What the CIA is Hiding in the JFK Assassination Records

Jacob Hornberger

With President Biden succumbing to the CIA’s demand to continue keeping the CIA’s records relating to the Kennedy assassination secret, the question naturally arises: What is the CIA still hiding?

To understand what they are still hiding and why they are still hiding it, it’s necessary to go back to the 1990s during the era of the Assassination Records Review Board — and even further back than that to November 22, 1963 — the day that Kennedy was assassinated. 

People often say that if the CIA and the Pentagon had orchestrated the assassination of President Kennedy, someone would have talked by now. 

That’s just not true. When it comes to murder, people don’t talk. They know that if they do talk, they run the risk of themselves being murdered, maybe their families too. People who participate in murder schemes know that they had better keep their mouths shut or else.

One example is Mafia figure Jimmy Hoffa. We still don’t know who killed Hoffa. That’s because no one talked. Another example is Johnny Roselli, the liaison in the CIA-Mafia partnership to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro. We still don’t know who murdered Roselli. No one has ever talked.

People who talk also run the risk of being prosecuted because there is no statute of limitations for murder. A good recent example is real-estate heir Robert Durst. He was recently convicted of murdering a person twenty-one years ago.

So, it was always a safe bet that the CIA and the Pentagon would be able to keep their regime-change operation in Dallas sealed in secrecy.

However, not so with respect to the fraudulent autopsy that the Pentagon carried out on President Kennedy’s body on the evening of the assassination. When the ARRB released people who had participated in the autopsy during the 1990s, they talked.

As I detailed in my books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2 and in my online presentation in our Zoom conference last spring, a fraudulent autopsy was an essential part of the cover-up in the assassination.

The problem that the plotters had, however, is that in order to carry out this part of the cover-up, they had to enlist the assistance of many people within the vast national-security establishment who played no role in the assassination. Since all those people were innocent and mostly unwitting participants to the cover-up, they didn’t have the same incentive to stay quiet as the people who knowingly participated in the assassination itself.

The military did its best to keep everyone quiet by telling the autopsy participants that what they were doing was classified. Everyone in the military knows what that means — people are expected to take classified secrets to the grave with them. Participants to the autopsy were required to sign written secrecy oaths. They were also threatened with court martial or criminal prosecution if they ever revealed what they had done or seen.

As I pointed out in The Kennedy Autopsy, the scheme for a fraudulent autopsy was actually set into motion at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. Immediately after Kennedy was declared dead, the Dallas County Medical Examiner, Dr. Earl Rose, announced his intent to conduct an autopsy on the president’s body, as Texas law required. That was when a team of armed Secret Service agents, brandishing guns, told Rose in no uncertain terms that they would not permit him to do the autopsy. Forcing their way out of Parkland Hospital, they took the body to Dallas’s Love Field, where new President Lyndon Johnson was waiting for it. Johnson then took the body back with him to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, where he delivered it into the hands of the military.

Although the mainstream media always treated all this as normal, given the dominant role that the national-security establishment was playing in Cold War America, it was actually quite bizarre and aberrant. The military never had any jurisdiction or legal authority to conduct the autopsy. At that time, killing a president was not a federal crime. The United States was not at war with any nation state. Kennedy was not killed on the field of battle. His killing was a straight murder case under Texas state law. Any criminal prosecution for the assassination would take place in Dallas. A genuinely honest autopsy would be a critically important part of that criminal prosecution, especially since a sharp team of criminal-defense lawyers would inevitably be defending the accused.

The military was mostly, but not entirely, able to keep its fraudulent autopsy secret for some 30 years, until the ARRB began releasing people who had participated in the autopsy from their vows of secrecy. As the ARRB began forcing the military to release its records relating to the autopsy, the dam of secrecy surrounding the autopsy broke wide open. That’s when the fraud became apparent. That’s why the JFK Records Act was such a nightmare for the Pentagon and the CIA. If it hadn’t been for that law, there is no doubt that the military’s fraudulent autopsy would still be shrouded in secrecy today. 

What the Pentagon and the CIA learned from the era of the ARRB is that the community of assassination researchers is composed of some very smart people. By analyzing the evidence that the ARRB was succeeding in getting released, assassination researchers were able to put together the pieces of the puzzle that established a fraudulent autopsy, along with lots of other pieces of circumstantial evidence establishing that what occurred on November 22, 1963, was a highly sophisticated national-security state regime-change operation.

The leading figure in this endeavor was Douglas Horne, who served on the ARRB staff. Anyone who reads Horne’s five-volume book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board will inevitably conclude that the autopsy that the military conducted on the Kennedy’s body a few hours after the assassination was fraudulent to the core. 

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy being conducted on President Kennedy’s body, especially given that the scheme for a fraudulent autopsy was launched at the moment Kennedy was declared dead.

It stands to reason that if a government agency is being forced to reveal records relating to a regime-change operation, that agency is going to keep the most incriminating evidence secret for as long as possible. We still don’t know what the CIA is still hiding, but we can safely assume that there is a good reason why the CIA does not want to let those super-smart assassination researchers get a hold of it. 

That’s why the national-security establishment will fight tooth and nail for permanent secrecy on their remaining JFK assassination-related records. Oh, the Pentagon and the CIA will most likely authorize Biden and the National Archives to release some innocuous records for appearance’s sake. But make no mistake about it: They will make certain that Biden, the National Archives, and all future presidents comply with their demand for permanent secrecy on what they need to hide on a permanent basis.

Gun Rights at the Supreme Court

Morgan Marietta

The Supreme Court heard arguments Nov. 3, 2021, on a clear question: Does the constitutional right to possess a gun extend outside the home? The answer may alter gun regulations in many states.

The crux of the issue before the court is captured by a debate that Thomas Jefferson had with himself at the time of the founding.

When Jefferson was drafting a proposed constitution for his home state of Virginia in June 1776, he suggested a clause that read “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

In the second draft, he added in brackets, “[within his own lands or tenements].”

Jefferson’s debate with himself captures the question posed to the court: Is the purpose of the right to “keep and bear arms” the protection of a citizen’s “own lands,” or is it self-protection in general? Does the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognize a right to keep and bear arms in the home, or a right to “keep” firearms in the home and also “bear” them outside of the home for protection in society?

The plaintiffs in the upcoming case New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen want the court to strike down the state’s restrictions and allow citizens who meet basic requirements, such as having no criminal convictions, to carry concealed weapons.

Gun in the House

There are surprisingly few Supreme Court rulings on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The question of whether the amendment recognizes a fundamental right – on par with free speech or free exercise of religion – was not decided until 2008 in the landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. For the first time, the court recognized a clear individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. This deeply disputed 5-4 ruling was expanded two years later to cover state laws.

The Heller ruling stated that the Second Amendment’s right is like the others in the Bill of Rights, which cannot be violated without the most compelling reasons. The amendment, the ruling says, “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” The Washington, D.C., law intended to reduce crime cannot ban firearms in “the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.”

That ruling – written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016 and was replaced by Justice Neil Gorsuch – also recognized that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Scalia cited regulations like “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill” or “prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons” as “presumptively lawful.”

The principal dissent was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the only dissenter in Heller still serving on the court. He emphasized the balance between core rights and the needs for public safety.

“If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense,” wrote Breyer, “then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence.”

Concealed Carry Laws

State governments follow very different procedures for determining who will be allowed to carry a concealed firearm outside of the home.

“Open carry,” or just having a handgun in plain sight on a belt holster or carrying a long gun (rifle or shotgun), is actually legal in many places. The general idea is that carrying openly would be done only by an honest actor, so less regulation is needed. “Concealed carry,” having a hidden weapon in a pocket or under a jacket, is far more restricted.

At one end of the continuum are near-bans on what are called “concealed carry licenses,” while at the other end are states in which no license is needed. These laws are referred to as “constitutional carry,” meaning the U.S. Constitution itself is a citizen’s license to carry a firearm.

In between these two positions are rules known as “shall issue,” whereby the government issues a license if the applicant meets the requirements such as having no felony convictions, or “may issue,” which gives the government discretion to deny a license based on perceptions of fitness.

New York state has “may issue” laws with stringent requirements, which in practice allow almost no licenses to be issued. Applicants must demonstrate a “proper cause” – such as being in imminent danger from a known source – which effectively eliminates ordinary applicants.

Regulation or Eradication

The strongest argument in the gun owners’ brief to the Supreme Court relates to New York’s insistence that citizens show an exceptional or extraordinary need to exercise a right that the court has recognized as fundamental.

No other fundamental right, such as freedom of speech or religion, is limited to people who can demonstrate special circumstances. Instead, fundamental rights are understood to be held by ordinary people in ordinary circumstances.

The strongest argument in the opposing brief from the New York State Police is federalism – the longstanding conservative argument that state lawmakers hold wide latitude to determine their own regulations to serve as “laboratories of experimentation,” as Justice Louis Brandeis phrased it in 1932. The federalist principle suggests that the court should defer to the judgment of state legislatures representing the needs of local citizens.

As a close observer of the Supreme Court, I can imagine an outcome to the case in which the justices rule that, under the Second Amendment, a state can limit but not eliminate the core purposes of the protected right.

The Heller decision identifies at least one purpose as self-defense. The question is whether a specific concealed carry law creates a burden so strong that it becomes equivalent to eradication of the right to self-protection, or whether it imposes a legitimate public safety regulation that still maintains the core right for citizens who assert it.

Individual rights vs. fellow citizens

The most permissive laws that allow unrestricted concealed carry are almost certainly not mandated by the Constitution.

“Shall issue” laws, which allow states to screen applicants for flaws but compel local governments to provide a concealed carry license to qualified citizens, are likely to be seen even by the conservative justices as legitimate regulations that do not create unconstitutional burdens.

However, the current court might be likely to see a “may issue” law like New York’s, which allows the government to deny a license to nearly every applicant, as creating a burden that blocks the core of the right to self-protection where ordinary citizens are exposed to greater threats – outside the home.

The dissenters will likely focus on Scalia’s invocation of the home as the height of the defensive right, allowing for restrictions outside one’s “own lands,” where individual rights are balanced against the interests of fellow citizens.

Is Globalization Leading to a Homogenized Global Culture?

Rawsab Said

As global connections continue to develop in the twenty-first century under the conditions of globalization, periphery and semi-periphery nations try to adapt to the norms of core countries with the aim of developing a similar global influence as developed nations. Throughout history, people of different cultures have migrated to countries with cultures different from theirs. As people move from location to location, they bring along their traditions and cultural norms, which influences others to assimilate various aspects of the foreign culture and integrate it into their own. This process is known as cultural diffusion. The spreading of culture can be classified into two categories, forced integration of culture –known as cultural imperialism– and naturally occurring homogenization. Cultural imperialism is usually due to the colonization or occupation of a country by a foreign power with more global influence.

As the world becomes increasingly globalized, periphery and semi-periphery countries endeavor to reach the same economic positions of core countries, which they undertake by concurring with the cultural norms of highly developed countries. Core countries are tremendously influential, so much so that people that migrate to core countries from lesser developed countries usually acculturate to the cultural standards of the core nation. These give rise to two critical questions of our time: How does homogenization and hybridization result from globalization? What are the pros and cons?

The Path to a Homogenized Global Culture?

Core countries, which are nations that are highly developed, can be found at the top of the hierarchy of globally influential countries. This is because these countries are usually industrialized and have periphery and semi-periphery countries that depend on them. Behind the system of interdependence is a well-functioning, stable, and successful economy, which allows these core countries to be more opulent than others. Being a core country is the primary economic goal of periphery and semi-periphery countries, which is why they often try and follow in the footsteps of developed core nations. The lesser developed countries try to develop themselves in a similar manner to the development of core countries by imitating their culture. This is apparent in many non-core, developing countries. As the world becomes more globalized, all cultures are slowly –but surely– becoming the same. Here, we will use the examples such as the case of Azerbaijan, a developing nation, to show how homogenization and hybridization are resulting from globalization today.

Language

As the number of global connections increase, the need for efficient communication does too. Language serves as both a means and a barrier of interpersonal transmission, which is why the number of international languages has been decreasing for centuries. Many languages spoken exclusively by minorities are dying because the speakers are adapting to more popular languages. In Azerbaijan, the people –especially the youth– are starting to learn English to embrace the culture of developed countries. They also tend to combine some aspects of the Russian language with their own Azerbaijani dialect, which shows the effect and influence of their past occupiers. This expresses the concept of cultural hybridization, as two cultures are put together instead of one overpowering the other. Another example would be Morocco, in which the people speak a dialect that is a mix of Arabic and French. As for a language that is dying, the Chamicuro language, spoken by the indigenous Chamicuro people of Peru, has become an endangered dialect since the indigenous tribe had decided to become modernized and started to embrace Spanish as their primary language. The transitions of countries to international languages –such as English, French or Arabic– allows for homogenization as different cultures use the same language, since it makes them become more similar to each other. The uniqueness of cultures is fading as international languages become more common, people are able to communicate with others more easily and more effectively than before. Although many cultures are nearing extinction, many people from different parts of the world are taking the initiative to revive certain languages by learning about them, which is made possible by globalization, as it allows people to learn more about extinct and endangered languages from around the globe. Languages which are –to some degree– significant to the people that they belong to and their historical context are becoming endangered. For example, Chamicuro, spoken by the Chamicuro tribe in Peru, is becoming replaced with Spanish. This trend can be observed within many tribal languages. This gives a partial representation of the effect of cultural homogenization, as languages that are widespread are staring to diminish, with international languages replacing them.

Ideologies

In the globalized world that we live in, most of the core countries are secular, which denotes that they are less or not involved in religious or spiritual matters. Many developing countries that attempt to imitate the cultural normalities of developed countries often assimilate secularism in order to create stronger alliances with core countries, as well as to follow the path of progression that was taken by the core countries. Azerbaijan is currently listed as a secular country, which would seem rather unlikely as the majority of the population are Shi’ite Muslim, which tend to be religiously conservative. Cultural hybridization is also prevalent in this example, since Azerbaijan is an openly progressive country, but at the same time it retains its unitary government. This exemplifies the notion that core countries influence developing countries through means such as political doctrines. Other political ideologies include democracies and progressivism. Since different countries with significantly different cultures have the same ideologies, which dictate their values and make them increasingly similar. This is more of an advantage, as countries with parallel beliefs and ideologies have a tendency to develop stronger alliances. Although countries having similar ideologies provides several benefits, it still offers a few disadvantages, for example, some countries choose to have different political dogmas because of its culture, majority religion, or geographic location, which causes uncertainty of the relationship with countries that have differing ideologies. A country’s ideologies –whether it be political or social– are substantially important to how it is viewed, which impacts its global influence.

Cultural Arts

Cultural arts are a major part of a country’s unique norms and traditions, especially in lesser-developed countries where folk music and art are more prevalent than modernist values of highly developed countries. Azerbaijan used to be known for its Mugham –a folk musical composition that was regarded as a highly complex art form that fused together classic poetry and musical improvisation– but now it is known for its operas and plays that take place in its theaters. Originally, opera was an Italian art which was embraced by many nations that are now core countries. Since Azerbaijan is one of the countries that imitates the culture of developed countries, it includes opera as one of its cultural art forms, which conveys the country’s homogenization of particularly “Western” culture. Traces of cultural imperialism can also be found in the roots of Azerbaijani culture as some remnants of Russian culture can be found in the country’s art, which was due to the forced Russian occupation of Azerbaijan. Cultural homogenization is prevalent, as different cultures assimilate art forms of other cultures which cause them to become even more similar than they were before. On the other hand, through increased global connections, people can also have the opportunity to learn about foreign cultural arts and study them, which allows them to be preserved and not forgotten. Cultural arts are undeniably a preeminent facet of individual cultures that reflect the distinctive values that people believe in, so the assimilation towards similar, if not the same, art forms can diminish the concept of personal identity. On the other hand, progressing towards a single form of art would allow both core and periphery countries to better relate to one another, thus developing stronger bonds between nations.

Other Forms of Influence

Globalization is a means of influence for core countries, since developing countries with the aim to improve economically look up to developed countries and follow in their footsteps. Cultural homogenization –as well as hybridization– takes place, since the cultures of periphery and semi-periphery countries are susceptible to changes, as adaptations towards cultures of developed countries gives people a sense of improvement, since they are able to relate to more developed countries and follow the same progressive pattern as core nations. Apart from language, ideologies, and cultural arts, cultural homogenization is prevalent through architecture, food, and fashion. As the world progresses, so does architecture. Newer building designs are innovated to accommodate the growing population and modernism that resides in developed countries, which are reproduced by influenced periphery and semi-periphery countries. In non-core countries, ultra-modern architecture shows the substantial influence that core countries have. Modern architecture abolishes cultural identity in cities, but at the same time it allows for more stable architecture and accommodation for growing populations. Although new, modern architecture is being developed, Azerbaijan still has some towns which retain traditional Turkish-Azerbaijani houses and buildings. There are a few foreign designer clothing brands, such as Gucci and Balenciaga that are pinpointed in the city of Baku, Azerbaijan, which shows the influence of more developed countries through terms of fashion. This doesn’t serve any significant advantages, other than lessening discrimination and security concerns caused by foreign clothing. The influence of modern clothing choice and popular “fashion” demolishes the concept of individualism through cultural clothing. On the contrary, many Azerbaijanis retain some cultural aspects through religion, as many Muslim women wear the headscarf for religious –and cultural– purposes. Foreign fast food restaurants, such as McDonald’s and KFC, are also prevalent in non-core countries such as Azerbaijan. Foreign fast food restaurants allow more job opportunities for people in developing countries, but it also diminishes the cultural taste preferences of the local people. But some fast food companies change certain menu items to fit in with the cultural food of the restaurant that their restaurants are in, which allows for cultural hybridization through means of “globalization”. Although the number of fast-food restaurants is increasing, Azerbaijani households usually serve the same traditional food, as it relies on the readily available ingredients distinctive to Azerbaijan. There are many other forms of influence from core countries that affect the cultures of periphery and semi-periphery countries, whether it be a positive change that allows for more advantages, or a negative change that causes more disadvantages to the developing country.

Cultures of different countries are slowly becoming more and more similar as global connections and foreign influences increase. At one point, individual cultures may become almost the same as the cultures that influence them, which are mainly the highly developed core countries with the most economic influence. Developing countries aiming to economically progress to the level of core countries try to do so by adapting to the cultural norms of global superpowers. This usually results in homogenization, where cultures become increasingly similar, so much so that a single global culture has the possibility to be established. Countries that have been occupied or invaded in the past also retain remnants of their invaders’ culture, which is known as cultural imperialism. Lastly, some countries try to coalesce their own cultures with the cultures of other nations to adapt to modern “culture” and retain their own identity simultaneously, which was described as cultural hybridization. By analysing the examples of Azerbaijan –as well as other developing countries– the progression towards one global culture is prevalent, with the most influential cultural aspects being of developed Western nations. In summary, core countries with great economic control often influence countries with the objective of major development to adapt to their culture, slowly bringing us to a more unified, global culture.

Sanctions as a weapon targeting development

Justin Podur

The United Nations is currently sanctioning groups in Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Libya, Guinea-Bissau, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Mali. Sanctions in Non-African countries include Iraq, Yemen, the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Lebanon, and North Korea. The Security Council states that “since 1966, the Security Council has established 30 sanctions regimes, in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, the former Yugoslavia (2), Haiti, Iraq (2), Angola, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Eritrea, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Liberia (3), DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan, Lebanon, DPRK, Iran, Libya (2), Guinea-Bissau, CAR, Yemen, South Sudan and Mali, as well as against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida and the Taliban.” None of the sanctioned countries are developed countries to begin with – sanctions devastate their capacities for future development.

The UN says that “sanctions measures, under Article 41, encompass a broad range of enforcement options that do not involve the use of armed force.” The deadliness of UN sanctions, however, cannot be disputed. The sanctions regime imposed on Iraq after the US bombing of the country in 1990/1 was acknowledged to have killed 500,000 children by 1996, when Madeline Albright famously told 60 Minutes that she thought the price was worth it. Guttman et al. (2019) found that a UN sanctions episode lowered a country’s average life expectancy by 1.2-1.4 years, reduced the targeted countries GDP by 25%, increasing poverty and income inequality. The main mechanisms for this reduction: child mortality, cholera deaths, and decreased resources for public health spending. These aggregate statistics disguise some very grim specifics.

The list of countries under unilateral sanction by the US (or the US plus any coalition it can build for the purpose of punishing a regime) is much longer than the UN list – which countries the US sanctions as well. In addition, the US Treasury site lists financial sanctions details for the Balkans, Belarus, Burundi, the Chinese military, Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, and Zimbabwe. Up until 2012, when Guttman et al. (2019) study period ended, unilateral US sanctions were less deadly than UN sanctions (shortening life expectancy in the targeted country by an average of 0.4-0.5). The deadlier sanctions are UN sanctions.

It is one of many paradoxes of today’s world order that the United Nations, the body responsible (through its Security Council) for the deadliest sanctions also produces the most eloquent reports (through its Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) on the ill effects of proliferating unilateral sanctions. The Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Economic Measures, Idriss Jazairy, has produced five reports on the matter to date. The latest (a report to the General Assembly presented July 5, 2019) specifies violations of human rights stemming from these sanctions regimes:

• US sanctions against Iran violate UN Security Council resolutions, deprive Iranians of relief, have been complied with “unduly” by the European Union such trade has virtually collapsed between Europe and Iran. Sanctions have devastated Iran’s food security (Hejazi and Emamgholipur 2020), its health system and ability to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic (Takian et al. 2020), even its long-term scientific capacity (Butler 2019).
• US sanctions against Cuba have “shattered” the normalizing relations that began in 2017, violate agreements between the US and Europe, and “exert a massive toll on the Cuban economy.”
• US sanctions against Venezuela have played, in the colorful UN prose, “a non-negligible role in crippling the economy.” The rapporteur cites Weisbrot and Sachs (2019), who showed that tens of thousands of Venezuelans have died as a result of these sanctions, and millions have been displaced.
• US sanctions against Russia, the rapporteur complains, “have unintended effects, including boosting the domestic (indigenous) capabilities of Russian industries and the agricultural sector to the detriment of Europe.” And also, sanctions have caused price increases that hurt workers.
• Israel’s blockade against Gaza “constitutes collective punishment of the people of Gaza, contrary to article 33 of the Geneva Convention.”
• The US and EU sanctions against Syria, openly proclaimed as being part of a strategy of “isolating the Assad regime”, “is a crude admission of disregard for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, human rights and humanitarian law.” They have a “catastrophic impact on the Syrian economy and population.”
• The US-UK-Saudi blockade on Yemen has the rapporteur noting “with concern that the flow of essential foodstuffs and other commodities into Yemen continues to be restricted de facto, even though the naval blockade was lifted after the UN Verification and Inspection Mechanism for Yemen was set up.” This is a particularly euphemistic, given the genocidal nature of the assault on Yemen (e.g. Bachman 2019).

Sanctions against Russia and China are part of a broader US strategy: with these sanctions, the US hopes to isolate targeted countries from potential sources of military aid (e.g., Russia’s aid to Syria) or investment (e.g., China’s investments in Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, or various targeted African countries). These sorts of US strategies can never be isolated from questions of international development. Sanctions regimes represent the most profound weaponization of development: targeted economic isolation to punish populations by inflicting mass mortality through starvation and preventable disease, all the while destroying future economic prospects.

Moscow mayor rules out extension of COVID-19 restrictions amidst surge in cases and deaths

Clara Weiss

Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin declared Wednesday that the “workfree week” in Moscow, which began on October 26, would not be extended beyond November 7 because the pandemic situation had been “stabilized.” This statement flies in the face of reality.

Russia continues to report near-records of cases and deaths almost daily, with 40,443 new cases (slightly less than the record of 40,993) and 1,189 deaths on Wednesday, the highest number of daily deaths yet. The surge has been virtually unbroken for over a month. Over 242,000 deaths have been officially reported since the pandemic began. The true death toll is believed to be far higher, and Russia has reported an excess death toll of over 723,350 since the beginning of the pandemic.

Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin attends a cabinet meeting with Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin in Moscow, Russia, Monday, March 30, 2020. (Alexander Astafyev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)

The capital has been and remains the center of the surge, with Moscow and the Moscow region accounting for almost one-fourth of all cases in the country. About one-tenth of the total population lives in Moscow, which is the center of Russia’s economic, political and cultural life.

On Wednesday, 6,827 new cases and 95 deaths were reported in the capital, with the second highest number of cases, 3,269, less than half, being reported in St. Petersburg. The Moscow region reported the third highest number of cases (2,744).

For the past 10 days, over 1,500 people and between 20 and 30 children were hospitalized in the capital every day. As of Monday, 10,000 people were hospitalized in serious condition, among them 300 children. Several of the 751 people currently on ventilators in the capital are children.

Russia has very low vaccination rates, with just about a third of the population fully vaccinated and less than 40 percent having received at least one jab. At the current rate of vaccination, over two months will be needed to vaccinate another 10 percent of the population.

Seventy-five percent of those who have not received the vaccine have indicated in polls that they do not intend to get vaccinated. The main reasons for the reluctance to get vaccinated are the enormous popular distrust, if not hatred, of the state and the systematic promotion of anti-scientific, irrational and religious conceptions since the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

However, the low vaccination rates are just a part of the explanation for the current surge. The ruling class in Russia, mirroring the criminal policies of Washington, Berlin, Paris and London, has allowed the virus to rip through the population largely unchecked for well over a year. Schools were reopened in September at the height of the previous wave, and major factories have been open non-stop since April 2020.

The “workfree” week recommended by Russian President Vladimir Putin to the regional authorities for the week of October 30-November 7 was from the beginning a much belated and wholly inadequate measure.

Only a few regions imposed full-scale lockdowns, and many of the country’s biggest state-owned enterprises were exempt from the order from the beginning. No travel restrictions were imposed, and there was a reported spike in vacation bookings for Egypt and the Black Sea.

In an indication of the unserious attitude toward the coronavirus crisis that has been promoted, some businesses announced their closures by wishing their employees and customers a “happy vacation.” Major sports and cultural events were allowed to go ahead, and mask mandates are still not being enforced.

So far, only the Novgorod region has announced that it will extend the “workfree week” until November 14. A doctor from the region earlier revealed that infections had risen by 22 percent last week.

About half of the cases are occurring in the working population, and 30 percent among pensioners. The rest (about 20 percent) were accounted for by children, most of them between 7 and 17 years old. Only between 11 and 13 percent of those infected were not showing any clinical symptoms.

While the Russian education ministry has announced that college education might continue on a remote basis for the foreseeable future, the end of the “workfree week” will mean the reopening of schools under conditions of what is already a horrifying scale of infections among children. Last week, the Russian health minister revealed that almost 60,000 children in the country were being treated for COVID-19, with half of them showing “acute” symptoms. Cases and hospitalizations have since grown further.

On Monday, the Russian health ministry’s expert for infectious diseases, Yuri Lobzin, stated that between 1 and 12 percent of all children in the country’s regions are falling ill with the virus, with a 7.6 percent nationwide average.

While 60 percent of those infected have “mild” cases or show no symptoms, a staggering 40 percent do show clinical symptoms. Moreover, a medical expert earlier estimated that about 13.5 percent of all children who have been infected in Russia suffer from Long COVID, which can include respiratory as well as neurological symptoms, such as fatigue, the inability to concentrate and the loss of several IQ points. Many of those who suffer Long COVID initially showed only “mild,” if any, symptoms.

Hospitals, including special COVID-19 hospitals for children, are still being opened up across the country to deal with the surge in hospitalizations. The country now has 290,000 hospital beds opened up for COVID-19 patients, well above the 270,000 hospital beds that were needed during the previous peak of the pandemic.

Critical shortages of oxygen have been reported in several regions, including the Altai region, North Ossetia, the Chuvashia region and the Komi republic. A doctor at Infectious Diseases Hospital in the Chuvashia region told the Moscow Times, “We are getting to the point where we will have to choose who gets the oxygen.”

The governor of the small northern republic of Komi said that the situation was about to “burst” and described oxygen as “the new gold.” A medic working in an infectious diseases hospital in the region described the mood there as “tense, borderline dramatic.” He added, “Sometimes the oxygen gets here at the very last minute, [and] we feel like we are living on the edge.”

Dmitriy Kuznetsov, the general manager of a major producer of medical oxygen, Cryogenmash, told the newspaper, “I don’t want to sound hysterical, but the situation is very tense. There isn’t really a way we can scale up our production.”

The current surge threatens to overwhelm the already overburdened and exhausted medical workforce. A poll revealed that almost 30 percent of health care workers who are taking care of COVID-19 patients are close to handing in their resignation because of exhaustion. Some 37 percent are suffering health problems because of emotional exhaustion. Only 12.6 percent of doctors and nurses who are working in COVID hospitals and departments indicated that they are still “full of energy” and “enjoy going to work.”

In neighboring countries across Eastern Europe, including the Baltic States and Ukraine, as well as the UK, the virus also continues to surge.

The ending of the restriction measures under these conditions can be described only as a crime against entire generations of young people, their parents and the working class as a whole. It comes in the context of the aggressive push by the ruling class in countries such as the US, UK and Germany to put an end to all, however limited, efforts to mitigate the spread of the pandemic and growing pressure on countries like China to abandon their “zero COVID” policy.

Rampant inflation pushing Canada’s low-income workers even further into poverty

Omar Ali

Inflation, which has accelerated dramatically across Canada in 2021, is gouging evermore deeply into workers’ real incomes, placing serious strain on their ability to make ends meet and even afford basic necessities.

At the same time, it is propelling ever broader layers of the working class into struggle against a cabal of ruthless employers, big business governments, and their junior partners in the trade unions, who have collaborated to enforce low and stagnant wages for more than three decades.

According to Statistics Canada, the past two months saw the biggest year-to-year increases in the Consumer Price Index in nearly 20 years. In August, Canada’s annual inflation rate reached 4.1 percent, higher than any month since 2003; but this was surpassed in September, when the year-to-year increase in prices jumped to 4.4 percent.

All the major categories used to calculate the consumer price index have posted significant gains, including energy (transportation and heating), housing and food.

September was also the first time since 2003 that the inflation rate exceeded the Bank of Canada’s official target range of 1-3 percent for six consecutive months. Among G7 countries, Canada’s inflation rate currently trails only that in the United States.

Inflation is impacting all sections of the working class. Low-income workers, the unemployed and those forced to survive on welfare are especially hard hit, as an even bigger share of their small incomes goes to food, housing and energy.

Statscan claims that food prices overall were 3.9 percent higher this September than in September 2020, but Dalhousie University’s Agri-Food Analytics Lab puts the increase at closer to 5 percent. Both agree, however, that meat prices have increased the most, with Statscan pegging the year-to-year increase in September at 9.5 percent. Beef prices were 13 percent higher and poultry 11 percent, while the cost of dairy products and eggs had increased 5.1 percent.

A recent Dalhousie Food Lab survey of more than 10,000 consumers found that two in five have changed their shopping habits due to food price increases and that nearly half have reduced their consumption of meat. Food Lab Director Sylvain Charlebois told the Canadian Press, “Every section of the grocery store is impacted by inflation—there’s not one single section that has not been impacted.”

Pandemic related supply-chain issues have combined with last summer’s catastrophic wildfires and droughts to disrupt the food supply and create a significant gap between the supply of goods and consumer demand.

Energy prices have also spiked. In many parts of the country, gasoline prices reached all-time highs in the run up to the early October Thanksgiving weekend. According to Natural Resources Canada, a litre of gas cost on average $1.45 in the first week of October, up more than 40 cents from last year.

Natural gas distributors have also hiked, or plan to hike, their prices, citing increases at the wellhead. Enbridge Gas says that costs are likely to increase for Ontarians who heat their homes with gas by approximately $7-$44 a year. Manitoba Hydro has said that households can expect an 8.7 percent increase in their energy costs.

Increased heating bills will also impact rents across Canada. Housing costs—both rents and housing prices—have risen so sharply in recent years that even the big business politicians were forced to concede that Canada faces a “housing crisis” while campaigning for the Sept. 20 federal election. The home replacement cost index, which is tied to the cost of purchasing new homes, increased 14.3 percent in the year ending August 2021.

The rising cost of living is pushing more and more workers and their families into dire financial straits. A recent Food Banks Canada survey found a large increase in foodbank visits throughout the pandemic. Its CEO, David Armour, told the media, “We're seeing high food prices, we're seeing high housing prices, we're seeing an anticipated pullback of government [aid] and we're seeing high unemployment continuing through the COVID pandemic.” He added that food banks are bracing for even greater demand in the coming months.

Last week, Food Banks Canada released its annual HungerCount Report, based on foodbank use in March 2021. It found that there were 1.3 million foodbank visits that month, a 20.3 percent increase from 2019, and the sharpest increase since the Great Recession triggered by the 2008 financial crisis. The increases were most pronounced in large cities like Toronto, where foodbanks reported that visits by first-time users appeared to outstrip repeat users.

Another survey on affordability, conducted by BDO Debt Solutions, found that 43 percent of respondents saw an increase in their debt during the pandemic. Of these, 70 percent reported that their new debt is making their quality of life worse, as inflation is undercutting the ability of Canadians to save and make repayments. Indicating the extent to which substantial numbers of workers have survived during the pandemic on the margins, the survey found that 29 percent of respondents accessed government benefits. Of these, 76 percent described the benefits as very important or essential in maintaining their quality of life.

Last month’s decision by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government to end the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) is the culmination of a more than yearlong drive on the part of corporate Canada and their political representative to prematurely declare the pandemic over as part of their profits-before-lives back-to-work drive. Fully 800,000 people still relied on the CRB when it was scrapped, with just two days’ notice.

The Trudeau government’s goal is to force workers back into low-wage, dangerous jobs. Canada added a further 157,100 jobs in September, raising the total number employed to about where it stood when the pandemic began. Wage growth has been anemic, at only 1.7 percent on a year-to-year basis in September. This falls well short of the rate of inflation, meaning that workers are experiencing significant real-terms pay cuts.

By contrast, Canada’s financial oligarchy has never had it so good. The country’s 48 billionaires increased their wealth by $78 billion during the first year of the pandemic, and lavish bonuses continue to be paid out to top executives. Amid the unseemly squabble at telecommunications giant Rogers, the Globe and Mail reported last Thursday that had the company’s principal shareholder succeeded in firing CEO Joe Natale he would have been offered a severance and post-firing consultation package of $200 million!

The social and political consequences of the impoverishment of vast swathes of workers on the one hand, and the unrestrained enrichment of a corrupt and selfish oligarchy on the other, cannot be overestimated. A wave of militant strikes has swept the United States and Canada over the past six months, including workers in mining, manufacturing, food processing, auto, and auto parts suppliers. On Tuesday, over 10,000 workers at US agricultural equipment manufacturer John Deere voted down a rotten union-backed contract and are continuing their three-week strike for wage increases and an end to the hated, multi-tier wage system. In New Brunswick, 22,000 of Canada’s lowest-paid public sector workers enter the seventh day of their strike today for wage increases after 15 years of real wage cuts.

This upsurge of workers’ struggles has been marked by an increasingly open and widespread rebellion against the pro-capitalist trade unions, which since the 1980s have done so much to enforce “wage restraint” and slash worker rights in the interests of big business.

This reality was on full display Tuesday, when Jerry Dias, the president of Canada’s largest private sector union, Unifor, joined hard-right Ontario Premier Doug Ford at a press conference to champion Ford’s increase of the provincial minimum wage to a meagre $15 per hour—three years after Ford rolled back a planned increase to $15, as part of a volley of anti-worker measures.

Tuesday’s “increase,” which will only take in effect in January, amounts to a mere 65 cents. It will not even bring Ontario’s minimum wage close to a living wage. According to a report released by the Ontario Living Wage Network Monday, workers in Toronto must earn $22.08 per hour just to afford basic necessities. These necessities include housing, food, clothing, transportation, childcare, medical care, and recreational activities. Figures for other Ontario regions included $19.80 for the Peel Region, which comprises much of Toronto’s western suburbs, and $20.75 for workers in the adjacent Halton Region. Even in Sault Ste. Marie, the region with the lowest cost of living, a basic lifestyle requires an hourly wage of $16.20.

The fear that persistent inflation combined with low wages and precarious employment could prompt a social explosion is clearly felt within the ruling elite. Asked in early October during an American Council on Foreign Relations forum whether inflation was really transitory as the Federal Reserve has maintained, Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem joked nervously, “It’s the job of central banks to say it is.” However, in a press release last week, the Bank of Canada was forced to concede that high inflation will persist longer than it had thought and that interest rate hikes will soon be needed to curb it. This will drive up the cost of consumer debt, one of the chief mechanisms working people have used to offset stagnant and declining real wages.

New Zealand COVID-19 cases surge as government plans to lift more restrictions

Tom Peters

On Monday, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced an “in principle” decision to remove more COVID-19 lockdown restrictions in Auckland, New Zealand’s largest city. On November 10, retail businesses and public facilities such as libraries will reopen, and outdoor gatherings of up to 25 people will be allowed.

This is another reckless decision that will accelerate the spread of the deadly virus. There are now 2,139 active cases—a nearly tenfold increase since September 22, when the Labour Party-led government eased Auckland’s lockdown from “level 4,” the strictest, to “level 3.”

Medical staff take a COVID-19 test from a visitor to a drive through community based assessment centre in Christchurch, New Zealand, Thursday, Aug. 13, 2020. (AP Photo/Mark Baker)

Hundreds of thousands of people returned to workplaces and thousands of secondary school students to classrooms, fueling the outbreak. Parts of the Northland and Waikato regions are in a “level 3” lockdown after cases spread from Auckland. Christchurch, in the South Island, is not under lockdown despite four active cases being found there last week.

Three Auckland high schools (Macleans College, Mount Albert Grammar and Liston College) and one primary school, which had partially reopened, were forced to close this week after positive cases were found among students and staff.

There are currently 64 people in hospital with COVID-19—the biggest number so far in the pandemic—compared with just 13 on September 22. This includes three residents of the Edmonton Meadows aged care facility, where 15 residents and four staff tested positive.

Yesterday, an Auckland resident who had tested positive on October 24, died while self-isolating at home. The cause of death has not yet been confirmed, but it highlights the fact that management of positive cases has been significantly loosened.

When the lockdown began in mid-August, most positive cases were isolated in special quarantine hotels if they did not require hospitalisation. These facilities are currently accommodating only 294 people, with everyone else instructed to self-isolate at home.

Ardern told the media on Monday that case numbers were “within some of our expectations and modelling” and that “public health” officials said reopening retail was unlikely to cause a “marked increase in new cases.”

In fact, the government’s own modelling predicts a continued surge. Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield said that by the end of this month there could be more than 1,400 new cases per week, and the number of people in hospital will be 150, with 20 in intensive care. This morning, Bloomfield revealed to TVNZ that he had advised the government not to ease restrictions next week.

The government is deliberately letting the outbreak expand out of control, ignoring the pleas from scientists and public health experts for tighter restrictions. Ardern announced on October 4 that the government was “transitioning” away from its previous policy of eliminating COVID-19, which has so far limited New Zealand’s death toll to just 28.

The elimination policy was supported by scientists and working people internationally, who viewed NZ as a model, in contrast to the “let it rip” policies adopted in most other countries, which are responsible for an estimated 16 million deaths worldwide.

The Labour government has caved in to the pressure from big business, which insists that the working class must accept COVID-19 becoming endemic as the “ newnormal .” No country can be allowed to stand as an example showing that the disease can be eliminated and millions of lives saved, if public health is prioritised over private profit.

On Monday, COVID-19 modeler professor Shaun Hendy, who has provided advice to the government, called for a return to a “level 4” lockdown in Auckland, saying the case numbers and hospitalisations were “concerning.” He told TVNZ: “If we get up to 200 to 300 cases [a day] that will put a lot of strain on the healthcare system in Auckland.”

Contact tracing is not keeping up with the outbreak, resulting in a growing number of unlinked cases. As of yesterday there were 441 cases with no known source, up from about 20 a month ago. Without a lockdown, this will make it impossible to stop the virus from spreading.

Epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker told TVNZ on Tuesday he was “concerned about any relaxation of controls at the moment in Auckland,” while cases were rising. Speaking to Newshub last Saturday, Baker also raised concerns about the government’s plan to fully reopen primary schools on November 15, saying it could lead to cases of Long COVID in unvaccinated children.

Overall, 74 percent of people aged over 12 are fully vaccinated, i.e. 62 percent of the total population. Singapore and Australia, which have a higher vaccination rate and have been touted as models by the New Zealand media, are both experiencing a surge in cases, with 91 and 103 COVID-19 deaths respectively in the past 7 days, according to the Worldometers website.

Doctor Rawiri Jansen, a public health expert working with the National Maori Pandemic Group, told Radio NZ on Tuesday that he had a “feeling of impending doom” and the government’s decisions would create a “perfect f---ing storm.” Maori account for about half of the current cases and have a lower vaccination rate.

According to Stuff, the Ministry of Health says there are 284 intensive care or high dependency units across the country. Around 62 percent of ICUs, and 83 percent of all hospital beds are currently occupied.

Whangarei Hospital, the main hospital in Northland, is severely dilapidated and overcrowded. Radio NZ reported that since 2017, overall demand for emergency care, intensive care and inpatient services has surpassed capacity. Emergency medicine consultant Dr Gary Payinda said: “If on a regular day we can’t cope with patient demand, how the heck could we possibly be expected to cope with a surge [from coronavirus]?”

There is considerable unease in the working class over the decision to lower restrictions. Surveys in August and September found a significant majority supported “level 4” lockdowns and an elimination strategy. Stuff reported today, however, that its recent poll of nearly 10,000 Auckland residents found that 43 percent now “believed authorities had done a terrible or bad job at managing the outbreak.”

Meanwhile, anti-lockdown and anti-vaccination protests are continuing, organised by the extremely unpopular Destiny Church and similar groups. The latest gathering in Auckland last Saturday reportedly attracted 5,000 people—up from 1,000 at a protest one month ago.

The far-right rallies are being emboldened by sections of the political and business establishment and the media. This morning, Newstalk ZB’s Kate Hawkesby suggested that “there is sympathy for them, especially in Auckland, where everyone’s a bit grumpy and a bit over [the lockdown].”

The business group Retail NZ, and several business associations in Auckland, wrote to Ardern last week demanding the “urgent” reopening of businesses. Yesterday, on Newshub, opposition National Party leader Judith Collins criticised the government for not considering “localised” lockdowns in particular suburbs, essentially calling for an end to the Auckland lockdown.