Viruses, Real and Virtual

Part 2: I am not a journalist

It takes only a cursory scanning of what counts as journalistic product in the significant mass media to see that whereas it may be impossible to keep public hospitals sterile, what passes for news and public debate is beyond normal standards of sterility—it is clearly a vacuum. We can largely discount the alternative media—including where I have been able to post—because this is NOT what feeds the public debate or motivates public action, whether official or unofficial. At the risk of incurring wrath among readers and some sympathetic friends I have insisted that first climate hysteria and now virus hysteria have banned serious discussion IN PUBLIC about the overall context, historical and current, the factual basis or the relationships between events and responses. What we conventionally call “journalism” does not challenge the concocted underlying premises—instead it promotes circular debate about how and whether based on these unanalysed assumptions the proposals and measures of government and non-governmental powers are to be imposed.

We will search in vain for a “patient zero” or a direct causal explanation for the emergence of the corona virus (COVID-2019) in December as a contagion. Nor will any of the conventionally organised mass media contribute to either an analysis of the current situation nor introduce what might be needed for ordinary people to decide what policies and actions are most appropriate—for their interests.

Given the developments in the European peninsula and acts by the US Government suggestive that there are now infections from this virus in the probable country of origin, it seems to me that the most important issue remains the viral mass media and the underlying infrastructure, which perpetuate fear instead of consciousness.

Mass deception and destruction: the virus as a weapons system

Instead we get meaningless detail on one hand and insufficient explanation on the other. In some alternative speculation lurks the suspicion that this virus emerged from the laboratories of biological weapons developers. We will never know if and how this happened. Yet it is clear that one country in the world has been using biological weapons since the discovery of cowpox as a smallpox inoculation by Edward Jenner in 1796.

To understand the context and implications of a biological weapon, it is really necessary to examine the development of industrial-strength ABC weapons systems since World War I. However, to summarise the key questions confronting the aggressor: lethal or disabling? Delivery and dispersion? Collateral damage? And finally exploitation of the result. The US military had to march battalions through atomic wasteland created at its testing grounds to see if and when it could occupy and exploit territory “won” by atomic bombardment. It had to know whether the gas it deployed only killed sheep. In WWI the British—who, in fact, were the first to deploy gas—needed to deal with “blowback”, the risk that gas would be blown back from enemy lines and injure or kill their own unprotected troops. Of course, logistical questions were no less important: how to transport lethal agents without risk of fatal accidents. This led to so-called “binary weapons”.

Although there are clearly enough weapons makers who just enjoy making machines for death and destruction for their own sake. A weapons system is best understood in the context of the strategic and political objectives in which it is designed and produced. The creation of so-called “weapons of mass destruction” is historically Euro-American not only for philosophical-religious reasons but also because of demography. “Whites” have always been a tiny portion of the world’s population, who could only impose their will by massive violence beyond the means of individual or massed soldiery. Whether it was the conquest of the Americas or the African slave trade, European weaponry had to be more systematic and lethal to compensate for the minute numbers of pirates and brigands in these bands of explorers and adventurers. ((Although the Christian establishment would reject the comparison, the merchant-adventurers of the 15th century were the original “holy warrior/ terrorists”. Today this description is only applied to non-Christians.))

Just to hazard a guess: if the corona virus were introduced as a weapon, like the smallpox contaminated blanket used in North America, then what were its essential characteristics? I think the attention should be given to the rate of dispersion as opposed to the supposed and probably exaggerated lethality. Psychologically the influenza wave each year is expected and it kills lots of people—usually the aged and those suffering from some other illness. A certain resistance has been acquired over the years and this impedes both the severity and the extent of these infection waves. The “new virus” catches people by surprise and the rapidity of contagion is crucial for its psychological impact. The time frame is also important from a logistical point of view. A rapidly acting agent could expose the attacker to “blowback” or reveal that an attack is in progress. A disease that actually causes mass death is risky for the same reason. However, if the purpose is disruption then even a short and critical time-frame is sufficient—hence Spring Festival, Chinese New Year. However, as I have mentioned in other articles, it is a cardinal rule of covert action not that it remain secret (since absolute and unlimited secrecy is impossible) but that it remain deniable! This is why the real virus is not the biological pathogen but the Western mass media in which it is embedded and which masks the actions the biological agent is intended to produce.

Europeans and Americans, despite the wealth they have amassed through five centuries of theft and murder, do not have organisations capable of protecting or saving life– only of taking it. What appear to be health actions (quarantines) are merely police actions and have no real capacity for improving or controlling the public health situation in those countries. These actions — mass closures etc. — are primarily propaganda since they have no facilities capable of taking the steps needed were there a real intent to act for public health benefit.

That said, it cannot be an accident that the countries with the most aggressive conditions are those which have initiated or participate in the Chinese “Belt and Road” project; e.g., Italy. It is also entirely plausible as a working hypothesis, that the deaths of high officials in Iran were not due to the virus but under cover of viral infection. This is simply analogous to the familiar tactic of inducing heart failure with agents that are undetectable in autopsies. The very insistence that corona virus is “deadly”- contradicts the epidemiological statistics published to date. BUT the illusion that this virus is more deadly than classic influenza does provide cover for activities that can be attributed to the new virus– wholly deniable.

The conspicuous absence of any comparisons in data, of any open medical or public health historical debate in the prelude to measures ordered in Europe and the US is really evidence, like the actions taken in the course of the destruction of the NY World Trade Center (and adoption of the drafted and waiting USA Patriot Act), that this is staged (both in the sense of theatrical and planned) action.

Why? How? And for whom?

As I already argued in numerous previous articles, the Anglo-American Empire was created essentially through a piratical seizure of control over American precious metal (gold and silver) traffic with Asia and then the imposition of tributary status upon China through the opium trade in the 19th century. ((See Andre Gunder Frank, ReOrient; Nick Robins, The Corporation that Changed the World)) This tributary status ended abruptly in 1949. However, the wars to recover control over China as a tributary and Asia (in the US the ultimate target of manifest destiny) have not stopped, any more than the battle to restore control over Russian finance lost through the October Revolution, but partially recovered under Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin.

It is important to recall that the “drug industry” is one cartel with a legal component, pharmaceuticals, and an illegal component, primarily the opium/ heroin trade. They work together and are managed together by the so-called drug enforcement agencies of Western governments (mainly the CIA and its subordinated DEA). ((See Douglas Valentine’s The Strength of the Pack, and the Strength of the Wolf, The CIA as Organised Crime, and his classic The Phoenix Program.)) The US military is just as much a part of this operation as can be seen in Colombia and Afghanistan. Whether in the exclusive marketing of patented “medicine” or the criminal control of heroin and cocaine distribution, this was all part of what made Shanghai so lucrative to the West. 1949 led to the establishment of the notorious “China Lobby” aimed at restoring this Western control after the KMT was banished to Formosa. ((See Bruce Cumings, Dominion from Sea to Shining Sea and The Origins of the Korean War (2 volumes).))

The “banking” sector is inseparable from this configuration and it is no accident that the leading banks in the US and EU are those historically linked to the opium trade either in Britain or in the US. These banks control the flow of funds for virtually the entire world through control of physical and electronic banking infrastructure (e.g. SWIFT) and by imposition of the currencies that can be used for international transactions. Unfortunately the ideology of “free enterprise” and even “social capitalism” is so pervasive that the private ownership of all financial infrastructure in the West is taken for granted. ((It cannot be stressed enough that the leading “central banks”: Bank of England, Federal Reserve, Bank of International Settlements, are all privately owned with charters or licenses to perform fiscal functions formally vested in elected governments. The multilateral “Bretton Woods” institutions: World Bank and IMF are governed by managers designated by the majority shareholders—those same leading “central banks” in the US and UK. The creation or recreation of continental central banks after 1949; e.g., the German Bundesbank and the European Central Bank, are restricted and essentially forced to function in the same way as the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. This private ownership of national economic and fiscal policy is sold to the public as “scientific” management, in contrast to partisan (popular) interest). There is a tacit rule not to examine the interests of the private banks that control the central banks. Hence the Press never discusses central bank policy as a means by which oligarchical interests of those in the City of London or on Wall Street are pursued with government connivance and protection.)) The idea that this private ownership means that the most routine public activities are dependent entirely upon the management of money and financial transactions by people and organisations accountable to no one but their owners escapes even critical observers. The Western antipathy to the State is a cultivated fetish, cultivated to conceal that the State is an agent of property owners rather than citizens who are mere consumers.

Of course, any reader here may justifiably observe or even object that this is either obvious or such a level of abstraction that it is practically useless. I admit that this level of description does not suggest an immediate course of action. However, I believe it does provide the necessary perspective for interpreting the course of activities and events of the past years to date — independent of trivial questions like who is POTUS or prime minister somewhere else.

Any new contagion is a marketing opportunity for the international drug cartels who derive income from patents and illegal drug sales (of licit and illicit drugs). The lethality of the contagion or the effectiveness of the marketed cure is irrelevant — it is the income stream that counts. The only way to counter such profit taking is thorough an effective public health policy. One speaks of monetizing national debt. The equivalent should be done with public health expense. That, of course, would be counter to the public policy of every Western government since about 1972. ((During the government of British prime minister Sir Edward Heath, among other things the so-called “oil crisis” led to the first serious attacks on Britain’s National Health Service, one of the few Western attempts to nationalise public health infrastructure and provide universal care. It was also during the term of Richard Nixon as POTUS that the petrodollar would be introduced subsidising the US economy (to this day) and undermining the post-war development objectives of virtually all the newly independent countries after WWII. That this oil crisis was the result of cartel manipulation and not any real shortage has been documented e.g. John Blair, The Control of Oil.))

The mass media worldwide — including especially the Internet (the commercialisation of the US emergency communications network designed as part of its unilateral atomic warfare strategy) — is dominated by the West, especially the US, where all the world’s servers are apparently located, as even Mr Putin had to admit. Basically no one has serious and equivalent access to any information or opinion, however critical or educated, that does not originate through US/ UK controlled mass media. Without what was advocated decades ago in the McBride Report — a new international information order — the capacity of the present technology will only propagate electronic viruses, comparable to the biological ones. This is not a matter of alternative media but strong parallel and independent media infrastructure! We simply do not have that today. ((UNESCO, Many Voices, One World, aka McBride Report (1980), Vijay Prashad, The Darker Nations (2007) discusses the extent of the Third World/ Non-aligned project. However, he pays no attention to the New International Information Order. In fact, this demand that all nations had a right to just capacity to participate in the communication of their interests and views was rather quickly suppressed by US arguments that mass media was essentially private property and as such inalienable.))

There is a cultural-psychological component that is also important, essential and needs to be enhanced. Unfortunately the West is dominated by death cults. Repeatedly the greatest authors of the West have shown this, whether Leo Tolstoy or William Faulkner. That is why military and corporate organizations in the West focus on killing and conquest. They also propagate a view of the world that makes all opponents merely the mirror image of their own bloodlust. This is simply anti-historical. The violence of the Western regimes is not the mirror image of some supposed tribal bloodlust in Africa, among indigenous Americans, or even the great Asian civilizations. Although it might sound trite, if it were, I could be writing in Chinese or Xhosa.

Everything that is done to resist the militarisation of our societies and to concentrate on the care and nurture of natural life, with respect for our youth and our ancestors, helps preserve the peace and enhance the consciousness of ordinary humans who desire a healthy and natural life and death.

• Read Part One here

Dr T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is author of Unbecoming American: A War Memoir and also Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa. Read other articles by T.P..