Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.

***************
OVERALL QUESTIONS

Question 1

Do you find you get more out of a book if before you start, you think about what it will probably say based on the book’s title, its chapter headings, etc., etc.?

Answer 1

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 2

Is that usually the case with our Quizzes (which are intended to stimulate interest and thought) because the first quiz (which is the only quiz 2/3 of the time with 5-week gaps averaging one per quarter) is featured in our weekly e-mail scheduled for only 9 days after the focus book has been elected at our previous monthly meeting and (A) Amazon probably hasn’t delivered the book until 7 days to go, (B) several days are consumed dredging up book reviews for the “Reference Materials” section of our website, etc., etc., and (C) the process in Q-1 vis-à-vis thinking about the focus book before starting it requires, to be any good, several days to marinate?

Answer 2

Absolutely!!!


***************
BLOOD MONEY PART 1 – “MURDER WITH A BORROWED KNIFE”

Question 1

Does the title of the first of 3 chapters in this Part (“The New Opium Wars”) imply that the Part deals with fentanyl?

Answer 1

Yes.

Question 2

What is fentanyl?

Answer 2

Please read on – Q&A-3 through Q&A-5.

Question 3

Was it, like so many other pain relievers, invented for the U.S. military?

Answer 3

Yes.

Question 4

Does the U.S. military constantly demand pain relievers which are more effective AND FASTER ACTING so that wounded service-members can be relieved of pain IMMEDIATELY and COMPLETELY?

Answer 4

Yes.

Question 5

As with any pain reliever, does an overdose cause death rather than mere relief from pain?

Answer 5

Yes.

Question 6

Did the National Institute on Drug Abuse (part of the US Gov’s National Institutes of Health) report on 6/30/2023 that “American deaths from synthetic opioids other than methadone (primarily fentanyl) continued to rise with 70,601 overdose deaths in 2021?

Answer 6

Yes.

Question 7

Per US News & World Report, were total US Military deaths in World War II only 405,399?

Answer 7

Yes.

Question 8

Does this mean that Pres. Biden’s Open Southern Border -- assuming that synthetic opioids (primarily fentanyl) would not have been smuggled some other way -- with 70,601 overdose deaths in 2021 AND RISING mean that there will be more American overdose deaths than our total U.S. Military deaths in WW-II during Pres. Biden’s current 4-year term?

Answer 8

Please see Q&A-9.

Question 9

In other words, since the U.S. Gov reported 70,601 overdose deaths in 2021 AND RISING, what would simple math calculate as the RATE OF GROWTH of 70,601 for 2021 have to be to exceed 405,399 by the end of 2024?

Answer 9

25%.

70,601 – 2021
88,251 – 2022
110,314 – 2023
137,892 – 2024
407,409 - Total

For the morbidly curious, US News & World Report also reported 5/26/2023 that total U.S. Military deaths since World War I have been –

116,516 – World War I (including all that trench warfare)
405,399 – World War II
36,574 – Korean War
58,220 – Vietnam War
382 – Persian Gulf War
4,600 – Iraq Operations
2,456 – Afghanistan Operations

And for the morbidly curious who are not-yet sated, the U.S. National Park Service reports –

110,100 - Civil War Union Military Killed in Action
224,580 - Civil War Union Military – Died from Disease
94,000 - Civil War Confederate Military Killed in Action
164,000 - Civil War Confederate Military – Died from Disease

204,100 – Total Union and Confederate Military Killed in Action

Question 10

Is the Q-9 comparison of projected fentanyl deaths in Biden's first term with U.S. World War II military deaths a fair comparison since the Pearl Harbor attack was 12/7/1941 and V-J Day was 8/14/1945 – only 3 years and 8.25 months later?

Answer 10

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!


***************
BLOOD MONEY PART II – “WATCH A FIRE FROM ACROSS THE RIVER”

Question 1

Does a quick 5-minute skimming of this part seem to indicate it pertains to illegal weapons brought into the US by China?

Answer 1

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 2

Have we studied in the past how the UN’s now-24-year-old War on Modern Slavery educated us to the facts that, inter alia, the price of a slave delivered to your residence was only $5,250 as of 2019 and that by 2019 there were TWICE AS MANY slaves as were traded throughout the 350-year Trans-Atlantic slave industry AND SLAVERY IS MORE PROFITABLE FOR ORGANIZED CRIME THAN ILLEGAL DRUGS OR ILLEGAL WEAPONS???

Answer 2

Unfortunately!!!

Question 3

BTW, if you want to use your slave for “organ harvesting” rather than working on your farm/vineyard or in your factory, would the price presumably be somewhat higher to cover the cost of ensuring your prospective slave’s DNA is sufficiently similar to yours for successful organ harvesting?

Answer 3

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 4

But focusing on illegal weapons and organized crime, is it surprising (as seems likely Blood Money is likely to tell us) that China is the ultimate source of illegal weapons trafficked into the U.S. by organized crime?

Answer 4

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

After all, isn’t China quick to perceive American wants and supply them???

Which would seem to be the Hallmark of good capitalism???

Question 5

After all, isn’t China the ultimate source of the fentanyl (or fentanyl ingredients) that the “Mexican cartels” manufacture and bring into the U.S.???

Answer 5

So it would appear.


***************
BLOOD MONEY PART III – “HIDE A DAGGER IN A SMILE”

Question 1

Does this Part’s first chapter (“A TikToking Bomb”) and third and last chapter (“The People’s Republic of Hollywood”) suggest Blood Money is likely to tell you anything you don’t already know?

Answer 1

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 2

After all, hasn’t TikTok dominated the headlines seemingly forever?

Answer 2

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 3

And didn’t Tom Cruise’s blockbuster “Top Gun: Maverick” (released 5/27/2022) create beaucoup headlines because his character wore a Taiwan flag on his flight jacket?

Answer 3

Absolutely.

Question 4

What more does one really need to know???

Answer 4

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!


***************
BLOOD MONEY PART IV – “LOOT A BURNING HOUSE”

Question 1

Do the titles of the 2 chapters in this Part (“Social Engineering a Pandemic” and “A Coverup For China and Themselves”) indicate this Part addresses COVID-19?

Answer 1

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 2

Is the true villain Anthony Fauci who was the Director of NIAID - the US Gov’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases?

Answer 2

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 3

Had Fauci been something of a hero in combating America’s AIDS epidemic in the distant past?

Answer 3

Yes.

Question 4

Had Fauci during the early part of the current century exhibited a morbid curiosity in creating new diseases by creating synthetically-engineered mutant viruses?

Answer 4

Yes.

Question 5

Was Fauci’s morbid curiosity reined in by U.S. law preventing his beloved NIAID from funding such engineering?

Answer 5

Yes.

Question 6

Did Fauci violate U.S. law by secretly going foreign??? That is, by secretly funneling funds for such illegal research to the Wuhan China Institute of Virology?

Answer 6

So it would appear.

In 2014, the U.S. Government banned any funding for gain-of-function research until an appropriate “framework” could be devised comprising criteria for ensuring such research would be both worthwhile and safe (please see the article in the U.S. Gov’s National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7128689/).

In 2017, the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services promulgated that “framework” (please see https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/p3co.pdf).

Nevertheless, it appears that Fauci’s “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” funding of COVID research at Wuhan –

(1) Proceeded during the 2014-2017 prohibition; and

(2) Probably didn’t comply with the 2017 “framework” after its promulgation since Fauci didn’t apply for it to qualify.

Indeed, on the several occasions that Fauci was hauled in front of Congressional Investigating Committees, he played “word games” such as –

(1) Whether COVID research really involved “gain of function,” and

(2) Whether his beloved NIAID (the US Gov’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of which Fauci was Director) really “funded” the Wuhan research if NIAID had given the funds to an intermediary organization for the express purpose of sending it on to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for the COVID research?

Obviously his “word games” would, in any Court of Law, be viewed as evidence of guilt.

Question 7

When COVID-19 escaped from the Wuhan Lab, did Fauci “blackmail” scientists with the threat of loss of US Gov funding for their projects if they did not join his chorus claiming that COVID originated in a Wuhan meat market?

Answer 7

So it would appear.

Question 8

Have various US Gov agencies and officials, in the wake of Fauci’s 12/31/2022 retirement, testified regarding Fauci’s “cover up”?

Answer 8

Yes.

Question 9

Was Fauci precisely the WRONG PERSON to design the American response to COVID?

Answer 9

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Though please consider that Fauci did not “design” the American response to COVID in the sense that he had anything to do with the “warp speed” development, production and distribution of COVID vaccines – instead Fauci was a “television personality” making recommendations to state and local public-health officials on such things as social distancing, wearing face masks, closing restaurants and other businesses, closing schools with children stuck behind computer screens, unconstitutionally closing places of worship, etc., etc.

In this regard, please read the 8/3/2022 posting in our website’s Sec. 3 (Possible Topics for Future Meetings) entitled “NYC Harvard Club Book Promotion – “Warp Speed: Inside The Operation That Beat COVID, The Critics and The Odds” (available at viewtopic.php?f=150&t=2232&sid=713c0c5b ... 0bb665b31e).

It gives “full marks” to President Trump –

The NYC Harvard Club notice --

Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, it will go down in history as the U.S. Government’s greatest achievement since the Manhattan Project: the 14-month campaign to develop an anti-Covid vaccine. Nobody thought it could be done, “it would take years,” everybody said. Almost all other nations tried — and nobody came close.

When the United States came to the finish line standing alone, it arrived with not one but two vaccines, with a third on the way! That’s like inventing three different kinds of atomic bombs! Furthermore, the vaccines were supposed to be 50% effective. They turned out to be 95% effective. According to the progressive Commonwealth Fund, they prevented 2.2 million deaths and 17 million hospitalizations — avoiding an estimated 66+ million additional infections and nearly $900 billion in associated health costs.

How did the United States manage to achieve this miracle? It took inspired leadership, close cooperation between government and the private sector, and a strong spirit of collegiality and cooperation among all members of the task force. One of the principals leading the team was Paul Mango — West Point, Harvard Business School (Baker Scholar), head of the Worldwide Healthcare Practice at McKinsey, and former Deputy Chief of Staff at Health and Human Services.

The team under President Trump consisted of only eight people, drawn from business and government. Among them they possessed a deep understanding of the current state of vaccine development, manufacturing, and the logistics of getting hundreds of millions of doses to the entire nation in record time.

“Developing vaccines would be the easy part,” says Mango. “The much more uncertain part would be manufacturing them with quality at scale.” How many vaccines should they try to develop? (The answer was 100, then reduced to fourteen, then six.) How long should they produce and test each vaccine before deciding they had a winner? Could they produce that vaccine in sufficient quantities? How many should they produce and where should they deliver them? What areas of the country had sufficient medical facilities and supplies? The questions went on and on, a never-ending race against time — with the press and politicians pounding on the door every day, demanding answers. Then when the vaccines were tested, manufactured and delivered, another unexpected obstacle emerged: the lack of available doctors and nurses to do the injections.

Somehow it all got done, a tribute what can be accomplished when government sets the guidelines and steps out of the way, and lets private sector ingenuity do the job. There is much to be learned from this experience, and it takes an insider like Paul Mango to tell the story.

**********End of the NYC Harvard Club Notice**********

BTW, President-Elect Biden received his first dose of the Pfizer vaccine on live television 12/21/2020 at Christiana Hospital in Newark Delaware.

Question 10

In other words, did Fauci’s laudatory work with the AIDS virus enjoy the advantage that there were no disastrous side effects to his policies to combat it?

Answer 10

Yes.

Question 11

While his seeming laser-focus on preventing EVERY death from COVID “turned a blind eye” to disastrous side effects such as the loss of years of learning by school children who were kept at home in front of computer screens, such as the tremendous losses to the U.S. economy as so many businesses were shut down, etc., etc.???

Answer 11

Unfortunately.

Question 12

Whose responsibility (Fauci’s or the Chinese Gov’s) was it to insure Fauci’s research at the Wuhan Lab was conducted safely?

Answer 12

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Though please consider whether, if the Wuhan Lab under Chinese supervision was not safe, Fauci should not have gone elsewhere to conduct his illegal research!!!

Question 13

Is it true that the Chinese Gov, when it realized that COVID had escaped into the general population, immediately prohibited travel from Wuhan to other parts of China, while still permitting travel from Wuhan to the rest of the world?

Answer 13

Yes.

Question 14

Should Fauci be prosecuted?

Answer 14

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

In considering your answer, please be aware of the LAW OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION!!!

“Universal Jurisdiction” is a legal principle that allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation to the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage.

“Universal Jurisdiction” is a feature of the law of every civilized country.

It was developed long ago “in the mists of time” to deal with pirates because it just wasn’t practical, if pirates could be apprehended in a civilized country, for that country to refrain from prosecution because it didn’t have jurisdiction.

“Universal Jurisdiction” was considered at length during one of the weekly Zoom Chats of members of the Harvard Law School Class of 1967 shortly after the revocation of Roe vs. Wade when Yours Truly questioned the notion parroted seemingly throughout the Mainstream Media that a woman seeking an abortion that is illegal under the law of her home state could simply travel to another state where it would be legal WHILE IGNORING WHAT, IN THEORY, COULD HAPPEN UNDER “UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION” IF SHE RETURNED TO HER HOME STATE SINCE “UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION” ENFORCES THE “LAW OF THE FORUM” (after all, piracy was probably legal under the law of the home jurisdictions of all those pirates who were prosecuted in the countries where they were caught!!!)!!!

Yes, Fauci’s funding of COVID research at the Wuhan China Institute of Virology was probably illegal under U.S. law as analyzed in Q&A-6, but that is not necessarily essential to successful prosecution.

Because there is still the question of whether Fauci’s actions comprised Common Law Murder (please see Q&A-15 through Q&A-17). [NB: the same act can constitute multiple crimes such as common law crimes that are also “Hate Crimes” under federal law.]

If so, doesn’t every U.S. Attorney and every local District Attorney with authority over any place where Fauci can be caught, have “Universal Jurisdiction” to prosecute Fauci for Common Law Murder???

Question 15

Under English/American common law, is there NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS for murder?

Answer 15

Yes, there is NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS for common-law murder.

Question 16

Would Fauci’s apparent violation of U.S. law to apparently fund COVID research at the Wuhan Lab constitute a sufficient mens rea for murder???

Answer 16

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 17

And would Fauci’s “laser focus” on preventing EVERY death from COVID regardless of the disastrous side effects (Ref. Q-11) be circumstantial evidence of a guilty conscience???

Answer 17

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!


***************
MISSING – CHINA’S “BELT AND ROAD” INITIATIVE

Question 1

Is it surprising that there appears to be no mention of China’s famous “Belt and Road” Initiative in Blood Money? Not even a listing for it in the index?

Answer 1

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 2

Was Pax Brittanica the century that Britain maintained world order from the fall of Napoleon to WW-I? Usually dated 1815-1914?

Answer 2

Yes and Yes.

Question 3

Has Pax Americana been the Post-WW-II era featuring NATO, alliances in the Indo-Pacific (e.g., with Japan, Australia, South Korea, etc.), etc., etc.?

Answer 3

Yes.

Question 4

Despite both Pax Brittanica and Pax Americana featuring the hallmark of great-power peace, did both involve “gunboat diplomacy” for their companies operating abroad?

Answer 4

Yes.

Question 5

In the case of the U.S., didn’t such “gunboat diplomacy” (aka, free usage by American companies of the American military) go out of style some time ago? Permitting nationalizations of US-owned assets without significant repercussions?

Answer 5

Yes and Yes.

Question 6

Does China’s “Belt and Road” Initiative resemble the “gunboat diplomacy” of Pax Brittanica and Pax Americana?

Answer 6

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 7

Does the BRI typically feature a favorable loan to a third-world country with natural resources, ostensibly for development of those resources?

Answer 7

So it would appear.

Question 8

Human nature (aka governmental corruption) being what it is, do many if not most such BRI loans fall into default?

Answer 8

So it would appear.

Question 9

Does the PRC then “foreclose” by taking title to the natural resources?

Answer 9

Yes.

Question 10

Do the PRC’s Navy and other military resources ensure that the PRC’s ownership of the foreign natural resources goes unchallenged despite the fact that many years will be required to remove those natural resources from the foreign country?

Answer 10

Yes.

Question 11

Since oil was the most important international commodity during the last century (and since Yours Truly had beaucoup first-hand knowledge resulting from serving as Texaco’s Senior Tax Counsel 1974-1987), is Aramco a good point of comparison to the PRC’s BRI?

Question 11

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Answer 12

Was oil first discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1936 by Chevron and Texaco?

Answer 12

Yes.

Question 13

Wasn’t this fortuitous in the sense that prior to the Caltex merger, Chevron had significant production in Bahrain, just offshore Saudi, and the Ruler of Bahrain kept putting pressure on Chevron to explore in Saudi Arabia in order to help his poor relative, Saudi King Abdul Aziz?

Answer 13

Yes.

Question 14

And by the time of the Chevron-Texaco merger of everything “East of Suez,” Chevron had drilled 13 wells in Saudi Arabia – all dry holes?

Answer 14

Yes.

Question 15

But the Chevron explorationists who, absent pressure such as from the Ruler of Bahrain, seemed to have a “Midas Touch” -- had become excited and proposed 13 new exploratory wells and deepening the 13 “dry” wells?

Answer 15

Yes.

Question 16

But since the merger had now gone through, Texaco approval was required – and was granted on condition that the Chevron explorationists would all be fired if nothing was found?

Answer 16

Yes.

Question 17

And 25 of the 26 were dry, but one came in???!!!

Answer 17

Yes.

Question 18

And thereafter, it seemed impossible to avoid discovering more at every turn – so much that Chevron and Texaco couldn’t market all of it and, following WW-II, had to permit Exxon to come in for 30% and Mobil for 10% (before Saudi nationalized 40% and sold it themselves to Exxon and Mobil)?

Answer 18

Yes.

Question 19

After all, wasn’t the Saudi Gov still receiving only a royalty of “one gold shilling per ton” (i.e., 5% of a British Pound Sterling for roughly 7.5 barrels) under the original 1933 agreement with Chevron that also provided an exemption from income tax if one were later invented?

Answer 19

Yes – Chevron drove a “hard bargain” since Saudi seemed so unpromising in 1933.

Question 20

But in the 1970’s, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) began to nationalize the in-country oil & gas assets owned by foreign companies?

Answer 20

Yes.

Question 21

Although Aramco (still owned 30-30-30-10 by Chevron/Texaco/Exxon/Mobil) still “owned” every drop of oil & gas in Saudi Arabia, both on-shore and off-shore, did the U.S. Gov provide no “gunboat diplomacy” to prevent Saudi Arabia and OPEC from nationalizing the assets of international oil companies?

Answer 21

The U.S. Gov provided no support!!!

Indeed, long before OPEC, the U.S. Gov undermined the international oil companies.

Very few historians report on President Truman’s “Marshall Plan” for the Middle East!!!

Yes, Truman was fearful, in addition to Soviet conquest of European countries, to Soviet penetration of the oil-producing countries of the Persian Gulf.

But Truman was smart enough to realize he could never get a “Marshall Plan” for the Middle East through Congress.

The reason explained on a confidential basis to the CEO’s of the 4 Aramco shareholders by Truman – he had had enough trouble getting the Marshall Plan for Europe approved by Congress because of the 85% American public opinion opposing aid for Europe, so he had decided to by-pass Congress on the Marshall Plan for the Middle East by having the Middle East oil-producing countries decree income taxes that would have the effect of diverting American tax revenues to those countries WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

One hilarious footnote in the whole imbroglio???

The American diplomats and foreign-tax-credit experts that went to Saudi to instruct King Saud to impose an income tax on Aramco did not explain sufficiently that King Saud must issue a Royal Decree comprising the entire draft that they provided him. He only decreed a portion of the draft (the so-called “November Decree”). The American delegation returned to Saudi and explained that without a Royal Decree of the remainder of the draft, the income tax would not be creditable against Aramco’s U.S. income taxes. King Saud did as instructed (the so-called “December Decree”).

Then the Truman Administration served Aramco with a published IRS ruling, which was probably the only un-solicited ruling in the history of the IRS, that the Saudi income tax qualified for the foreign tax credit.

When Eisenhower swept to victory and, with him, new Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, Republicans were irate that the Truman Administration had implemented a Marshall Plan for the Middle East without Congressional approval!!!

So they held public Congressional hearings!!!

And subpoenaed all of the Truman Administration diplomats and foreign-tax-credit experts who had traveled to Saudi twice to instruct King Saud what to do. During the Congressional hearings, they all had amnesia despite the stamps in their passports which they were forced to produce for the record!!!

Luckily, the proverbial “cooler heads” prevailed – Eisenhower became convinced by Churchill (who had returned to power) and Truman that the Soviet Union should be contained.

Though, unfortunately, one of the “cooler heads” in this regards was Senator Joe McCarthy who shortly thereafter began his notorious anti-Communist hearings spear-headed by a fanatical junior committee staff attorney by the name of Robert Kennedy whose position had been procured by Joe McCarthy’s old friend, ultra-conservative and un-repentant Nazi sympathizer as our Ambassador to Britain during the Neville Chamberlain era, Joe Kennedy. Robert Kennedy's fanaticism and zeal on behalf of the McCarthy Committee is the reason why liberals never really trusted him for the rest of his life and why the name "Robert Kennedy" was rarely mentioned in the media without the term "ruthless" included in the same sentence!!!

*****
Final comment – Yes, it is true that the initial Saudi tax rate did not exceed the U.S. tax rate so Truman was correct that none of the Saudi tax “came out of the hide” of Aramco BUT IT WASN’T LONG BEFORE THE SAUDIS BEGAN “FEELING THEIR OATS” AND SENT THEIR INCOME TAX RATE FAR ABOVE THE U.S. RATE. And Aramco and its shareholders began to “rue the day” they had “kissed the ring” of Truman and surrendered the 1933 Agreement’s exemption from any income tax that might later be invented.

Question 22

SO CHINA’S “BRI” QUESTION – will the hapless third-world countries whose natural resources are being confiscated by China’s BRI, be able to nationalize the Chinese “ownership” of their natural resources like the OPEC countries did vis-à-vis foreign "ownership" 50 years ago?

Answer 22

Please see Q&A-23 and Q&A-24.

Question 23

In other words, isn’t there a crucial difference???

Answer 23

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 24

In still other words, isn’t it the Chinese Gov itself that “owns” the natural resources of these hapless third-world countries??? And the Chinese Gov itself that owns the “gunboats” that would enforce that ownership???

Answer 24

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 25

Does Pax Americana have any obligation, even moral, to save these idiotic third-world governments from the consequences of making bad deals with China under its BRI???

Answer 25

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 26

In other words, any moral obligation to the populations of these hapless third-world countries after they have failed to prevent their corrupt pols from “stealing the crown jewels” and splitting them with the PRC’s BRI?

Answer 26

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!