Instruction: Write an article about: Biden says Latin America is US ‘front yard,’ Trump says ‘backyard’ – Pick your flavor of neocolonialism. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: Alex Saab, colonialism, Donald Trump, Iran, Iraq, Joe Biden, Latin America, Monroe Doctrine, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen

Output:
What is the difference between Republicans and Democrats? Trump says backyard and Biden says front yard. Otherwise they share 95% of the same warmongering, capitalist, imperialist policies.

(Puedes leer este artículo en español aquí.)
People in Latin America often ask me what is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. For those outside of the United States, the two hegemonic parties seem so similar that they’re difficult to tell apart.
The reality, of course, is that the Republican and Democratic Parties are indeed nearly identical. When we look past all of the superficial Culture War battles they wage to distract the US public, we can clearly see that the two ruling-class parties share 95% of the same policies — and are funded by the same billionaire capitalist oligarchs and exploitative mega-corporations to obediently serve their economic interests.
The Joe Biden administration has made this undeniable. The Democratic president campaigned on promises to reverse Trump’s disastrous policies, only to continue the vast majority of them.
At a press conference on January 19, the current president accidentally revealed what the real difference between him and former head-of-state is: Trump thinks that Latin America is the US empire’s backyard, while Biden insists it is Washington’s “front yard.”
You can see Biden’s comments in the official transcript published at the White House:
“We used to talk about, when I was a kid in college, about ‘America’s backyard,’” he said in the presser. “It’s not America’s backyard. Everything south of the Mexican border is America’s front yard.”
U.S. maintains its Monroe Doctrine as Biden assures that Latin America is "America's front yard" pic.twitter.com/VhNxIVdV4Z
— Kawsachun News (@KawsachunNews) January 20, 2022

So now, when people in Latin America ask me to describe the differences between Republicans and Democrats, I have the perfect answer: Republicans think you are their backyard, whereas Democrats think you are their front yard.
Pick your favorite flavor of neocolonialism.
Biden has been in power for exactly one year as of today, January 20. And he has failed to accomplish anything significant. (His long overdue withdrawal from Afghanistan does deserve an honorable mention, but it is greatly overshadowed by Biden’s hawkish policies against the rest of the world — not to mention the devastating sanctions his administration has imposed on Afghanistan, which are starving millions of civilians.)
Far from breaking with Trump, Biden has doubled down on the far-right former president’s worst policies:
Meanwhile, inside the United States, Biden’s own party has blocked all attempts at passing significant legislation.
The US government is so thoroughly undemocratic, so entirely beholden to capital, it has become a dysfunctional basket case. Its “democratic” window dressing has melted away, and all that is left is a stone-cold authoritarian regime controlled by billionaire oligarchs, a textbook dictatorship of the capitalist class.
The only thing the US empire can do anymore is do what is has always done: escalate its imperial aggression abroad, endlessly pour money into the gaping maw of the Military-Industrial Complex, try to tame the voracious appetite of the death cult of capitalism — use war abroad to distract from the mass death, skyrocketing inequality, growing poverty, dire homelessness, police brutality, and mass incarceration at home.


Instruction: Write an article about: US threatens war on China over Taiwan – with nuclear implications. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: China, Nancy Pelosi, nuclear weapons, Taiwan

Output:
The US government has prepared for years for war with China over Taiwan. Nancy Pelosi’s trip was only the latest provocation, including Pentagon war plans, CIA threats, tens of billions in weapons sales, and US military forces on the ground.

The US government has been preparing for war with China over Taiwan. The extremely provocative trip by top official Nancy Pelosi was only the latest US escalation.
The Pentagon has made plans for war with China, top CIA officials openly call for fighting Beijing, and US troops are on the ground in Taipei.
Washington has sold Taiwan tens of billions of dollars worth of military equipment, and influential DC think tanks are even calling to send it nuclear weapons.

Our visit reiterates that America stands with Taiwan: a robust, vibrant democracy and our important partner in the Indo-Pacific. pic.twitter.com/2sSRJXN6ST
— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) August 2, 2022

“U.S. Navy deploys four warships east of Taiwan as Pelosi heads to Taipei,” Reuters, August 2, 2022
“Navy transits Taiwan Strait as Esper in Taipei calls for end to ‘One China’ policy,” Stars and Stripes, July 20, 2022
“US military considered using nuclear weapons against China in 1958 Taiwan Strait crisis, leaked documents show,” CNN, May 24, 2021
“Would a nuclear-armed Taiwan deter China?,” Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), December 24, 2020
“Yes, Taiwan Needs Nuclear Weapons to Deter China,” American Enterprise Institute (AEI), November 5, 2021
“To avoid Ukraine’s fate, Taiwan needs nuclear missiles — now,” Boston Globe, March 2, 2022
US Army Veterans Network: United States Taiwan Defense Command (USTDC)
“Reestablish the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group-Taiwan,” War on the Rocks, January 7, 2022

“US Nearly Doubled Military Personnel Stationed in Taiwan This Year,” Voice of America (VOA), December 2, 2021
“War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable,” RAND Corporation, 2016
“America must prepare for war with China over Taiwan,” The Hill, November 24, 2021
“Timeline: U.S. arms sales to Taiwan in 2020 total $5 billion amid China tensions,” Reuters, December 7, 2020
“U.S. Set to Sell Taiwan $7 Billion in Arms,” Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2020
“US makes 3rd arms sale to Taiwan under Biden admin,” Anadolu Agency, April 6, 2022
You won't see this in the Western media:
People in Taiwan are protesting the dangerous provocation by Nancy Pelosi and the US government
Condemning local politicians as US "puppets and traitors"
Chanting "We don't need America to treat us as a pawn!" pic.twitter.com/PrawgxZVts
— Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) August 2, 2022


Instruction: Write an article about: US President Bush praised dictator Fujimori as ‘Peru’s hope for the future’. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: Alberto Fujimori, CIA, genocide, George H W Bush, Indigenous peoples, Keiko Fujimori, Peru, racism, USAID, Vladimiro Montesinos

Output:
US President George H. W. Bush welcomed far-right Peruvian dictator Alberto Fujimori to the White House in 1991, heroizing him as “Peru’s hope for the future” and praising his neoliberal economic policies.

(Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.)
US President George H. W. Bush welcomed far-right Peruvian dictator Alberto Fujimori to the White House in September 1991, heroizing him as “Peru’s hope for the future”.
With US backing, Fujimori committed genocide, sterilizing roughly 300,000 Indigenous people while killing, terrorizing, and torturing thousands of leftist dissidents.
The former Peruvian dictator was later sentenced to 25 years in prison on charges of crimes against humanity, murder, kidnapping, and corruption. He was convicted of ordering a military death squad to massacre poor people in rural areas.
But back in 1991, former CIA Director turned US President Bush praised Fujimori for the neoliberal economic reforms he imposed in Peru.
US President George H. W. Bush welcomed far-right Peruvian dictator Alberto Fujimori to the White House in 1991.
Bush heroized Fujimori as “Peru’s hope for the future”, and praised his neoliberal economic policies.
More information here: https://t.co/ikikPheeE0 pic.twitter.com/HrddVHeVmK
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 24, 2023

Bush told Fujimori at the White House with pride, “Mr. President, since taking office, you have cut government spending, eliminated price controls, knocked down barriers to trade and investment – and those reforms have begun paying off; they’ve begun paying dividends”.
“We want to be a full partner in your efforts to restore Peru’s economy”, Bush declared.
“We have spoken openly, discussing the tough challenges Peru faces, from economic hardship to renegade insurgencies, from the war against drugs to the battle to preserve human rights. And much has been done on all these fronts. But much more waits to be achieved”, the US president added.
“My administration wants to send $94 million in economic and military assistance”, Bush noted. But “unfortunately the Congress has placed a hold on disbursement of these funds, chiefly because of stated human rights concerns. We share these concerns and so do you, Mr. President”.
“But you have made progress on human rights, and let’s also then see progress on releasing these funds”, he continued.
Just a few months after this meeting, in April 1992, Fujimori carried out a “self-coup” or “auto-coup”, destroying Peru’s democratic state institutions and establishing a brutal dictatorship.
The Bush administration later superficially criticized Fujimori in public, but continued to support him.
US assistance continued when President Bill Clinton took power in 1993.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) provided funding for Fujimori’s “family planning” program, which he used as cover to commit genocide against Peru’s Indigenous nations, sterilizing nearly 300,000 people between 1996 and 2000.
Peru's far-right US-backed dictator Alberto Fujimori carried out genocide against Indigenous communities, sterilizing nearly 300,000 people.
His sterilization of Indigenous women received funding from the US Agency for International Development @USAID.https://t.co/63yXrqNBGg pic.twitter.com/NpQRkVZbt4
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) July 24, 2022

As the New Republic put it in 2018: “Under former President Fujimori, over 200,000 women were violated—one of the largest such projects since Nazi Germany. His party is still in power”.
USAID boasted in a report (emphasis added):
After the [United Nations] International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in 1994 and with political support from the president, the Peruvian Ministry of Health instituted a policy in 1995 mandating free contraceptives for all Peruvians through government facilities. As a result of this policy change, modern contraceptive use increased, particularly among rural and poor inhabitants.
USAID and other donors provided 100 percent of the contraceptives to the government while also providing technical assistance for training, supervision, education, information, and communication. Annual investments in family planning doubled from $12.9 million in 1994 to $28 million in 1998.
Fujimori committed many of his crimes with the help of his far-right intelligence chief, Vladimiro Montesinos, who was also imprisoned on dozens of charges, such as murder, drug trafficking, and bribery.
Montesinos was a longtime CIA asset who started his career by spying on Peru’s left-wing government and giving the United States confidential intelligence about Lima’s relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba.
Today, the far-right followers of the former dictator, known as Fujimoristas, still have significant influence in Peru’s political system.
Fujimori’s daughter Keiko was the right wing’s leading presidential candidate in 2021, running against leftist Pedro Castillo.
Castillo won the election, but was subsequently overthrown in a US-backed parliamentary coup in December 2022.
A 2021 debate between Peru’s presidential candidates Keiko Fujimori and Pedro Castillo


Instruction: Write an article about: Doctor explains CIA’s ‘Havana Syndrome’ conspiracy is mass hysteria – not Russian ray gun attacks. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: China, CIA, Cuba, Havana Syndrome, hysteria, Robert Bartholomew, Russia

Output:
Medical expert Robert Bartholomew explains how he knew CIA claims of “Havana Syndrome” was actually mass hysteria, not attacks with Russian, Chinese, or Cuban microwave weapons

For years corporate media outlets accused Cuba, China, Russia, and other US adversaries of attacking spies and diplomats with hi-tech “pulsed microwave weapons” or “directed-energy weapons.”
But now the CIA has admitted that “Havana Syndrome” is not caused by attacks by a foreign hostile power, but rather stress or natural causes.
Doctor Robert Bartholomew, a medical sociologist and leading expert on mass hysteria and social panics, explains how he predicted this in his 2020 book “Havana Syndrome: Mass Psychogenic Illness and the Real Story Behind the Embassy Mystery and Hysteria.”


Instruction: Write an article about: Western media goes white nationalist, calls Ukraine more ‘civilized’ than Iraq, whitewashes US wars. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: corporate media, Israel, media, Russia, Somalia, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen

Output:
Media outlets are calling Ukraine “civilized,” emphasizing that its people are white European Christians, while ignoring or whitewashing the US military occupations of Syria and Iraq, Western-backed Saudi bombing of Yemen, and constant Israeli attacks on Syrians and Palestinians.

Western corporate media outlets that published demonstrable lies to try to justify the 2003 US invasion of Iraq have done a 180 and suddenly become staunch anti-war voices condemning Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, which began on February 24.
Mainstream North American and Western European journalists have adopted what is essentially a white-nationalist narrative that has been widely denounced as racist, depicting Ukraine as a “civilized” European Christian country that is more worthy of sympathy than formerly colonized countries in the Global South, where the United States and its allies are killing civilians every day.
The US has roughly 800 foreign bases around the planet, with a military presence in the majority of the countries on Earth. The US is illegally militarily occupying both Iraq and Syria’s oil-rich territory, while helping Saudi Arabia bomb civilian areas in Yemen, in a nearly seven-year Western-backed war that has killed at least 377,000 Yemenis.
In fact, within hours of the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States bombed Somalia, Western-sponsored Saudi forces bombed Yemen, and Israel bombed Syria, just after Israeli occupation soldiers killed a teenage Palestinian.
The Times of Israel newspaper, without a hint of irony, even published an article on February 25 titled “Ukraine fighting reportedly not expected to keep Israel from bombing Syria.”

Meanwhile, Western media networks have bent over backward to portray Ukrainians as more “worthy victims,” emphasizing their whiteness, European culture, and Christianity, while these same outlets dehumanize or simply ignore dark-skinned people and Muslims in the Global South who are “unworthy victims” of Western wars.
This double standard was made blindingly obvious in comments by CBS News foreign correspondent Charlie D’Agata.
In a broadcast on February 25, titled “Russia closes in on Kyiv with more explosions reported across Ukraine overnight,” D’Agata insisted that the war in Ukraine is unique because the country is “civilized,” unlike nations invaded by the United States.
“This isn’t a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan, that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilized, relatively European — I have to choose those words carefully, too — city, where you wouldn’t expect that or hope that it’s going to happen,” the CBS News foreign correspondent declared.
Western corporate media coverage of Ukraine has gone full-on white nationalist, calling Ukrainians “civilized” white European Christians while whitewashing the US war on Iraq, bombing of Yemen, and Israeli attacks on Syrians & Palestinians
Read more here: https://t.co/YZCBzv4wXy pic.twitter.com/f4HZPOcaLz
— Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 28, 2022

The US war on Iraq killed more than 1 million people, and its two-decade war on Afghanistan killed hundreds of thousands more.
But the “unworthy victims” of US wars are dehumanized as “uncivilized,” whereas the “worthy victims” of Washington’s adversary Russia are portrayed as “civilized” white Christians.
D’Agata later apologized for his remarks, but he was by no means alone.
NBC News correspondent Kelly Cobiella stated openly, “Just to put it bluntly, these are not refugees from Syria. These are refugees from neighboring Ukraine. I mean, that, quite frankly, is part of it. These are Christians. They’re whites. They’re very similar to people who live in Poland.”
"Just to put it bluntly, these are not refugees from Syria. These are refugees from neighbouring Ukraine. I mean, that, quite frankly, is part of it. These are Christians. They're Whites. They're very similar to people who live in Poland."pic.twitter.com/T90tA101H9
— Zeeshan Khan (@IbnKhayyam) February 27, 2022

In the same vein, Ukraine’s deputy chief prosecutor, David Sakvarelidze, emphasized in an interview on the BBC that Ukrainians are unique victims because many have blond hair and blue eyes.
“It’s very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blond hair being killed, children being killed every day, with Putin’s missiles, and his helicopters, and his rockets,” Sakvarelidze said.
Western media outlets deny that Ukraine has a massive Nazi problem (it does), while they spread Nazi-esque propaganda: "It's very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blond hair being killed with Putin's missiles" ? https://t.co/gCbnsm5EB4
— Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 27, 2022

Sakvarelidze was formerly a member of parliament in Georgia, from the right-wing, pro-Western party of former President Mikheil Saakashvili, one of Washington’s most loyal allies in the region.
Yet Sakvarelidze was given Ukrainian citizenship and appointed deputy general prosecutor in 2015, soon after the US-sponsored 2014 coup overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected president and installed a pro-Western puppet regime.
Sakvarelidze’s Eurocentric rhetoric was echoed on Britain’s ITV News, by its correspondent Lucy Watson.
Recalling seeing Ukrainian children in strollers (or “buggies,” in British English), Watson said in exasperation, “Every single one of those buggies is a young child who was at nursery school, who was being looked after by their parents. Their parents were going to work, eating, drinking in cafes, doing the things that you and I were doing two, three days ago.”
“Now the unthinkable has happened to them. And this is not a developing, third world nation; this is Europe,” she added.
'Now the unthinkable has happened to them, and this is not a developing, third world nation, this is Europe.' pic.twitter.com/BFYvql7iie
— black lives matter (@jrc1921) February 27, 2022

British Conservative politician Daniel Hannan exemplified the imperial hypocrisy in an article in the right-wing Telegraph newspaper on February 26, titled “Vladimir Putin’s monstrous invasion is an attack on civilisation itself.”
“They seem so like us. That is what makes it so shocking. Ukraine is a European country. Its people watch Netflix and have Instagram accounts, vote in free elections and read uncensored newspapers,” Hannan wrote. “War is no longer something visited upon impoverished and remote populations. It can happen to anyone.”
Ironically, many people in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and other countries attacked by the United States do indeed have Instagram accounts, and Netflix is available in some of these nations as well.
But the obvious implication of this media narrative is that Global South countries invaded, bombed, and militarily occupied by the United States and its Western allies are not civilized, and therefore that Washington’s and Brussels’ wars are justified.
This flagrant differentiation in treatment is a textbook example of the concept of “unworthy victims,” articulated by scholars Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky in their classic 1988 book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.”
“Worthy victims” are those who are killed or abused by the US government’s Official Enemies – such as Russia, China, Iran, or Venezuela.
“Unworthy victims” are the people killed and abused by the US government and its allies – in Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Nicaragua, Somalia, Panama, Congo, and beyond.
Herman and Chomsky wrote:
Our hypothesis is that worthy victims will be featured prominently and dramatically, that they will be humanized, and that their victimization will receive the detail and context in story construction that will generate reader interest and sympathetic emotion.
In contrast, unworthy victims will merit only slight detail, minimal humanization, and little context that will excite and enrage.
Western media coverage of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine makes this imperial hypocrisy as clear as day.


Instruction: Write an article about: US covid ‘bailout’ is $6 trillion giveaway to Wall Street: Economist Michael Hudson explains. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: CARES Act, Covid-19, Donald Trump, economics, Michael Hudson, Steven Mnuchin, Treasury

Output:
Economist Michael Hudson says the US Congress’ CARES Act is not a Covid-19 pandemic bailout for the people, but a $6 trillion giveaway to Wall Street, banks, and stockholders.

Facing the Covid-19 pandemic, the US Congress rammed through the CARES Act — which economist Michael Hudson explains is not a “bailout” but a massive, $6 trillion giveaway to Wall Street, banks, large corporations, and stockholders.
Hudson discusses the enormous financial scam, and reveals how the economy actually works, with the Federal Reserve printing money so rich elites don’t lose their investments.
(Interview recorded on April 13, 2020)
Part 2: “How USA makes countries pay for its wars: Economics of American imperialism with Michael Hudson”

(Teaser – 0:03)
MICHAEL HUDSON: Just think of when, in the debates with Bernie, Sanders during the spring, you had Biden, and Klobuchar keep saying, ‘What we’re paying for Medicare-for-All will be $1 trillion over 10 years.’ Well here the Fed can create $1.5 trillion in one week just to buy stocks.
Why is it okay for the Fed to create $1.5 trillion to buy stocks to prevent rich people from losing on their stocks, when it’s not okay to print only $1 trillion to pay for free Medicare for the entire population? This is crazy!
The idea that only the rich should be allowed to print money for themselves, but the government should not be allowed to print money for any public purpose, any social purpose — not for medicine, not for schools, not for personal budgets, not for full employment — but only to give to the 1 percent. People hesitate to think that.
They think, ‘It can’t possibly be this bad.’ But those of us who have worked on Wall Street, for 50, 60 years in my case, that’s what the numbers show.
And that’s why you don’t have the media talking about actual numbers. They talk about, you know, just words, and they use euphemisms, and it’s the kind of Orwellian vocabulary, describing an inside-out world that they’re talking about.
(Intro – 1:58)
BENJAMIN NORTON: The world is suffering right now from one of the worst economic crises in modern history. Definitely the worst crisis since the 2008 financial crash. And many economics experts are saying that we’re living through the worst recession actually since the Great Depression of 1929.
Well joining us to discuss this today, we have one of the best contemporary economists, who is really well prepared to explain what has been going on in this global recession during the coronavirus pandemic. And specifically today we’re gonna talk about the $6 trillion bailout package that the US Congress has passed.
The Trump administration is basically taking Obama’s corporate bailout on steroids, and injecting trillions of dollars into the corporate sector. And today to discuss what exactly the coronavirus bailout means, we are joined by the economist Michael Hudson.
He is the author of many books. And in the second part of this episode we’re gonna talk about his book “Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.” So that’ll be much more in the vein of kind of traditional Moderate Rebels episodes, where we talk about imperialism, US foreign policy, and all of that.
Michael Hudson is also a former Wall Street financial analyst, so he’s very well prepared to talk about just the financial thievery that goes on on Wall Street. And he is a distinguished research professor of economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.
So Michael, let’s just get started here. Can you respond to this global depression that we’re living through right now amid the Covid-19 pandemic? And what do you think about this new bailout that was passed?
(3:50)
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well the word bailout, as you just pointed out, really was used by Obama, and the bailout only applies to the banks. The word coronavirus is just put in as an advertising slogan.
Banks and corporations, airlines, have a whole sort of wish list that they have their lawyers and lobbyists prepare for just such an opportunity. And when the opportunity comes up — whether it’s 9/11, with the Patriot Act, or whether it’s today’s coronavirus — they just passed a coronavirus onto an act which is shouldn’t be called giveaway to the big bank banking sectors.
Let’s talk about who’s not bailed out. Who’s not bailed out are the small business owners, the restaurants, the companies that you walk down the street in New York or other cities, and they’re all shuttered with closed signs. Their rent is accumulating, month after month.
Restaurants, and gyms, and stores are small markup businesses and small margin businesses, where, once you have no sales for maybe three months, and rent accruing for three months, they’re not going to have enough money to earn the profits to pay the rents that have mounted up for the last three months.
The other people that are not being bailed out are the people, the workers — especially the people they call the prime necessary workers, which is their euphemism for minimum-wage workers, without any job security. There have been huge layoffs of minimum-wage labor, manual labor, all sorts of labor.
They’re not getting income, but their rents are accruing. And their utility bills are accruing. Their student loans are accruing. And their credit card debts are mounting up at interest and penalty rates, which are even larger than the interest rates. So all of these debts are accruing.
And the real explosion is going to come in three months, when all of a sudden, this money falls due. The governor of New York has said, “Well we have a moratorium on actually evicting people for three months.” So there are restaurants and other people, individuals, wage-earners, who are going to be able to live in their apartments and not be evicted.
But at the end of three months, that’s when the eviction notices are going to come. And people are going to decide, is it worth it?
Well especially restaurants are going to decide. And they’re going to say, well there is no way that we can make the money to pay, because we haven’t had the income to pay. And they’re just going to go out of business. They’re not going to be helped.
The similar type of giveaway occurred after 9/11. I had a house for 20 years in Tribeca, one block from the World Trade Center. And the money was given by the government to the landlords but not to the small businesses that rented there — the Xerox shops and the other things.
The landlords took all of the ostensible rent loss for themselves, and still tried to charge rent out to the xerox shops, and the food shops, and ended up collecting twice, and driving them out.
So you’re having the pretense of a bailout, but the bailout really is an Obama-style bailout. It goes to the banks; it goes to those companies that have drawn up wish lists by their lobbyists, such as the airlines, Boeing, the large banks.
The banks and the real estate interests are going to be the biggest gainers. They have changed the real estate law so that the real estate owners, for a generation, will be income tax free. They are allowed to charge depreciation, and have other fast write-offs, to pretend that their real estate is losing value, regardless of whether it’s going up and up in value.
Donald Trump says that he loves that depreciation, because he pretends that he’s losing money, and gets it is a tax write-off, even while his property prices go up.
So there’s a lot of small prints. And the devil is all in the small print of the giveaway. And then President Trump has his own half-a-trillion-dollar slush fund that he says he doesn’t have to inform a Congress or be subject to any Freedom of Information Law, that he gets to go to his backers in the Republican States.
And even for the money that is going out to states and municipalities, they’re left broke.
Imagine New York City and other states. Most states in the United States, and cities, have balanced budget constitutional restrictions. That means they’re not allowed to run a deficit.
Now if these states and cities have to pay unemployment insurance, have to pay carrying charges on the schools and public services, and are not getting the sales taxes, not getting the income taxes, from the restaurants and all the businesses that are closed, or from the workers that are laid off, they’re going to be left with a huge deficit.
Nothing is done about that. There has been no attempt to save them.
So three months from now, you’re going to have broke states, broke municipalities, labor that cannot, whose savings was wiped out.
As I’m sure you’ve reported on your show, the Federal Reserve says that half of Americans do not have $400 for emergency saving. Well now they’re going to be running up thousands of dollars of rent and monthly bills.
So the disaster is about to hit. They will not be bailed out. But no investment, investor, really will lose.
And you’ve seen last week, the stock market made the largest jump since the depression — the largest jump in in 90 years. And that’s because Trump says, “The economy is the stock market, and the stock market is the 1 percent.”
So from the very beginning, his point of reference for the market and for the economy is the 1 percent. The 99 percent are simply overhead. Industry is an overhead. Agriculture is an overhead. And labor is an overhead, to what really is a financialized economy that is writing the whole bailout.
It’s not a bailout — it’s a huge giveaway that makes them richer than they ever were before.
(10:48)
BENJAMIN NORTON: Yeah and Michael, related to that — you mentioned that fine print is important. But I also have a kind of bigger question. And I don’t really know where exactly these numbers come from.
Officially the bailout is $2 trillion. Many media outlets reported it as effectively $4 trillion. But actually, according to Larry Kudlow — who is the director of the US National Economic Council, he’s the Trump administration’s kind of chief economist — Larry Kudlow is now saying that it’s actually $6 trillion in total, which is a quarter of all of US GDP.
And that includes $4 trillion in lending power for the Federal Reserve, as well as $2 trillion in the aid package.
So there is discussion of this aid package, but actually the aid package of $2 trillion is actually half the size of the $4 trillion that is given to the Federal Reserve.
What exactly is that $4 trillion that the Federal Reserve has? Is this some kind of slush fund, or how does it work?
(11:52)
MICHAEL HUDSON: No, the Federal Reserve was given special powers to create 10 times as many loans or swaps as others. So the Federal Reserve says we’re in — the Federal Reserve represents the
commercial banks and the commercial investors.
Now here’s the problem: a lot of companies were issuing junk bonds. They were going way down in price, especially junk bonds for the fracking industry. The Federal Reserve says, “We’re going to be backed up by the Treasury. We can just create — as you know, Modern Monetary Theory — we can just create money on a computer, and swap. So we will, say, ‘Give us your poor.’ It’s like the Statue of Liberty: ‘Give us your poor, your oppressed,’ or Aladdin’s old lamps for new: Give us all your junk bonds, and we will give you a bona fide Federal Reserve deposit.”
So the Federal Reserve has been pumping trillions and trillions of dollars into the stock market. That’s what’s been pushing up the stock market, the Federal Reserve. The bailout has gone to the stock market. As if the stock market got coronavirus! Stocks don’t get coronavirus! They don’t get sick on the virus! And yet it’s the stock market that’s going up through the Federal Reserve.
There’s also another $2 trillion dollars, $2 to $4 trillion that the US government has, over and above the $2 trillion that’s going to the people. So most of the calculations that have been published cite it as a $10 trillion bailout. Of which the newspapers, to avoid embarrassing Mr. Trump, only refer to the money given to the the wage earners. And they’re sort of embarrassed that the vast majority are given to the financial sector that doesn’t need a bailout, but that doesn’t want to lose a single penny from the virus.
So when you see the stock market recovered almost to what it was before the virus, while the economy is going down, you realize, wait a minute they’re saving the 1 percent, or the 10 percent of the population that own 85 percent of the stocks and bonds. They’re saving the banks. They’re not saving the people, and they’re not saving the economy; they’re not saving industry; and they’re not saving small businesses.
So it’s an amazing hypocrisy that the mainstream press is not discussing, which is why your show is so important.
(14:29)
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah and here in Washington, DC, we got I think $500 million from the, I guess what you accurately describe as the stock market bailout. And that’s a lot less than a number of red states that are less populous than Washington, DC got. So there’s a massive shafting here.
And then the city has only been able to provide for certain parts of the economy. Undocumented immigrants, who do a lot of work here, got nothing from the city. Vendors, which are a big part of the informal economy in DC, even though they have to be regulated, got nothing.
And then you mention all of these sectors of the economy — young people, college-educated young people who are deep in debt, and therefore less inclined to spend — are getting shafted here.
So you have called for a solution — well I guess, knowing so many of those people, they contribute so little to the economy because they can’t; they’re just putting all their money into debt. So you have called for a debt jubilee.
You say that debts that can’t be paid won’t be, and this is the best way out.
Maybe you can explain to our viewers and listeners what that is and why it would be the best remedy?
(15:42)
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well here’s what happens if you don’t write down the debts that are just going to accrue in the next three months: If you don’t say, “The rents will not have to be paid, and workers will not have to pay the debts that mount up,” if you leave those debts on the books, and you make the workers liable to keep paying the student debts, and the other debts, and the mortgage debts, and the rents, then they’re not going to have any money left to buy goods and services.
When it’s all over, they’re going to get their paychecks, and off the top is going to be the wage withholding, and the tax withholding, and the Medicare, and if they don’t want to get kicked out of their houses, they’re going to have to pay all of this money that’s accrued while they’re not making an income.
So you’re going to have a shrinkage of the economy, a vast shrinkage. How can they afford to buy anything but the most basic necessities, the cheapest food, the necessary transport? Obviously they’re not going to buy the kinds of goods and services that are supposed to be part of the circular flow.
The whole of economics textbook say employers pay the workers so the workers can have enough money to buy what they produce. But the workers don’t spend their income only on what they produce. They spend most of their income on rent, on debt service, on taxes, on finance, insurance, and real estate. And this is the only part of the economy that is being enabled to survive.
So how can you have the superstructure of rents and debts, of insurance charges, on an economy that doesn’t have the income to buy goods and services? And if they can’t buy goods and services, you’re going to have the stores closing down, because people can’t afford to buy what the stores are selling.
You’re going to have a whole wave of closures. And you’re going to go down the streets, and certainly in cities like New York, or where I live in Queens, just outside of Manhattan, where block after block, they’re going to be “For rent” signs. It’s going to be empty.
And the only way to avoid that is for a debt write-down.
Now you’ve had this occurring for 5,000 years. I’ll give you an example that may be easy to understand.
In Babylonia, we have the Laws of Hammurabi, in 1800 BC. One of the laws says that, if — in Babylonia you only had, when you would buy beer or other things, they would write it on a tab in the bar, in the ale house, and all the debts were owed when the harvest was in. You’d pay the debt seasonally.
Well Hammurabi said, if there’s a drought, or if there’s a flood, then you don’t have to pay the debts. Most debts were owed to the palace, and others.
And he said, “The reason we’re doing this is, if we don’t do that, then you’re going to have these debtors become debt servants, bond servants to the creditors; they’re going to owe their labor to the creditors; they’re going to lose their land to the creditors; and they won’t be able to work on public infrastructure projects; they won’t work for Babylonia; they won’t serve in the army, and we can be invaded; and they won’t be able to use their crops as taxes, because they’ll owe the crops as debts. So we’re going to write it down.”
So the whole idea for thousands of years, of every Near Eastern ruler starting his reign by writing down the debts, was to begin everything in balance.
Because they realized, just mathematically, debts grow at compound interest. You’ve seen the coronavirus increase at an exponential rate. That’s how debts accumulate interest, at an exponential rate.
But the economy grows in an s-curve, and then it tapers off. The American economy, the GDP since the Obama bailouts of 2008, the entire growth of the GDP has only accrued to 5 percent of the population. 95 percent of the GDP, the population for 95 percent, the industry, agriculture, that’s actually gone down.
So we’re already in a 12-year depression, the Obama depression, that they like to call a recession, because most of the media are Democratic Party people.
But you’re going to have this recession turn into a genuine depression, and it will continue until the public debt, that is state local debts, written down; the mortgage debts written down; and the personal debts written down, starting with the student loans, the most obviously unpayable debt.
And the choices, do you want to depression, or do you want the banks to be able to collect all the economic surplus for themselves? Well Donald Trump, supported unanimously by the Democratic Congress, says, “We want to protect the banks, not the population, not the economy. Let the economy shrink, as long as our constituents, the donor class, are able to avoid making a loss. Let’s make the loss borne by the 99 percent, not our donor class.”
(21:17)
BENJAMIN NORTON: Yeah, and Michael, you mentioned something, getting back to the Federal Reserve and understanding how this whole system works. I mean frankly it seems to me to kind of be a house of cards.
But you mentioned this idea of Modern Monetary Theory and just kind of creating money out of nothing. Can you talk more about that? You know this is a term that’s become more prominent, especially on the left: MMT, modern monetary theory.
There are socialists who argue in support of MMT and then there are others who are kind of skeptical of the whole notion that you can just print all this money to fund these social programs that you want to create, and that it won’t create inflation.
But at the same time, you and other people point out that that’s exactly how the economy already works. Where for instance, you want to fund a war, there’s never — you know frequently when someone on the left asks for universal health care or free public education, members not only of the Republican Party but many neoliberal Democrats often say, “Well yeah, where are you gonna get the money from?” And the response of some of the MMT supporters is, “Well we just fund the program, and we just create the money because we control the creation of the dollar.”
And we see that same attitude used actually by the Federal Reserve right now, but to bail out Wall Street. “Yeah we’re just gonna print” — they printed $1.5 trillion, and then just gave it, they just injected it right into Wall Street.
So does that not create inflation, or what exactly is happening economically there?
I mean to me, it seems like a scam; it seems like totally a scam.
(22:59)
MICHAEL HUDSON: Since 2008, you have had the greatest inflation of money in history. And you have also had the greatest inflation in history, but it’s entirely asset price inflation.
You’re absolutely right: the money has gone into the stock market and the bond market, to hold down bond prices, meaning you’ve had the biggest bond boom in history. You’ve had a huge stock market boom. But consumer prices have gone down. So here you have an enormous amount of money creation, and consumer prices and real wages have been drifting down.
So they are really two economies. The question is, are you going to create money for public purposes by spending it into the economy, on industry, agriculture, and the goods and service production and consumption economy, or are you going to put it into the financial economy?
Well if you put a bank loan — the whole way of our banking system is that banks create credit. If you go into a bank and you take out a loan, you say, I’m gonna borrow $5,000 for something. The banker doesn’t go and say, let me see if we have any money to loan you; he says, okay I will write a loan on my computer. I will credit your deposit with $5,000, and you will sign this IOU, and we have an asset. And the asset is $5000, on which we’re going to charge interest on what we pay you.
So it’s just done by computer, on a balance sheet. And as long as money is created on a computer, the only cost is the electricity used to make that debt record.
Now the banks, when they make a loan, they very rarely make loans just against — here’s just free money. They say, okay if we’re going to make a loan, well 80 percent of their loans are against real estate. So they say, in case you can’t pay, you’re pledging your real estate, the home you’re buying, or the commercial building you’re buying as collateral. So we’ll lend you up to 80 percent, maybe 100 percent, of the value of what you’re buying, and that’s the collateral we have.
So we lend against collateral. Well if you lend the money against collateral to buy a building, or to buy stocks and bonds, which are the other collateral, then obviously this money you’re creating to buy houses, or commercial real estate, or stocks and bonds are going to bid the price up.
Banks don’t give loans for people who say, I want to go shopping and buy more goods because I need the money. That may be a little bit, that’s what credit cards are for, but that’s a small portion of the overall money supply. So banks don’t make loans to buy goods and services; they make loans to buy assets that obviously inflate the price of assets.
And the more money that you pay for houses that are rising in price, or medical insurance, or stocks and bonds, to make a retirement income for your pension fund; the more money you pay for houses that are inflating in price because of bank credit, the less money you have to buy goods and services.
So actually the more money they create, the more consumer prices for goods and services fall. It’s the exact opposite of the usual theory.
I have on my website I have many articles about that, and I have something today in Counterpunch on that, it’s on sort of how the economy works the opposite of the way the textbook says.
Now unfortunately the left-wing doesn’t really study finance and money much. The whole discussion of finance and money has been monopolized by the right-wing, so left-wingers think, they don’t realize that they’re picking up a kind of junk theory of monetary relations and debt relations that’s all picked up from the right-wing of the political spectrum.
It’s a kind of parallel universe. That’s not how the economy really works, but in a way that sort of is easy to understand. And it’s very easy to make an erroneous, oversimplified view of the world easy to understand.
And when it’s repeated again and again and again, in the media, the New York Times and MSNBC, people really think that, well, maybe that’s how the world works — more money is going to push up prices, so we better not push for it, we better go along with trickle-down theory.
And most of the left believes in trickle-down theory. The Democratic Party leadership is absolutely convinced, if you just give enough money to the top 1 percent, or 5 percent, or Wall Street, it’ll all trickle down.
(27:49)
BENJAMIN NORTON: Well of course the Democratic Party is not the left.
MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s right, but it pretends to be. And it has crowded out the left. It has — you can see in the recent election primaries that its job is to protect the Republican Party from any critique by the left, interjecting itself in between the Republican Party and any possible reform movement.
BENJAMIN NORTON: Exactly.
(28:20)
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well they stood up really strongly against the bailout — I mean what was it, 96 to nothing? And in the voice vote, I was listening to the voice vote last night in the House; I didn’t hear AOC’s voice against it.
MICHAEL HUDSON: They did a voice so that nobody — everybody could say, “Oh it wasn’t me!”
MAX BLUMENTHAL: No, no! So you mentioned that foreclosure king Steve Mnnuchin gets like a $500 billion slush fund. I haven’t heard much discussion about that. What will he do with this sort of opaque slush fund, and how will this — I mean it’s a leading question, but how will this kind of reinforce or consolidate inequality for the next generation?
(29:10)
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well gee, I hope he gives some of it to Kamala Harris, who was the attorney general who let him do all of this, and who thoroughly backed him and led the foreclosure, was the iron fist behind his foreclosure program. So I’m sure he’ll press for Kamala to be the vice president on the ticket.
The Democrats have a problem. How can they guarantee that they have their candidate win? Their candidate is Donald Trump. How can they make sure that they have such a weak candidate that he’s sure to lose to Donald Trump? And the choice is, we’ll get a vice president that’s so unpopular that they’re sure to lose.
Now it’s a race between Kamala Harris and the Minnesota lady.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Klobuchar? The one who throws staplers at her staff. She seems very charming.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Uh, I don’t know about that. But my wife can’t even look at her on television. But I think that the pretense is that she’ll help get Minnesota, as if Minnesotans, where I’m from, are so dumb just to vote for somebody from there. But by getting Minnesota, they’ll lose the whole rest of the country.
So I think she’ll be the vice president, because that guarantees a Trump victory. And that will enable the Democrats to say, here — they’ll have the president they want, that is for their donor class, but they can say, “That’s not us; that’s the Republicans.” So that’s the Democratic strategy.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Right, then they can raise loads of money for the “Resistance,” and all of the outside think tanks. And that was the old Republican, William F. Buckley strategy, is we’re better throwing rocks out side the building and raising a ton of money for the National Review than actually having to govern. And that seems like the Democratic strategy.
But I guess I was asking about how you see the economy transforming, because the Obama bailout sort of transformed it or consolidated the gig economy, where everyone has to work three to five jobs, and what was supposed to be a highly educated middle class is deeply in debt.
Where do you see it after this next tranche of stock market bailouts?
(31:29)
MICHAEL HUDSON: Ok, let’s look at three months from now. Smaller companies are going to be squeezed, because all of their expenses are going to go up. Small companies have had to run up debts, and they have all sorts of other problems, and their earnings, their prospective profits, are not going to look that good. Because there’s not going to be a market for the things that they sell, because of the debt deflation that I talked about.
So what’s going to happen? You’re going to have a bonanza for private equity capital. The liquid, the 1 percent that have access to bank credit, and I have their own equity capital, are going to come in and pick up a lot of real estate that’s going to be defaulted on — just like they did after Obama evicted his constituency, the mob with pitchforks, and evicted them.
They’re going to pick up, Blackstone will pick up more real estate. Big companies are going to pick up small companies. So you’re going to emerge with a highly monopolized economy, much more centralized.
The important thing to realize about free-market economics and libertarianism, is libertarians advocate central planning; the Chicago School of monetarists advocate central planning; the free marketers want central planning. The banks are the planners, not the government. They want to exclude the government from planning, except to the extent that they can take over the government, as Trump has done, and plan all of the income to be transferred to themselves from the rest of the economy.
So we’re going to have a much more centrally planned by a coalition of monopolies and the government. In the 1930s, that was called fascism.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: It’s what we call a “public-private partnership” or something.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Right.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Just really quickly, and maybe we can kind of transition after this, but you mentioned Blackstone. I think this is one of the key components of the bailout. They own so much stake in so many of the companies getting bailed out. Can you just describe their role and what they are?
(33:38)
MICHAEL HUDSON: It’s appropriate that they were put in charge of bailout. So if they’re the largest company buying up defaulted real estate and buying, picking up the weak — it’s called moving assets from the weak hands to the strong — then they might as well be put in charge, because they’re going to be the company doing all the grabbing. So of course they’re in charge of it.
It’s called grabitization. That was their word for privatization in the 1990s. So grabitization is I think a better word than public-private partnership. It’s not really a partner; it’s sort of a one-way partnership; there’s one subsidiary partner. It’s really financialization and grabitization.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Right, just the looting of state assets.
BENJAMIN NORTON: Going back one step here, Michael, you were talking about the way that people should think about how the economy actually works. And I mentioned MMT. Can you kind of just walk through that again? Because you were talking about how actually, when the Fed creates — I mean really to me, as someone, I’m definitely not an economics expert, I just don’t understand really how this whole process works, because to me it just seems simply like, they’re literally just creating money and just giving it to banks, and corporate elites, and rich people.
I mean maybe that’s what it is. But I don’t understand, this is like the biggest scheme I can imagine, where the Federal Reserve is creating all of this money, printing — they’re physically printing money is my understanding. And then they’re just giving it to these banks, to bondholders. And then, but you said that what does is, instead of actually creating inflation, all that does is, if I understood correctly, it boosts the value of assets like real estate, while at the same time deflating wages and commodity prices.
So if that’s the case, then how should people who are advocating for socialized programs like Medicare for All, free public education, and maternity leave, and childcare, and all of these programs that the Bernie Sanders campaign and movement have been advocating for, how should we talk about the way to pay for all of those programs, if the reality of the economy is that the Fed is printing trillions of dollars, and then just giving that cash to banks?
(36:11)
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well I think the reason you’re having trouble understanding MMT is because what you described is what’s happening, but you think, “But that’s unfair!” And there’s a tendency to think, if it’s unfair —
MAX BLUMENTHAL: It’s not just unfair. It’s the biggest scheme I can imagine. There’s no other word other than just a con scheme.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes, and the brain recoils from thinking, “Can the government really be doing that to us?” Well, yes it can.
And just think of when, in the debates with Bernie, Sanders during the spring, you had Biden, and Klobuchar keep saying, ‘What we’re paying for Medicare-for-All will be $1 trillion over 10 years.’ Well here the Fed can create $1.5 trillion in one week just to buy stocks.
Why is it okay for the Fed to create $1.5 trillion to buy stocks to prevent rich people from losing on their stocks, when it’s not okay to print only $1 trillion to pay for free Medicare for the entire population? This is crazy!
The idea that only the rich should be allowed to print money for themselves, but the government should not be allowed to print money for any public purpose, any social purpose — not for medicine, not for schools, not for personal budgets, not for full employment — but only to give to the 1 percent. People hesitate to think that.
They think, ‘It can’t possibly be this bad.’ But those of us who have worked on Wall Street, for 50, 60 years in my case, that’s what the numbers show.
And that’s why you don’t have the media talking about actual numbers. They talk about, you know, just words, and they use euphemisms, and it’s the kind of Orwellian vocabulary, describing an inside-out world that they’re talking about.
They will buy stock; they’ll say we’re going to buy a million shares of Boeing; they’ll just write a check, and the check will be Federal Reserve, and people will get the money, and the Federal Reserve — you can create a deposit, just like a banker will write you a loan when you go in and borrow, and there will be a computer, the Fed can do the same thing.
Stephanie Kelton, my department chairman for many years at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, describes this. The University of Missouri’s website, New Economic Perspectives has a description of it. So if people want to google either her, UMKC, or what I’ve written, or Randall Wray at the Levy Institute, you’ll get, it’ll walk you through.
And it’s something that you have to — if you’re not already thinking in terms of balance sheets, which most people don’t, you have to sort of just do it again, read it again and again and again, and then all of a sudden, “Ah, now I get. It’s a ripoff! It’s created out of nothing. Now I get it.”
BENJAMIN NORTON: It’s just a house of cards. To me it proves the kind — there used to be this kind of very blunt orthodox Marxist view that the economy strictly follows politics, and it seems to me this is a case where the economy is just created by politics.
MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s true, and that’s not an un-Marxist position. Marx did distinguish between oligarchies and democracies, and finance capitalist economies and industrial capitalist economies.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Right. And the $17 billion for “urgent national security measures” was straight into the pockets of Boeing, which had its 737 maxes falling out of the sky, and had been clamoring for this bailout for a long time.
I mean you saw 3M, the maker of these masks which are suddenly unavailable, gained a total exemption from lawsuits, if the masks that it mass-produced now somehow failed.
So all of these things stuffed into the bailout were what industry and finance had been clamoring for for years. And they finally had the opportunity to do it.
(Outro – 40:38)
BENJAMIN NORTON: All right, we’re gonna take a pause there. That was the end of part one of our interview here with the economist Michael Hudson. He is a Wall Street financial analyst, a distinguished research professor of economics at the University of Missouri Kansas City, and of course the author of many books on economics.
You can find some of his work at michael-hudson.com. We will link to that in the show notes. He has interviews with transcripts and articles.
You can also find some of his economics work and the work of some of his like-minded colleagues at the economics department at the University of Missouri Kansas City website. I will link to that as well in the show notes. You can find the show notes at moderaterebels.com.
In part two of this episode, we’re going to continue our discussion of the house of cards that is the international
financial system, the economic system. And in the second part we’re going to talk about his book “Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.”
This is an incredible book. You know here at Moderate Rebels, Max and I frequently talk about the political and military side of imperialism. Michael Hudson just spells out, in easy-to-understand terms, how imperialism works at an economic level, how the US government and the Treasury, through the backing of military force, force countries around the world to buy US bonds, Treasury bonds, and how there’s basically just a con scheme where countries pay for their own US military occupation through buying US Treasury bonds.
Michael Hudson explains that all in really simple terms. And we also talk about the rise of China, and how China does pose a so-called threat, in scare quotes, to not the American people but rather to the hegemony of the US financial system — and the main financial instruments, the weapons that the US uses to maintain that hegemony, the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, and the World Bank.
And Hudson describes how, in his terms, the IMF, and the World Bank, specifically, are some of the most evil institutions that are really maintaining the American dictatorial, authoritarian chokehold on the global financial system.
If you want to support this program, Moderate Rebels, and the kind of independent interviews we do like this, giving a platform to some of these voices who you’re never going to hear in mainstream corporate media, you can go to Patreon.com. Please consider supporting us. And definitely join us in part. See you soon.