Connect with us

World News

'Black Power Was The Height Of Expression Of Love': A Deeply Personal Struggle For Black Liberation




Dan Berger’s book, Stayed on Freedom: the Long History of Black Power Through One Family’s Journey, tells the story about the fight against racism in all its blatant and hideous forms. It’s about spiritual quests, and the work of real organizing and what can be created through it. It’s a story of love, of political struggle in some of the darkest, most terrifying corners of the civil rights movement.

Marc Steiner interviews the book’s author, Dan Berger, along with Dr. Zoharah Simmons and Michael Simmons, whose stories are featured in Stayed on Freedom. Dr. Zoharah Simmons, a veteran of SNCC and of the Black Power Anti-Women’s Movement in the 1960s, is a professor emerita from University of Florida. Michael Simmons has been a domestic international human rights activist for 60 years with SNCC, and is the director of European Programs with the American Friends Service Committee.

Studio: David Hebden, Adam Coley, Darian Jones
Post-Production: Eli Ben-Yaacov


Marc Steiner:  Welcome to The Marc Steiner Show. I’m Marc Steiner at The Real News, and it’s good to have you all with us. A book came across my desk that really caught my attention, it was called: Stayed on Freedom: the Long History of Black Power Through One Family’s Journey. And it turned out to be a page turner. And the lives of the two people whose story it tells have had a life’s journey that is worth being told. It’s a story of love, of political struggle in some of the darkest, most terrifying corners of the Civil Rights Movement. With a story of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee or SNCC, as it’s properly known. And it winds its way to many political struggles: the Nation of Islam, Black Nationalist Movements, imprisonment, crossing the globe, in and out of the American Friends Service Committee, and many other groups.

It’s about the fight against racism in all its blatant and hideous, hidden forms. It’s about spiritual quests through Islam and more, and the work of real organizing and what can be created through it. And it’s about a passionate love between two people and an undying friendship and comradeship that comes out of that love and each other. And in the end, raises so many questions about what we face now and where we’re going as a society and a world.

Now, our guests today are Dan Berger, who actually wrote the book. He’s professor of Comparative and Ethnic Studies and associate dean of the School of Interdisciplinary Studies – That’s a mouthful – At University of Washington. And his previous book is Captive Nation: Black Prison Organizing in the Civil Rights Era.

And the two whose lives fought for our future, whose story was told in Stayed on Freedom: Dr. Zoharah Simmons is a professor emerita from University of Florida, where she taught African American, Religious, and Women’s Studies. She’s a veteran of SNCC and of the Black Power women’s anti-war movements in the 1960s. And she’s a founding member of the National Council of Elders and a board member of the SNCC Legacy Project.

Michael Simmons also has been in a lot of those groups, and has been a domestic international human rights activist for 60 years with SNCC and later as director of European programs, the American Friends Service Committee. And his work took him to Africa, Asia, Europe, in the Middle East. For 18 years he co-founded and ran the Raday Salon, which is an independent human rights organization in Budapest, Hungary. And he saw courses in African American history and US elections at the College of McDaniel College.

So folks, welcome, good to have you with us.

Dan Berger:  So glad to be here. Thank you.

Marc Steiner:  That introduction, I do have time to talk [all laugh], but it is good to have you all with this. And Dan, let me begin with you, just because I’m curious for our listeners and viewers to take us to the place that started this book and how you met these two people.

Dan Berger:  So I’ve always been interested in history. I became an activist when I was in high school, but I didn’t really have a sense of what to do and how to do it.

Marc Steiner:  You got a loan there, by the way [laughs].

Dan Berger:  Yeah, certainly. So I arrived at the University of Florida as a student, as a freshman in the fall of 1999, it was the same year that Zoharah got there as a professor. And she was speaking in another class. And I was blown away by what she shared about her experience in the Civil Rights Movement and what she shared about her own upbringing, which I’m sure she’ll talk about. But growing up with as close a connection to enslavement as someone could have in the 1940s, growing up in the ’40s and ’50s. And beyond what I learned from her story, it really inspired me to do my own, go to the library, get all these books about civil rights and Black Power histories. And was just really struck by the gap between some of what she was sharing about her experience in the movement and some of what had been recorded.

And after college, I moved to Philadelphia, and I met Michael, and it was sort of the same thing all over again. And so we’ve known each other now more than 20 years and have had these conversations informally as friends and comrades over the years. But about 2016, I asked them about telling their story together. And part of what I wanted to do was honor and recognize that a lot of people who joined movements of the ’60s are still at it. When we parse things out as that was the ’60s, or that was then, we miss the array of organizations and dedication and experimentation that people are still doing.

Marc Steiner:  As a lot of us used to say, it’s not done until you’re done [laughs].

Dan Berger:  [Laughs] Yeah, that’s right. Exactly. And I think between the two of them, Michael grew up in the North, Zoharah grew up in the South, you mentioned it in your introduction, some of the different organizations and tendencies they’re part of. And these are things that are so often treated separately, but actually lived together, not only within the Black Power movement, but really lived together in this one family.

Marc Steiner:  In this one family. It’s an incredible story. Let me just start this way, to give the folks watching, listening a sense of where people come from. Zoharah, you grew up in what I like to call North Mississippi, in Memphis. So talk a bit about, in the very beginning, where you grew up and how that led you to become this activist in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.

Zoharah Simmons:  Yes, thank you so much for the question. I grew up in Memphis, Tennessee. And the saying was that the Mississippi Delta began on the main street of Memphis, Tennessee, so you got that right. And it was Jim Crow all the way. And I grew up in the Black community. And at that point, because of Jim Crow laws and segregation, the Black community was very diverse economically. My family, working class people, had not finished, in the case of my dad and mom, high school, my grandmother, sixth grade. But nonetheless, education was so important, and I was told from the earliest times that I was going to college, that I was going to be somebody, but they too were somebody. And I knew that because of their involvement in church and the community and all of that.

But as I was saying, it was diverse. And so while we were poor – I grew up in a three-room shotgun house with a toilet, initially, on the back porch – There were people, my principal of my high school lived right around the corner in a stone house with beautiful stone floors. And the doctor, the dentist, many of my teachers lived in what I considered beautiful homes then and had cars. So I knew that “education” could certainly change your economic status, but we all were victims of the Jim Crow, and clearly could be killed if you stepped out of line.

And I was told that all of my growing up, stay on your side, so to speak, of the road, don’t challenge it. But at the same time, my grandmother was a voter, because in Memphis Black people could vote. And she was serious about voting, and had registered as soon as women had the right to vote and was very proud of that, and tried to get everybody on our street to vote. And whenever the white people running for office – And only whites could run for office at that time – She and my grandfather went to church to hear what they had to say.

And then after the candidates would leave, all the church folks would huddle to say, now which one of them is going to be bad for us? Or even more bad [all laugh]? Because everybody was clear that they were all bad, but which one might be less bad than the other? So I was there, my grandmother took me to all these meetings and took me with her to the polls when she went to vote, when she was knocking on doors trying to tell people they needed to vote to make things better, et cetera. Also, all Black schools and everything Black except when you needed to go downtown to pay your light bill, gas and water bill, that kind of thing. And that’s when you had to be careful.

So this is what I grew up with. I saw the Emmett Till photos in the Jet magazine, the centerfold. And I was so taken with the fact that here was somebody just a couple of years older than me who had been killed maybe a hundred miles from where I was living for supposedly whistling at a white girl. And I found when I had joined SNCC that many of my comrades had all been moved. We called ourselves the Emmett Till Generation. And I remember thinking, I’m going to do something about this, this is outrageous, and we have to change it no matter how much my folks were saying, these people will kill you if you try to change it. It was like, they’re killing us anyway. So that’s how I grew up. It was a warm and wonderful community, a wonderful school, but at the same time, around us, we knew danger lurked if we stepped out of line.

Marc Steiner:  And Michael, your roots are South, but you grew up in Philly?

Michael Simmons:  Yes, I grew up in Philadelphia, and it was much different from what Zoharah is describing her reality to be. The issues of racism were not really prominent in my mind because I didn’t have any language for it, because I went to integrated schools, but we lived in segregated neighborhoods. So I did not engage with my classmates after school, just during school. But at the time I never gave it much thought, it was just the way it was. I lived on a very small street, and we had a couple, one, two, three senior citizens, whites, who we collectively looked after because they were elderly. There was no, again, them being white was just an objective reality, but it meant nothing to me. And they were very nice. One was an alcoholic, we kind of talked about him [others laugh]. But the point is that he didn’t hurt anybody, he just drank.

And there were two sisters that, in the parlance of those days, were called old maids, and who ironically came from Williamsport, Pennsylvania, where I wound up being in jail at. And then a German woman who was just the salt of the earth, as far as I’m concerned, in terms of how nice she was. The point is that I really did not… Anything I experienced, it never occurred to me that it was racism, I mean, problems that I had, some problems in school in terms of challenging authority, but again, it never occurred to me in racial terms. And I went to high school, integrated high school, Blacks and whites. And again, any conflicts were not treated in racial terms, as I perceived them. So that my childhood was nowhere near as traumatic as Zoharah, but our commonality was Emmett Till. I was only 10 years old when that happened, but I can still remember looking at those pictures.

And not just looking at those pictures, but because I was one of those Northern folks whose parents were from the migration, the Great Migration, who spent time in the South. So I would go to Macon and Augusta, Georgia, Rock Hill, South Carolina. And my cousins used to tell me the same thing that Zoharah’s parents told her. But coming from my reality, I just sloughed it off. I said, oh man, come on, we need white folks. I said, hey, I’m not scared of these people. And I never had any… And then when Emmett Till occurred, it just shocked me. And then two years later, Little Rock, Arkansas, in terms of the school integration struggle. So at that point, I knew there was something different about the South. And then as I got a little older, the words of Malcolm X began to make me realize that there was something different about being an African American in white society. But that’s a synopsis of my being, yes.

Marc Steiner:  I’m going to come back to Malcolm, we have a chance to do that a little bit later, because that’s an interesting piece of life too with everybody here. So both of you ended up in SNCC and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee went South, or you just went over it a little bit, but you, Michael went South. So let me try again with Dan and we can just make and just jump in as well. I’ll call on y’all, but just jump in. So you met these folks 20-some years ago. And as I said to you before, this is really an amazingly well-written book, it just keeps you reading, reading, reading, which is unlike many academics and how they write.

Dan Berger:  Yeah. Thank you.

Marc Steiner:  I’m curious how it affected you when you began reading what Michael and Zoharah went through in the South, in the Civil Rights Movement. I mean, you may have read books before, but you’re young, so you were in that, right?

Dan Berger:  Yeah, sure.

Marc Steiner:  So talk a bit about that, and then I want to get the experiences from them.

Dan Berger:  Some of these were stories that I had heard well before I started on the book, so some of it was familiar to me in that sense. And I think being in college in Florida, you’re very aware of where you are, I guess I would say. And Gainesville is a progressive, relatively progressive bubble compared to its surroundings. But still you can tell which houses were the old planter money houses.

But part of what always resonated for me about both of their stories is, being on the left myself, being involved in different campaigns and different struggles. And so I think there’s something about, you can relate to what other organizers go through when you hear about challenges of getting people to the meeting or trying to go from one action to the other. But then to hear about, particularly when Zoharah was talking with me or with others, or researching for the book about her time in Mississippi both during Freedom Summer and after. About having to first learn how to drive and then outrace the klan. About having to carry a gun with her at times or otherwise be under the armed protection of locals in the community, in Laurel, Mississippi.

Michael shares a story in the book about going to get his car fixed and the person at the auto shop. So he pulls out a gun because he recognized the car as a SNCC car. Just the intimate and constant confrontation with violence, and potentially lethal violence, as just a constant companion is not something that I have ever experienced in my political life. And to be, at the time when I was first hearing these stories, I was the same age that Zoharah was at that time, 19, 20 years old. I’ve marched against neo-Nazis, whatever. There were some moments, but violence was never a constant companion in that way.

Marc Steiner:  So Zoharah, let me again, and please both of you just jump in, Michael. But in the book – And I want to give people a sense of this because I think many people don’t really get how dangerous and frightening it was to be a civil rights worker in the South in the ’60s. They know people did it, they know they had to break the back of segregation. But there’s the constant fear that people lived with, never knowing what’s going to happen next when you’re registering people to vote. What’s going to happen next when you’re trying to get things started and start Freedom Schools. So talk a little about that, because the stuff you went through, the fear you faced was pretty intense, and I think that was emblematic of what a lot of people went through in the Civil Rights Movement.

Zoharah Simmons:  Oh, yes, unquestionably. And let me tell you, because I had grown up with a grandmother who told me from my earliest memories that Mississippi was the worst place for Black people in the world. And she did everything she could to try to keep me from joining the movement and going to Mississippi. And her words were ringing in my ears all the time. She said, they’re going to kill up a bunch of y’all down there. Are you crazy? And so when I drove to Mississippi with my two comrades who had been assigned to Laurel, Mississippi, I was terrified. And because of the horror stories that I had been taught growing up, I slept from Ohio to Mississippi. And I kept asking my comrades, I said, tell me when we crossed the line into Mississippi, wake me up.

And I don’t know what I was expecting, I guess goblins and monsters to be hanging from trees. But nonetheless, it was scary. And I lived with a family for the 18 months that I was there, a Mrs. Z. Burter-Sphinx and her husband and her teenage son. And many nights she would sit with lights out and a shotgun across her lap. So she would tell us, because people had been calling, threatening. She said, you can rest, because I’m watching. And she would sit up all night with her gun, because she said, I’m going to protect you all. And this was incredible. This is a 50-plus year old woman. We were the first building that we were finally able to get a Black landowner to rent to us, which was a boarded up old building that we had to renovate to turn into our Freedom School and our offices.

That was burned to the ground with all of our books, and the fire department was parked watching it burn to the ground. They never tried to put it out. I have been chased by people, white men with gun racks in the back of their truck. And as Dan mentioned, I had just learned to drive. So driving at top speeds, trying to get inside the city limits, it was terrifying, and many were killed. I had met James Cheney, I had met Andrew Goodman at the orientation session. They left a week before I did. And to know that they were already missing, and as everybody in SNCC said, they’re dead. Don’t believe anybody who’s saying that they went off somewhere. They have been killed along with Shawna.

So this was hanging over our heads constantly, that death was stalking us. And they had said to us, they would kill any of us coming in there trying to register people to vote. Yet the local people who lived there, they were the ones who knew better than we did how dangerous it was. But nonetheless, they were willing to step up to try to register to vote, to help us with creating a Freedom School and creating the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. These were the brave people, because I could jump on a Greyhound bus and run on home, but they were putting their lives, their jobs, their houses on the line, as Mrs. Sphinx did, it was a scary time.

Marc Steiner:  You could run away. But this point out in the book, you didn’t run away.

Zoharah Simmons:  I didn’t run away, but –

Marc Steiner:  You did not run away. And the stress was so intense for you that people wanted you to go away just to save your mind and soul and your body.

And Michael, so you’re a Philly guy, you’re not? And ended up going down South to Arkansas, which I always thought about as one of the… It’s always been like this, of all the states, it’s really a bastion of whiteness [Marc and Michael laugh].

Michael Simmons:  Yeah, to go look at this, the points that Zoharah was making from another level. I’m just drawing myself a note here. To look at that Dan made a reference to something that occurred to me that, to make a long story short, I had gone to an auto parts store in a place called Helena, Arkansas, which is where I was working. And I might add Helena, Arkansas, was in the same county, Elaine, Arkansas, where there had been a pogrom of African Americans in 1919 that people would talk about as if it occurred yesterday. I had never heard of it at that point.

But when I went to return this part, no protesting, no nothing, just a commercial transaction, the store owner happened to mention a comrade’s name, named Bill Hansen, who had married an African American woman, and it became a statewide issue – Statewide, not local. State.

And so the store owner said, ain’t that Hansen’s car. And as he said it, he reached under the counter. And instinctively I turned around, and these men were converging on me. And I burst out of the store, jumped in the car, and I was starting the car, I was leaning over. It was like a movie, literally. I was sitting over trying to start the car, nervous, scared everything all at once. And the guy came to the door and pointed the gun, I don’t know if he was going to shoot it, he didn’t shoot it. But he pointed the gun, and so I got off. So I went back to my comrades in SNCC, and they said, well, we got to report this.

So by the time I got to the… And I can’t recall, but the sheriff’s office or local police to report it, he had gotten down there and they arrested me for disturbing the… I forgot what the charges were. But he accused me of something. And I got convicted and spent 30 days… Well, it was a 30-day suspended sentence if I left the state, which I didn’t do, but that’s what [Marc laughs]… But here’s the kicker, and this is what I think people need to understand, because I say this because SNCC would go to the FBI to chronicle these kinds of things. The FBI made it very clear and said, look, we don’t know what we’re going to be able to do with this legally, but we want to keep a record of it. So I went to the FBI person in Little Rock, his name, believe it or not, was Agent Smart, you can find this in the archives.

Dan Berger:  I read that, it cracked me up. Agent Smart.

Marc Steiner:  No, it’s funny.

Michael Simmons:  It was. And he was the nicest. Had a few hours of conversation, talked about my upbringing, my mother, parents, everything. I felt so encouraged by the discussion. And that happened around July, August of ’65. Fast-forward to a couple months later in Forest City, Arkansas, where we had had a protest demonstration that led to a couple hundred people being arrested trying to integrate schools. We were in the Freedom House, that’s what we call our residency, planning strategy one night. And the police came to this place called Forest City. And they banged on the door, there’s about 15 or 20 police looking for some SNCC leaders who weren’t there, they were looking for John Lewis and Julian Bond.

And so there was a white woman SNCC worker in the place with us, about eight or nine of us. And we stuffed her in the closet, said, look, just be quiet. And they put us up against the wall, assuming the position, as I call it. And the cops come in and who do I see in the back but Agent Smart, who I’d just talked to a couple months earlier, my “friend”. So I have my hands in the air and I look over my shoulder. And I said, Agent Smart, I… And before I could complete this sentence, he said, shut up you Black MF and get up against that wall. Well, I was like, what?

Dan Berger:  Reality check.

Michael Simmons:  Now I tell that story because I always tell people, what do you do when you can’t call the police? And that’s what, in terms of how Zoharah grew up, and other people that I was working with lived, what do you do, or when the problem is the police? And so that’s another level of having to deal, to live under that violence that Zoharah was talking about. And that it was just all encompassing, all consuming. And they didn’t allow us a way out. So yeah, that’s a quick synopsis of many stories there.

Marc Steiner:  The reference in the book, did you –

Dan Berger:  Well, one thing I appreciate about that story, which is also in the book, and the way that I write about it in the book, is that it gets at that all encompassing violence as Michael was talking about. But it’s also that shock of recognition, as he was saying, like, oh, the police are the problem. This guy was pretending to be my friend, is obviously not. And part of what I wanted to accomplish in the book and what I hope that the book does is this ever-growing series of realizations that I think is the journey of an organizer. And I think both Zoharah and Michael’s stories start very local and become regional, become national, become global. And that ever-growing sense of new questions to ask in new places, I think is part of what it means to build a life on the left.

Marc Steiner:  And that’s a really important point, and I want to get there quickly because I think the subtext of this book, to me, there are two subtexts of this book, several of them actually. One is that that is organizing. And Zoharah, Michael as organizers and how that was their life and work, period, in whatever organization they were in, we want to get into that. And the other part was their love and the relationship and how it intertwined even when they were together and when they weren’t together, that it was always there. And how it ended up in this place we are today. So make this very quick, maybe see if you remember, Dan and Zoharah, but we can leap in case you didn’t tell the truth [Marc and Dan laugh]. Because we have to tell the love story. We don’t have to make it long [laughs], but we have to tell the love story.

Dan Berger:  Yeah, I mean, to me, the reason why I see this book as the love story is not just the love the Michael and Zoharah have for each other, but that to be an organizer in the particular way that they are, to be forever in the grassroots, I think is a position of love. Because you’re fighting not only with people you know and in various ways, and the new people you meet, as you already heard, the way that Zoharah talks about Mrs. Sphinx, that relationship, there’s such deep love on both sides there. But also fighting for people you’ve never met and fighting people you never will meet. And the level of sacrifice and dedication and determination of which we’ve only heard a snippet in our conversation so far. What else is that but love? So I think that, to me, is the overarching framework.

And I think that there’s that famous quote from Che about, to be a revolutionary is to be guided by great feelings of love. And so I want to take that seriously. And I think the kinds of questions that they ask, the way that they extend themselves to people in other parts of the world continually as a process, I think to me, I wanted to see that as love, I want us to see that as love.

For the two of them. I was very excited to be at the archives at the Schomburg Center in New York going through SNCC files and to find the meeting minutes of the SNCC national meeting when they met in 1965 on my birthday, before I was born, but on the day I was born, the date. And they were both there pushing SNCC to adopt a statement against the US War in Vietnam, and really against US imperialism more broadly. And the fact that they were on the same side in that position and where they met, it was an early moment of connection, and they continued to be on the same side of things in SNCC. The book talks about their work in Atlanta with what was then called the Atlanta Project of SNCC.

But for myself, for so many other people, you meet the great loves of your life doing organizing. It’s not just this separate thing that, okay, I’m a businessman during the day, but then I might do some organizing on the side, these things are separate. No, it’s all together. And so the fact that they met and fell in love in the movement, I think, is a movement story. And the movement is based on love.

Marc Steiner:  Absolutely.

Dan Berger:  And so of course interpersonal love would come there as well.

Marc Steiner:  A movement love story. And there were many of them, but this was really well done and really well written, and theirs was beautiful.

So let me leap into something here. When SNCC changed, and I wasn’t there, I was a young civil rights worker in my teens in Baltimore and Cambridge, Maryland, McGlory Richardson, so we were in a different place. But I remember the vote, that was where all the Black folks in SNCC voted for the whites to go out, do something else, to leave and go organize white people. I think the vote was like, if I remember, 19 to 18 or something like that, it was close.

Dan Berger:  Yeah.

Marc Steiner:  And with a bunch of abstentions and the white people not voting. And that changed the entire nature of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. It changed the nature of the Civil Rights Movement in many ways at that moment. I remember when it happened, when I was there, when we talked about it in the Freedom House in Cambridge, it was like, we were all… It was a very tense moment, going, what does that mean? Where do we go? But what it did was, this is when a new part of the circle started, this is where Stokely Carmichael and Black Power began. This is where the nationalist movement began to take hold, given all the contradictions in American society and depth of racism. So let’s pick up there. Because you wrote about that intensely. And Michael and Zoharah, you were in the middle of it, and it affected you all deeply, and you went into the different nationalist movements and the Nation of Islam. So let’s jump off here.

Dan Berger:  Sure. Well, I know that Michael and Zoharah will have a lot to say, but let me just step back a little bit to say, that vote, Black Power was already happening –

Marc Steiner:  Oh, yes. Yes, right.

Dan Berger:  So prior to that vote. So it’s not where it begins, but it comes out of ongoing conversations. And the Atlanta Project of SNCC was really a key foundational catalyst for a number of those conversations. And not just the catalyst, it was coming from their own reflections as organizers in Atlanta. And this, I think, is a really key part of the book, because if you pick up any book about SNCC and nearly any book about the Civil Rights Movement, you’ll see a lot of unkind things said about the Atlanta Project. But also, you’ll see a number of untrue things said about the Atlanta Project. Just factually untrue. So I think this book is really the first to tell a fuller and different story of the Atlanta Project and of its role in the development of Block Power. I remember meeting Zoharah when I was an undergrad and hearing her talk about what Black Power was and what the motivation was in a way that made a lot of sense to me then and seemed very different from how it was described. And so I’m eager to bring them into the conversation.

But the last thing I’ll say is that it wasn’t just the white people who abstained from that vote, which is again, how it’s often told, it was also the members of the Atlanta Project. And I think that changes the whole story, because if it’s only the white people who abstained, then, well, they didn’t want to complicate things by voting against their own “expulsion” from the organization. But when you see that the people who were blamed for the results of the vote also didn’t vote for it, but enough people did that it passed, you see that these ideas of Black Power and the ideas that white people needed to go build an anti-racist constituency so that Black communities couldn’t be the only constituency if we want to end racism. That had wider sway, wider currency within SNCC than is often acknowledged.

Marc Steiner:  Absolutely. I see a really important point in the history of the movement and history of this country and how things changed. And it’s much maligned, but it’s complex, and we had it. And what you tried to do in the book – And Zoharah, Michael, jump in – It was the complexity that I think that we got into, and complexity for you all as well. It said it wasn’t just as simplistic, oh, we hate white people, get the hell out moment, it was much deeper than that.

Dan Berger:  That’s right.

Michael Simmons:  That’s the point, I think. Zoharah, If you don’t mind, let me just go pick up, because I want to go back to that issue of love.

Marc Steiner:  I’m not going to get between you and Zoharah, you go ahead [laughs].

Michael Simmons:  In terms of time, because Black Power, throughout the narrative – In fact this morning I heard an interview we were talking about before we started this program where the author of a new book on Black Power talked about it in just negative terms, it’s like Black Power threw John Lewis out of the SNCC, threw the white people out of SNCC, helped to create the Ronald Reagan movement. But it’s all discussed in negative terms. And that when we look at the reality of Black Power, if you go back to the late ’60s and move into the ’70s, you can visually, without having any documentation, just look at pictures, what Black Power did for Black people. We started wearing our hair long. I grew up being told that I had bad hair, that we kept it very short. And now it’s short because I’m old [Marc laughs], but we kept it, so we kept it very short. In fact, we were ashamed of it. Flat noses, big lips, dark skin, Africa, anything associated with Africa. I can remember almost sliding in my chair in school when something about Africa would come up so people wouldn’t associate me with it.

So then, almost overnight, Black people were wearing dashikis or were growing their hair as long as they could, African American women were wearing Afros. It was such a positive element just culturally, not even dealing with the politics, but just culturally in the African American community. But when you look at the historiography of it, it’s just created a disheartful thing that descended upon Black America. So I just want to say that, in terms of Dan’s formulation of love in the context, the expansive context, that Black Power was the height of expression of love for and of African Americans towards each other. Go ahead Zoharah, I just wanted to make that point.

Dan Berger:  Yeah, absolutely.

Zoharah Simmons:  Yeah, I totally, totally, totally, totally agree. And you’ve said it, but self-love. But to go back to how the Atlanta Project began its development of what The New York Times called the SNCC position paper on Black Power, we were working there in Atlanta and Vine City, which was possibly the poorest, most rundown area in Atlanta. And this was where the Julian Bond reelection campaign headquarters had been set up. And here were all of the direst indices of Black poverty and poor housing, poor schools, et cetera, et cetera. So this is where we were working. But all of us who had worked in the movement knew that, often, Black people, if there were white people in the movement, they treated them totally differently than they treated the Black volunteers and Black workers. There was this sense that if you were white, you were the leader.

And so here I was the project director in Laurel. And if I’m in the office and one of the white volunteers happens to be there and a local comes in, the local person looks at me, looks at the white person and assumes, well, you must be in charge. And so you walk to the white person to ask for whatever it is you came there for. And this was something that a number of us had experienced. We were very concerned that Black people had to see this movement as their movement. And as Dan has mentioned, the whole issue of Black people alone cannot change racism in America. So who is organizing in the white community? And so it wasn’t about throwing people out, as has been told, it was about getting our white comrades to go into the white community, face the dangers there of trying to organize. And there was, we used to call it the White Folks Project that was formed. And a number of our comrades, including Bob Zelner, went to the white community to organize. And in many cases they were run out of town when the white community realized that they were civil rights workers.

So this is very complex, as you say. And given that if you were a Black American growing up where you hated anything Black, you hated Africa. If you call somebody Black, it could start a fight. If you call somebody African, it could start a fight. This had to be uprooted and disposed of. And so as Michael has said, it took off like wildfire, from Stokley Carmichael in Greenwood, Mississippi saying Black Power and all these kids jumping up and down, “Black Power, Black Power!” It just took off like wildfire because this was something the people needed so badly. So it wasn’t hate for white, it was love of self for the first time. And I could go on and on, as a dark-skinned Black woman, what that meant to me to even begin to think that I, too, was beautiful, or that my hair was not bad, or that the fact that my nose is broad is not bad, on and on and on. So I really hate that so much animosity has been directed to say that Black Power destroyed the Civil Rights Movement. There’s nothing further from the truth.

Marc Steiner:  That’s really powerfully said. So that became a fait accompli, and it was a slow moving process, didn’t happen overnight. Many people, Black and white, folks left, many Black folks in SNCC also left and went off to do different things, both of you did as well in this. I’m sorry, we were going to say something, Zoharah?

Zoharah Simmons:  I sort of chuckled and said we were fired [all laugh].

Michael Simmons:  Let me just say, I mean, this is kind of inside –

Dan Berger:  Baseball.

Michael Simmons:  Baseball. But what I realized in retrospect is that when you have something as dramatic as that vote represented in terms of a fundamental shift in the organization, then what should have gone along with that was a change in leadership. Because you can’t have, it would be like… Perhaps an extreme example, but Donald Trump implementing Obama’s program. Or Donald Trump implementing Biden’s program, because the Atlanta Project that was not vying for power, we weren’t trying to become the leaders of SNCC, we were just trying to change the direction of the organization. It never occurred to us to look at the leadership after that vote. We just assumed that that vote would just set the course of action. And there was a lot of resistance in the leadership after that vote to the implications of the vote, which, as Zoharah said, finally led to us being asked to leave. But I look at that in hindsight, because at the time it never even occurred to me to think about having any official role in the overall leadership of SNCC, or any of us having any role.

Zoharah Simmons:  No.

Marc Steiner:  And by this time, the two of you were already in love and together, you were a couple.

Michael Simmons:  Right.

Marc Steiner:  And the love story about how you slowly, slowly, slowly [laughs] merge into a couple, I think is a really beautiful love story. And even to the fact that you are now, as I am, in our 70s, and you are still close friends and all that, that just says a lot about the power of what the two of you have, it really does.

But then you all took a different path, and other things were happening. And when I read in the book about all the… We’re going to cut this part out as I shuffle these stupid papers. How everybody from Ralph Abernathy, to Malcolm X, to Alice Walker, Vincent Harding, walked through your lives, literally walked through your lives. To me, it made me think of the Forrest Gump movie [laughs].

Michael Simmons:  I’ve called myself that over the years, I said, I feel like Forrest Gump.

Marc Steiner:  But that actually happened. So the pull that brought you and the contradictions you found, let’s just take for a moment the pull that brought you when you went back North. The pull that pulled you into both not just the Black Nationalist movement, but also the Nation of Islam, Zoharah especially, and what that meant and what change was going on that brought you to that place. Zoharah, why don’t you start that at me because your sojourn with the NOI was just an amazing sojourn.

Zoharah Simmons:  Well, first of all, we actually joined the Nation of Islam in Atlanta. So we got our Xs when we went to Atlanta. But of course I got a job working for the National Council of Negro Women, and my assignment was to be the Midwest field coordinator for NCNW’s project Woman Power. So Michael and I moved to Chicago for me to take that position. Well, Michael’s brother, John Ali, John Simmons, named Ali by Mr. Elijah Muhammad, was there, that was the headquarters. But we were already Muslims in the Nation when we got there. And of course, John Ali being there and Michael’s brother, I got to know him. And we were somewhat active with the Nation in Chicago, “Mecca” for the Nation of Islam.

But at the same time, I was traveling for my job, because as Midwest field coordinator I had several cities where I was organizing low income Black women for social change. And so I had Chicago, I had Cleveland, I had Detroit, Lorraine, Ohio, and Elyria, Ohio. Those were my cities. So I literally was driving from one city to the next, organizing, meeting with the women, helping them start projects, et cetera.

And while I was in Detroit, the Republic of New Africa had its founding meeting. I learned about it, I went. And although I was in the Nation, I joined to become a citizen of the Republic of New Africa. Because at that point I was very interested in the whole idea of Black people having their own communities and using those communities, be they in the mind, communities of the mind, or literally physical communities to do self-determination work. So then, of course, Mike didn’t find a job in Chicago, and he then went to New York. And so we were living in two different cities, seeing each other as often as we could. But Michael can talk about what work he was doing there in New York.

Marc Steiner:  Long distance romance[ laughs].

Michael Simmons:  Because ’67, I guess from May through the end of ’67, Zoharah and I wanted to move, you could say, both literally and figuratively. We were from Atlanta to Chicago to New York and winding up in Philadelphia. My stay in New York was brief, we spent the summer there working with an organization called the United Block Association, working with young people on various programs. People that the culture calls at risk, which I think is a horrible formulation. Or they’re at risk of being impacted by racism, if they’re at risk. But nevertheless, a friend of mine who had gone South with me had returned back to school. I started college at Temple University in Philadelphia. And for the first time it occurred to me that maybe I should go back to school, because I had no intentions of going back to school initially. But with that in mind, I moved back to Philadelphia, Zoharah and I. By February of ’68, I wound up resuming my studies at Temple.

In the meantime, we became… Got disenchanted, I’ll say, with the Nation of Islam, particularly its lack of activism, that which for us both is dear to our hearts. Zoharah became more enamored with the religion of Islam than I did. And so even leaving it, she stayed on her spiritual quest, dragging me along at a point, frankly [Marc and Dan laugh]. But those are kind of a summary of that time afterwards. And we were constantly on an intellectual quest at every level. I mean, vegetarianism, I remember Zoharah started cooking like the Seventh Day Adventists at one point, both of us were just totally exploring astrology, I mean, you name it, along with a political foundation that we were trying to establish.

Marc Steiner:  One of the things that struck me about the story is how the spirituality and the revolution were intertwined like a dialectic together in your lives. And it just kept going in and out. And Zoharah, with the Nation of Islam. For you it was, as I read the book, was that the patriarchy just was too much for you to deal with?

Zoharah Simmons:  Oh, yeah. Yes, it was. When I was driving, first of all, if you were going to go to another city, you had to get a letter from the mosque. It was called the temple then, the temple that you were a member of saying that you were a member when you went to another city. So if I’m going from Chicago to Cleveland, I have to get my letter. And then when I get to Cleveland to the temple and show them the letter, they’re saying, well, where’s your husband? How can you be here by yourself? That’s just a mild version of them not being able to understand why I’m traveling, why I’m doing this, that or the other. It was like, hey, I can’t be bothered.

I must say that in New York, for that little time we were there, Louis Farrakhan was the head of Temple No.7. And he clearly understood who we were, and he wanted us badly to be in his community and to bring others like us. So he was constantly beating off the folk who wanted us to mold to their way of acting and being. And he was like, leave these folks alone, they’re SNCC people. You can’t expect them to do everybody else. And so I just want to say that that was the case.

And of course, we always had Michael’s imprisonment hanging over our heads. We haven’t even mentioned that he had done time there in the Atlanta area because of refusing to go to be drafted and go to Vietnam. And so all the while that we’re moving around, the attorney… What’s his name? Howard, your attorney?

Michael Simmons:  Oh, Howard Moore.

Dan Berger:  Howard Moore.

Zoharah Simmons:  Howard Moore was doing everything to keep him from having to begin serving that time, including taking it to the Supreme Court two times and having it turned back. So by the time we got to Philadelphia, the imprisonment thing was bearing down on us pretty hard, so we haven’t mentioned that hope.

Marc Steiner:  No, it’s important to talk about it. And Louis Farrakhan, who I interviewed once, one thing you say about Louis Farrakhan is that he was a very bright guy, he’s no dummy. So when he saw the two of you, he wanted you all to stay. He said, oh, what do I have here? I’m not letting these two go [laughs].

Michael Simmons:  He was very kind to us, he really was.

Marc Steiner:  So we’re wrapping up here with part one of this conversation. There’s a great deal more to talk about, from the struggles that they went through, both as organizers across this country in different ways, Michael’s time in prison for opposing the Vietnam War, and the life they lived, the child they had, the children in their lives, where that goes. And it brings us to their lives and their struggle to change America, fight racism, make a different world, being part of different communist movements. How all that files in today and what we’re facing with the rise of the right wing. So you don’t want to miss that part of the conversation, which is coming up next. But right now, I want to thank you, Dan Berger, for the book –

Dan Berger:  Thank you.

Marc Steiner:  …And for having this idea of bringing these into incredible people together, Zoharah and Michael Simmons both to be part of this conversation. And we will continue this. And I want to thank you all for the work you’ve done and for the life the two of you have led and what you’re doing to make this place we live in a better place.

Michael Simmons:  Thank you so much, and we thank you, yes.

Zoharah Simmons:  Thank you very much, thanks.

Dan Berger:  Yeah, thanks so much.

World News

Australian National Review – Ellen Brown: The Looming Quadrillion Dollar Derivatives Tsunami





Ellen Brown: The Looming Quadrillion Dollar Derivatives Tsunami

By Investment Watch Blog

via scheerpost:

Technically, the cutoff for SIFIs is $250 billion  in assets. However, the reason they are called “systemically important” is not their asset size but the fact that their failure could bring down the whole financial system. That designation comes chiefly from their exposure to derivatives, the global casino that is so highly interconnected that it is a “house of cards.” Pull out one card and the whole house collapses. SVB held $27.7 billion in derivatives, no small sum, but it is only .05% of the $55,387 billion ($55.387 trillion) held by JPMorgan, the largest U.S. derivatives bank.


Credit Suisse’s $39 Trillion Derivative Debt Poses Significant Threat to US Financial System.

  • The U.S. Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, is under a lot of pressure due to the deteriorating condition of Credit Suisse, a Swiss banking giant. Under the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation of 2010, Yellen was given increased powers to oversee financial stability in the U.S. banking system. The legislation made Yellen the Chair of the newly created Financial Stability Oversight Council (F-SOC), whose meetings include the heads of all of the federal agencies that supervise banks and trading on Wall Street. It is Yellen’s authorization that would be required before the Federal Reserve could create any more emergency bailout programs for mega banks.
  • Recently, the US Treasury was reviewing US banks exposed to Credit Suisse, looking into how many billions of dollars of underwater derivatives US banks were on the hook for as a counterparty to Credit Suisse, and U.S. banks exposure to Credit Suisse’s other major counterparties that U.S. banks do business with.
  • Credit Suisse was making headlines for two years, and serious problems at Credit Suisse have raised alarm bells in the US financial system. Credit Suisse is a global, systemically significant, too-big-to-fail bank that operates in the US and is deeply interconnected throughout the global financial system. Its failure could have widespread and largely unknown repercussions, which is why the US financial system and economy need to be adequately protected.
  • The recent revelations about Credit Suisse’s deteriorating state have raised concerns about contagion risks in the banking industry, particularly in light of the staggering amount of secret derivative debt being held by foreign banks. According to a report by the Bank for International Settlement, this unreported exposure is 10 times greater than their capital, with an estimated $39 trillion of dollar debt held off balance sheets.
  • This poses potential threats to dollar swap lines and with a significant portion of derivative trades still not being centrally cleared, a layer of opacity is added to an already unaccountable system. The quarterly derivatives report from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency found that four US mega banks held 88.6% of all notional amounts of derivatives in the US banking system, with a total notional amount of $195 trillion.

Continue Reading

World News

Australian National Review – UCSF Orders Their Doctors To Ignore COVID Vaccine Injuries





UCSF Orders Their Doctors to Ignore COVID Vaccine Injuries

By Steve Kirsch

They don’t file VAERS reports either. That’s a violation of federal law. I had a bunch of questions for their media relations department, but they ghosted me. Here’s what I wanted to know.

Dr. Josh Adler is executive vice president and chief clinical officer at UCSF Health as well as vice dean for clinical affairs at the UCSF School of Medicine. I wondered if he would like to see these questions answered as well. So I asked him.

Executive summary

I sent a list of questions to UCSF media relations on March 20 at 10am PST. I also emailed and called the head of media relations at UCSF to let her know about my questions.

Their response: silence.

You know what that means, don’t you?

The questions I sent them

  1. The UCSF Chief Medical Officer has issued a verbal directive that medical staff (doctors, nurses, techs, etc.) are specifically instructed NOT to associate the COVID vaccine to any injuries. So even if they believe the vaccine caused the injury they are NOT allowed to talk to the patient about it. Can you explain how this is in a patient’s best interest? World health authorities such as Karl Lauterbach, Federal Minister of Germany for Health, have publicly admitted that the rate of severe vaccine injury is 1 in 10,000 and the V-safe data in the US shows the rate of severe injury (requiring medical care) is actually 100X higher: 8 SEVERE INJURIES per 100 fully vaccinated people. So why is the UCSF medical staff forbidden to make an association??
  2. I’ve been told that the staff are told not to ask if the person was recently vaccinated with the COVID vaccine because that would suggest to the patient that the COVID vaccine might have caused their medical condition. Is this true? So the patient must offer it to the doctor because the doctor isn’t allowed to ask? How does that improve clinical outcomes?
  3. I’ve been told that 70% of the Radiology Department (in Marin specifically) requested and were granted religious exemptions after seeing what happened to people who received the COVID vaccine. If it wasn’t 70%, what is the number?
  4. I’ve been told that the placentas of a majority of vaccinated women who give birth are not normal (calcified, blood clots, etc.). This started happening after the shots rolled out. Can you tell me what percentage was observed and why nobody at the hospital is speaking out to the press about this situation?
  5. Most troubling to me is that I was not able to find anyone who currently works at UCSF (including doctors, nurses, and lab techs) who would talk to me on the record for fear of being fired. Why would these doctors and nurses have such a fear? Will you guarantee in writing that any staff member who speaks out about any of the points above will be protected and not be fired just for speaking out? Have you fired anyone for speaking the truth? Who?
  6. With all the chatter about fear and intimidation tactics, have you issued WRITTEN assurances to the staff that 1) it is OK to ask about COVID vaccine status, 2) that it is OK to write vaccine exemptions when warranted such as allergic reactions, 3) that if they believe the vaccine caused an injury that they are free to talk about it with the patient and 4) that staff members who talk publicly about what they are seeing in the clinic with respect to vaccine-associated injuries/deaths and don’t violate any confidentiality/HIPAA rules will be protected from being fired? I want to know whether TRUE speech is protected and whether UCSF has notified staff of this in WRITING. If not, why not? Do fear and intimidation tactics yield better health outcomes?
  7. My friend Tim Damroth told me he suffered a cardiac arrest 2 minutes after getting his first COVID shot. He was in such pain since the shot that his UCSF doctors prescribed a nerve block shot. But in order to get the nerve block shot, UCSF required him to be fully vaccinated (i.e., 2 shots)! He asked for a vaccine exemption, but the UCSF doctors told him that UCSF doesn’t allow them to write any vaccine exemptions, even for people who almost died after getting the shot. So Tim got another shot in order to get the medical care he needed but this made his pain much worse. Can you confirm whether COVID vaccination is still required to get certain medical care at UCSF? If it isn’t still required, when did the requirement end? Can you explain the rationale for requiring vaccination to give a shot? Do you deny treatment to people with life threatening conditions if they are not fully vaccinated? How vaccinated must they be to be treated? 2 shots? 3 shots? I just talked to Tim and he will be delighted to sign a HIPAA consent to allow UCSF to talk about his case and all his medical records publicly so everyone can learn what happened to him. Are you proud of the way he was treated? Do you have any regrets?
  8. If you believe that COVID vaccine and masks are effective, why would you subject a patient to have to be vaccinated before receiving medical care? This is nonsensical in light of the Cleveland Clinic study which clearly showed that vaccines increase risk of getting COVID which would seem to put the staff at higher risk. You are clearly ignoring that study. On what basis? Nobody has been able to debunk the study. The precautionary principle of medicine requires that you hold off your vaccine requirement until you can resolve the ambiguity.
  9. How many UCSF staff have died within 6 months of receiving a COVID vaccine shot? Were autopsies done? Did they do the histopathology studies to rule out the COVID vaccine as a cause of death? Can we see the slides?
  10. How many UCSF staff have been seriously injured from the COVID vaccine?
  11. Why didn’t any doctor at UCSF file a VAERS report on the vaccine injuries of , Jan Maisel, and Angela Wulbrecht. This is required by law. was a former Chief Medical Officer at UCSF. Maisel is Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at UCSF. Wulbrecht was a top UCSF nurse. All of their injuries were required by law to be reported, yet no VAERS reports were filed. Why not? What are you doing to correct the problem?
  12. UCSF ultrasound technicians with decades of experience have seen an unprecedented number of menstrual irregularities in women who have been vaccinated. Why aren’t any of them warning the public about this? Is the public better off if nobody knows about this?
  13. I talked to one of the funeral homes used by UCSF. They are seeing a 20X higher rate of perinatal deaths after the COVID vaccines rolled out. This is a disaster. Why isn’t anyone saying anything about this? Why did the funeral director decline to be named for fear of being fired? Why isn’t UCSF just publishing the numbers to warn the community? How does keeping this information secret result in superior clinical outcomes?
  14. Nearly all of the UCSF neurologists know that the COVID vaccines have caused serious injuries to huge numbers of UCSF patients. Can you explain why none of them are speaking out publicly about what they are observing in the clinic?
  15. Why not make public health information from the hospital public? The information can be easily anonymized to protect privacy. Wouldn’t making medical records such as age/admission date/COVID vaccine dates/reason for admission be a huge public service? If the vaccine really works, everyone would know it. If the vaccine doesn’t work, everyone would know it. Why don’t we have data transparency?
  16. Is anyone at UCSF calling for data transparency from the CDC? If the death-vax records were public, we could instantly know whether the shots are beneficial or harmful. Is there a reason these records are not public and nobody at UCSF is calling for these records to be made public? Do we get better health outcomes when the CDC keeps the data from public view? The data can be easily anonymized to satisfy any HIPAA requirements. I personally released a subset of the death-vax records from Medicare. So I know it can be done. Oh, and it showed the vaccine were causing an enormous amount of excess deaths.
  17. How long do you think you can get away with hiding all these vaccine injuries from public view?
  18. Is this really in the public interest to keep all this stuff secret and engage in fear and intimidation tactics? Is there a paper in a peer-reviewed medical journal showing superior patient outcomes when the public is kept in the dark about vaccine injuries?

Additional actions

On March 20 at 9:50pm I sent this email to Dr. Adler and cc’ed his assistant:


These should be easy questions for UCSF to answer, but they are ducking my questions for some reason. I just can’t figure it out. I don’t want to spread misinformation, and I’ve offered to correct any questions if they will supply evidence that I’m wrong, but all I hear is silence.

It’s not just me who wants answers to these questions. Pretty much all my readers want to know the answer too.

More importantly, I’d guess that most of the people who work at UCSF would want to know the answer to these questions as well.

But apparently UCSF management and the mainstream media don’t think any of these questions are important.

I wonder if any members of the UCSF Health Leadership Team are curious about the answer to any of these questions. And if not, why not? Do all of them think secrecy is the best way to go? Which questions do they not want to have answered and why? I’ve emailed Dr. Adler and I hope he will respond.

They can’t keep running from the truth. The longer they avoid answering these questions, the worse they look.

Some day there will be accountability. You can bank on that.

Continue Reading

World News

Australian National Review – Government-Backed Digital Money To Represent $213B In Payments By 2030





Government-backed Digital Money to Represent $213B in Payments by 2030

By Lucas Mearian

Digital currencies backed by government banks still face a mountain of challenges before they’ll be ready for prime time, but 114 countries are involved in various projects, either in the planning stage or all-out pilots.

The global value of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will grow dramatically from $100 million today to $213 billion by 2030, once the virtual money gains greater adoption for domestic payments, according to new data from Juniper Research.

By 2030, 92% of the total value transacted through CBDCs around the world will be paid domestically, as cross-border payment systems face an uphill battle for adoption, Juniper predicted.

The digital currency, which is backed by traditional fiat cash such as the US dollar or British pound, can bolster financial inclusion because customers don’t have to have a bank account to hold them; they can instead use encrypted “digital wallets” that exist in the cloud, on a desktop or laptop, or even on USB storage device.

With a cross-border CBDC payment system, immigrants, for example, could send money back to their countries of origin without having to pay what can be exorbitant fees for electronic money transfers. Businesses would also be able to make cross-border payments for goods and services with much cheaper, and faster, settlements.

Central-bank-backed digital currencies would also reduce the costs of printing and replacing mone, help improve fraud detection, and allow money paid to scammers to be more easily traced and recovered, according to Lou Steinberg, former Ameritrade CTO and managing partner at cybersecurity research firm CTM Insights.

“It would simplify and speed up cross-border payments and reduce the cost and complexity of processing checks, wires, etc.,” Steinberg said in an email reply to Computerworld. “Unlike cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, a currency that is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States or other trusted government would provide certainty that the value of the currency is being carefully managed. A government can adjust everything from the money supply to interest rates as they manage and maintain the value of a fiat currency.”

Digital currencies also eliminate the anonymous nature of consumer cash transactions. In places such as China, where spending activity is closely monitored, that would let the government know what movies an individual is buying tickets for of whether they are spending money at a bar. Those are hard to track with cash.

The US has been a slow follower compared to other nations, such as China and its digital Yuan, in developing a CBDC. Australia, China, Thailand, Brazil, India, South Korea and Russia already have pilots or will begin test programs this year. By 2030, the Bank of England and UK Treasury are planning to launch a digital pound or ‘Britcoin’ CBDC.

It matters which nation’s digital currency achieves widespread adoption first because that government will be able to set the global rules for most others, according to Steinberg. “Whomever sets up large international payment systems first will have a de-facto standard, one which latecomers will have to adopt,” he said. “The US continues to study a digital dollar while others are making progress. We need to prioritize a system for international payments and settlement based on a digital dollar, almost the equivalent of a next-generation SWIFT network.”

The features and standards can be used to design in privacy or state surveillance and traceability. They can include limited use currency, such as a type of dollar that could only be used for stimulus but not saved, or a digital dollar food stamp.

“On the other hand, countries like Cuba have two types of currency, and limit the use of one type to foreigners only (so they know which of their citizens are collecting money from foreigners),” Steinberg said. “If we want western standards around privacy, we need to set the standards. If we want the dollar to maintain its role as a ‘reserve currency,’ we need to set the standards around cross-border networks. Showing up late to the game means you play by some else’s rules.”

All together, 114 countries representing 95% of global GDP are investigating the creation of CBDCs, according to the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank. Only 10% have launched general CBDC networks. Sixteen percent of projects are in pilot stage, 30% are in development, and 27% are still in the research stage, according to the Atlantic Council.

“We are behind. The good news is that we are starting to realize this,” Steinberg said of the US.

This map by the Atlantic Council shows the maturity of CBDC projects around the globe.

In March 2022, for example, US President Joe Biden issued an executive order calling for more research on developing a national digital currency through the Federal Reserve Bank, or “The Fed.” The order highlighted the need for more regulatory oversight of cryptocurrencies, which have been used for nefarious activities such as money laundering. The Fed has been investigating the creation of a CBDC for years.

US lawmakers have also introduced bills that would allow the US Treasury to create a digital dollar. The electronic dollar would allow people to make payments using tokens on mobile phones or through cards instead of cash.

In November, the New York Federal Reserve Bank began developing a wholesale CDBC prototype. Named Project Cedar, the CBDC program hammered out a blockchain-based framework expected to become a pilot in a multi-national payments or settlement system. The project, now in phase 2, is a joint experiment with the Monetary Authority of Singapore to explore issues around the interoperability of the distributed ledger.

Juniper Research’s Maynard believes China will lead both domestic and cross-border CBDC use in 2030, “as it has had early pilots which have seen some success in the market.”

Since CBDCs are issued by central banks, they will be mainly targeted at domestic payments at first, with cross-border payments arriving as systems become established and links made between CBDCs used by individual countries. Crucial to CBDC success, however, will be cross-border and retail merchant acceptance.

CBDCs will also require a complex regulatory framework including privacy, consumer protection, and anti-money laundering standards, which need to be made more robust before adopting the technology, according to the Atlantic Council. Any new system of payment could also jeopardize the national security objectives of the country using them.

“They can, for example, limit the United States’ ability to track cross-border flows and enforce sanctions,” the group said. “In the long term, the absence of US leadership and standards setting can have geopolitical consequences, especially if China and other countries maintain their first-mover advantage in the development of CBDCs.”

Steinberg agreed, saying a fully distributed system has risks, “both that wallets will be electronically pick-pocketed, and that transaction validity (consensus) can be cheated. A well-designed system could be quite secure today and future proofed. A poorly designed one would lead to widespread theft and fraud,” he said.

The research by Juniper said to date there is still lack of commercial product development around CBDCs, with few well-defined platforms for central banks to leverage — a big limiting factor for the current market.

“While cross-border payments currently have high costs and slow transaction speeds, this area is not the focus of CBDC development,” said Nick Maynard, Juniper’s head of research. “As CBDC adoption will be very country specific, it will be incumbent on cross-border payment networks to link schemes together, allowing the wider payments industry to benefit from CBDCs.”

For success, any CBDC platform would need a full end-to-end financial network, including wholesale capabilities, digital wallet, and merchant acceptance, Juniper said.

Full end-to-end CBDC solutions, including wholesale capabilities and – most importantly – widespread merchant adoption central banks to generate buy in. That will mean leveraging platforms from experienced payments vendors, as well as having a public consultation model which involves key stakeholders at every stage.

“In order to achieve merchant adoption, it’s a chicken or egg scenario to an extent,” Maynard said. “Merchants will want to use the platform users are transacting in, but users will want to use the platform their favourite merchants and brands are on. As such, it will likely require a mix of incentives at both the user and merchant level to generate initial traffic.”

One of the challenges for central banks is figuring out how to enable a CBDC that adds value above existing payment systems, according to Gartner Research. The success of CBDCs also depends on “programmability” enabled by smart contracts, Gartner argued in a January report.

“In order to further justify investments into CBDCs, developers are experimenting with injecting programmability into CBDC-enabled payment value chains,” Gartner said. “Therefore, bank CIOs need to prepare for this transformation,”

As part of ongoing pilots of the digital Yuan, or e-CNY, for example, the Bank of China Chengdu is using smart contracts to manage the deposits for extracurricular school activities, such as field trips to museums. Using the e-CNY CBDC reduces reliance on third parties to deal with a refund if a class is canceled, or a student couldn’t attend, Gartner said.

Countries such as Russia and China see how payments that depend on US infrastructure and currencies can be affected by sanctions and are working to develop alternatives, Steinberg said.

“The one to watch is China,” Steinberg said, referring to the mBridge Project. “Domestically, they need to keep electronic payments from all moving to tech companies, and undoubtedly see benefits in increased consumer surveillance. Internationally, they piloted cross border payments and settlement with central banks in places like Thailand and UAE. That’s the current concern.”

Continue Reading