a leading contributor to climate change. Additionally, it's the root cause of many zoonotic diseases, like the one currently spreading across the Earth.
Jon Hochschartner is the author of a number of books about animal-rights history, including The Animals’ Freedom Fighter, Ingrid Newkirk, and a forthcoming history of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. is the author of a number of books about animal-rights history, including The Animals’ Freedom Fighter, Ingrid Newkirk, and a forthcoming history of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. Readers should demand their legislators fund cultured-meat research. Similarly, if readers support a lobbying group for animals, they should insist the organization prioritize legislation to that effect. Again, this isn't to say other animal issues aren't important, just that this one is so much more so. Cultured meat could save billions of nonhuman lives every year.
All captions by the editors not the authors