Connect with us

International

Model minority blues — The mental health consequences of being a model citizen: Don’t Call Me Resilient EP 9 transcript

Recently, Statistics Canada revealed that South Asians reported lower levels of mental health than any other Canadians during the pandemic.

Published

on

On Don't Call Me Resilient, we speak with Satwinder Bains, associate professor and director of the South Asian Studies Institute at the University of the Fraser Valley and Maneet Chahal, co-founder of Soch Mental Health. (Claudia Wolff)

Episode 9: Model minority blues — The mental health consequences of being a model citizen

NOTE: Transcripts may contain errors. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print.

Vinita Srivastava (VS): From The Conversation, this is Don’t Call Me Resilient, I’m Vinita Srivastava.

Maneet Chahal (MC): We all have self-stigma to mental health. If tomorrow we’re emotionally challenged, we are going to wonder: What is wrong with me? Why is this happening to me?

VS: It has been a tough year. We have all struggled and our collective mental health has taken a real hit. But according to a recent Stats Canada report, South Asians have taken an even bigger hit, reporting lower levels of mental health than any other Canadians during the pandemic. Today, we’re going to talk about some of the reasons why, including the pressure of needing to be a model minority. That’s the idea that Asian immigrants keep their heads down. They don’t rock the boat. They are successful and they prosper. Well, those ideas are mostly myths. And those myths can cause all kinds of problems. Mostly, it forces people to internalize their mental anguish and it can end up leaving gaps in our mental health services. My guests today are intimately connected to the situation. Satwinder Bains is an associate professor and director of the South Asian Studies Institute at the University of the Fraser Valley. Her research focuses on access to mental health support in South Asian communities and the effects of migration and social isolation on mental health. And Maneet Chahal is co-founder of Soch Mental Health, which encourages better access to mental health support in Canada’s South Asian communities. Thank you both for joining me.

MC: Thank you.

Satwinder Bains (SB): Thank you, Vinita, for having us here today with you.

VS: Maneet, as the co-founder of Soch Mental Health, your work with the South Asian community has really kept you close to the issues. And I’m wondering what kinds of trends you’ve been seeing.

MC: I don’t think it’s any surprise that South Asians were as hard hit as they were. This has been happening a long time before the pandemic. And it’s really sad when you think that because you don’t know your environment, you haven’t acclimated to the culture around you, that that’s a disadvantage to your experience, your mental health narrative, essentially. We look at mainstream systems, mainstream mental health services that are catered in a way, for those that are educated, that are literate, that are English-speaking, predominantly from a white background is what you see. So, South Asians we’re struggling with depression, with anxiety, without even knowing it’s depression and anxiety. I think that makes it even more challenging when you’re navigating something related to your mental health in the dark because you don’t associate it to be a problem or for it to be even recognized as something that can be addressed or you can get help for.

VS: So there’s a few things that you’re bringing up there. One is this idea of culture and how important it is in terms of getting the kinds of help that you need to take into account that culture or someone’s culture, and the position that they’re coming from is important when you’re talking about their mental health. But you’re also saying that this idea that the pandemic has exacerbated existing mental health issues, I think that’s what you’re saying, is that it’s not the pandemic necessarily. It’s just the pandemic that highlighted existing mental health issues. But I’m wondering specifically if things got worse during the pandemic?

MC: Yeah, things definitely got worse during the pandemic. And I think the reason why Soch started is because a lot of people, a majority of their life, will probably go falling through the cracks of the mental health system. They’ll never get picked up. They won’t even know they lived their entire life having a mental health concern. So some of those things that are exacerbated during COVID in relation to mental health are depression, anxiety, suicide, addictions. Addictions is a huge issue in our South Asian community. Specifically speaking to the South Asian Punjabi community. And drinking is a No. 1 inquiry we actually get at Soch, where concerned loved ones are reaching out because a loved one is drinking and they don’t know how to navigate and support them.

VS: Satwinder, you’ve been researching South Asian communities for years, why do you think some of these communities have been so hard hit during the pandemic? The South Asian communities that we’re talking about?

SB: I feel that in B.C. there has been an explosion in terms of an understanding of the vulnerabilities of ethnic communities through COVID. And partly it’s been because of the issue of racism. I understand culture as being a very critical point in terms of understanding mental health and wellness and making sure that practitioners take that into account. But to kind of say that it’s because of culture is also a bit not warranted because sometimes it’s not the culture that’s at fault is actually the whole society that’s at fault, that hasn’t really understood their needs. And I think the good thing from the pandemic has been that there has been a really bright light shone on the vulnerability of ethnic communities, and they’re starting to be a greater understanding at the higher level of government to show a deeper understanding of the needs of these communities as taxpayers, as citizens, as children born here, not as put to the side kinds of groups, but really integrate their designs so everybody’s needs get met, the needs don’t get met. And then what you say is, well, these people don’t know what they’re doing. It’s their problem. They live in extended family systems. They’re spreading the disease. Without understanding what is going on behind it. Our community is matured and evolved from the ‘70s onwards. Even I would say, not hiding our mental health issues, but coming forward with them. There has been a shift and I think that shift has helped.

VS: Let’s talk about that shift for a minute. We all know that this is not a new issue. I mean, as you said, it’s been going on since the '70s. In the '70s, one of the higher reported suicide rates in Canada was for South Asian women. And many in the South Asian communities have struggled quietly with mental health for years. I guess what you’re saying is actually it has changed since the '70s, which is very hopeful, but it is an ongoing issue. So, what are some of the reasons that, you know, South Asian communities have struggled quietly? What are some of those issues at play there?

SB: In B.C. we have some very unique issues. We have, although a hundred year plus history of South Asian Canadians living in this province, we still have a very large influx of newly arriving immigrants. The newer immigrants, as they come and continue to bring traditional ways of dealing with situations. One of them is look within the family. Don’t put this out. Don’t let other people know there’s mental health issues in the family, because the sense of this collective identity, that we will all be tarnished with this brush. And as you know, in the South Asian community the family is sacrosanct. It is the cornerstone of everything we do. And people will sacrifice the individual for the family. And unfortunately, that does happen with mental health, that we tend not to get the kinds of help we need for the individual thinking that the larger group, the collective family, is the support the person needs. As Maneet said sometimes that support is right and sometimes it isn’t. So partly it’s been that we are not getting access to the services we need. One: the services aren’t there. Two: if they were there, we’re not accessing them. Three: there is still lots of stigma and the stigma continues. Even with COVID, there was stigma. And Vinita I want to say that we no longer can see ourselves as a homogenous group. We can’t say all South Asian Canadians deal with — every community has cohorts of people that deal with things differently. So we also have to have the diversity of access options for all of us as well. And I think that’s not happening. And to some degree, we are seen as homogenous.

VS: The South Asian diaspora, what that means is so diverse. We come from so many different places. But you talked about two things there, the stigma, this idea of the ongoing stigma. You talked about this idea of this collective identity, that somehow there’s this notion that the collective is more important than the individual. That is a cultural echo that continues. Maneet, what are some of the other things that you’re seeing? Why do folks in the South Asian communities tend to struggle quietly? This idea of not accessing the help?

MC: The stigma is huge. I think with stigma it’s the guilt. Guilt and shame are huge. I think it’s with anyone who struggles with mental health. But when you don’t have that health promotion, that preventative lens, that mental health dialogue happening — it takes years to break down stigma. We all, I’m sure all of us, anyone listening, we all have self-stigma to mental health. If tomorrow we’re emotionally challenged, we are going to wonder: What is wrong with me? Why is this happening to me? So add on a layer of not knowing what mental health is. No one’s ever having the conversation around you in the cultural way, the linguistic way for you to challenge that. You forever remain stuck there. And then comes that point. Maybe one day you take a leap of faith and you go to the health-care system. And as a mental-health professional, it is so broken and so complicated, you wouldn’t even know where to go, what to do. So what you see here in Brampton, locally, is things are unaddressed. They’re shoved under the rug. You end up in ER, likely, because you don’t know the system. What will happen is you end up having a panic attack. You only went to the hospital because you think it’s a heart attack. If you knew it was a panic attack, you probably wouldn’t go because you’re like it’s mental health. I got to keep this hidden. I can’t tell anyone.

VS: But then you feel it in your chest —

MC: You physically start feeling something is wrong with you now. It’s like, OK, it’s OK for me to go get help. But then a lot of those visits are left like that. You have a visit, you may have a follow-up and you never follow up again. That’s one example. The other example is you might go to a service provider, try to seek help and they don’t recognize, appreciate, value, your cultural experience, your family dynamics. And you are forever turned off from the entire experience and you don’t want to go back.

VS: You mentioned family, Maneet. I know that you’ve spoken publicly about your dad’s struggle with mental health. I’m wondering how that impacted you in terms of your work and where you ended up.

MC: Yeah, my dad struggled with depression, which started through grief. He lost his father. He lost his brother. And I think grief consumed him. And I think that is the driving factor along, I’m sure with family history, probably a lot of family history that he wasn’t even aware of because no one talks about mental health in the home, the immigrant experience, just milestones. But I think grief is the biggest thing for my father. And I think all of this as a professional and as a human being when it really struck me was when I lost my dad at the end of 2018 because I think that experience was like, oh my God. I think when you’re in it and you go through it. My entire perception — if you were to have this conversation with me in 2017, I’d probably have a very different perspective than I do today because I was like, oh, my God, grief can completely destroy you, destroy your mental health. And some of us bounce back. Some of us are broken and just carry on and others completely lose their way.

VS: I’m so sorry for your loss.

MC: Thank you.

VS: Satwinder, I know that you have done a lot of work in terms of the different generations and do different generations view and deal with mental health differently? Is that what you’ve noticed?

SB: Yes, absolutely. As I said, the family is the cornerstone of our communities. And I give it real credit for, one, holding things when things go wrong, but also falling apart when things go wrong. So I want to say that generationally because we live in multigenerational homes, there’s no empirical evidence of how many people live in multigenerational homes. What we kind of know, it might be half and half, let’s say, as a guess estimate that half the people live in multigenerational homes and half live by themselves in nuclear family systems. So I think living within multigenerational homes is both a support and it’s also a bit of a negative because I hear professionals saying all the time in B.C. that South Asian Canadians don’t need the kind of support from mental health services because they have family at home. Their family is able to help them. But I don’t think they understand that not all families are equipped or have the knowledge to really do the work and they can do more damage than harm. Whereas maybe if there were a nuclear family and they didn’t have the support, they’d have to look somewhere else. And others may step in and they may have to show through their assessment that the professionals do around the support you need, that they don’t have anyone and perhaps they would get the services. So I keep telling families to let people know that they’re working. They’re not home, looking after mental health and that they do need the support. But I think it goes beyond the understanding. It has to be a demand from us as South Asians to say to services that 25 per cent of the population in Abbotsford is South Asian. I want to see 25 per cent of your services reflective of that. I want to see 25 per cent of your staff having that cross-cultural competency, not just early knowledge of cultural competency, but really advanced skills, well-developed skills. Hire people who have gone through universities and had those types of educations. Why in our social work program or nursing program do we not have the cross-cultural, considering that the people that will graduate are going to work in these communities? And we can’t unfortunately always put the onus on the family to come forward and look for services. I would say to you, as Maneet has talked about the immigrant experience, immigrants generally are very passive. They come to Canada as a developed country and see the beauty, the milk and honey that they see. However, they see that with rose-coloured glasses because it is not milk and honey. They see it that way initially, and they kind of accept that they should take a second-tier position to demands. They shouldn’t go into the school and tell the teacher, I want this or go to a doctor and say I want this, because they see the immigrant position as a secondary position. They haven’t been accepted as full Canadians are rights and responsibilities, and it’s a very difficult dance that they are doing because they’re trying to uphold their cultural traditions, which they don’t want to let go yet, they’re frozen in time for a period of time. And then at the same time, they’re trying to adapt and culturalize to Canadian society. And you talked about these, you know, the environmental acclimatization that people have to go through. I have to tell you, that’s a very complex process. And we can’t expect people to jump off a plane and get acclimatized to Canada and figure out how things work and make the demands that they need. As you know, all of us know we have to be our own advocates for health care, unfortunately. But immigrants don’t always have the capacity and the wherewithal to do that. So multigenerational homes provide the support to people who are perhaps mentally ill because there’s someone in the home, someone to help, etc., etc. But it is not the optimum support system. There have to be services attached to that.

VS: It sounds like you’re saying not just do — I’m just going to use the “we” for a minute because I’m part of this community, too. But it sounds like you’re saying not only do we not have the capacity, but we don’t feel like we have the right.

SB: Yes. That’s why the idea of Soch — I love the word soch because soch is much beyond just thought it is a meaningful engagement in terms of our beliefs, our values, what we think, how we think, why we think it is a much bigger word than its actual small meaning.

VS: So for somebody who doesn’t know soch, let’s give a definition of soch, the word.

MC: I think Satwinder did an amazing job, but like definition-wise, soch means to think or a thought and for us soch is bigger than that. It’s a word that we’ve been using to really delve into the conversation about mental health, emotional wellness, your thinking, your emotions. And it comes across really well when you’re having the conversation between generations. I can have the conversation with my grandma, elders in my family and they’re like, what kind of work do you do? I’m like, I work in mental health. I think about the mind. Think about your soch, your mind and all the things you think about. And that’s the stuff, the challenging bits, and the happy bits. How can we manage that and keep that at a balance. It’s a short word, but it has a very large meaning. It was just like a random brainstorm at a Starbucks with me, Jasmeet and Harman, another founding member of Soch. And we wrote it down. And then we started asking everyone at the coffee shop, non-South Asian people. Can they pronounce this? Cause you want to pick a name that everyone can say.

SB: I also think, Vinita, soch has within it — is imbued with a sense of future thought. Soch is deeper than the moment. Soch is really about reflection and introspection. It’s about a moment of thinking and it can take you forward. I’m really a proponent of progressive thinking of inching forward. Regression is just not my cup of tea. And I’m sorry what’s happening in Afghanistan today. We’re all just heartbroken because the progress is so hard fought and especially of people who are vulnerable. Women, children, people are in abusive situations. People who are suffering from mental health or other incapacities. Soch is imbued with this idea that you can overcome your shortcomings, that you can go forward and make something of it.

VS: We talk about going forward a little bit and you mentioned Afghanistan and we talked about generational differences a little bit, but we haven’t really touched on gender yet. The notions of Asian masculinity, the idea of patriarchy and gender-based violence, these are all wrapped up together. What role does gender play, Satwinder, in all of these things that we’re talking about?

SB: I always feel gender is a fluid term and that it is forever being changed and challenged and manipulated. But traditionally, as you know, gender is seen as a binary and that there’s this or that, and we are nowhere in South Asian Canadian communities really ready to address all the differences between our genders. So as a result, I think the boundary of gender really defines who we are from when we are born to when we die. The rituals, the traditions of thoughts, the ideas, the beliefs, the expectations of roles and responsibilities are kind of part and parcel of everything that we’re socialized to do and to break those norms — every time I see someone who’s broken that norm, I’m in awe of that human to say that they have this courage and this strength of conviction to go against the grain. But in South Asian Canadian communities, partly because we, as all other communities on the planet, are mostly patriarchal, we’re in a bit of a trap. And to open that trap is something not everyone is able to do.

VS: I’m also talking about just the idea of the patriarchy, this idea of how this overwhelming patriarchy impacts the mental health of these communities and those impacted by that. I see Maneet you’re nodding your head.

MC: Yeah. Where we are stuck right now in the traditional sense in the patriarchy is that women really struggle with their mental health. And that is because you have loss of power, loss of voice, loss of autonomy within your home. There’s a lot of gender-based roles that play into your mental health and your wellness. You see caregiver roles are put on women and women have household roles. They are also working, they want their independence. They want equality outside. But then they are expanding themselves and stretching themselves out thin with caregiving. So that plays a huge role on women. And then we look at men in the traditional sense, on how they’ve been socialized to deal with their mental health and their challenges. We look at patterns of not talking about your emotions. Soch has been hosting a South Asian Men’s Forum, which we actually started with the beautiful work of therapy, which is the South Asian Mental Health Initiative in the U.K. So the South Asian Men’s Forum we created for South Asian men to come together, have a safe space with those that have lived experience, those who are professional, to talk about things that are very challenging for men to talk about. We don’t give permission to men to talk about their emotions. “Be a man, don’t cry. You can handle it.” These pressures also don’t allow for their mental health and the way they navigate to evolve. So what do they do? They drink, they get angry, there are outbursts that are happening at home because that is the cycle they’ve seen before them. And that is what’s repeating and it’s not breaking. So that still exists. It’s very heavy. It is being passed down to our generation, to our younger generation, because that is a pattern they’re seeing at home.

VS: I know that you both have seen the news, the sort of media reports about young South Asian men being impacted in a particular way and many of them turning to gangs. And I’m wondering what’s happening there.

SB: Yeah, it’s unfortunate that B.C. has seen over the last, I would say, 30 years, a real decline in wellness of young South Asian men, a certain group of South Asian men. Now, don’t forget, they’re a minority. They’re a small number. They do not define South Asian Canadian men. Generally, most of them are functioning at very high levels. They’re succeeding. They’re doing well. But there is a small group of men that are vulnerable and Maneet has shed some light on why they are vulnerable. But I think one of the things that’s happened is that as researchers and scholars, as practitioners, we really haven’t spent the time understanding men’s burdens and understanding men’s roles. And while we spend a lot of time talking about the shifting role of women from being caregivers, but also being breadwinners, we haven’t really spent the time to understand the burden that men carry generally. If I look at the literature, there’s very little on South Asian men. There’s lots of South Asian women, but very little on men. And we are nowhere near understanding the challenges that young men face. And we also have to understand the role of mothers and fathers and how they’re raising those young men, because they’re also raising them with expectations of the past as if they’re going to carry the burdens of family and breadwinning and always being there for everyone and looking after — that can be shared. It’s so much better if it’s shared between sisters and brothers. I have to tell you that men don’t understand their own privilege. They actually wake up in the morning without examining it. So there are challenges.

VS: If I could give you a magic powder, magic dust, where would you start spreading that dust? What needs to happen to improve the situation? I’ll start with you, Maneet.

MC: I think in terms of Satwinder shared, we’re kind of second tier in terms of a lot of our community not thinking that they deserve it or it’s their right. Because I think coming to Canada was like a ticket, like it was you won the lottery. Magic dust would be that South Asian mental health, culturally, linguistically appropriate mental health services and supports. It’s everyone’s right. It’s there. It’s not something that we’re fighting for. We have to advocate for. We have to sit at the table and beg for funding for, that stuff is just there. That is where I would start. The other thing I would start with is at schools. Schools should have mental health from the very beginning. Why are we not talking about this? And it should be mandatory for them to have mental health courses, mental health training and mental health in the curriculum. We need to start young. Mental health first aid should be mandatory. I think that staff should be out there.

VS: Did you say mental health first aid?

MC: Yeah, mental health first aid. So as a first aid for CPR and saving lives, there is mental health first aid for knowing your foundational mental health. But obviously having that in different languages for different cultures. Mental health training was not mandatory during my nursing education. And I’m baffled about the fact that you’re supporting someone who might be at end of life or they’re terminally ill or they had this horrific accident happen to them. But you have no mental health training under your belt to support them during this transition and this horrible experience. I can continue to probably go on. But I think right now, in terms of the bigger picture, I really feel like if you have that language from as soon as you’re born and you come into the world and you’re given the permission that you have in mind, and we all have a mind and we have emotions, and that is the human experience. That’s the beauty of it. And please experience it to your fullest. And if you’re struggling, reach out for help. Just reach out. Don’t suffer in silence like that is the vision of the community that I look forward to seeing at some point in my life.

VS: Amazing. Thank you for that. And Satwinder I’m going to give you the same dust, the same magic dust.

SB: You’re so generous, I thank you for that. I hope we can make some impact. I guess I have two areas that I think really need attention. One is we really need a very strong overhaul of the education system to address mental health. And we need it at all levels, as Maneet has said. And the second piece is really for policy-makers. If I had magic dust, I would like to see at every policy table that there be culturally sensitive and appropriate services being designed for every single thing that we do. Canada speaks about being a multicultural community, but does it act it out? Does it, in everything that we do, or do we address multiculturalism? Do we address the idea that so many cultures live under one roof, in one country, affected by these policies? I’m sorry, the policies are still very Eurocentric. They are colonial driven. They don’t even address Indigenous issues, let alone migrant issues. So the magic dust, it might be wonderful. It’s just not — I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it needs a whole shift in mindset, a whole shift in idea making, a whole shift in paradigms of how we function as Canadians. And we all need to do that. It can’t be a prime minister and his cabinet who does that, although we put them there. And once we put them there, let’s hold them accountable.

VS: Guys, I felt that physically, even though we’re just virtual. That was very powerful and very beautiful. Thank you both so much for the time that you’ve given today. I really, really appreciate it.

SB: Well, thank you for creating this platform and thank you for allowing us to share our thoughts. And Maneet, lovely to meet you.

MC: Thank you Satwinder and thank you, Vinita. Honestly, I think this conversation, it helps for myself to kind of sit back and reflect on why I’m here, why are we doing this and what work do we still need to do. We deserve this. We demand this and we need a better tomorrow, especially when it comes to mental health for South Asians.

SB: And Vinita I love that your podcast is called Don’t Call Me Resilient, because I think in that idea of resilience comes this idea of there, there, you know, condescending, patronizing ideas of, you know, you should be able to overcome this. Some things we can’t overcome. We need help to overcome those. But this idea that immigrants will always be resilient, they can take racism, they can take assault, they can take all kinds of discrimination and stereotyping, and they should just bounce back. I think that’s a really unfair characterisation of what we can and what we’re able to accomplish. I want to be resilient, of course I do, but not at the cost of somebody else’s ability to then just shove me down and expect me to bounce back.

VS: Thank you so much. Thank you both so much. I really appreciate it.

That’s it for this episode of Don’t Call Me Resilient. I’d love to hear what you’re thinking after that conversation. I’m on Twitter @writeVinita. And don’t forget to tag our producers @conversationca. Use the hashtag #DontCallMeResilient. Don’t Call Me Resilient is a production of The Conversation Canada. It was made possible by a grant for journalism innovation from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The series is produced and hosted by me Vinita Srivastava. Our producer is Susana Ferriera, our associate producer is Ibrahim Daair. And special thanks to our intern Vaishnavi Dandeker for her help on this episode. Reza Dahya is our incredibly patient sound producer and our fabulous consulting producer is Jennifer Moroz. Lisa Varano leads audience development for The Conversation Canada and Scott White is our CEO. And if you’re wondering who wrote and performed the music we use on the pod, that’s the amazing Zaki Ibrahim. The track is called Something in the Water. Thanks for listening, everyone, and hope you join us again. Until then, I’m Vinita. And please, don’t call me resilient.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched

Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

"Beware the Ides of March,” Shakespeare…

Published

on

Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

"Beware the Ides of March,” Shakespeare quotes the soothsayer’s warning Julius Caesar about what turned out to be an impending assassination on March 15. The death of American liberty happened around the same time four years ago, when the orders went out from all levels of government to close all indoor and outdoor venues where people gather. 

It was not quite a law and it was never voted on by anyone. Seemingly out of nowhere, people who the public had largely ignored, the public health bureaucrats, all united to tell the executives in charge – mayors, governors, and the president – that the only way to deal with a respiratory virus was to scrap freedom and the Bill of Rights. 

And they did, not only in the US but all over the world. 

The forced closures in the US began on March 6 when the mayor of Austin, Texas, announced the shutdown of the technology and arts festival South by Southwest. Hundreds of thousands of contracts, of attendees and vendors, were instantly scrapped. The mayor said he was acting on the advice of his health experts and they in turn pointed to the CDC, which in turn pointed to the World Health Organization, which in turn pointed to member states and so on. 

There was no record of Covid in Austin, Texas, that day but they were sure they were doing their part to stop the spread. It was the first deployment of the “Zero Covid” strategy that became, for a time, official US policy, just as in China. 

It was never clear precisely who to blame or who would take responsibility, legal or otherwise. 

This Friday evening press conference in Austin was just the beginning. By the next Thursday evening, the lockdown mania reached a full crescendo. Donald Trump went on nationwide television to announce that everything was under control but that he was stopping all travel in and out of US borders, from Europe, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. American citizens would need to return by Monday or be stuck. 

Americans abroad panicked while spending on tickets home and crowded into international airports with waits up to 8 hours standing shoulder to shoulder. It was the first clear sign: there would be no consistency in the deployment of these edicts. 

There is no historical record of any American president ever issuing global travel restrictions like this without a declaration of war. Until then, and since the age of travel began, every American had taken it for granted that he could buy a ticket and board a plane. That was no longer possible. Very quickly it became even difficult to travel state to state, as most states eventually implemented a two-week quarantine rule. 

The next day, Friday March 13, Broadway closed and New York City began to empty out as any residents who could went to summer homes or out of state. 

On that day, the Trump administration declared the national emergency by invoking the Stafford Act which triggers new powers and resources to the Federal Emergency Management Administration. 

In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a classified document, only to be released to the public months later. The document initiated the lockdowns. It still does not exist on any government website.

The White House Coronavirus Response Task Force, led by the Vice President, will coordinate a whole-of-government approach, including governors, state and local officials, and members of Congress, to develop the best options for the safety, well-being, and health of the American people. HHS is the LFA [Lead Federal Agency] for coordinating the federal response to COVID-19.

Closures were guaranteed:

Recommend significantly limiting public gatherings and cancellation of almost all sporting events, performances, and public and private meetings that cannot be convened by phone. Consider school closures. Issue widespread ‘stay at home’ directives for public and private organizations, with nearly 100% telework for some, although critical public services and infrastructure may need to retain skeleton crews. Law enforcement could shift to focus more on crime prevention, as routine monitoring of storefronts could be important.

In this vision of turnkey totalitarian control of society, the vaccine was pre-approved: “Partner with pharmaceutical industry to produce anti-virals and vaccine.”

The National Security Council was put in charge of policy making. The CDC was just the marketing operation. That’s why it felt like martial law. Without using those words, that’s what was being declared. It even urged information management, with censorship strongly implied.

The timing here is fascinating. This document came out on a Friday. But according to every autobiographical account – from Mike Pence and Scott Gottlieb to Deborah Birx and Jared Kushner – the gathered team did not meet with Trump himself until the weekend of the 14th and 15th, Saturday and Sunday. 

According to their account, this was his first real encounter with the urge that he lock down the whole country. He reluctantly agreed to 15 days to flatten the curve. He announced this on Monday the 16th with the famous line: “All public and private venues where people gather should be closed.”

This makes no sense. The decision had already been made and all enabling documents were already in circulation. 

There are only two possibilities. 

One: the Department of Homeland Security issued this March 13 HHS document without Trump’s knowledge or authority. That seems unlikely. 

Two: Kushner, Birx, Pence, and Gottlieb are lying. They decided on a story and they are sticking to it. 

Trump himself has never explained the timeline or precisely when he decided to greenlight the lockdowns. To this day, he avoids the issue beyond his constant claim that he doesn’t get enough credit for his handling of the pandemic.

With Nixon, the famous question was always what did he know and when did he know it? When it comes to Trump and insofar as concerns Covid lockdowns – unlike the fake allegations of collusion with Russia – we have no investigations. To this day, no one in the corporate media seems even slightly interested in why, how, or when human rights got abolished by bureaucratic edict. 

As part of the lockdowns, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was and is part of the Department of Homeland Security, as set up in 2018, broke the entire American labor force into essential and nonessential.

They also set up and enforced censorship protocols, which is why it seemed like so few objected. In addition, CISA was tasked with overseeing mail-in ballots. 

Only 8 days into the 15, Trump announced that he wanted to open the country by Easter, which was on April 12. His announcement on March 24 was treated as outrageous and irresponsible by the national press but keep in mind: Easter would already take us beyond the initial two-week lockdown. What seemed to be an opening was an extension of closing. 

This announcement by Trump encouraged Birx and Fauci to ask for an additional 30 days of lockdown, which Trump granted. Even on April 23, Trump told Georgia and Florida, which had made noises about reopening, that “It’s too soon.” He publicly fought with the governor of Georgia, who was first to open his state. 

Before the 15 days was over, Congress passed and the president signed the 880-page CARES Act, which authorized the distribution of $2 trillion to states, businesses, and individuals, thus guaranteeing that lockdowns would continue for the duration. 

There was never a stated exit plan beyond Birx’s public statements that she wanted zero cases of Covid in the country. That was never going to happen. It is very likely that the virus had already been circulating in the US and Canada from October 2019. A famous seroprevalence study by Jay Bhattacharya came out in May 2020 discerning that infections and immunity were already widespread in the California county they examined. 

What that implied was two crucial points: there was zero hope for the Zero Covid mission and this pandemic would end as they all did, through endemicity via exposure, not from a vaccine as such. That was certainly not the message that was being broadcast from Washington. The growing sense at the time was that we all had to sit tight and just wait for the inoculation on which pharmaceutical companies were working. 

By summer 2020, you recall what happened. A restless generation of kids fed up with this stay-at-home nonsense seized on the opportunity to protest racial injustice in the killing of George Floyd. Public health officials approved of these gatherings – unlike protests against lockdowns – on grounds that racism was a virus even more serious than Covid. Some of these protests got out of hand and became violent and destructive. 

Meanwhile, substance abuse rage – the liquor and weed stores never closed – and immune systems were being degraded by lack of normal exposure, exactly as the Bakersfield doctors had predicted. Millions of small businesses had closed. The learning losses from school closures were mounting, as it turned out that Zoom school was near worthless. 

It was about this time that Trump seemed to figure out – thanks to the wise council of Dr. Scott Atlas – that he had been played and started urging states to reopen. But it was strange: he seemed to be less in the position of being a president in charge and more of a public pundit, Tweeting out his wishes until his account was banned. He was unable to put the worms back in the can that he had approved opening. 

By that time, and by all accounts, Trump was convinced that the whole effort was a mistake, that he had been trolled into wrecking the country he promised to make great. It was too late. Mail-in ballots had been widely approved, the country was in shambles, the media and public health bureaucrats were ruling the airwaves, and his final months of the campaign failed even to come to grips with the reality on the ground. 

At the time, many people had predicted that once Biden took office and the vaccine was released, Covid would be declared to have been beaten. But that didn’t happen and mainly for one reason: resistance to the vaccine was more intense than anyone had predicted. The Biden administration attempted to impose mandates on the entire US workforce. Thanks to a Supreme Court ruling, that effort was thwarted but not before HR departments around the country had already implemented them. 

As the months rolled on – and four major cities closed all public accommodations to the unvaccinated, who were being demonized for prolonging the pandemic – it became clear that the vaccine could not and would not stop infection or transmission, which means that this shot could not be classified as a public health benefit. Even as a private benefit, the evidence was mixed. Any protection it provided was short-lived and reports of vaccine injury began to mount. Even now, we cannot gain full clarity on the scale of the problem because essential data and documentation remains classified. 

After four years, we find ourselves in a strange position. We still do not know precisely what unfolded in mid-March 2020: who made what decisions, when, and why. There has been no serious attempt at any high level to provide a clear accounting much less assign blame. 

Not even Tucker Carlson, who reportedly played a crucial role in getting Trump to panic over the virus, will tell us the source of his own information or what his source told him. There have been a series of valuable hearings in the House and Senate but they have received little to no press attention, and none have focus on the lockdown orders themselves. 

The prevailing attitude in public life is just to forget the whole thing. And yet we live now in a country very different from the one we inhabited five years ago. Our media is captured. Social media is widely censored in violation of the First Amendment, a problem being taken up by the Supreme Court this month with no certainty of the outcome. The administrative state that seized control has not given up power. Crime has been normalized. Art and music institutions are on the rocks. Public trust in all official institutions is at rock bottom. We don’t even know if we can trust the elections anymore. 

In the early days of lockdown, Henry Kissinger warned that if the mitigation plan does not go well, the world will find itself set “on fire.” He died in 2023. Meanwhile, the world is indeed on fire. The essential struggle in every country on earth today concerns the battle between the authority and power of permanent administration apparatus of the state – the very one that took total control in lockdowns – and the enlightenment ideal of a government that is responsible to the will of the people and the moral demand for freedom and rights. 

How this struggle turns out is the essential story of our times. 

CODA: I’m embedding a copy of PanCAP Adapted, as annotated by Debbie Lerman. You might need to download the whole thing to see the annotations. If you can help with research, please do.

*  *  *

Jeffrey Tucker is the author of the excellent new book 'Life After Lock-Down'

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/11/2024 - 23:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Red Candle In The Wind

Red Candle In The Wind

By Benjamin PIcton of Rabobank

February non-farm payrolls superficially exceeded market expectations on Friday by…

Published

on

Red Candle In The Wind

By Benjamin PIcton of Rabobank

February non-farm payrolls superficially exceeded market expectations on Friday by printing at 275,000 against a consensus call of 200,000. We say superficially, because the downward revisions to prior months totalled 167,000 for December and January, taking the total change in employed persons well below the implied forecast, and helping the unemployment rate to pop two-ticks to 3.9%. The U6 underemployment rate also rose from 7.2% to 7.3%, while average hourly earnings growth fell to 0.2% m-o-m and average weekly hours worked languished at 34.3, equalling pre-pandemic lows.

Undeterred by the devil in the detail, the algos sprang into action once exchanges opened. Market darling NVIDIA hit a new intraday high of $974 before (presumably) the humans took over and sold the stock down more than 10% to close at $875.28. If our suspicions are correct that it was the AIs buying before the humans started selling (no doubt triggering trailing stops on the way down), the irony is not lost on us.

The 1-day chart for NVIDIA now makes for interesting viewing, because the red candle posted on Friday presents quite a strong bearish engulfing signal. Volume traded on the day was almost double the 15-day simple moving average, and similar price action is observable on the 1-day charts for both Intel and AMD. Regular readers will be aware that we have expressed incredulity in the past about the durability the AI thematic melt-up, so it will be interesting to see whether Friday’s sell off is just a profit-taking blip, or a genuine trend reversal.

AI equities aside, this week ought to be important for markets because the BTFP program expires today. That means that the Fed will no longer be loaning cash to the banking system in exchange for collateral pledged at-par. The KBW Regional Banking index has so far taken this in its stride and is trading 30% above the lows established during the mini banking crisis of this time last year, but the Fed’s liquidity facility was effectively an exercise in can-kicking that makes regional banks a sector of the market worth paying attention to in the weeks ahead. Even here in Sydney, regulators are warning of external risks posed to the banking sector from scheduled refinancing of commercial real estate loans following sharp falls in valuations.

Markets are sending signals in other sectors, too. Gold closed at a new record-high of $2178/oz on Friday after trading above $2200/oz briefly. Gold has been going ballistic since the Friday before last, posting gains even on days where 2-year Treasury yields have risen. Gold bugs are buying as real yields fall from the October highs and inflation breakevens creep higher. This is particularly interesting as gold ETFs have been recording net outflows; suggesting that price gains aren’t being driven by a retail pile-in. Are gold buyers now betting on a stagflationary outcome where the Fed cuts without inflation being anchored at the 2% target? The price action around the US CPI release tomorrow ought to be illuminating.

Leaving the day-to-day movements to one side, we are also seeing further signs of structural change at the macro level. The UK budget last week included a provision for the creation of a British ISA. That is, an Individual Savings Account that provides tax breaks to savers who invest their money in the stock of British companies. This follows moves last year to encourage pension funds to head up the risk curve by allocating 5% of their capital to unlisted investments.

As a Hail Mary option for a government cruising toward an electoral drubbing it’s a curious choice, but it’s worth highlighting as cash-strapped governments increasingly see private savings pools as a funding solution for their spending priorities.

Of course, the UK is not alone in making creeping moves towards financial repression. In contrast to announcements today of increased trade liberalisation, Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers has in the recent past flagged his interest in tapping private pension savings to fund state spending priorities, including defence, public housing and renewable energy projects. Both the UK and Australia appear intent on finding ways to open up the lungs of their economies, but government wants more say in directing private capital flows for state goals.

So, how far is the blurring of the lines between free markets and state planning likely to go? Given the immense and varied budgetary (and security) pressures that governments are facing, could we see a re-up of WWII-era Victory bonds, where private investors are encouraged to do their patriotic duty by directly financing government at negative real rates?

That would really light a fire under the gold market.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/11/2024 - 19:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Trump “Clearly Hasn’t Learned From His COVID-Era Mistakes”, RFK Jr. Says

Trump "Clearly Hasn’t Learned From His COVID-Era Mistakes", RFK Jr. Says

Authored by Jeff Louderback via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President…

Published

on

Trump "Clearly Hasn't Learned From His COVID-Era Mistakes", RFK Jr. Says

Authored by Jeff Louderback via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Joe Biden claimed that COVID vaccines are now helping cancer patients during his State of the Union address on March 7, but it was a response on Truth Social from former President Donald Trump that drew the ire of independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. holds a voter rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., on Feb. 10, 2024. (Mitch Ranger for The Epoch Times)

During the address, President Biden said: “The pandemic no longer controls our lives. The vaccines that saved us from COVID are now being used to help beat cancer, turning setback into comeback. That’s what America does.”

President Trump wrote: “The Pandemic no longer controls our lives. The VACCINES that saved us from COVID are now being used to help beat cancer—turning setback into comeback. YOU’RE WELCOME JOE. NINE-MONTH APPROVAL TIME VS. 12 YEARS THAT IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN YOU.”

An outspoken critic of President Trump’s COVID response, and the Operation Warp Speed program that escalated the availability of COVID vaccines, Mr. Kennedy said on X, formerly known as Twitter, that “Donald Trump clearly hasn’t learned from his COVID-era mistakes.”

“He fails to recognize how ineffective his warp speed vaccine is as the ninth shot is being recommended to seniors. Even more troubling is the documented harm being caused by the shot to so many innocent children and adults who are suffering myocarditis, pericarditis, and brain inflammation,” Mr. Kennedy remarked.

“This has been confirmed by a CDC-funded study of 99 million people. Instead of bragging about its speedy approval, we should be honestly and transparently debating the abundant evidence that this vaccine may have caused more harm than good.

“I look forward to debating both Trump and Biden on Sept. 16 in San Marcos, Texas.”

Mr. Kennedy announced in April 2023 that he would challenge President Biden for the 2024 Democratic Party presidential nomination before declaring his run as an independent last October, claiming that the Democrat National Committee was “rigging the primary.”

Since the early stages of his campaign, Mr. Kennedy has generated more support than pundits expected from conservatives, moderates, and independents resulting in speculation that he could take votes away from President Trump.

Many Republicans continue to seek a reckoning over the government-imposed pandemic lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

President Trump’s defense of Operation Warp Speed, the program he rolled out in May 2020 to spur the development and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines amid the pandemic, remains a sticking point for some of his supporters.

Vice President Mike Pence (L) and President Donald Trump deliver an update on Operation Warp Speed in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington on Nov. 13, 2020. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

Operation Warp Speed featured a partnership between the government, the military, and the private sector, with the government paying for millions of vaccine doses to be produced.

President Trump released a statement in March 2021 saying: “I hope everyone remembers when they’re getting the COVID-19 Vaccine, that if I wasn’t President, you wouldn’t be getting that beautiful ‘shot’ for 5 years, at best, and probably wouldn’t be getting it at all. I hope everyone remembers!”

President Trump said about the COVID-19 vaccine in an interview on Fox News in March 2021: “It works incredibly well. Ninety-five percent, maybe even more than that. I would recommend it, and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don’t want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me, frankly.

“But again, we have our freedoms and we have to live by that and I agree with that also. But it’s a great vaccine, it’s a safe vaccine, and it’s something that works.”

On many occasions, President Trump has said that he is not in favor of vaccine mandates.

An environmental attorney, Mr. Kennedy founded Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit that aims to end childhood health epidemics by promoting vaccine safeguards, among other initiatives.

Last year, Mr. Kennedy told podcaster Joe Rogan that ivermectin was suppressed by the FDA so that the COVID-19 vaccines could be granted emergency use authorization.

He has criticized Big Pharma, vaccine safety, and government mandates for years.

Since launching his presidential campaign, Mr. Kennedy has made his stances on the COVID-19 vaccines, and vaccines in general, a frequent talking point.

“I would argue that the science is very clear right now that they [vaccines] caused a lot more problems than they averted,” Mr. Kennedy said on Piers Morgan Uncensored last April.

“And if you look at the countries that did not vaccinate, they had the lowest death rates, they had the lowest COVID and infection rates.”

Additional data show a “direct correlation” between excess deaths and high vaccination rates in developed countries, he said.

President Trump and Mr. Kennedy have similar views on topics like protecting the U.S.-Mexico border and ending the Russia-Ukraine war.

COVID-19 is the topic where Mr. Kennedy and President Trump seem to differ the most.

Former President Donald Trump intended to “drain the swamp” when he took office in 2017, but he was “intimidated by bureaucrats” at federal agencies and did not accomplish that objective, Mr. Kennedy said on Feb. 5.

Speaking at a voter rally in Tucson, where he collected signatures to get on the Arizona ballot, the independent presidential candidate said President Trump was “earnest” when he vowed to “drain the swamp,” but it was “business as usual” during his term.

John Bolton, who President Trump appointed as a national security adviser, is “the template for a swamp creature,” Mr. Kennedy said.

Scott Gottlieb, who President Trump named to run the FDA, “was Pfizer’s business partner” and eventually returned to Pfizer, Mr. Kennedy said.

Mr. Kennedy said that President Trump had more lobbyists running federal agencies than any president in U.S. history.

“You can’t reform them when you’ve got the swamp creatures running them, and I’m not going to do that. I’m going to do something different,” Mr. Kennedy said.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, President Trump “did not ask the questions that he should have,” he believes.

President Trump “knew that lockdowns were wrong” and then “agreed to lockdowns,” Mr. Kennedy said.

He also “knew that hydroxychloroquine worked, he said it,” Mr. Kennedy explained, adding that he was eventually “rolled over” by Dr. Anthony Fauci and his advisers.

President Donald Trump greets the crowd before he leaves at the Operation Warp Speed Vaccine Summit in Washington on Dec. 8, 2020. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

MaryJo Perry, a longtime advocate for vaccine choice and a Trump supporter, thinks votes will be at a premium come Election Day, particularly because the independent and third-party field is becoming more competitive.

Ms. Perry, president of Mississippi Parents for Vaccine Rights, believes advocates for medical freedom could determine who is ultimately president.

She believes that Mr. Kennedy is “pulling votes from Trump” because of the former president’s stance on the vaccines.

“People care about medical freedom. It’s an important issue here in Mississippi, and across the country,” Ms. Perry told The Epoch Times.

“Trump should admit he was wrong about Operation Warp Speed and that COVID vaccines have been dangerous. That would make a difference among people he has offended.”

President Trump won’t lose enough votes to Mr. Kennedy about Operation Warp Speed and COVID vaccines to have a significant impact on the election, Ohio Republican strategist Wes Farno told The Epoch Times.

President Trump won in Ohio by eight percentage points in both 2016 and 2020. The Ohio Republican Party endorsed President Trump for the nomination in 2024.

“The positives of a Trump presidency far outweigh the negatives,” Mr. Farno said. “People are more concerned about their wallet and the economy.

“They are asking themselves if they were better off during President Trump’s term compared to since President Biden took office. The answer to that question is obvious because many Americans are struggling to afford groceries, gas, mortgages, and rent payments.

“America needs President Trump.”

Multiple national polls back Mr. Farno’s view.

As of March 6, the RealClearPolitics average of polls indicates that President Trump has 41.8 percent support in a five-way race that includes President Biden (38.4 percent), Mr. Kennedy (12.7 percent), independent Cornel West (2.6 percent), and Green Party nominee Jill Stein (1.7 percent).

A Pew Research Center study conducted among 10,133 U.S. adults from Feb. 7 to Feb. 11 showed that Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents (42 percent) are more likely than Republicans and GOP-leaning independents (15 percent) to say they have received an updated COVID vaccine.

The poll also reported that just 28 percent of adults say they have received the updated COVID inoculation.

The peer-reviewed multinational study of more than 99 million vaccinated people that Mr. Kennedy referenced in his X post on March 7 was published in the Vaccine journal on Feb. 12.

It aimed to evaluate the risk of 13 adverse events of special interest (AESI) following COVID-19 vaccination. The AESIs spanned three categories—neurological, hematologic (blood), and cardiovascular.

The study reviewed data collected from more than 99 million vaccinated people from eight nations—Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, New Zealand, and Scotland—looking at risks up to 42 days after getting the shots.

Three vaccines—Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines as well as AstraZeneca’s viral vector jab—were examined in the study.

Researchers found higher-than-expected cases that they deemed met the threshold to be potential safety signals for multiple AESIs, including for Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), myocarditis, and pericarditis.

A safety signal refers to information that could suggest a potential risk or harm that may be associated with a medical product.

The study identified higher incidences of neurological, cardiovascular, and blood disorder complications than what the researchers expected.

President Trump’s role in Operation Warp Speed, and his continued praise of the COVID vaccine, remains a concern for some voters, including those who still support him.

Krista Cobb is a 40-year-old mother in western Ohio. She voted for President Trump in 2020 and said she would cast her vote for him this November, but she was stunned when she saw his response to President Biden about the COVID-19 vaccine during the State of the Union address.

I love President Trump and support his policies, but at this point, he has to know they [advisers and health officials] lied about the shot,” Ms. Cobb told The Epoch Times.

“If he continues to promote it, especially after all of the hearings they’ve had about it in Congress, the side effects, and cover-ups on Capitol Hill, at what point does he become the same as the people who have lied?” Ms. Cobb added.

“I think he should distance himself from talk about Operation Warp Speed and even admit that he was wrong—that the vaccines have not had the impact he was told they would have. If he did that, people would respect him even more.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/11/2024 - 17:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending