h'When He Gets New Information, He Likes To Talk That Through Out Loud,' Dr. Birx Says of Trump's Comments on Ultraviolet Light, Disinfectants as COVID-19 Treatments

“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute,” Trump continued. “And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.”

Here is Dr. Birx's reaction when President Trump asks his science advisor to study using UV light on the human body and injecting disinfectant to fight the coronavirus. pic.twitter.com/MVno5X7JMA

— Daniel Lewis (@Daniel_Lewis3) April 24, 2020

Ingesting bleach or disinfectants is dangerous and experts strongly warn against it. Disinfectant-related poisonings have risen since the coronavirus crisis began, as Americans have tried to disinfect more surfaces and sometimes even their food (which is dangerous and unnecessary.)

BUT DR BIRX NEVER EVER MENTIONED THIS ON TV

https://time.com/5827448/birx-trump-disinfectant-sunlight/

BLEACH, LYSOL, KOOL-AID IT'S AN AMERICAN THING
Jim Jones and Donald Trump: Same Kool-Aid, Different Vat
by Kerine Hathill
FROM THE ARCHIVES

I have met neither Jim Jones nor Donald Trump. I have, however, listened to hours upon hours of each of them droning on about their ideology (or lack thereof), their interpretations of world events, and their perceived slights by outsiders. Before 2015, I was much more familiar with Jim Jones than I was with Donald Trump: I’ve been researching Peoples Temple for about 10 years and used to contribute tape transcriptions to the Jonestown Institute website. My recent familiarity with Donald Trump is like that of anyone who follows national news which naturally has been focused on the presidential race this year. Trump was unavoidable during the primary season; since he was formally nominated and, as Election Day draws near, he seems omnipresent. It makes me wonder if this is how Jonestown residents felt with the incessant blaring of Jones’ voice over the loudspeakers – sometimes live, sometimes on tape, but always inescapable.

And here’s the scary part: the more I hear Trump talk, the more he reminds me of Jim Jones. It is for this reason that I feel compelled to demonstrate how I came to this conclusion. Trump is not our country’s leader, and we should take steps to make certain he does not assume the reins of power. In my view, the last thing the United States needs is someone like Jim Jones as commander-in-chief.

My comparison between these two men may be surprising to many who would point out the marked dissimilarity in their ideologies. Jones the communist would be appalled by Trump the capitalist. Yet if one ignores fundamental philosophical approaches, parallels abound: disturbing personality traits, despicable behaviors, negative messages, and the use of persuasive speech. I address each of these below.

Here is my requisite disclaimer, which I feel compelled to make: although I have a Ph.D. in psychology, it is in physiological psychology (that is, behavioral neuroscience), so I am not professionally qualified to diagnose either Jones or Trump. Moreover, it is often considered inappropriate even for qualified individuals to diagnose people with whom they have not personally interacted. However, there is a mountain of publically-available information on these men, providing a great deal of documentation to support discussion of their personalities and behaviors. That they share characteristics of diagnosable psychological conditions is worth consideration because it may help to better understand the motivations behind these individuals. So, informal diagnoses, taken with a grain of salt, offer food for thought in terms of considering the psychological states of these individuals.

Personality traits:

I’ll begin with the diagnostic term thrown out on nearly a daily basis regarding Trump: narcissism. In a 2011 article for the jonestown report, Gary Maynard, Ph.D. made a strong case that Jim Jones fit the criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I will not repeat all of his points here. As for Trump, several people have asserted that he is a narcissist, including Dan P. McAdams, Ph.D., Professor and Chair of Psychology at Northwestern University, who wrote a treatment of Trump’s personality in the June 2016 edition of The Atlantic. In the article, “The Mind of Donald Trump,” McAdams wrote:


For psychologists, it is almost impossible to talk about Donald Trump without using the word narcissism. Asked to sum up Trump’s personality for an article in Vanity Fair, Howard Gardner, a psychologist at Harvard, responded, “Remarkably narcissistic.” George Simon, a clinical psychologist who conducts seminars on manipulative behavior, says Trump is “so classic that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example” of narcissism. “Otherwise I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.”

So what is narcissism? As a personality trait, narcissism is marked by grandiosity, selfishness, and a strong desire for admiration from others. Taken to the extreme, it manifests as a personality disorder in which the person is manipulative, lacks empathy, and displays arrogance.

Narcissists desire constant attention. Jones attained this by keeping his flock in close proximity and controlling their lives. Trump gets his ego strokes by maintaining near-constant public focus on himself through campaign rallies, news appearances, and especially his Twitter account, from which he launches his rawest, most outrageous tirades free of the vetting of a campaign staff or the political party he purports to represent. The frequency of the mind-bogglingly offensive statements makes one wonder whether he does this solely for attention, as though he’s heeding P.T. Barnum’s adage: “There’s no such thing as bad publicity”.

Narcissism, however, would seem to be an incomplete description of the malignancy of these toxic personalities. Tony Schwartz – the principal author of Trump’s The Art of the Deal – recently stated that if he wrote the book today he would have called it The Sociopath. Building on this notion, James Hamblin, M.D., explored the closest thing to sociopathy that exists in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Antisocial Personality Disorder. This condition is characterized by hostility, manipulativeness, deceitfulness, callousness, impulsivity, risk-taking, irresponsibility, and other traits. Trump’s behavior ticks most if not all the boxes on the diagnostic list. Previously – and not surprisingly – Jones has been characterized along these lines as well (see Burke, 2006).

The quintessential Trump statement that reveals the toxic marriage of his narcissistic and antisocial personality traits is found in his January 23, 2016 statement that “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” It also struck me as a very “Jonesian” statement, but if you’re not convinced of the parallels between these two characters, consider the following examples of behavior and speech.

Requests/Demands for Loyalty:
Towards the end of one Trump rally in early 2016, the candidate asked that attendees raise their right hands and pledge to vote for him. His statement about being able to shoot someone and not lose any voters is as much a demand for loyalty from his followers as it is a demonstration that he has it. Compare these to Jones’ behaviors: he periodically had people pledge – verbally and/or in writing – that they were willing to die for the Cause. Jones also collected signed papers – sometimes blank sheets, sometimes written statements confessing to past or planned criminal activities – that he kept on file just in case someone thought about defecting. It gave him something to discourage them from leaving or – if they did – from speaking out.

Threats, Degradation, and Retaliation for Slights or Disloyalty:

Trump engages in very public tantrums in which he berates and derides his opponents or people who have betrayed him. Because these tirades are frequently done in front of a camera (say, at a campaign rally) or via Twitter, the attacks are available for anyone to see. A recent, notable attack was lodged at Alicia Machado, a former Miss Universe, whom Trump had “fat shamed” in the year after she was crowned when she gained considerable weight. After Hillary Clinton mentioned Ms. Machado in the first presidential debate on September 26, Trump spent several days tweeting degrading comments about Machado, including some posts tweeted in the wee hours of the morning. In a more recent scandal from early October, Trump was exposed engaging in what he described as “locker room talk” and which many other people have publicly called descriptions of sexual assault. Trump retaliated by holding a press conference shortly before the second presidential debate, in which he joined three women who had previously accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment or assault. Finally, in an action more reminiscent of a banana republic dictator, Trump threatened his political opponent Hillary Clinton by saying she should “be in jail.” And when he raises the subject of Clinton’s emails during his rallies, the crowd cries out, “Lock her up.”

Trump’s behavior reminds me of some of Jones’ actions towards anyone who defected from the Temple as an enemy. He would publicly deride them in Temple meetings and allegedly threatened many who left. The major difference between Trump and Jones in this regard is that Jones’ wrath was voiced within the realm of the Temple, whereas Trump’s wrath is on display for all to see.

Money: Acquiring Other People’s, Bribing One’s Way Out of Trouble:

Over the years, the Peoples Temple’s coffers ballooned to millions of dollars in assets, the result of its members donating much of their income and property to the Cause. Insiders could argue that this was an investment for the members: the Temple fed, clothed, and housed the members who lived communally. Outsiders might say that Jones had exploited his followers, essentially bilking many lower income people out of whatever they had. If one considers Jones as a con man who stole people’s money based on false promises, though, one can also view Trump as an expert in the art of the con. We need look no further than the defunct Trump University, which was technically not a university at all. Numerous lawsuits have been filed by individuals who were sold courses in real estate investing with the lure that these people would become sharp real estate moguls like Trump himself. Some individuals were relieved of $35,000 for the premiere courses, spending either the bulk of their savings or actually accruing this cost as debt, yet never actually acquiring the knowledge and skills needed for success in real estate.

Of course, one can attempt to create a positive image and avert possible legal consequences from people who feel exploited by making a few well-placed bribes or donations. Jones was known to have given money to a variety of political campaigns, including to leaders whose decision could – and did – directly affect the Temple. Similarly, Trump gave a generous donation to the election campaign of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi; miraculously, her office did not move forward with investigations into Trump University in response to complaints filed in Florida.

Denigration of Women, Sexual Improprieties, Assault Accusations and the Size of His Penis:
People are often alarmed at Jim Jones’ sexual indiscretions and crass talk about sexual conduct. It is well known, for example, that Jones had numerous extramarital affairs, and as some came to light, he or his defenders had ready-made excuses for the indiscretions. In public meetings, he would simultaneously brag and complain about having to “service” people – both men and women – within the congregation. Some of this conduct would be deemed non-consensual: consider former member Deborah Layton’s account of Jones’s pursuit of her, including raping her in a bathroom at the Temple; or a Temple leader’s admission and justification for Jones’ relations with a reluctant young woman. Jones is known to have called women out “on the floor” – that is, in front of the group at a Planning Commission meeting or even before the entire congregation – and publicly humiliate them. In one particular case, described by numerous people including Hue Fortson in Stanley Nelson’s documentary Jonestown: Life and Death of the Peoples Temple, a woman was ordered to strip in front of other Temple members, and then stand naked while Jones and others verbally denigrated the woman’s physical appearance. Jones also seized on many opportunities to describe his sexual prowess and stamina.

New reports and tabloids from decades ago revealed that Trump cheated on his first wife Ivana with Marla Maples, the woman who was to become his second wife, before he was divorced. Then, while married to Marla, Trump continued to engage in numerous infidelities. In the final weeks running up to the election, Trump stands accused of assaulting numerous women. Some of these accusations are decades old, but some were breaking as this article was being written. The shock value of the recent exposure of the Access Hollywood “hot mic” tape from 2005 revealing Trump discussing his inappropriate advances – as in, “assaults” – on women may be elevated even higher given that Trump had only recently married Melania, who was pregnant with his son Barron at the time of the recording. Trump is also one to boast about the size of his penis: at a Republican primary debate in the March of 2016, in defending himself on a comment made by Marco Rubio about Trump’s “small hands” – and by implication, a small penis – Trump stated that “I guarantee you there’s no problem there, I guarantee it.” That a comment of this nature would occur in the formal setting of a political debate is as inappropriate – even alarming – as Jones’ statements about his penis and sexual exploits occurring in a “church” setting.

Using the Bible

Peoples Temple began as a Christian church, and even as Jim Jones turned away from Christian beliefs and tenets, he retained his knowledge of the Bible. Jones knew it inside and out, including its contradictions and its descriptions of crimes such as rape and murder. The Bible was his to tailor his message at any given moment. While his knowledge likely appealed to many of the more traditional-minded (and older) members of his group, and helped to recruit others when Jones spoke in out-of-town churches during the Temple’s cross-country bus trips, a recurring image used by Jones’ critics is of the Temple leader throwing the Christian Holy Book to the floor, or suggesting that its pages should be used as toilet paper.

On the other hand, there is Donald Trump, known for bringing two books to some of his rallies: The Art of the Deal and the Bible itself. The problem is, one he didn’t write and the other he didn’t read, even if he uses the Bible to pander to the Religious Right. What should be problematic for Christian values voters in supporting Trump – yet astonishingly does not seem to be – is that he is remarkably ignorant of its contents. When asked about favorite Bible verses, Trump declined to give any. It was “too personal” for him, he said, and he didn’t want to discuss it. He wouldn’t even state whether he preferred the Old or New Testament. Eventually, after a number of days, Trump came up with “Never bend to envy” as his favorite Bible quote, one which doesn’t actually exist. Months later, Trump offered “an eye for an eye” as a favorite verse, an Old Testament passage which Jesus repudiated.

Links to Russia

One of the big controversies in Trump’s candidacy is his murky ties to Russia. He has given contradictory statements about whether or not he knows Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin. Russia’s leader is a “strong” leader, Trump says, a surprising compliment coming from a man painting himself as a conservative capitalist. Some suggest that Trump has financial ties to Russia and that the Russians may be involved in hacks of both the Republican and Democratic national committees. Trump denies these claims.

Jones’ links to Russia were relatively transparent. He was sympathetic to communism and an admirer of Josef Stalin. During Jonestown’s final year, Jones often spoke of relocating his movement to Russia as a way of getting away from the U.S. government’s persecution, an option which Christine Miller raised as an alternative to death on November 18, 1978. What is less evident is the degree to which Jones and his inner circle seriously considered this as a viable option for the community and how extensively this had been discussed with the Russian government. Like Trump, Jones’ connections to Russia are both mysterious and mystifying.



Playing the Savior, Bringing the Revolution:

Both Jones and Trump depict themselves as leaders of revolutionary movements, miracle workers who alone can save the people. For Jones, Peoples Temple was no mere church, it was a social and political movement that would fight against governmental oppression, racism, sexism, and poverty. Jones used faith healings to attract many of his followers, even though multiple accounts have revealed how many of these were faked. The Temple leader also promised his followers that he would deliver them to a utopia on Earth. Jonestown was to be the Promised Land, and its destruction – in Jones’ worldview – was due to the inability of the US to allow him and his followers to create a better world.

Similarly, Trump does not depict himself as a mere politician but rather the leader of a political revolution which will root out government corruption, hypocrisy, and waste. He paints himself as a non-politician who understands “better than anyone” how the political system is rigged, because he himself has worked that system. He alone can fix it and “Make America Great Again.” Trump aggrandizes himself as an economic miracle worker who created a multi-billion dollar fortune after receiving a “small loan” from his father. Like many Temple members, the followers of Donald Trump deny – or cannot even fathom – that their leader’s empire has been partially destroyed by bad business dealings and that his level of wealth is markedly lower than he claims.

Messages: Fear, Lies, Paranoia, and Violence:

Current political commentators are aware that a large part of Trump’s message to his supporters falls under the purview of fear-mongering. According to Trump’s view of the world; among other things, there’s plenty to fear: America is under attack from outsiders; Mexican drug dealers and rapists pour across the border as if it’s Swiss cheese, he argues, necessitating the construction of a wall along the entire border between the two countries; radical Islamists are also to be feared, and he may need to either completely ban all Muslims from coming into the US or merely impose “extreme vetting.” Trump also likes to tell blacks just how bad conditions are for them in terms of employment rates, poverty, crime, and violence. The employment and crime rates Trump quotes are hyperbolic, but that doesn’t mean his followers ever question the figures. Of course, when Trump refers to these numbers, he is usually in front of a predominantly white audience. When he speaks before blacks and Hispanics, he simply offers the pitch, “What the hell have you got to lose?”

Jones himself had fear to sell, and although conditions were bad for African-Americans, Jones told blatant, horrifying lies to portray a situation far worse than reality. His most famous is the claim of concentration camps being constructed for blacks in America. Prior to the mass emigration from the U.S., Jones often warned his flock that the American government was poised to start imprisoning blacks in concentration camps, but after the move to Jonestown, he filled his news reports with stories that concentration camps were already in existence. The message was clear: stick with Jones because you can’t go back to that hellhole.

Trump is a master of “Us vs. Them” thinking: you are either with him, or you are against him. People need Trump to save them from the danger brought by evil others, be they illegal immigrants, non-Christians, or Democrats. Anyone who speaks against Trump or withdraws support is an enemy, and he encourages persecution of them. Simply protesting at a Trump rally can result in being beaten up. There is simply no room for dissenting opinions. Jones, too, exploited divisions between groups. Although Jones described the government and its agencies as enemies and conspirators against them, he reserved his greatest contempt for defectors and members of the Concerned Relatives. On more than one occasion, Jones encouraged Jonestown residents to describe what they would like to do to defectors. Some of these involved graphic depictions of violence, and all of it was justifiable in Jones’ mind.

Hatred and distrust of the press is characteristic which Jones and Trump share. Jones truly felt persecuted by the press in the wake of the New West exposé that prompted his departure for Jonestown, and his distrust of the media would follow him to the end of his life. Trump likewise sees the press as tools of the enemy – unnamed special interests, GOP primary opponents, Hillary Clinton, and all Democrats – and laments on nearly a daily basis that the press is treating him unfairly, especially if a debate moderator tries to pin him down on a vague answer with a follow-up question.

For both men, accusations and critical statements about them are untrue – even when their denials can be demonstrated to be false. Indeed, one of the biggest similarities between Trump and Jones is their penchant for lying – and in Trump’s case, for his tendency to double down on his exposed lies. Both Trump and Jones counter their own false statements by offering the false statements of other people, as if this is an effective deflection away from their own lies. Moreover, as they both tell you, they speak the truth. Whenever I hear Trump’s oft-repeated “Believe me, believe me”, my mind flashes back to the so-called “death tape” of November 18, during which Jones tells his people: “I’ve never lied to you. I never have lied to you”.

A Notable, Important Difference between Jones and Trump: Their Followers

The followers of Donald Trump and Jim Jones share another similarity: they could not be more different from each other, or to a great degree, from the American society from which they emerge. People of color are rare at Trump rallies, and when they do show up, event organizers appear to go out of their way to position them behind the candidate so that news coverage of the event will capture them. Male Trump supporters outnumber female supporters. It’s difficult to know how many of them actually fit within the “Basket of Deplorables” to which Hillary Clinton has relegated them, but some have publicly made unabashed racist and sexist statements. Despite declaring themselves disenfranchised by the current conditions in the U.S., a recent survey indicates that the median income of Trump’s supporters is $72,000, notably higher than the median income of the entire U.S.

Compare these folks to Jones’ supporters. The Temple included people of all ethnic backgrounds, and by some estimates, blacks made up 85% to 90% of the Los Angeles and San Francisco congregations. Many, though not all, of the members came from lower-income households in inner city areas. These people felt disenfranchised, too, but it was arguably justified. Many had been on the receiving end of racism, injustice, and financial hardship.

SIGN AT ANTI PUBLIC HEALTH RALLY 2020

   JONESTOWN 1979

Although the U.S. is far from a perfect country, current conditions reflect improvements for many people from minority groups, compared to the 1960s and 1970s when Jones acquired his following. Trump claims that America is in bad shape, but this doesn’t map on to objective reality by many measures. But the people who buy in to Trump’s message apparently feel that things are bad for them personally. To outsiders, it is difficult to see what Trump and his supporters are so disgruntled with, unless they feel their privileged status is about to disappear. In short, I find it much easier to comprehend the dissatisfaction with America felt by Jones’ followers than that decried by Trump’s supporters. But regardless of how bad things are and how disenfranchised people may feel, tearing it all down is not the answer. Electing Trump would be America’s Jonestown. We would be poisoning our entire country.

The Scariest Thing of All:

As this article has shown, Donald Trump and Jim Jones share many characteristics, but perhaps the most important, the most fundamental – certainly the scariest – aspect of their message is the manner in which they deliver it. They often speak in animated, staccato sentences that border on ranting, but carry the fervor of passion. Trump, like Jones, tells his followers that he loves them. They repeat their messages frequently, a well-known persuasion technique. Both men see themselves as straight-talking, down-to-earth saviors: the kind that use profanities and vulgarities as a way of making them “relatable”. Even if many outside their respective movements wonder, “how can anyone fall for that?” others are willing to follow. Unfortunately, following such a toxic individual has ramifications for many people, and not just for their followers. Conspiratorial talk of a rigged election by a Trump fearful of losing to Clinton has his supporters vowing to retaliate on his behalf, in the form of riots or assassinations as needed.

I can think of nothing more frightening than the ability of each of these men to do great harm by holding the fate of a large number of people in his hands. Jones inflicted the ultimate harm by taking over 900 people to their deaths; the pain reverberates today among Temple survivors, family members and friends, as well as others who have been touched by the tragedy. As horrific as Jonestown was, Trump has the potential to inflict much greater damage: if elected, he will have the nuclear codes and lot of potential targets among the 7.4 billion people on the Earth. I am not convinced that Donald Trump has any better ability to control his destructive impulses than Jim Jones did. Certainly, his verbal and Twitter tirades strongly suggest otherwise.

Temple members “elected” Jones by joining his movement and staying in it, and Jones had the ability to control the narrative of his followers by maintaining tight control over their living conditions. Once inside Jonestown, Jones became their sole source of news and information. Not only was “reality checking” difficult, but escape was nearly impossible, creating a perfect environment for Jones to authorize self-destruction of the community once outside pressures ramped up. His annihilation of enemies was not nearly as extensive as he envisioned – only four non-Temple members died that day, shot at the Port Kaituma airstrip – and his talk of death squads going out and taking care of Temple enemies turned out to be just that: talk. There was almost a complete destruction of the movement wrought by a leader, but his followers ranked in the thousands, not in the billions.

UH OH THIS IS NO LONGER TRUE HE HAS BEEN ELECTED
Fortunately, Trump has yet to be elected, and we are not living in a Jonestown-like environment. There’s publicly-available information against which people can check Trump’s claims. Doing so should assuage their concerns that America is circling the drain, necessitating a vote for Trump to save us all. More importantly, we have choices. We have power with our votes. Many reporters, bloggers, commentators and spin artists have used the “Drinking the Kool-Aid” metaphor in this election, and while it’s one I detest, I will follow up on it by imploring that you think before you drink, and take note before you vote. The future of a lot of people depend on the decisions we make now.

Sources:
Regarding the Psychology of Jones and Trump:

Burke, J. (2006). Antisocial personality disorder in cult leaders and induction of dependent personality disorder in cult members. Cultic Studies Review, 5(3), 390-410

Hamblin, J. (July, 2016). Donald Trump: Sociopath? Taking his biographer’s claim seriously. The Atlantic, retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/07/trump-and-sociopathy/491966/

Maynard, G. (2011). Jim Jones and Narcissist Personality Disorder (NPD). the jonestown report, 11. Retrieved from http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=29416

McAdams, D.P. (June, 2016). The mind of Donald Trump. The Atlantic, retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/

Sources Addressing Jones’ Scandals:

Layton, D. (1998). Seductive poison: A Jonestown survivor’s story of life and death in the Peoples Temple. New York: Anchor Books

Reiterman, T. & Jacobs, J. (1982). Raven: The untold story of the Rev. Jim Jones and his people. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin

A Quick Guide to Trump’s Scandals:

Graham, D.A. (Oct., 2016). The many scandals of Donald Trump: A cheat sheet. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

(Katherine Hill is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Metropolitan State University of Denver and is a regular contributor to this website. Her views in this article are her own and do not reflect those of MSU-Denver. Her other article in this edition of the jonestown report is Harlequin Romance Meets Stephen King Meets Jonestown. Her complete collection of articles is here. She may be reached at hilltass@gmail.com.)

Originally posted on October 19th, 2016.

Last modified on November 14th, 2018.
Alternative Considerations of Jonestown & Peoples Temple

Welcome to “Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple,” sponsored by the Special Collections of Library and Information Access at San Diego State University. This website is designed to give personal and scholarly perspectives on a major event in the history of religion in America. Its primary purpose is to present information about Peoples Temple as accurately and objectively as possible. In an effort to be impartial, we offer many diverse views and opinions about the Temple and the events in Jonestown.

Originally posted on January 5th, 2013.

Last modified on April 18th, 2019

When oil became waste: a week of turmoil for crude, and more pain to come

David Gaffen 

BUSINESS NEWS

APRIL 25, 2020 / 11:04 PM / UPDATED AN HOUR AGO

(Reuters) - The magnitude of how damaged the energy industry is came into full view on April 20 when the benchmark price of U.S. oil futures, which had never dropped below $10 a barrel in its nearly 40-year history, plunged to a previously unthinkable minus $38 a barrel.

FILE PHOTO: A 3D printed oil pump jack is placed on dollar banknotes in this illustration picture, April 14, 2020. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo

In just a few months, the coronavirus pandemic has destroyed so much fuel demand as billions of people curtail travel that it has done what financial crashes, recessions and wars had failed to ever do - leave the United States with so much oil there was nowhere to put it.

While the unusual circumstance of negative oil prices may not be repeated, many in the industry say it is a harbinger for more bleak days ahead, and that years of overinvestment will not correct in a period of weeks or even months.

“What happened in the futures contract the other day indicated things are starting to get bad earlier than expected,” said Frederick Lawrence, vice president of economics and international affairs at the Independent Petroleum Association of America.

“People are getting notices from pipeline companies that say they can’t take their crude anymore. That means you’re shutting down the well yesterday.”

Evidence of the erosion of value for a product that has been a mainstay of global society since the late 19th century abounded across the world last week.


In Russia, one of the world’s top producers, the industry is considering resorting to burning its oil to take it off the market, sources told Reuters.

Norwegian oil giant Equinor slashed its quarterly dividend by two-thirds. Next week will bring earnings reports from the world’s largest oil companies including Exxon Mobil Corp, BP PLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC. They are all expected to detail additional spending cuts, and investors will be watching closely for how those companies plan to manage dividends.

U.S. billionaire Harold Hamm’s Continental Resources Inc sent servicers out into fields in Oklahoma and North Dakota in the middle of the week to abruptly shut wells, and the company declared it could not make crude deliveries to customers due to poor economics.

Continental’s decision to declare force majeure - usually reserved for wars, accidents or natural disasters - came as a shock, bringing a sharp response from the leading refinery industry group. But some say there is a logic behind it, even if it may not pass muster in court.

“You sign contracts based on the average norms that a society has experienced over the last 100 years. If we have a new event that is not covered by those norms, it goes into force majeure. That’s what Harold Hamm and others are saying - that these are circumstances outside the norm,” said Anas Alhajji, an energy market expert based in Dallas.

Even the long-rumored decision by the White House to tell Chevron Corp last week it could no longer operate in Venezuela, where it has had a presence for nearly 100 years, met with a shrug.


“The global climate is terrible,” said one person close to a Western oil company in Venezuela. “The license almost didn’t matter anymore.”

The market is forcing the hands of all producers. Across the world, governments and companies are preparing to shut down output, and many have already begun.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies had already committed to record cuts of 10 million barrels of daily supply that have yet to take full effect. That commitment was not enough to prevent oil’s fall below zero.

Saudi Arabia has said it and other OPEC members are prepared to take further measures, but made no new commitments. It is a measure of the depth of demand destruction that even if OPEC stopped producing altogether, supply may still exceed demand.

More than 600,000 barrels per day in production cuts have already been announced in the United States, along with another 300,000 bpd of shut-ins in Canada. Brazil’s state-run Petrobras has reduced output by 200,000 bpd.

Azerbaijan, part of the group of nations known as OPEC+, is forcing a BP-led group to cut output for the first time ever. Oil majors in those countries have generally been excluded from government-imposed cuts.

“We have never done it before since they came to the country in 1994 and signed the contract of the century,” a senior Azeri official told Reuters.


Slideshow (3 Images)

That accommodation can no longer be made with the world running out of space to put oil. As of Thursday, energy researcher Kpler said onshore storage worldwide is now roughly 85% full.

Demand is expected to fall by 29 million bpd in April, the International Energy Agency estimated. Paris-based IEA expects consumption to pick up in May, but researchers cautioned that its expectation of a mere 12 million bpd fall in year-over-year demand may be too optimistic.

“I’m sure hearing the same numbers about demand destruction of 20 to 30 million barrels a day,” said Gene McGillian, analyst at Tradition Energy, who was working at the New York Mercantile Exchange when U.S. crude futures were launched in 1983. “Until we see some kind of alleviation of that, you have to wonder what is in store.”

‘Reopen’ Protest Movement Created, Boosted by Fake Grassroots Tactics

New research and journalistic investigation is revealing powerful forces who want their influence to remain secret are behind the lockdown protests.THE CONVERSATION PUBLISHED 24 APRIL 2020

Image via AP Photo / Jeff Roberson

Many Americans have been under strict stay-at-home orders, or at least advisories, for more than a month. People are frustrated and depressed, but have complied with what they’ve been asked to endure because they trust that state and local public health officials are telling the truth about the coronavirus pandemic.

There has been passionate – and honest – argument about how many people are likely to get sick and die under different circumstances and sets of official rules. It’s not clear how uncertain and evolving scientific findings should affect extraordinary government measures that restrict citizens’ basic freedoms.

In recent days, there have there been public protests against continuing the lockdown. The people who are doing the demonstrating may really be frustrated and upset, but new research, and journalistic investigation, is revealing that there are powerful forces behind them, egging them on, who want their influence to remain secret.CNBC’s Rick Santelli questions a part of the 2009 federal bailout plan.
Seeking authentic feelings

Dissent – and the freedom to do it – is a crucial element of democracy. Political leaders are rightly influenced by public opinion. But it’s important to know when protests are sparked by special-interest groups seeking to manipulate officials’ perception of public sentiment.

As a journalist who has covered politics for 20 years and now studies how people process uncertainty, I note that the questions about the current protests raise echoes of the Tea Party movement a decade ago.

In February 2009, the Obama administration was grappling with a severe economic crisis caused by a collapse in the mortgage market. A reporter on CNBC, Rick Santelli, began to complain that one part of the federal bailout plan, the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, might let people out of their mortgage obligations even if they should have anticipated they wouldn’t be able to afford them and would face foreclosure.

Santelli made this point on TV while standing on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, surrounded by very wealthy traders who egged him on. It was compelling entertainment, and the speech spread rapidly through conservative media. Radio host Rush Limbaugh replayed it on his show; conservative strategists admired it, and millions of conservatives heard it.

Santelli called for a modern-day “tea party” to object to unfair government rules.

Within months, a coalition of anti-immigration reform activists, fiscal hawks, regulation opponents and social conservatives pulled together behind a common set of grievances: Barack Obama’s alleged profligate spending, his willingness to let certain groups get ahead in the economy over other groups – policies that many of them viewed as putting racial minorities at a perceived advantage to white people.

Calling themselves the Tea Party movement, most members were Republicans – but the Republican Party wasn’t speaking for them, so the nation’s two-party structure itself became a common enemy, too. When the Tea Party held its first protests, thousands of people showed up. As the protests spread, motivated partisans who look for opportunities to change attitudes and behaviors, backed by a conservative political funding machine, developed a way to capture the protest energy and channel it effectively.

Authentic protest – like how the Tea Party movement began – is a longstanding American tradition. AP Photo/Matt Rourke THE TEA PARTY WAS NOT AUTHENTIC IT TOO WAS THE CREATION OF EX REPUBLICAN SENATORS, LIKE DICK ARMY - THESE ARE STANDARD REPUBLICAN DIRTY TRICKS AS USED BY ROGER STONE

Enduring sentiments, new moments

Social scientists who study new movements in politics find that the underlying sentiments are as old as civilization itself: Who gets the stuff that the government gives out? What’s fair? Who’s jumped the line?

What, then, makes a movement into something real?

It starts with a galvanizing event, like the Tea Party’s public protest gatherings, when hundreds of thousands of people saw that other people were willing to work together for a cause.

The movement needs a common enemy – in that case, Obama, his policies and a political structure that permitted them – and the potential for real change, not just politically but socially as well. For those joining the Tea Party, the goal became clear: They could take over the Republican Party.

Fairly quickly, the Tea Party was co-opted by wealthier interests hoping to channel its energy toward slightly different ends – although much of the movement resisted the corporate takeover of its message. Public opinion surveys backed up the intuition that the movement had force

A North Carolina protest was ostensibly coordinated by ReopenNC, whose website was registered by a Florida resident and focuses on selling T-shirts and stickers.
AP Photo/Gerry Broome

A viral ideology

In mid-April 2020, it appeared, a new movement was rising to express frustration with the restrictions and uncertain endpoint to the pandemic, and the economic toll the lockdown has caused.

In the space of several days, there were protests in a dozen states, ranging from a crowd of more than 2,000 who gathered in Olympia, Washington, to several dozen in Annapolis, Maryland.

The available evidence suggests that the demonstrations were organized by paid political operatives using Facebook and new websites to encourage conservatives to protest in specific places against specific governors who had imposed strong public health restrictions on economic activity. This context indicates that one real intention of the protests was to create the illusion of an organic movement that had arisen to object to the restrictions. Evidence is to the contrary: Polling shows that just 12% of Americans think their local restrictions have gone too far – and 26% think they don’t go far enough.

Sparked by citizen inquiries first posted on Reddit, independent investigative reporter Brian Krebs has confirmed that most of the web domains that had been registered around the idea of “reopening” the economy belonged to a very small number of people. He used a cybersecurity search tool to search for “any and all domains registered in the past month that begin with “reopen” and end in “.com.” He found that many of them were created on the same day.

He found that many of these websites, whose registration records you can see yourself at Whois.com, were owned by anti-gun-control groups that are run by the same family of brothers that organized the demonstrations through Facebook groups they run.

Several others of the “reopen” websites were registered with addresses or phone numbers used by longstanding conservative enterprises like Freedom Works. A surprising number belonged to an activist who told Mother Jones that he registered the domains to keep conservatives from using them to counter the recommendation of public health officials.
The ‘Reopen North Carolina’ website focuses on selling merchandise.
Screenshot of ReopenNC.com by The Conversation, CC BY-ND

The threat of fake grassroots

For the people who took part, the protests were no doubt real.

But media coverage can inflate or distort their size and meaning. On its main protest story, ABC News put a headline suggesting protests had “spread” to new places.

But that creates a sense that these protests grew quickly, spontaneously, and organically. The fact that protests happened in different places at different times doesn’t actually mean they’re spreading. When organized by the same small group of political operatives, sequential protests reflect the creators’ skill at mobilizing people – not a naturally rising level of frustration that ultimately pushes people to act.

Many political movements use these tactics. The problem comes from how the media presents the resulting events. On April 21, a labor union organized a protest by nurses at the White House – and media reports noted the event was created by a particular group with a specific purpose. That’s different from how the media treated the “reopen” gatherings.

By covering a contrived protest as though it is an organic movement, the media could, even unintentionally, create the illusion of a popular force that doesn’t really exist.

That could result in politicians feeling nonexistent or exaggerated pressure to make decisions that threaten Americans’ public health.


Marc Ambinder, Executive Fellow in Digital Security, University of Southern California, Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

WHAT WE NOTICE IS THAT THESE PROTESTS ARE WHITE PEOPLE, PROUDLY MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP DEPLORABLES

RIGHT WING NUTS ANTI COVID-19 PROTESTS 

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/reopen-protest-movement-created-boosted.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/4/who-is-behind-coronavirus-social.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-tea-party-linked-group-plans-to.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/conservative-group-linked-to-devos.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/opinion-whos-behind-reopen-protests.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/america-has-descended-into-coronavirus.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/pro-trump-protesters-push-back-on-stay.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/fringe-right-closes-down-michigan.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/these-people-arent-freedom.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-quiet-hand-of-conservative-groups.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/pro-trump-protesters-push-back-on-stay.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/protesters-decry-stay-at-home-orders-in.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/trump-ally-lickspittle-bootlicker.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-rightwing-groups-behind-wave-of.html

 IT SPREAD TO CANADA 
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/reckless-yahoos-protest-at-queens-park.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/canada-eh-great-anti-vaxxer-coronavirus.html

Hi, My Uterus and I Find These Shutdown Protests Painfully Hypocritical

Liz Plank April 24, 2020

Photo credit: Getty Images

From Cosmopolitan

You’ve seen the protests: Dozens of mostly white men and women, some wearing homemade face masks, some in bright red baseball caps that say you-know-what, holding up signs that read “Land of the free” and “Give me liberty or give me COVID-19.” They’re screaming the classics like “It’s a free country! America the free!” at state capitol buildings and even shouting offensive racial epithets at healthcare workers in scrubs.

For obvious reasons, these protests bother me: I, along with everyone I know, am currently staying at home, doing my part to flatten the curve to make sure that our hospitals don’t get any more overwhelmed than they already are. But there’s another reality here that really gets me: Suddenly Trump supporters are demanding that their government butt out so that they can make decisions about their health and wellbeing all by themselves? Funny, I don’t think I saw these guys at the last Women’s March.

Now of course I don’t know whether these protesters are pro-choice or not, but I do know a couple things: The states that have been the slowest to move on crucial government-mandated social distancing guidelines have been red states. Some of the largest protests happened in states like Texas, Ohio, and Oklahoma—which just so happen to be states where Republicans have used the coronavirus to try and ban women from getting abortions. And it’s been well reported that these protests are being organized by influential conservative funders, many of whom have close ties to the Trump administration.

Photo credit: Barcroft Media - Getty Images

Watching some of the most staunchly anti-abortion Republicans, like Congressman Jim Jordan, hail these demonstrators as heroes of freedom particularly stings. “I applaud these people for speaking up and defending liberty,” Jordan told The Atlantic. Should I look forward to receiving the same comment when I ask him about the next pro-choice rally opposing all the bills he has voted for? I won’t hold my breath.

My message to these protestors—and more importantly, the conservative elites inciting them—is simple: If the government can’t interfere in saving you from a deadly virus, then how can you argue it should be allowed to interfere in a woman’s right to choose? This hypocrisy is bad for your brand! You can’t say you want the freedom to die but refuse women’s right to freaking live.

If we weren’t living in a dystopian novel and the human population wasn’t being decimated by a contagious disease, maybe we’d be given a lil accountability, you know, as a treat. Perhaps we would even use this crisis to reflect on the fact that it is preposterous that our country still entertains the idea that the government should be able to make women’s decisions for them. But the conservative party won’t suddenly have an epiphany that women are free-thinking, independent people because they are shameless: they use their base to defend the indefensible.

Look no further than the fact that influential wealthy conservative elites are currently enticing vulnerable people to protest a virus that’s quite literally killing them. They are willfully putting demonstrators at risk by encouraging them to do the one thing that puts them closer to death’s way: gather in large groups without any protection. This isn’t just exploitative, it’s Machiavellian.

Photo credit: Tom Williams - Getty Images

Sadly, none of this is even the slightest bit surprising. The GOP’s deadliest weapon is their unbridled drive to exploit their base’s deepest pain for personal profit. It happens with pretty much every cause under the sun, from immigration to climate change, to health care, and to, of course, reproductive rights.

And so, I’m sure there’ll be even more misguided protests over the weekend to keep me busy (i.e., screaming at my TV). And the weekend after. And probably the weekend after. Until at least the Republican Party and its wealthy stakeholders encourage some other selfish, self-defeating action in the fight for “freedom.” In the meantime, maybe I’d feel better if they’d just add an asterisk to their “My body, my choice” protest signs.

COVID-19 Protesters Leave Body Bags At Foot Of Trump's D.C. Hotel

I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS 

David Moye April 24, 2020

Protesters in Washington, D.C., showed their disapproval of how President Donald Trump is handling the coronavirus in very graphic terms Thursday evening.

The demonstrators laid out fake body bags in front of the Trump International Hotel to represent the now more than 50,000 Americans who have died from COVID-19

Protesters stop at the Trump International Hotel to deliver fake body bags in Washington, D.C., on April 23, 2020. (Photo: ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)

Dozens of cars rolled up to the hotel, including a truck carrying a giant inflatable Trump chicken, and dropped off the body bags ― really garbage bags stuffed with newspaper.

Jennifer Flynn Walker of the Center for Popular Democracy Action told DCist.com that the protest was intended as an antidote to demonstrations elsewhere that ignored social distancing orders and urged Americans to go back to work.

“We needed to do something to show that most of the country believes in science, thinks that Trump is failing,” Flynn Walker said. “We really do see that tens of thousands of people dying from COVID is a direct result of his failure as a leader.”

HuffPost reached out to the hotel for comment, but there was no immediate response.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said Thursday night that the protest put in stark terms the loss of life that has occurred because of how Trump has handled the pandemic.

“I don’t know if the president knows [the body count number],” Maddow said in the second video above. “And so the people who are mad at the president about this response, people have started to pile up body bags in front of his hotel, because maybe that at least might capture his attention. Maybe that will let him know that the real body count is apparently beyond his ken, beyond what he understands it to be.”