11 Sept 2020

America’s Current Jobs ‘Great Depression’

Jack Rasmus

Two well-known and highly respected mainstream economists, Carmen Reinhart, a chief economist for the World Bank, and Vincent Reinhart, chief economist for Morgan Stanley bank, have recently published an article in the widely read and influential capitalist source, Foreign Affairs, entitled ‘The Pandemic Depression’.  Arguing primarily from a global perspective, the economists have concluded the US economy as of the 3rd quarter 2020 is not merely now experiencing a ‘great recession’ but now qualifies as another Great Depression.
There is another perspective, however, from which to also argue the US economy is in a bona fide Great Depression. It is from the perspective of the US Labor Market. For as of the late 3rd quarter 2020 the US economy suffers from an unemployment rate of no less than 25%–i.e. the same rate during the worst years and quarters of 1932-33, the depths of the 1930s Great Depression.  Yet what we hear from the media and politicians of both wings of the Corporate Party of America—aka the Republicans and Democrats—is that unemployment is only 8.4%! That’s barely one-third of 25%.
Republicans and Trump have used the low-balled number of 8.4% as the main excuse to prevent any further economic stimulus. The Democrats have voiced no effective rebuttal since they too have accepted the 8.4%. So what is it? 8.4% and not even a great recession any longer? Or 25% and the possibility the ranks of unemployed are about to grow even further?
What follows is a debunking of the 8.4% unemployment rate and a quantitative explanation why that rate is 25%–as well as why the forces behind it will likely result in an even further deterioration in that unemployment rate in the 2020-21 period ahead.
(25% & 40 Million Are Still Unemployed)
After the massive job implosion last spring, a weak rebound in jobs has occurred as the economy reopened over the early summer. But that jobs rebound has shown clear signs of faltering by late July and has clearly deteriorated by late August as unemployment claims have risen in recent weeks. Even more ominous, as that near term condition of jobs has worsened, parallel indications show the emergence of a second, more permanent phase of job loss.
Since early March 2020, more than 55m workers have filed for, and received, unemployment insurance benefits.
According to official government data, as of the end of August, 29.5 million US workers were still getting benefits. That 29.5m reflects 18.4% workers clearly unemployed. But it’s also a subset of the total jobless, since millions haven’t been able to get benefits. So the actual number of jobless as of labor day 2020 is north of 29.5m and 18.4%  Nevertheless, the statistic we hear is 8.4% unemployment rate and 13.4 million unemployed. What gives?
Some of the 55 million who received benefits at some point over the course of the last six months of the pandemic began returning to work starting in May. The number returning grew in June, but then began slowing once again in July and August as the rebound in jobs began to falter in July-August.
Others of the 55 million have simply exhausted their benefits. Many are still unemployed but no longer part of the 29.5 million that remain on benefits.
In addition, millions more workers since March have entered the labor force for the first time but they too have not been eligible to receive benefits due to lack of prior work history as first time job seekers—which precludes them from receiving unemployment benefits. Like those having exhausted their benefits, they too are unemployed but not part of the 29.5m still getting benefits at the end of August.
Joining the ranks of those unemployed but not receiving benefits are the millions who never got benefits because they simply gave up looking for work for various reasons and dropped out of the labor force—which puts them in a category in which, according to US labor department methodology, they aren’t counted as unemployed. They may be out of work, but given the oxymoronic way the US defines unemployed they aren’t considered unemployed for purposes of calculating the unemployment rate!
Finally, there are the additional millions more who never were able to get benefits since March even though they tried, due to various bureaucratic reasons.
Whether having exhausted their benefits, or first time entrants to the labor force not eligible for benefits, or whether they’ve dropped out of the labor force, or were denied benefits for bureaucratic reasons—all these groups are nonetheless part of the unemployed, even though they are not counted among the 29.5m still getting unemployment benefits.
In short, the 55m who got benefits at some point since March, and the 29.5m who are still getting them, are in both cases just a subset of a much larger number of jobless. There are millions more unemployed who never got on the unemployment benefits rolls since March and still not able to get benefits.  There’s at least 10-15 million more jobless but without benefits. That means an unemployment rate, at minimum, of 25%–not the 8.4% peddled by the media apologists for Wall St. and the politicians of the Corporate Party of America (aka Trumpublicans and Democrat wings of that party).
Last April 2020 perhaps as much as 50% of the total US labor force of 160 million workers was jobless for approximately two months. As of today, Labor Day 2020, at minimum a fourth, or 25%, still remains so.
That 25% is about the same jobless rate as occurred during the worst years of the 1930s Great Depression, 1932-33!
Here’s why it’s 25% at minimum today, Labor Day, and quite possibly even more:
(Dissecting the Government’s Low-Ball U-3/8.4% Unemployment Rate)
Despite an actual 25% unemployment rate (i.e. 40 million still jobless) what we hear from the media and politicians is that the unemployment rate is only 8.4%. And thus the total unemployed is only 13.4 million. (When 8.4% is calculated on the 160 million total US labor force, the number unemployed comes to 13.4 million).
The official government statistic of 8.4% jobless is repeated ad nauseam in the media. It’s then picked up by politicians, commentators, and even progressives who should know better and parroted back to the public. But 8.4% is nonsense. A purposely low-balled, cherry-picked number for public consumption. Here’s why:
To begin with, the 8.4% is the government’s official U-3 unemployment rate. The problem with U-3, however, is that it represents only full time workers who became unemployed. But there are at least 50 million workers in the US economy who are not ‘full time’, but part time, discouraged and what the government calls the ‘missing labor force’. The government adds these groups to its U-3 and 8.4%.  That raises the unemployment rate in August to 14.2%–not 8.4%. And that translates to a total unemployed of 22.7 million—not 13.4 million.
The 14.2%/22.7 million numbers are carefully avoided in media reporting. One almost never hears the 14.2% and virtually always only the 8.4%, regardless that both are official government statistics.
But even that 14.2%/22.7m is grossly under-estimating the total unemployed. Remember that other government statistic, i.e. those receiving unemployment benefits?  Workers receiving benefits as of late August was 29.5 million. And that represents a 18.4% jobless rate.  Obviously, if a worker is getting benefits, he/she must be unemployed, right?  But you’ll hear 29.5 million and 18.4% in the media even less than the 14.2% and 22.7 million.
In the case of the 29.5 million, moreover, we have another example of ‘low-balling’ and cherry-picking a statistic –not unlike cherry-picking the U-3 stat instead of the U-6.  The media reports the number of workers getting benefits at only 16 or 17 million, not 29.5 million!
But here’s what they don’t explain when citing only 16-17 million getting benefits:  That number accounts only for workers receiving unemployment benefits under the traditional State Unemployment Benefits system.  The 16-17 million excludes independent contract workers, gig, freelance, and others getting benefits under the supplemental Pandemic Unemployment Insurance (PUC) program created last March as part of the Cares Act.  In other words, there’s two unemployment benefits systems and the media typically chooses to report only the one when indicating workers getting benefits. There’s the traditional State Unemployment Benefits system and the new Supplemental PUC system that for the first time ever has provided benefits for the 50m non-traditional workers who were before March never eligible for benefits but are now and will continue to be eligible at least through December 2020 when that PUC system expires. Once again, it’s media cherry-picking and number low-balling time.
The State system and the PUC system together comprise the 29.5 million workers still getting unemployment benefits.  29.5m receiving benefits is certainly more than 22.7m (U-6) and even more so than 13.4m. It’s not that the government job statistics consciously lie (although in some cases they come quite close). It’s just that the government produces low ball numbers for the media to pick up, which they do and pound away at. And then commentators, politicians, business sources play their role of spreading the low ball numbers and conveniently ignoring other data.
How then did the US economy get to 29.5 million and 18.4%? Here’s the trajectory: In April more than 6 million workers filed for benefits every week for two weeks, followed by 3-5 million more for several more weeks thereafter! The weekly new benefits filing rate declined as the economy began to reopen in May. However, after May new State unemployment benefit claims still averaged 1 to 2 million every week through July; In addition, the number of PUC initial benefit claims per week also exceeded 1 million a week, every week, through July as well. The combined totals of the two programs—State and PUC— thus never fell below 2 million initial filings a week throughout the period of the reopening of the economy, from May through July. It has also remained a combined more than 1.5m/week throughout August. That’s 6 million new unemployment filing claims—i.e. 6 million newly unemployed—in just the last month of August. Bringing the total on unemployment benefits to the 29.5 million.
But wait! The 29.5m represents only unemployed workers who were able to get benefits. There’s many more workers who became jobless but were unable to successfully get benefits; or who gave up even trying in the first place and simply dropped out of the labor force altogether. Who are they? And how great are their numbers?
Their numbers are well north of even the 29.5 million and 18.4% unemployment rate. The true total jobless includes their numbers plus the 29.5 million.
For the 29.5m receiving benefits as of Labor Day 2020 excludes those jobless who were unable to get benefits in the first place, who filed unsuccessfully for benefits, who got lost in the bureaucratic process of filing and never got benefits, or who just couldn’t figure out how to file and were not helped and gave up. The 29.5m also represents those having exhausted benefits during the last six months. And those who chose not to file even though unemployed. Finally, the 29.5m excludes new entrants to the labor force over the past six months who weren’t eligible for benefits but haven’t been able nonetheless to find work given the collapse of the economy! All these categories of jobless workers represent the unemployed as much as those receiving benefits include the obviously unemployed. So the number of jobless is actually much higher than even 29.5 million. The 29.5m is therefore just a subset of the true total unemployed.
So how many more are jobless but not getting benefits as of Labor Day 2020?
(Estimating the Actual Jobless—With & Without Benefits)
You won’t get an accurate number from the government of the total unemployed who didn’t get benefits but have been, and remain, nonetheless jobless since February 2020.
However, private research surveys do give us an idea.  MarketWatch, a business research and media company, published an interesting feature story in Fidelity.com this past week, based on its survey of the Philadephia/Mid-Atlantic region of the economy. That case example survey provides a reasonable estimate of the magnitude of those jobless since March 2020 but not among the 29.5m that succeeded in obtaining unemployment benefits.
Of the total number of workers in the Philadelphia, Mid-Atlantic US region who lost their jobs since February, MarketWatch reports that only 87% actually filed successfully for benefits. And of that 87%, only 65% who bothered to file actually ended up getting benefits. That means only 52%, or roughly half of the unemployed in the Philadelphia area, actually got unemployment benefits. The other 48% were just as much out of work, but without benefits.
If Philadelphia represents a microcosm and relatively accurate sample of the entire US economy labor market, simple extrapolation means that the 55 million who successfully got benefits since March 2020 may represent barely half of the total of those who have been unemployed since March!
That means the 29.5 million still getting benefits may represent barely half of all those still unemployed. There may therefore be between 40 and 50 million workers in America still jobless—those still getting benefits (the 29.5m) and those without benefits (10m to 20m).
Thus, the oft-reported official US numbers of 8.4% unemployment rate and 13.4 million total out of work is dwarfed not only by the government’s own alternative U-6 data, as well as by its own data showing 29.5 million jobless getting benefits, but also by the fact the total jobless without benefits may be nearly as large as those with benefits.
Assuming the low-end estimate of 10 million still jobless but without benefits, and adding that to the government data that shows 29.5 million still on benefits, a total jobless of at least 40 million is the result. And that’s the low end assumption. It may be well over 40 million as of end of August 2020.
40 million is 25% of the labor force. And it’s far greater than the 8.4% and 13.4 million that the media and politicians keep drumming into our ears. What the media and politicians are telling us is only one-third of the total unemployed!
Corroborating this estimate of at least 25% unemployed today is yet another government statistic called the labor force participation rate, or LFPR. It represents workers who have dropped out of the labor force altogether.  It’s in addition to the 29.5m and 18.4% rate since, by government guidelines and definitions, those who drop out of the labor force cannot receive benefits.
(Labor Force Participation Rate Suggests 5.5 Million Dropped Out)
The Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is the percent of working age Americans who have left the Labor Force. They are neither working nor actively looking for work. But they are jobless nonetheless and should be considered among the unemployed.  The LFPR was 63.4% of the 164.5 million civilian labor force in February 2020. By August the LFPR dropped to 61.7% out of a 160 million labor force. The difference translates into approximately 5.5 million workers who dropped out of the labor force since February 2020. Having dropped out they are not actively looking for work and therefore not considered unemployed by the government for purposes of calculating unemployment rates. Nor are they eligible to receive benefits since, as drop outs, they are not actively looking for work. However they are nevertheless unemployed and their 5.5 million are additional to the 13.4 million U-3 and 22.7 million U-6 unemployed or the 29.5 million getting benefits.  They are among the ‘other’ 10-20 million jobless but not counted by the U-3/U-6 or included in those receiving benefits. Their number strongly corroborates that there are many millions more unemployed—not getting benefits or ignored by the government’s official monthly jobless numbers.
Let’s look at the latest of those government monthly employment numbers. Once again what appears is a fudging and manipulation of the numbers in yet other ways as well.
(August 2020 Government Employment Report)
The first thing to know about the August Employment Report is that it isn’t for the month of August. It is only for the first two weeks of the month (and the last two weeks of July). The data cuts off around the 12th of the month. So what we’re looking at in a ‘August’ report is really July 13 to August 12 jobs data—i.e. before unemployment claims began to rise again in late August.
Second, it’s important to understand that the August jobs numbers are not the actual number of jobs created July 13-August 12. It is not the raw data of actual jobs created or lost that’s reported—for August or for any month in the Labor Dept jobs reports.
The government takes the actual raw data and performs various statistical operations on that raw jobs data and reports that adjusted statistic as the actual number of jobs, even though it isn’t. But that’s what all statistics are—an operation and adjustment on the actual raw data.  Moreover, the August raw data itself may be over-stated as well, not just altered by the statistical operation(s).
Raw (actual) jobs data comes from several sources: Large businesses report to the government changes in employment, layoffs, hires, etc. (called the Establishment Survey) The government also surveys a sample of households monthly (called the Population Survey). But there’s a third, more questionable source, based on data from the creation and destruction of small businesses, called the (net) New Business Development survey (NBD). That NBD data, however, represents businesses destroyed or created 6 to 9 months before the month in question—i.e. in this case August. So we get six to nine month old data integrated with current data from the Establishment and Population surveys. Mixing such older data with more recent is a questionable statistical practice.  It means adding positive net new business development pre-March and Covid, in January-February, to current jobs data. That has the effect of dampening the actual numbers of August jobs unemployment. That is, it adds to and over-estimates the number of jobs created in August. If net business development for July were used—not January/February—it would mean integrating massive small business destruction that has occurred under Covid since March. That would have the opposite effect: it would dampen job creation numbers in August and increase unemployment numbers.
That’s just one example how ‘statistical operations’ on data can serve to exaggerate job growth and under-estimate unemployment.
Another sometimes questionable statistical operation is called the Seasonality adjustment.  The seasonality statistical adjustment in August reduced the number of new filings for unemployment benefits in just the last week of August by 130,000. The government then reported a ‘seasonally adjusted’ 881,000 new unemployment claims for the week ending August 29, when the actual number was 1,011,000.
Similarly, in August there were 9,118,000 reported as unemployed in August when the actual data, not seasonally adjusted, for August showed 9,286,000 actually unemployed—i.e. a difference of 1,168,000. Put another way, there were 1.1m more jobless in actuality than reported as unemployed.  1.1m were artificially reduced from the unemployed ranks due to statistical operations involving just seasonality alone!
The statistical models assume more return to work at the end of summer than, say for instance, at the end of spring. But the point is these models are based on assumptions developed in normal times under normal conditions. Since Covid neither times or conditions are ‘normal’. Yet the government continues to use the same assumptions, models, and statistical operations to change the actual data, the actual number of employed and unemployed, to the statistical representations of the actual numbers!
The latest August official Labor Dept. job data report says 1.37m new jobs were created. This is the statistic. But the actual data, for above reasons, is far fewer new jobs and far more unemployed.
The August Report is biased in yet another way. It purports to show the condition of the US private sector economy.  But 238,000 new US census workers were hired in August who’ll be gone by October. Take away the seasonality adjustment of 1.1 million jobs and the 238,000 very temporary government Census workers, and the private sector actual job gain in August was nearly flat. Even without the deduction of seasonality, the private job report company, ADP, often cited as a check on government job reports, reported only 428,000 net jobs growth in August—i.e. less than a third of the government’s August jobs report.
1.37m new jobs reported, minus the 1.1m seasonal upward adjustment and minus the 238,000 Census workers, and the difference is a mere 32,000 actual net private sector jobs created in August.
Even accepting the government’s own inflated monthly jobs numbers, the rate of monthly job growth has been slowing rapidly since May 2020: In May 3.4 million new jobs were reported as created. In June, as the economy reopened virtually everywhere, 4.7 million new jobs. But in July, as the economic rebound began to fade, only 1.5 million, and now as of August 12, only 1.37m. In short, even questionable statistical operations cannot total cover up the obvious downward trend.
Perhaps a better indicator of this downward trend post-August 12, is the more than 4 million workers who have newly filed for unemployment benefits the last three weeks, and undoubtedly hundreds of thousands more were also newly jobless but who were not able to get benefits or just dropped out of the labor force giving up searching for a job in today’s deeply depressed labor market.
And yet we read and hear from the media and politicians that the job market is healing rapidly and job recovery is accelerating—even as data show it is in fact deteriorating. We hear unemployment is declining fast when in fact it has begun to rise once again.
(Summing Up Jobs: March Through August 2020)
To sum up the bigger true picture of jobless during the first six months of the Covid era:
+ 55 million filed for benefits, state and PUC, since last February, out of 160m labor force
+ Tens of millions more failed to file or filed unsuccessfully and didn’t get benefits
+ 29+ million are still getting benefits as of September Labor Day 2020
+ 10-20 million still unemployed but not getting benefits as of Labor Day 2020
+ 1.5 million are continuing to file first time for benefits weekly as of early September
+ 8.4%/13.4m official U-3 jobless rate is the preferred ‘cherry picked’ media number
·       14.2%/22.7m is government’s alternative data (U-6) yet ignored by media & politicians
+ 13.4 or 22.7m still falls far short of the 29.5m/18.4% actually still getting benefits
+ At least 5.5m dropped out of labor force the past 6 mo. but not considered unemployed
+ The actual unemployment rate is 25% and 40 million are still jobless, at minimum
+ Even government monthly stats show a sharp slowing of new jobs added each month
As bad as the picture looks for Phase 1 (March-to Labor Day 2020) of the current crisis, future prospects for jobs for American workers after Labor Day 2020 appear even bleaker.
(2nd Wave of Restructuring & Permanent Job Loss)
The Covid virus did not cause the current economic crisis—i.e. the 2nd Great Recession. It did precipitate and accelerate and deepen that crisis, however. The US economy was weakening steadily throughout 2019, with the important sectors of business investment and manufacturing actually contracting throughout the year. Should the virus therefore disappear overnight, the deep wounds to the US economy will remain. Many of the 40 million furloughed starting in March and still jobless will not soon be recalled to their prior work—if at all. Entire industries like travel, entertainment, food & lodging, and others will not return to the ‘old normal’ of pre-Covid. A new normal will occur, but it will be one based on a much reduced output in various industries and companies and therefore employment.
Many major corporations have already announced thousands—and in some cases tens of thousands—of permanent layoffs that will take effect in the coming months. These layoffs will be permanent. They represent the leading edge of a coming second wave of job loss.
Industries deepest affected by the growing permanent restructuring and downsizing include Airlines, surface transportation, cruise lines, resorts and hotels, casinos, malls and retail services, education services, local food services, and many sectors of manufacturing that support all these industries with products and maintenance services. This is a large swath of the US economy, in both GDP and employment terms. A clearer picture of which industries, and how deeply impacted, will be clearer after September 30 when the government publishes its quarterly  industry-specific statistics for the second quarter 2020.
In the meantime, announcements of thousands of planned layoffs are being announced weekly by United, American, and other airlines; by Boeing and other aerospace suppliers; by big box mall-based retail companies like JC Penneys, Kohls, Nieman Marcus and others; Movie Theater chains AMC and Cinemark;  oil drilling and fracking companies; hospitals’ non-Covid related services health workers; beverage suppliers to hotels and restaurants like Coca Cola—to mention just those making front business page news in recent weeks. Tech companies are all restructuring despite healthy profits performance, shifting to remote employment on a major scale that reduces employment costs via layoffs. They will require therefore fewer building support and operations employees. Many other businesses may also shift to remote activity, with the result that urban office buildings will become less employment populated and much of the local city support services for the office building sector will dramatically downsize in employment as well.
The Federal Reserve Bank’s latest ‘Beige Book’ summary of the US economy warned that millions of workers temporarily furloughed since March may have been permanently laid off by August and more may become so.  This shift of temporary laid off to permanent layoff status is corroborated by a survey that showed 3.4 million workers believe they won’t be recalled because their companies have either permanently closed or said they planned to close.
Added to this leading edge of the next wave of layoffs due to business restructuring and downsizing is the likelihood of millions more public sector state and local government layoffs. More than a million government workers have been already laid off since March. Budget and deficit problems accelerating rapidly for state and local governments due to the Covid pandemic (i.e. more expenses amidst collapsing tax revenues) will result in still more public employee layoffs.  It’s been estimated these governments will need between $500 billion and $940 billion in bailout rescue in a new stimulus bill from Congress to avoid the mass layoffs. However, it appears extremely unlikely they’ll get much, if anything, in a next Congressional stimulus bill in 2020. Layoffs are therefore inevitable and in some of the larger states and cities they will be significant and forthcoming before 2020 year end.
Small business failures and permanent closures are already rising significantly. As small businesses close, jobs associated with them will disappear.  And the numbers could easily amount in the millions by the end of 2021.
There are roughly 30 million small businesses in the US economy. Millions of those temporarily closed since March will fail to reopen. And the worse may be yet to come. The National Federation of Independent Businesses, an industry trade group for small business, forecasts 21% will likely fail within another six months. That’s one-fifth of the 30 million or about 6 million. Even if a high end estimate, the number is still unprecedented. At the low end is the US Census ‘Business Pulse’ survey that predicts a 5% small business job loss. That’s 1.5 million closures. Whether 6 or 1.5 million, it’s a large number with an even larger number of employees thrown out of work as the businesses close in coming months.
Other forces driving a second wave of layoffs are more difficult to estimate but no less likely. Among them include the Covid related requirement that K-12 schools implement home remote school education services.  Many working class households are two-parent wage earners. They lack resources to pay for babysitters or nannies. Those with K-6 year old children in particular will be forced to have one parent quit and stay at home to ensure home schooling. These ‘quits’ will not show up as unemployed, since the parent is ‘out of work’ but not actively ‘looking for work’. They will show up as labor force drop outs. But they will be unemployed nonetheless! It’s uncertain how wide spread the remote K-8 education services will be this fall, or how long it will last. One recent estimate, however, by Brevan Howard Asset Management to its investors, concluded no fewer than 4.3 million US workers could stay home given lack of child care arrangements.  A resurgence of Covid may mean millions more may have to quit their jobs and choose unemployment in order to provide their young children education via remote learning.
Another development that for now is difficult to estimate as well is the impact on employment of the lack of a necessary fiscal stimulus for households. The elimination of the $600 supplement pandemic unemployment benefit at the end of July has resulted in a reduction of no less than $65 billion in consumption spending per month starting this past August.  Evictions and mortgage foreclosures will also have a negative impact on consumer household spending, which is nearly 70% of the economy and US GDP.  Already the loss of the $600 benefit, combined with rising evictions,  is having a major effect on consumer confidence which in August began falling again sharply.  This could be exacerbated by an inadequate stimulus bill in September. Reduced working class benefits and household incomes will have an impact on consumer demand for products and services in the economy across the board, affecting nearly all sectors of businesses. And as that demand drops, it will almost certainly lead in turn to less consumer spending and in turn to more layoffs.
The preceding five forces—i.e. large corporate restructurings and permanent downsizing, a sharp rise in public sector layoffs, unprecedented business closures, remote schooling requirements of two working parent families, and general demand reduction due to inadequate next stimulus—all translate into a second wave of layoffs now emerging.
These longer term job reduction forces mean the recent tepid rebound in jobs during May-July will likely give way to a relapse in the US labor markets in coming months and a rise in unemployment.  The trend may already be appearing as of late August as first time claims for unemployment benefits have begun to rise once again.
And then there are still the ‘known unknowns’ that could exacerbate conditions further: the increasingly likelihood of a historic political crisis surrounding the November 3 elections. That will breed massive uncertainty and potentially an even worse economic crisis and associated layoffs. Or the Covid virus could resurge significantly once again as winter sets in, as many fear will happen. That too will lead to more shutdowns and furloughing of jobs once again.  Even further down the road is the 2021 ‘black swan’ event of another financial crisis, as businesses, households, and local governments begin to default on their debts and precipitate another financial crisis similar to 2008-09.

Is German Society Becoming Fascist?

Thomas Klikauer & Norman Simms

Without any doubt, Germany’s most successful right-wing extremist – some say neo-Nazi Neo-Nazi – party has been the AfD. The Alternative for Germany or AfD Alternative für Deutschland received sufficient votes in 2017 to enter into Germany’s Federal Parl;ament, the Reichstag 12.6%. Before that, the AfD has already managed to gain seats in several regional state parliaments. By 2020, there was not a single state left in which the AfD was not represented. While the AfD has succeeded in Germany’s formal side of politics–together other right-wing and Neo-Nazi and other extreme right-wing and neo-Nazi organisations – it has also made inroads into civil society.
The situation in the United States in the fourth year of Donald Trump’s presidency has many parallels or, at least, significant analogies. Not only has Trump taken over and completely transformed the Republican Party, but he has issued a slew of executive decrees that have undermined the constitutionally ordained checks and balances between the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of government. His supporters include gangs of thugs, street brawling bullies and armed militias. By not filling many positions in various departments—not least many diplomatic posts in key allied capitals–he moves ever closer to one-man autocratic rule. If what is going on in America often mirrors the behaviour of extremists in Germany, it is frightening to see German neo-Nazis carrying posters with Trump’s face as though he legitimized their ideology of hatred and bigotry.
The most recent demonstration of right-wing extremist infiltration into mainstream German society occurred on Saturday 29th August 2020 when, as Time Magazine put it, Germany’s “Far-Right Attempted to Storm the Reichstag.” This is a wake-up sign, if ever there one, that dangerous things happening in Germany. At an anti-Coronavirus rally, right-wing extremists waved Neo-Nazi flags, while attacking the seat of German democracy. The AfD’s top apparatchik von Storch announced: “We had a good day”. Yes, to put it mildly, another indication of the AfD’s rejection of democracy.
As is happening elsewhere in the world, from Lukushenko’s Belarus to Trump’s America, the infiltration of Germany’s right-wing extremists into many areas of civil society continues. In Germany, the right-wing targets five key areas: workplaces, churches, welfare organisations, sporting clubs, and cultural organisations. One might like to distinguish here between right-wing populism, i.e., setting the pure Volk against the elite and right-wing extremism, i.e., Neo-Nazis. American voters ought, as the campaign for and against the re-election of Donald Trump looms, to note similarities to the various violent clashes between extremist groups on all sides, but predominantly on the right. Patriotic slogans, flag-waving and appeals to rabid nationalism encode deeply divisive ideological and racist tensions.
One of Germany’s leading sporting organizations Otto Brenner Foundation, for example, sees right-wing populism as working within a democratic framework. By contrast, the extremists are set to destroy democracy in favour of a new fascism fascist dictatorship. However, neither is as neatly separated from the other as academic categories might like to have it. Borders are soft and in some cases simply non-existent. It all depends on how sensitive the observer is to the use of language, the display of images and the performance of gestures. In the end, what matters is what is done on the streets and in the chambers of government.
Things get a little clearer when you realise that right-wing populism the populists operate within a rather simplistic them-vs.-us ideology. It is insider (good Aryans) against outsider (bad immigrants). Germany’s right-wing extremists follow the ideology of Nazism and its not so subtle history of distorted language. Thus, on the one hand, right-wing populism tends to limit itself to themes of resentment, xenophobia, and racial stereotypes; while on the other hand, right-wing extremism never stops there and calls for, in the secret language of the Hitler regime, eradication, incarceration, expulsion and murder of the unwanted other. Rub the two models of German extreme nationalism together—the figure is of an assayer’s touchstone—and there emerges a powerful and irrational anti-humanism uniting both groups. In many cases, too, right-wing populism builds bridges to right-wing extremism.
In any case, the somewhat weaker-appearing right-wing populism is not properly targeted by Germany’s very powerful Verfassungsschutz Once a political party, like the AfD, crosses over into right-wing extremism, the secret police might get involved. Units of the AfD are already under investigation by the Verfassungschutz because they seek to destroy Germany’s democratic institutions. But the differentiation is just a trick to try to outwit voters and police.
Unlike the way democratic institutions function widely and openly in Germany, the infiltration of right-wing extremists–and of the AfD in particular—infiltration takes place in civil society , but not in parliaments. It happens in the part of society that is neither run by the state nor by business. In particular, the AfD and other right-wing organisations target Germany’s organised civil society: workplaces, churches and religious groups, welfare organisations, sport clubs, and cultural institutions.
Unlike the influence of National Socialists in the 1930s, this time around civil society organisations do not appear to have handed themselves over to Nazism. In recent years, in fact, civil organisations have successfully resisted the infiltration of right-wing extremists. They do so in three ways. Firstly, they act as though a democratic society can safely incorporate right-wing extremists into its democratic institutions. They do not see the implications of this weak form of resistance,, thus leaving themselves vulnerable to manipulation from within. Secondly, they ignore the radical right. Although it is only a relatively few organisations who have kept aloof from right-wing extremism, they do not form a bloc to protect themselves from moral and political corruption.. Finally, the most common form of resistance of democratic organisations is that of confrontation, rejection, and an active fight against right-wing extremism.
Working Life
Apart from managers, corporate apparatchiks and the like, Germany’s working life is largely governed by two democratic forces: legally elected works councils works councils and trade unions. Traditionally, both have resisted the infiltration by right-wing extremists and Neo-Nazis. Still, the AfD has infiltrated the system sufficiently to set up two right-wing organisations. The more known organisation is Zentrum-automobil Deutschland “Zentrum Automobil” – centre for cars and other private vehicles. The second organisation is IG Beruf und Familie, a trade union for jobs and family. Rather stupid names, to be sure, but nobody has ever accused the Nazism of being smart, linguistically refined, or intelligent. Overall, both of these clunky entities remain fringe organisations incapable of challenging Germany’s 5.9 million trade union members.
On the downside, however, trade union members are represented disproportionately among AfD voters (15%) compared to the overall population (12.6%). This does not indicate that Germany’s right-wing extremism is strongly supported by the working class. Still, 15% is way too high. Support for the AfD has infiltrated into too many workplaces. Inside German car factories, for example, Zentrum Automobile has made an untoward appearance at Mercedes-Benz. It gained eight out of 106 seats on works councils in recent elections. At Porsche, it received two out of 33 seats on the works council and at BWM’s East-German Leipzig factory it got four out of 35 seats. In other words, the AfD and its radical right ideology is now represented in a few German car factories. A few of these trouble-makers is always too many.
Overall, however, there is no nation-wide, industry-wide or even factory-wide coverage of right-wing extremism. Still, in those isolated cases where right-wing extremists, including the AfD, made an appearance, they always found willing supporters. On the whole however, they remain a fringe issue. Their key ideological task remains to undermine the legitimacy of trade unions. The radical right claims – somewhat similar to the early Nazi movement during the 1920s – that trade unions are in the pockets of big business. Then as today, this is a tactical move to entice some to join the radical right by presenting itself as an anti-capitalism forces.
In any case, the Zentrum Automobile is well connected to Germany’s right-wing extremism even though his boss – Oliver Hilburger – originated from Germany’s rather small Christian union movement. Meanwhile, Beruf-and-Familie boss Frank Neufert is a member of the AfD. Beyond these rather isolated successes, the AfD has also setup an internal organisation called “Employees for the AfD”. Its boss is the former social-democrat and public service union official Robert Buck.
As a reaction to all this, many German trade unions have written exclusion clauses which state that membership in the AfD and in a trade union is incompatible with one another even though such a clause might contradict Germany’s constitutional right to belong to a trade union. In any case, German trade unions strongly reject and isolate right-wingers and the AfD.
In conservative Bavaria, two-hundred metal-union member resigned after they participated in the AfD’s street-fighting movement called PEGIDA PEGIDA. PEGIDA’s boss, Lutz Bachman, likes to dress up as Adolf Hitler. The 200 were ordinary union members but chose to give their support for PEGIDA. Among trade union officials, an Otto Brenner poll found no support for the AfD, right-wing extremists, or right-wing populism. Instead, the union officials strongly denounced right-wing ideologies. These union officials were, at the same time, fighting against company-based workplace agreements initiated by the extreme right that favour German workers over non-German workers.
Trade unionists at Volkswagen even ran a campaign called “clear cut” [Klare Kante] that protects non-German workers from such right-wing extremists. One of the most outspoken fighters against the radical right and Neo-Nazis is a works council member at Mercedes-Benz. Even though the radical right has made some inroads into these councils, their electoral gains did not come from Germany’s powerful metal workers union, IG Metali IGM but from the smaller Christian unions.
While the AfD’s Zentrum Automobile remains active at Mercedes-Benz running their own website, Facebook pages, and YouTube channels, the effects are minimal. Overall, despite a few attempts to infiltrate Germany’s union movement, the workers’ councils have been highly successful in rejecting right-wing extremists.
Religion
With 55% of all Germans affiliated to churches, organised religion still remains important in Germany. The country has about 23 million Catholics and 21 million Protestants. Both churches employ roughly 1,5 million workers. Churches remain one of the largest employers in Germany. Even though, the radical right, including the AfD, likes to present itself as a defender of Christianity and has placed this in its election platform, Germany’s churches strongly reject attempts by right-wing populism to infiltrate them.
In 2017, Church members rallied against the AfD. One of the more noted rejections of the AfD came from Cardinal Woelki. He ordered the lights at Cologne Cathedral to be switched off during a rally of PEGIDA near the city’s famed Cathedral. In their rejection of the AfD’s xenophobia, churches have issued what they call “church-asylum,” a traditional way of protecting refugees from deportation. Five years after the arrival of about one million refugees and Angela Merkel’s statement that “we will make it” the AfD launched a campaign of fear mongering about the non-existent crisis, chaos, and rising crime rate. The refugee intake is widely regarded as a success, with only a few minor glitches in the early stages of absorption success. Germany’s churches have worked hard to ensure this success. At church conventions, the AfD is not invited. Instead, religious organizations run a programme called “seek peace – not the AfD”. German churches see themselves as in the forefront of opposition, as highly visible anti-fascists strongly rejecting the AfD.
Church official Heinrich Bedford-Strohm says that the AfD stands for antisemitism, racism, and inhumanity. These ideologies are not compatible with the Christian belief. Still, deaf to the voice of the majority of German believers, the AfD has organised a group called “Christians in the AfD” to which the aforementioned right-wing nationalist leader von Storch belongs. Her forefathers were real Nazis working for Adolf Hitler. People like von Storch seek to infiltrate Germany’s Christian institutions through a conservative Bible interpretation and, especially, the issue of abortion. So far, these attempts have failed—comprehensively.
In contemporary America, most of Trump’s so called base consists of Evangelical Protestant churches and other dissenting sects. For them the key issues include extreme anti-abortionist views (they advocate blocking and bombing family-planning clinics, murdering doctors and other clinicians), gun control (which they take as a “God-given right” based on a spurious interpretation of the Second Amendment), family values (coded language for male domination and physical punishment of children and homophobia in general) and law and order (in the sense of white nationalism, more prisons for social deviance and the death penalty). In designating Trump as “the chosen one”, put in the White House by God, these anti-rationalists and anti-science activists, promote the idea of a leader (der Führer) who is above and beyond the law. In the patriotic ideology of America First, the president is a messiah, thus making any opposing individual an anti-Christ or group the Party of Satan,
Social Welfare Organisations
Whereas America’s right-wing opposition groups decry any social welfare or national health care as socialism and pandering to lazy people of colour and immigrants, Germany has a sizable non-government sector of welfare organisations that engage largely with childcare, social work, homelessness, and age care. The movement’s social and moral roots suggest a strong determination to act against racism and discrimination. This is an obligation of its roughly two million employees and its three million volunteers. As a consequence, the sector rejects any division between German and non-German welfare recipients so strongly favoured by the AfD. For Germany’s welfare organisations, such a division would violate their ethical foundation found in human dignity.
Attacks from the AfD on the welfare sector came largely through AfD parliamentarians. Inside parliaments, the AfD consistently seeks to undermine the welfare sector by questioning the legitimacy of state support for the sector. AfD apparatchik Thomas de Jesus Fernandez even suggested that Germany’s welfare sector represents a “dark Mafia clan”. Set against such attacks is, for example, the Red Cross’ campaign “together against hatred”.
A rather typical attack by the AfD occurred in Passau where the AfD wanted to donate 600 cups of soup but only on condition that they be allowed to (mis)use the donation for their own propagandistic purposes electoral campaign. Welfare organisations rejected the AfD’s attempts to appropriate them for the AfD’s right-wing ideology. At same time, church oriented welfare organisations like the Catholic Diakonie powerfully stated that the inhumanity of the AfD represents views incompatible with the Diakonie’s beliefs.
Sport and Recreation
Since around the time of the year 2000, Germany’s radical right has increased its attempts to infiltrate German sport. Nevertheless, most attempts to penetrate sporting organisations have, so far, failed bitterly. Still, there have been plenty of racist incidents in sport. In soccer, for example, games are used by right-wing extremists to push a “them-vs.-us” ideology framing other teams as enemies to be destroyed. Much of this is highly important since there about 88.000 sporting organisations in Germany with roughly 27.6 million members, about one-third of Germany population.
Soccer remains a favourite of the radical right, its Neo-Nazis and hooligans. Soccer gives the radical right a platform to push nationalism and racism. Meanwhile, the AfD focuses on national identity and chauvinism. For the AfD, sport represents Germanic ideas like honour, discipline, punctuality, law & order, hard work, and duty.
Furthermore, the radical right also tries to use private gyms for their ideological activities. From there, right-wing extremists organise boxing and fighting clubs as well as war games. Its Boxing Club Bautzen (East-Germany) recruits young men into the local Neo-Nazi scene. Similarly, the soccer club Chemnitz FC includes Neo-Nazi fans waving Nazi flags and singing Nazi songs while also running a right-wing extremist WhatsApp group.
AfD and PEGIDA member Achim Exner was security boss at Dynamo Dresden, a East-German soccer club. At the same time, a trainer at the soccer club Lokomotive Leipzig showed a photo of himself performing the Hitler salute. This is illegal even in East-Germany. Building a bridge between populism and right-wing extremism, the AfD works towards the normalisation of radical right ideologies. This is what Henry Giroux calls “mainstreaming fascism”.
Making the radical right accepted also occurred when the captain of the Chemnitz FC wears a t-shirt labelled “support your local hooligans” and when the local “NS Boys” (NS stands for National Socialism, or Nazi) sign the clubs guest book. When sports clubs act against that and issue decrees that nobody can be a member in a soccer club who is a racist and spreads inhuman ideologies, the AfD is there to take such a club to the court accusing the soccer club of defamation.
More than in the western parts of Germany, these things occur in East-Germany where sports clubs are engaged in an intense battle against the radical right. On the field, soccer clubs have introduced a three strike rule to fight against the racism that all too often occurs during soccer games:
1) the game will pause after a racist incident;
2) the game will be interrupted, players leave the field; and
3) the game will end if racist attacks continue.
In Trump’s America where institutionalized and historically deep-seated racist attitudes persist against blacks and other people of colour, sporting bodies play a major part in keeping resistance in the public eye. Because Afro-Americans play a highly visible part in many sports, and black athletes are considered iconic celebrities, kneeling at games is a mark of defiance, walk-outs when yet another instance of police brutality occurs creates an occasion for discussion, and delay or deferral of games involves the public ibn acts of solidarity.
These visible displays of opposition to injustices in the American way of life—not only by openly racist, right-wing militia groups, but by insidiously subtle and secretive judges, police unions, conservative legislators and even White House officials—hit at the heart of the struggle for equal justice, fair treatment and proper support for civil rights. German and American sportsmen and women, as well as sporting bodies, have much to teach one another about the fight against fascism.
German clubs have already issued fines of up to €1,000 ($1,200) for racist offenses. Overall, German sports club are one of the main battle fields when it comes to right-wing extremism and the AfD. Overall, clubs have developed workable instruments to reject attempts to infiltrate their sport.
Cultural Organisations
Germany’s culture and art scene might be divided into visual art (paintings, graphics, photos, etc.) and performing art (theatre, orchestra, etc.). Germany has about 200 private and 150 state theatres, 130 orchestras with 65,000 events per year in state theatres and 46,000 in private theatres. While art sees itself as a multi-cultural event, the AfD sees it the other way around advocating a Germanic leitmotif for the arts. The AfD seeks a return to German-dominated culture. Top AfD apparatchiks like Jens Maier want to move culture and art into the direction of a “völkische-nationalism”. The word “völkisch” is inextricably linked to Hitler’s deeply racist and anti-Semitic idée fixe (obsession) of a Volksgemeinschaft. Most Americans wouldn’t know a Gemeinschaft from a mine shaft!
American cinema, radio, television, stage, television and video celebrities are starting to play a key role in raising awareness both of cultural inequalities in the structure of companies and networks that produce and distribute material for highbrow and middlebrow audiences and of the historical tendency to generate the images and sounds of a narrow band of supposedly genuine white culture. Change is on the way, but more is needed to bolster the ability of the system to resist the return of fascist and racist dominance.
Refugees from Nazi and Fascist countries during the 1930s and 1940s helped create a latent tendency towards such resistance, but the McCarthy era in the 1950s and the sweep of corporate take-overs since the 1960s has weakened those structures. The susceptibility of digital versions of film and television, as well as of recording studios, to racial and anti-democratic forces should raise eyebrows and cause individuals and groups to become wary of what is probably on the way. Right-wing radio talk-back hosts and anti-social social media sites spread fake news, alternative facts and toxic appeals fir violence and rebellion. Trump’s use of a daily barrage of twitter messages to obfuscate, confuse and arouse hatred against his political opponents is notorious.
The AfD in southern Germany even sought to get a number of German and non-German artists into the department of culture. This effort was resolutely rejected because it smacked of the infamous Nazi exhibitions of so-called degenerate art, monumenta, archktecture bssed on fascist realism and public book-burnings. Aryernachweis. In another case, the AfD sought to end state support for the Maxim Gorki theatre. Again their attempts were without success. The AfD is trying to undermine culture and art by seeking to force parliaments to withdraw state funding from liberal, left-wing, avant-garde and progressive enterprises, just as the Nazis did in the 1930s.
Since the appearance of the AfD, Frankfurt’s book fair has been targeted by the party along with a cohort of right-wing extremists. There are fights regularly between the radical right and Germany’s liberal book scene at the fair. This is something never experienced before the appearance of the AfD. Right-winger Marc Jongen is the AfD’s spokesperson for culture. He seeks to end what he calls the “anti-fascist indoctrination” that is supposed to take place in Germany’s theatres. Perhaps he wants to bring back a fascist education.
Similarly worrying is the stratospheric rise of right-wing extremism in music. Neo-Nazi rock events attract thousands of people. Among them are many young people. Right-wing extremists and Neo-Nazis have established their own record labels, music venues and events, set up right-wing homepages selling Neo-Nazi rock. While Germany’s culture and art scene rejects right-wing infiltration and has successful fought against the AfD, right-wing extremists, and Neo-Nazis, it has not found a “one best way” to deal with attempts by the radical right to penetrate culture and art.
Undermining Germany’s Civil Society
Overall, the most visible intrusion of the AfD, as well as right-wing extremism, has been a subject for legislatures. Nevertheless, the AfD and its radical right is always seeking to infiltrate and undermine Germany’s civil society. So far Germany’s civil society has not found a “one-size-fits-all” strategy to fight the radical right–and perhaps there is no such a thing as a one-size-fits-all strategy. In general, right-wing extremism and the AfD have not penetrated Germany’s civil society. So far, institutions and organisations of Germany’s civil society have been able to fend off the AfD and right-wing extremism.
Even though attacks on Germany’s civil society have increased in recent years, perhaps furnished by public visibility of the AfD, no deeper structural change in Germany’s civil society has been found. So far, thankfully, the institutions and organisations of civil society have not moved towards the radical right or have they been infiltrated by the AfD and its radical right ideology. If anything, the rise of the AfD has made civil society more aware of the problems of antisemitism, xenophobia, nationalism and racism. It is almost as if civil society has been strengthened in its determination to reject the AfD’s radical right ideology since the rise of the AfD.

ACU Gender Grants 2020

Application Deadline: 20th September 2020 by 11.59 pm BST.

About the Award: ACU Gender Grants are awarded annually to member universities to support initiatives that will boost gender equity and equality on campus. The grants can be used for a diverse range of projects, workshops, and events in areas such as:
  • Supporting women in leadership
  • Raising awareness of sexual harassment and developing anti-sexual harassment initiatives
  • Supporting women in science and research
  • Creating effective institutional policies
  • Mainstreaming gender equity into the curriculum
Type: Grants

Eligibility: The grants are awarded to staff at ACU Member Universities

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
  • Grants of up to GBP 1000 are available for staff at ACU member universities to help meet the costs of organising projects that promote gender equity and equality.
  • Grantees are required to submit a short interim report halfway through their project and a comprehensive final report within one month after completing their project.
How to Apply: You will need to supply an outline of the project and an action plan, including details of what it involves and how it will address gender equity and equality at your university. The project action plan is requested for a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of 12 months.
Apply here

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Conservation Leadership Programme (CLP) Team Awards 2021

Application Deadline: 23rd October 2020 by 23:59pm GMT.

About the Award: The CLP Team Awards are a competitive process through which CLP aims to identify, recognise and empower rising stars in conservation, who work mainly in the developing world.
Awards are granted to teams undertaking high-priority projects that involve not just research but also practical actions and community outreach to promote pro-conservation attitudes and achieve tangible, effective and long-lasting conservation solutions.
Through our new online application portal, eligible applicants can apply for one of three types of award:
  1. Future Conservationist Awards (up to $15,000 per project)
  2. Conservation Follow-Up Awards (up to $25,000 per project; available only to previous recipients of a Future Conservationist Award)
  3. Conservation Leadership Award (up to $50,000 per project; available only to previous recipients of a Follow-Up Award).
Many past recipients of CLP awards have gone on to lead successful careers in the conservation sector, including establishing their own NGOs, influencing conservation policy, discovering new species, driving forward scientific knowledge, and bringing threatened species back from the brink of extinction.
Dr Nelly Isigi Kadagi, Director of Conservation Leadership and the Education for Nature Program at WWF, recently described how the award helped her career: “The CLP award built my confidence, provided a platform to develop my ideas about my contribution to conservation, and enhanced my credibility in terms of delivering outputs and working on the sustainability of my work over the long term.”

Type: Award

Eligibility:
  • Applicants must propose projects that support the conservation of species listed as Data Deficient, Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered on the global IUCN Red List. Projects must take place in an eligible country, be led (or co-led) by a national of one of these countries, and involve at least three team members. Projects submitted for Future Conservation Awards should last for three to 12 months. Follow-up projects may be up to but no more than two years in length.
  • More details about the eligibility criteria and application process can be found on our website, including Frequently Asked Questions and Guidelines for Applicants.
Eligible Countries: Any

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
  • The award-winning teams will benefit from a project grant as well as global recognition for their exceptional work in conservation. All team members will have opportunities to build connections with peers and access expert mentorship through the CLP Alumni Network (comprising over 2,700 past recipients around the world); CLP partner organisations; and the CLP Management Team.
  • Individuals from winning teams are also invited to participate in international, regional and online training courses to develop their conservation knowledge and skills. The international Conservation Management & Leadership course is particularly renowned among CLP alumni. One trainee from last year’s course, for example, described it as helping her “shape the way I see conservation and how to be an effective leader, making me a better mentor for future conservationists” (Gabriela Ochoa, Honduras).
How to Apply: Apply via the online portal.
  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.
Visit Award Webpage for Details

Government of Malta Scholarships in Climate Friendly Travel 2021/2022

Application Deadline: Ongoing

About the Award: These scholarships are for a new online diploma in climate-friendly travel and are piloted by the ITS and SUNx Malta. These are aimed mostly towards countries affected greatly by climate change. 
This diploma is the first of its type and will train students to support businesses in the travel and transport industry in adjusting their operations towards the goal of becoming carbon neutral, in the face of the global challenge of Climate Change.

Type: Postgraduate (Diploma)

Eligibility:

EITHER

Successful completion of one of ITS’ Certificate Study Programmes (MQF Level 3).

OR

5 O level subjects at MQF level 3 (SSC&P level 3); of which (i) English language is compulsory, (ii) 2 O level subjects must include Environmental Studies, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Mathematics, and/or Hospitality. For definition of MQF levels and grades, refer to page 64.

OR

Apply as a mature student, at least 23 years of age by the beginning of the academic year applied for, and subject to proficiency and/or aptitude tests as per direction of the ITS. The ITS also reserves the right to subject the candidate for an interview prior to acceptance.

Eligible Countries: for applicants from Africa, Small Island Developing States, or Developing Countries most affected by Climate Change

To be Taken at (Country): Malta

Number of Awards: 30

Value & Duration of Award: Students interested in this scholarship are supported for the duration of the program.

How to Apply: Interested applicants may register for this scholarship on https://www.thesunprogram.com/climate-friendly-travel-diploma.
  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.
Visit Award Webpage for Details

How Long Will Be The Wait For A Safe COVID-19 Vaccine?

VT Padmanabhan

Adverse Effects among participants of Oxford-Zeneca Vaccin Trials in the UK
In 1922-23, about two years after the end of Spanish Flu which infected over 500 million people, the United Kingdom experienced a very small epidemic of a very rare disorder called transverse myelitis (TM).  No virus or any micro-organism behind this.  These were adverse effects from vaccinations against small pox and rabis.  After this initial disaster, during the past century,  the vaccine scientists have learned their lessons;  and today’s vaccines are much safer.  National agencies that approve the vaccine have laid down stringent rules, procedures and protocols to prevent vaccine related disasters.  However, it appears that during Covid-19 days, nothing is impossible.  Today,  TM is revisiting us and threatening the chances of getting a vaccine, which is now thought to be as the only way out of the current existential crisis.
A vaccine that nobody wants to take is not very useful – AstraZeneca’s CEO Pascal Soriot
It was painful to read that the phase-3 trials of the Oxford-Zeneca vaccine, the most promising among the nine Covid-19 vaccines under trial now, have been paused in the US, Brazil and the UK on 08 Sep 2020. A day later,  Adam Feuerstein  reported on the medical news website Statnews, that a participant in the AstraZeneca’s Phase 3 Covid-19 vaccine experienced neurological symptoms consistent with a rare but serious spinal inflammatory disorder called transverse myelitis.  This was revealed by vaccine maker’s chief executive, Pascal Soriot during a private conference call with investors set up by the investment bank J.P. Morgan.    Soriot confirmed that the participant was injected with the company’s Covid-19 vaccine and not  placebo.  Soriot also informed that the clinical trial was halted earlier also in July 2020, after a participant experienced neurological symptoms, which was diagnosed as multiple sclerosis, “deemed to be unrelated to the Covid-19 vaccine treatment”.
The first sick volunteer also had Transverse Myelitis – Company document
However, according to an Oxford-Zeneca document – the Participant Information Sheet  (PIS) dated 12th July 2020 given to the volunteers of Phase-3 trial of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in the UK-, the first volunteer who experienced the adverse reaction was also diagnosed as transverse myelitis and not as multiple sclerosis.  This 16 page document is part of the contract between the vaccine developers and the “10,560 adults and children across the UK”, who would volunteer for a humanitarian cause by participating in a dangerous experiment (see quote below) with their own body.  The Oxford-Zeneca reassurance about the safety of the vaccine: (Page 10):
Reactions in the nervous system are also extremely rare, but can include an illness called Guillain-Barré syndrome, a condition in which people can develop severe weakness and can be fatal. These adverse events have not previously been seen following administration of similar vaccines using ChAdOx1 as a viral vector, but one volunteer in the trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 developed symptoms of transverse myelitis (inflammation in the spinal cord), which has not required medical treatment and is being investigated, though the cause is uncertain.
So, even before ascertaining the cause of the adverse effect,  Astra Zeneca was allowed to go ahead with the final phase!
The CEO of Astra Zeneca confirmed that there were two adverse effects in the vaccine trial – the first one during the Phase -1 and the second one during the Phase-3 trial.  And on both these occasions, the trial was paused as part of abundant precaution.  Though the CEO is a respectable and responsible person,  the document which is part of the contract between the vaccine developers and the volunteers is more authentic.  Therefore, I presume that both the survivors were diagnosed as TM.
The Excess Risk among the Study Population
In all here are 10,560 participants in the UK Phase-3 trial.  The study group consisting of three-fourth of the participants, would be given the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Covid-19 candidate vaccine) and the remaining one-third which is the control group would be administered a licensed meningitis vaccine (MenACWY) as placebo.
TM is a rare disease which is diagnosed in 300 persons a year in the UK and 1400 persons in the US.  If all the study group participants in the UK Phase-3 trial have been injected with the vaccine, about 7000 healthy children and adults would have received the experimental vaccine.  The company claims that 2,000 persons were given the same vaccine during the Phase-1/2 trials.  This means, 9,000 persons in the UK have received the vaccine.  The incidence and the relative risk is estimated in table 1 below:
CohortSubjectsCasesPer 1000Excess Risk
Oxford Zeneca Expt900020.241
Background incidence560000003000.005

In the Oxford Zeneca experiment involving 9,000 healthy volunteers, there are two cases of TM, which is 0.2 per 1000 subjects.  The background annual incidence of TM in the UK is 0.005 per 1000.  The risk among the participants in 41 times higher the background.  Oxford-Zeneca has since stated that diagnosis of the patient in the Phase-3 trial is not confirmed.  If her disease is not TM, the excess relative risk is 20 times.  Even that is not very reassuring as TM and MS are not independent, unrelated diseases.  The website of the US National Organisation for Rare Diseases says:
“TM can be the presenting feature of MS. In individuals with acute partial TM and normal brain MRI, about 10-33 percent develop MS over a five to ten-year period. If the brain MRI shows lesions, the transition rate to clinically definite MS is known to be quite high, in the range of 80 to 90 percent within a few years. Those who are ultimately diagnosed with MS are more likely to have asymmetric clinical findings, predominant sensory symptoms with relative sparing of motor systems, MR lesions extending over fewer than 2 spinal segments, abnormal brain MRI, and oligoclonal bands in the CSF.
History of Vaccine induced TM
There are reasons for vaccination makers to be concerned about the two cases of TM among the vaccine trial participants in UK.  The US National Organization of Rare Diseases (NORD) gives a historial perspective of TM:
In England between 1922 and 1923 more than 200 post-vaccinal cases (of TM)were noted as complications of the smallpox and rabies vaccines.
Review Article in Pubmed
S. KivityM. Szyper-Kravitz and colleagues conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE and DynaMed journals published between 1970 and 2009 and found 37 reported cases of transverse myelitis associated with different vaccines including those against hepatitis B virus, measles—mumps—rubella, diphtheria—tetanus—pertussis and others, given to infants, children and adults. In most of these reported cases the temporal association was between several days and 3 months, although a longer time frame of up to several years was also suggested. The authors conclude that “although vaccines harbor a major contribution to public health in the modern era, in rare cases they may be associated with autoimmune phenomena such as transverse myelitis”.
What is traverse myelitis (TM)?
Transverse myelitis is a serious condition involving inflammation of the spinal cord that can cause muscle weakness, paralysis, pain and bladder problems. In rare instances, vaccines have triggered cases of transverse myelitis; although it can also be caused by viral infections.   The description of the diseases given by myelitis.org.uk , a patient support group is given below:
The main symptoms of TM are muscle weakness in the legs (and, less commonly, in the arms), change in sensation (unusual feelings) in the lower half of the body, pain, and problems with the bowel and bladder. People might also experience fever, headache, tiredness, muscle spasms (spasticity), and a general feeling of being unwell. But symptoms vary depending on what section of the spinal cord is affected. 5. Recovery is difficult to predict. Around one third of people with TM will make a good or full recovery. Another third will experience some recovery and may have a moderate degree of disability. The remainder will make little or no recovery and have a permanent disability.
The Issues of transparency and Credibility
In a report dated 09 Sep 2020, the science journal Nature says that vaccine studies have protocols that specify what type of events trigger a pause, after which there is a process for investigating whether the event is related to the vaccine, AstraZeneca study protocols have not been made public.  The reporters Phillip, Cryanosky and Mallapaty then quote  Paul Komesaroff, a physician and bioethicist at Monash University in Melbo ourne, Australia:
“Details of the adverse event, including how serious it is and when it happened, have not been reported by Oxford or AstraZeneca.  Given the stakes involved in the development of a safe, effective vaccine, all of the study’s details should be made public.  The trials are all publicly supported, the disease is posing the greatest threat to humanity in a hundred years, the drug-development processes are highly politicized, and the outcome will only be a successful one if public trust can be secured and maintained.” 
Vaccine authorizations in Banana Republics?
In July 2020, the vaccine authorizers found a disease which has been associated with vaccines for nearly a century.  Even without ascertaining the cause of that disease, the vaccine makers claimed that it is unrelated to the molecule they injected into the body of the volunteer.  And the team was allowed to proceed with the Phase-3 trial.  In the phase-3 trial, the same disease surfaces in another volunteer.  One wonders why these tests?  They could have done what Russia has done!

Open letter to Narendra Modi on his Birthday

Gurpreet Singh

Narendra Modi
The Prime Minister of India
Subject: I wish you a long life so that you can live to see the consequences of your actions
Mr. Modi,
Hope you are doing well, even under these difficult circumstances when your country is now the second most hit in the world by COVID 19. Too bad that your lockdown did not work despite tall claims and leaving the poor and marginalized as most vulnerable. But they were never on your radar anyway.
Let me briefly introduce myself.
I am a Canadian citizen of Indian origin, who is highly concerned about the well-being of the country of my birth. Since you have many followers in Canada who continue to support you and your party, I also hold some rights to at least say something that irks me. No?
From what I am seeing in the media, your fans all over the globe are super excited to celebrate your 70th birth anniversary on September 17. In India, they are going to do some acts of kindness and have decided to give away artificial limbs to those in need. Good for them. But why shouldn’t they be? After all, you have delivered to your constituency, with promises of progress for everyone. However, until now it’s mostly your party supporters who have benefited the most. Whether it was to abrogate special rights given to the only Muslim-majority state of Kashmir or constructing a temple where once stood an ancient mosque that your party supporters demolished in 1992, you have fulfilled your core promises. And who can stop you when you have been elected with a brute majority for the second time in 2019?
You have already turned India into a Hindu nation. So what is stopping you from officially declaring the country as a Hindu state? Maybe you are a little bit scared after seeing so many people coming out on the streets against your highly problematic citizenship law that discriminates against Muslim refugees coming from neighbouring countries. So you have already seen that the people are not going to accept it so easily.
But who can prevent you from using draconian laws such as Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) that can be conveniently applied against protestors?
But let’s talk about your birthday. I want you to have a very healthy long life and there is a reason for that.
First of all, I believe that one’s enemy should live longer, until you win by conquering the heart and soul of someone you oppose.That is the real victory. I hope you agree on that.
I want your real and not fake critics to win over your heart and soul with their ideas. By fake critics I mean those who you rightfully pointed out in your last victory speech wore badges of false secularism. So stay calm, I am not even talking about them. I do not agree with you on many things, but I am in complete agreement with you about your opinion of the opposition Congress party, which you have accused of being involved in terrorism against innocent Sikhs, who were massacred mercilessly all over India following the murder of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards in 1984.
But the problem is you did the same to Muslims in 2002 as Chief Minister of Gujarat. This followed the burning of a train carrying Hindu pilgrims leaving more than 50 people dead. Even though one commission of enquiry had found that it was an accident, you simply blamed it on Muslims and let your party people avenge the incident by targeting ordinary citizens. By using your own definition of terrorism, what I should be calling it then?
You can justifiably argue that you were never convicted for anything. But Mr. Modi you understand more than anyone how the Indian legal justice system works. Congress too can make a similar argument, as then-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, despite being complicit in Sikh massacre, was never convicted.
Let’s not talk about what Congress says about you. They have already lost their credibility.
But I am going to point out a couple of things on behalf of the people your party and your government have been tormenting.
Muslims are one of the most persecuted groups. It doesn’t matter if you have handful of Muslims on your side, as Congress too had many Sikhs on their side. Who cares about such sell outs or tokens when in the end majority matters in a democracy like India?
You made Muslims suffer in 2002. Even before that, your party supporters razed their mosque to the ground in 1992. Come 2019, you scrapped the special rights given to the Muslim-majority state of Kashmir, while in the meantime, your men carried on mob lynching of Muslims at will. Some made videos of their violent actions to post on social media.
By the way, some of those you follow on twitter are very interesting people Mr. Modi. One of them even applauded the murder of Gauri Lankesh, a journalist who was murdered in 2017 by the supporters of your ideology.
I don’t really understand – on what basis do you keep talking tough on Islamic terrorism, while people from within your community are also involved in similar activities? On one hand you revere MK Gandhi, while on the other your party members glorify his assassin Nathuram Godse. One of the MPs, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur who was accused in the 2008 bombing targeted at the Muslim community, has called Godse a patriot. You yourself brought her into politics and ensured her victory in the last general election. It seems that you have two different yardsticks to measure terrorism. Perhaps it is fine to be a Hindu terrorist, who can kill Muslims, destroy their places of worship, and then get elected with your blessings. But a Muslim or a Sikh terrorist can either get killed by the police without a fair trial or charged under UAPA which is not applicable to Hindu extremists. Wow.
The kind of legitimacy you give to all these acts of violence since 1992 will ultimately lead to more bloodshed. We have seen the history of vendetta and terrorism repeated all over the world and India is no exception. After all, India too has witnessed how the ugly events of 1984 had fueled Sikh separatism, which you despise so much. When courts under you have lost will to give justice to the people you have made to suffer for all these years, what else can they think of to get justice except taking the law into their own hands?
So do not assume that there will be no consequences of the incidents which have happened under your watch. Quoting Bhagwad Geeta, your sacred scripture, I would like to say that what you do comes back to you. Let’s not forget that you also tried to rationalize the anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002 by quoting Newton’s third law of motion, which says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, in reference to the train incident. Unfortunately, you do not enjoy a copyright on Newton’s law. Anyone can use it in an event of any act of violence in retaliation to your actions. You will see all that happening sooner or later. So it is important for you to live longer and repent.
I already know that you are a tyrant. It’s up to you now to prove me wrong by becoming kinder to religious minorities and your opponents. You can make a beginning by at least releasing former Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba from jail on your birth day. The wheelchair-bound scholar is disabled below the waist and poses no danger to anyone. He is being incarcerated since the time of Congress, merely because he stood up for the Adivasis, whose lands are being taken away by the extraction industry in the name of development. In spite of all your criticism of Congress, you both are partners in crime when it comes to suppress the right to dissent.
When COVID 19 broke out you gave a call to fight corona with karuna (compassion). But hardly any compassion was shown by the jail authorities who did not even let Saibaba see his dying mother, leave aside the question of giving him amnesty because of the pandemic spreading in overcrowded Indian prisons.
Your people do not need to give away artificial limbs to celebrate your birthday. Just set Saibaba free and we will be thankful. For the rest of your report card we can always wait for the next time. Anxiously waiting for you to act, even though, I have no hopes from you or your administrators.
Happy Birthday in advance.
Gurpreet Singh