The story in Whiteout would appear to be ripped from today’s headlines… except that the book was written in 2004. While the book isn’t new, this is my newest read from Ken Follett. It’s a techno-thriller of sorts, although more just “thriller” than “tech.” The story concerns a lab that is experimenting with highly-contagious and highly-lethal viruses in order to develop antiviral medicines.
Sound familiar?
The tech in this novel is mostly centered around the security of a facility that has to protect, not only the intellectual property stored therein but also its dangerous biological materials. The book enthralls us with just how dedicated criminals might go about breaching that security and the intrepid “good guy” who attempts to stop them. That and a bit of nookie because, well, it is Ken Follett.
In the end, I wouldn’t say Whiteout was in any way predictive of our problems fifteen years into its future. There was a tantalizing tie-in with some secret funding from the U.S. government (the lab is in Scotland) but that detail didn’t much feature into the nitty-gritty of the action. Whiteout is a good illustration of why Follett remains a best-seller as well as why he is often classified as an “airport” novelist.
To the 2021 reader, I wouldn’t think any of us could refrain from collating this story in terms of today’s news. For me especially because, at the same time I was reading Whiteout, I was digesting a few articles that paint for me a disturbing picture.
A Wall St. Journal article that came out about the same time as I started this read compares the modus operandi of Fauci and friends in our current crisis to his previous high-profile cock-up; the governmental response to the proliferation of AIDS. For those inclined to distrust Fauci all along, this is but more fuel for the fire. In fact, I’d surmise that for many, this isn’t news – its just the first time it managed to surface in a mainstream publication. For those who see Fauci as a modern-day saint, I have to assume that they saw his various missteps along his path as merely the fits and starts of an honest actor trying to do the right thing. One would think that seeing the very same feints repeated some four decades prior would make one questions one’s assumptions. Although I’m sure it does not.
Take this information along with a post from the website The Conservative Treehouse analyzing what we know so far. Or, maybe to put it another way, reviewing what we know so far and using that to speculate further. On the same day I was reading this, the Wall St. Journal had another editorial (sorry, didn’t save the link this time) that said there was (if memory serves) a 90%-or-greater probability that the ‘rona was concocted in a lab. The citations in the above-linked article are consistent with that.
Can we get closer to the truth by analyzing what we are being told… knowing we’re not being told the truth, of course, but assuming there is a grain of truth in every good lie?
The Chinese government has stated that they did not manufacture nor release the virus – which, of course they would say that. Their version, however, is that the virus was created by the Americans and was released by the US to harm China economically. So far, this could be dismissed as two schoolboys shouting “he hit me first.” So what is America’s version? Well, at President Biden’s direction, the intelligence community took a long hard look at the data and concluded – uh – nothing. “We have no idea how it got there,” the US offers. “It could be anything.”
Now, knowing nothing else, what do you make of this? You’ve got two kids standing next to a broken lamp. One points to the other, “he did it!” The other says, “I have no idea how this happened. Might have been the wind done knocked it down. Or the cat. Or that guy. No way to know really.” To which one do you lend more credence?
Cui bono
Now, add to the mix that the aforementioned citations tend to support the Chinese version of events. America did fund the research and does seem to own this technology. I’ve read an interesting analysis that goes into the why and how China might have deliberately released this virus as a weapon – I’ll not go into except to note how quickly the Hong Kong democracy protests wound themselves down once a virus was in the air. More recently, though, I’ve seen various theories about why the US (alone or in cahoots with others) might have thought a pandemic was a good idea.
I have a hard time squaring that the US was targeting China with a bioweapon, as China seems to accuse. It doesn’t seem to be worth doing – too blunt of a weapon to accomplish its purpose. There is also the theory that the US targeted itself – the Deep State taking on a populist insurgency. Anthony Fauci is on record, in 2017, saying that Trump would face a “surprise infectious disease outbreak” during his term. Was this in someone’s pocket from the 2016 victory just in case reelection looked like a 2020 possibility? Again, as a weapon to be used against our own government, a virus release in Asia seems a fairly haphazard attack. How to be sure this takes out your target without blowing back on you? A more plausible theory (although maybe not by much) was that the virus was targeting not the political realm but, rather, the economic.
In September of 2019, the financial markets were raising red flags reminiscent of the 2008 housing collapse. The Fed began a massive intervention via the “repo” market. By the end of 2019, Fed intervention had already exceeded even that of the proceeding “Great Recession.” The nature and magnitude of the response suggests that the Fed was pulling out all the stops in order to prevent an impending meltdown. There is a problem with stimulus and that is that the cheap money can cause any number of other problems, not the least of which is out-of-control inflation. The antidote for that would be if the financial wizards could somehow flood the markets with money while simultaneously throttling back the economy.
There are data suggesting that the corona outbreak started in September of 2019. While China did not admit as much, you can see officialdom reacting to something within this same time frame. Is the likely explanation that the U.S. wanted to put a “pause button” in place before flooding the world economy with money? Probably not. Is it a possible explanation? I suppose it is.
What makes this particularly hard for someone like me to swallow is America’s self image as the good guy, the beacon of democracy, the shining light on a hill. Surely we wouldn’t slaughter millions just to keep Goldman Sachs in the black? Would we? Is it just possible that WE are the baddies?
Throw into this volatile mix one last WSJ article. This past week there was an editorial opining about the diplomatic situation in Europe. It seems that both France and Germany are demurring in their backing of the United States in the confrontation with China. It is not helpful, they say, to be adversarial. Instead, they wish to remain above the growing conflict and engage positively with both sides rather than take a side. From a historical perspective, this is tantamount to switching their allegiance.
Still, on its face, this doesn’t sound so terrible. The leading statesmen in France and in Germany should consider the needs of, respectively, France and Germany. Nations should be acting in their own self interest – at least within reason. Starting a fight with China probably does not seem wise when you are a smaller player on the world stage. The French and the Germans, after all, are not actually taking sides against the US. Or are they?
The editorial piece argues that in failing to back the US in Asia, Europe is threatening the protective umbrella that NATO has afforded Europe since the end of World War II. If the major European nations start siding with China or with Russia, even if it is on a case-by-case basis, what incentive does the US have in backstopping the NATO alliance if things should turn nasty in Europe? The editorial (written by a Democrat, I should add) implores our traditional allies to see the big picture – to stand with the US in the traditional formation.
But who are the baddies?
Is it possible that France and Germany are starting to wonder what is the “right” side, what is the “wrong” side, and whether taking a side even makes sense. If America’s hegemony has really gone south, is handing the ball to China really such a bad thing?
Ahhhh… I should probably read more airport fiction and fewer editorials.
et tu, Bluto? 
“America’s hegemony has really gone south”
That is something that, from my European perspective, has been going on for some time already. Even before the previous president took office, there was a feeling in Europe that the US was too often stating that their (the US) interest were, and should be, the interest of both NATO and Europe. There is a feeling in Europe that our (NATO, so Europe and US) interests are slowly diverging, or that (in the view of Europe) the US is, at the moment, not interested in sounding out the stance of her European and/or NATO allies on policies and interests. Which then results in pushing for policies that are beneficial for the US, but not necessarily also for Europe. It also did not help that the previous president was not very good in group talk, or group diplomacy, which is the thing that keeps the EU, and NATO, together. So he made statements, and enacted policies, that were seen as detrimental for the cooperation between the US and NATO or Europe.
Thanks. Good perspective.
Pingback: The FTC and You and a Dog Named Boo | et tu, Bluto?
Pingback: Taste the Rainbow | et tu, Bluto?