Month: February 2020

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

The headline was unambiguous: “Brexit Is Done: The U.K. Has Left the European Union.” As of January 31, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act of 2018 has become law and the United Kingdom has begun the withdrawal process from the European Union. The transition process will continue throughout 2020 as the UK and EU governments negotiate the nature of the future relationship between the UK and the EU.

Now that the British exit from the European Union is a legal reality, the economic situation in the UK has been surprisingly sedate.

This will be a surprise for those who believed the assurances of media pundits and economic experts that the UK’s economy would become every more crippled as Brexit edged closer.

Yet economic turmoil has been sparse. Certainly, markets and companies have moved to adapt to the new coming reality of the UK as largely outside the EU’s common market. But it is hardly clear that the country is poised on the edge of a Brexit-caused economic disaster. This is true even though Brexit has clearly been all but inevitable since December’s general election.

Predictions of Doom

It wasn’t supposed to happen this way.

Opponents of a British exit—and the economists they employed—insisted that not only would the eventual withdrawal be disastrous for the UK economy, but that even the market uncertainty associated with an eventual withdrawal would cripple the British economy.

For example, the UK Treasury released a report in May 2016 stating:

A vote to leave would cause a profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty which would be compounded by the complex and interdependent negotiations that would follow. The central conclusion of the analysis is that the effect of this profound shock would be to push the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment.

According to the report, this economic disaster didn’t require a completed exit from the EU. The mere act of voting in favor of leaving, Brits were told, would trigger enormous economic problems.

Meanwhile, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in an April 2016 report predicted that Brexit would cost Britain the equivalent of more then three thousand pounds per household and “would be a major negative shock to the UK economy, with economic fallout in the rest of the OECD.”

More nuanced analyses debated the effects of “no-deal Brexit” as opposed to a more “soft” Brexit. But in the lead-up to the election—and in the years following—the message was clear: Brexit is going to make Britain significantly poorer.

Yet investors, entrepreneurs, and consumers, appear unconvinced that the barriers to international trade raised by Brexit will be sufficient to send the UK economy into a tailspin. Investors have not abandoned UK investment opportunities, and entrepreneurs are not anticipating a crushing tariff burden. Even if the EU insists on being petulant, the UK has other important trading partners. Accordingly, by January of this year, The Telegraph reported, “The strength of the British economy is defying predictions of post-Brexit doom,” and Bloomberg reports that in spite of predictions of massive losses in the financial sector, “London has extended its lead in foreign exchange and interest rate derivatives trading since the referendum.” The Telegraph has also noted that as a finalized Brexit edges closer, hiring has increased and economic growth—as measured by economists’ usual methods, has increased.

“Transaction Costs” Include More Than Trade Barriers

The claim that Brexit would make everyone poorer was premised on an obsession with the idea that Brexit would drive up so-called “transaction costs” for British businesses in terms of tariffs and other barriers to the free movement of labor and goods. The assumption was that business with the Continent was streamlined and basically frictionless, while withdrawal from the EU would raise many new barriers.

This is a common argument among economists and politicians who favor greater streamlining of trade and migration through international agreements.

Certainly minimizing transactions costs in this way is always a good thing, all else being equal. It’s good when trade increases, and when countries—and the individuals within them—are able to take advantage of the the division of labor. It’s also good when consumers and entrepreneurs are left to choose for themselves what products they wish to buy and from where.

But the problem with economic integration of the EU sort is that it also tends to come with political integration.

Thus, economic integration comes with a host of strings attached in the form of bureaucratic management from above. That management has been extensive, and the regulatory burdens associated with it are significant.

Ralph Peters at the Hoover Institution refers to the EU as “a bureaucratic monster” that interferes absurdly with “the structures of everyday life.”

Even worse, trying to reduce this bureaucratic burden is extremely difficult for any single member of the EU. Any significant change to Europe-wide bureaucratic edicts requires an enormous amount of effort in marshaling support from other member states and pushing through reforms. The weight imposed on smaller businesses and entrepreneurs is especially damaging. As Peter Chapman noted at Politico, “the EU’s general antipathy towards entrepreneurs remains a huge barrier” to economic improvement. Although the nominal benefits of membership in the EU may be easy to see in terms of reduced trade barriers, the net benefits are far less clear to those who are aware of the true cost of the EU bureaucracy. Not only does EU membership come with high transaction costs in terms of added regulations, but the nature of the EU’s unelected and foreign institutions likely made the bureaucracy less responsive, less flexible, and more permanent. That in itself is an added burden above and beyond the regulations themselves.

Some anti-Brexit commentators have noted the obvious: namely that Brexit does not automatically bring relief from regulatory burdens. This is certainly true, but all this means is that British entrepreneurs and consumers are presently banking on the idea that at least some regulatory relief will come, and that the cost of international trade will not rise to crippling levels.  But it also means that if UK policymakers want to change or reduce these bureaucratic burdens, it’s not necessary to go to Brussels to beg for relief. In other words, the private sector appears to be taking a long-term view while the anti-Brexit pundits are obsessing over the immediate future.

So, those who are anticipating economic advantage from Brexit are not without reason to be optimistic. As was noted by numerous pro-Brexit observers, the UK’s trade relationships are global, and not lopsidedly reliant on favorable terms with the EU bloc. In many ways, membership in the EU has restricted UK trade with the outside world. China and eastern Asia are quickly becoming more important to a global trade strategy than the EU. This is true even for core EU countries such as Germany. Moreover, should political coalitions of entrepreneurs, taxpayers, and consumers seek regulatory relief, they will have greater ability to seek change in London than in Brussels.

Economists Can’t Predict the Future

So what happens next?

Admittedly, the fact that a severe economic slide in the wake of Brexit hasn’t happened so far doesn’t mean that it can’t happen. But then again, even if the UK’s economy goes downhill, how much of that is attributable to Brexit? Boom-bust cycles are still a reality, and they can be triggered by many factors beyond leaving a trade bloc.

But there’s one thing we do know: the same “experts” who predicted immediate economic chaos following a “leave” vote are unlikely to accurately accurately predict any coming effects of Brexit.

Indeed, the complexity of the coming changes in the legal, political, and international landscape is such that any responsible economist should admit that he or she doesn’t know what’s going to happen.

In an article titled “Mission Impossible: Calculating the Economic Costs of Brexit,” Roch Dunin-Wasowicz writes at the London School of Economics:

As a matter of fact, estimating the costs surrounding a future stochastic event (or structural break) is as easy as predicting next year’s weather. Financial mathematicians know this matter better than anyone. Considering that there has not been a previous exit from the European Union (nor in any highly integrated economic area), estimating the full costs was never going to be possible. The attempts that were made prior to the referendum involved many and heavy assumptions, including strong premises regarding the reaction of the other economies and trading partners within the EU, and beyond. Moreover, the issue involves a multitude of aspects beyond those strict[ly] trade-related, such as productivity and competitive edge, labour mobility, education, firm complementarity across borders, macroeconomic interdependence, (macroeconomic) policy alignments, financial interdependence, financial market flexibility, financial innovation, liquidity, systemic risks and financial stability, or prudential policy effectiveness.

This reality, however, won’t stop anti-Brexit activists from blaming every negative development in the UK in coming years on Brexit – or on the people who supported it.

After the year stocks just had, millions of Americans should be feeling the ‘wealth effect.’ But for thousands of European bankers who saw their bonuses cut by as much as 20% for 2019, these are the equivalent of hard times for the 1%.

As a result, at least one banker with a purported ‘seven-figure pay packages’ has resorted to stealing from the company canteen just to quiet his rumbling stomach (or possibly because they simply forgot to pay after being distracted by work, honestly neither would surprise us).

According to the FT, Citigroup has suspended one of its most senior bond traders in London after accusing him of stealing from the company canteen.

Citigroup has suspended one of its most senior bond traders in London after the US investment bank accused him of stealing food from the office canteen.

Paras Shah abruptly left his post last month as Citi’s head of high-yield bond trading for Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

The bank suspended Mr Shah after alleging he had stolen food from the canteen at its European headquarters in Canary Wharf, London, according to four people familiar with the matter. Citi declined to comment.

Mr Shah declined to comment over email, referring inquiries to Citi.

Paras Shah has a reputation for being one of the most high-profile credit traders in Europe, stretching back to before he joined Citigroup back in 2017.

The 31-year-old was one of the highest-profile credit traders in Europe, having joined Citi in 2017 after about seven years at HSBC. His job entailed matching buyers and sellers of junk bonds – debt from companies judged to be riskier borrowers – with two former colleagues telling the Financial Times that he was a well-liked and successful trader.

Even more painful for Shah: He was suspended just weeks before bonuses were due, though it’s unclear how this might impact whether he will receive the bonus or not. Revenue in Citi’s FICC group soared during Q4, but the bank’s European bankers still saw bonuses reduced alongside most of their counterparts at European banks.

This isn’t the first time a big bank has punished a senior banker for petty theft. In 2016, Mizuho fired a London banker after he was caught stealing a small part from a colleague’s bike (the part was worth just £5).

And in 2014, Britain’s FCA banned a former BlackRock executive from working in senior roles after he was caught dodging the train fare for his daily commute (he ended up paying £43,000 for being one of the Tube’s most egregious scofflaws).

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit news,

While the media continues to fret about “racist” bat soup memes, a Muslim cleric just issued a fatwa celebrating the coronavirus outbreak and calling for the “annihilation” of Chinese people.

On January 23rd last month, Syrian jihadi cleric Abd Al-Razzaq Al-Mahdi celebrated the spread of coronavirus in China and urged Muslims to pray for Allah to “annihilate” the people of China.

“Al-Mahdi is a prominent cleric who is well respected by jihadi factions, and who is known for his sermons and fatwas, in which he encourages Muslims to take part in jihad and carry out attacks inside Russia,” reports MEMRI.

Titled ‘Fatwas from the Land of Sham’ – Al-Mahdi was responding to a question from Muhammad Abu Nassir, who asked, “Is it permissible that we express our joy for what China is experiencing – the coronavirus and the death of the Chinese people?”

“Yes, yes we should express our joy and pray for their annihilation,” responded Al-Mahdi.

“They [the Chinese] have declared resounding war and they killed, slaughtered, imprisoned, and oppressed the Uyghurs and non-Uyghur Muslims. They are the enemies of Allah and are Buddhists and communists.”

Al-Mahdi’s fatwa was issued via Telegram, but he is also apparently active on Twitter, which presumably permits jihadist fatwas yet just banned Zero Hedge for questioning the official story on the coronavirus outbreak.

Al-Mahdi’s fatwa is apparently not as newsworthy as the media’s primary obsession – patrolling “racist” bat soup memes.

There have been innumerable articles published over the last 10 days suggesting that the spread of bigotry in the form of criticism of Chinese people’s bizarre dietary habits is more concerning than the spread of the global coronavirus epidemic.

The fact remains; Whatever the source of the coronavirus (the source of both Ebola and SARS was bats), eating bats, dogs, pulling the intestines out of live frogs and dipping baby mice in sauce then chomping down on their wriggling bodies – is all objectively disgusting.

*  *  *

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

A new report from Reuters details how Foxconn could soon realize a massive production hit and shipment plunge to specific customers, including Apple if factory shutdowns in China persist due to the coronavirus outbreak. 

A source told Reuters with direct knowledge of the matter that Foxconn, which makes Apple smartphones, has halted “almost all” of its production in China until Feb. 10. The source added that delays after Feb. 10 could dramatically impact Apple’s iPhone shipments abroad. 

The source told Reuters that Foxconn had experienced a “fairly small impact” from the outbreak as it immediately shifted production lines to Vietnam, India, and Mexico. 

The source also noted that if Foxconn facilities work overtime, they might be able to make up lost production, but there’s no certainty if that could happen.

Last Monday, we were one of the first to note that Suzhou, one of the largest manufacturing hubs in China, told millions of workers not to return until Feb. 9.

The source said any delays in Foxconn factories after Feb. 10 could disrupt iPhone shipments. 

“What we are worried about is delays for another week or even another month. The impact would be big,” the source said. “It definitely will have an impact on the Apple production line.”

There’s a significant concern that iPhone production in Guangdong and Zhengzhou could see extended delays.

“The tricky question is whether we will be able to resume production (on Feb. 10) … It’s up to the instructions given by central and provincial governments.”

Foxconn asked employees in China’s Hubei, the epicenter of the outbreak, not to return to factories, according to an internal memo, first viewed Reuters. 

Morningstar analyst Don Yew said there should be a limited impact on Foxconn’s supply chain if factories are closed down in Wuhan for an extended period.

The big concern he said, is that if the smartphone manufacturing hub in Guangdong is shut down for an extended period, it would then start disrupting Apple iPhone shipments. 

Will it be a supply chain shock in China that reminds everyone how far Apple shares are priced from fundamentals? 

Bloomberg macro strategist Mark Cudmore suggested last week that the outbreak in China could be a ‘black swan’ event exposing the fragilities, and vulnerability, of financial markets that long ago de-tethered from any fundamental underpinning.

This could end very badly… 

Authored by Con Coughlin via The Gatestone Institute,

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to allow the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei access to Britain’s new 5G network has placed unnecessary strain on the transatlantic alliance at a time when it needs to show a united front against Beijing’s global ambitions.

Mr Johnson’s decision to allow Huawei to build parts of the 5G network has been taken in the face of fierce opposition from the Trump administration, which regards the Chinese company a security risk because of its historic links to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Donald Trump personally called Mr Johnson to urge the British prime minister not to allow Huawei continued access to Britain’s 5G infrastructure, warning that to do so risked causing a split in transatlantic relations, and might raise questions about Britain’s continued involvement in the elite Five Eyes intelligence-gathering alliance that London has shared with the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand since the end of World War Two.

Instead, following a meeting of Britain’s National Security Council, Mr Johnson announced that Huawei would be allowed to continue working on the development of the 5G infrastructure, albeit with strict conditions being applied on the company’s ability to access those parts of the network linked to Britain’s military, nuclear and intelligence installations.

Mr Johnson has sought to reassure Washington by offering to work closely with the US to develop 5G technology that would “break the dominance” of Huawei, with the aim of ultimately squeezing the Chinese giant out of Britain’s infrastructure.

The depth of Washington’s disappointment with the British decision, however, was reflected in comments made by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who, prior to arriving in London for a two-day visit, said there was still time for Mr Johnson to “relook” at the decision.

American objections about allowing Huawei access to sensitive communications networks in the West stem from ongoing concerns about the company’s ties to the CCP, as well as China’s People’s Liberation Army.

Huawei has been accused of developing sophisticated surveillance technology that has been used in China’s Xinjiang province as part of Beijing’s crackdown against the country’s oppressed Uighur Muslim minority.

Hundreds of thousands of Uighurs are reported to have been detained in makeshift prison camps and subjected to “re-education” programmes by the Chinese government.

Concerns over Huawei’s activities have already persuaded a number of countries, such as India, New Zealand and Australia, to join the US in banning the Chinese firm from their 5G networks. Indeed, Washington’s concerns over Huawei mean the company’s mobile phones are not even allowed onto American military bases.

Mr Johnson’s decision, therefore, will be regarded as a victory for Beijing, and a vindication of its claims that Washington’s campaign against Huawei is driven more by commercial rivalry than genuine concerns about any security threat the firm might pose.

It is for this reason that Mr Johnson would be well-advised to heed Mr Pompeo’s advice and reconsider allowing Huawei access to Britain’s telecoms systems, irrespective of the restrictions the British authorities claim they will impose on the firm’s access to sensitive installations.

In an age when the foremost challenge of the Western democracies is to defend their interests against Beijing’s long-term goal of achieving global dominance, it is vital that they present a united front against the Chinese threat.

Mr Johnson needs to understand that Britain’s interests are best served by maintaining strong ties with Washington, rather than by indulging in dubious business deals with Beijing.

It would be challenging for China to falsify 2020 GDP figures between 6% to 6.5% amid economic fallout from the coronavirus outbreak.

The Communist Party of China had come to grips of a decelerating economy, even before the deadly virus broke out. Officials blamed the slowdown on the trade war last year, and now they’re blaming it on the virus. Party leaders appear to scapegoat everyone but themselves for China’s downturn.

Bloomberg notes that government officials could lower the country’s annual growth target in March from the 6% to 6.5% range, to about 6%.

China has injected tens of billions of dollars into its financial markets and the real economy to prevent a hard landing. People familiar with increased stimulus measures told Bloomberg that deficit spending and issuance of government bonds would be the support tools to cushion the economy, expected to be announced on March 5, or thereabout.

We noted even before the virus outbreak, that China’s credit growth rapidly decelerated to the weakest pace since at least 2017, as a continued collapse in shadow banking, weak corporate demand for credit and seasonal effects all signaled that a massive rebound in China’s economy was unlikely in 1Q20.

Bloomberg Economics said China’s 1Q20 GDP figures could print around 4.5% Y/Y: 

“That’s a drop from 6% in the final period of 2019 and the lowest since quarterly data that begins in 1992. Most of China’s provinces said before the virus became widespread, they’re expecting slower economic growth in 2020, with at least 22 out of 31 major cities, provinces and autonomous regions cutting their targets as of January 21, according to their work reports which layout plans for this year.” 

The coronavirus shock from China has already sent commodities tumbling; for instance, copper futures are on the longest losing streak since 1986. Dr. Copper suggests China’s economy is headed for a hard landing, along with continued deceleration across the world. 

What does this all mean?  Well, China was responsible for more than 60% of all new credit created globally in the past decade.

With a slowdown in the country gaining momentum, creeping economic paralysis unleashed by the coronavirus epidemic, hopes for a rebound in the second-largest economy to rescue the global economy have faded. This could only suggest the world is headed for below-trend growth.

 

Authored by Tim Kirby via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

There have been many protests all over the world on a large scale since the beginning of the 24 hour news cycle/prevalence of the Internet and it has become obvious that some quickly gain favored status from the Mainstream Media while others are kept in the dark regardless of size or significance. This selective hyper focus on particular protests is a key component of the Color Revolution strategy. The protestors are positioned as the downtrodden masses yearning for their voices to be heard, and bad country of the month’s leadership is oppressive and needs to go. Sometimes this works (Ukraine twice and Georgia) and other times it fails (Russia and for now at least Venezuela) but the Second Amendment (2A) protest in Virginia presents a new tactic/opportunity that can be used to counteract any Color Revolution outside the West.

One thing that is key to understanding Color Revolutions (CR) is that as it stands today they are always orchestrated by the West to make regime change in the Non-West due to their financial and nearly total media domination. No matter how many people label the Mainstream Media as “Dinosaur” or quote their terrible ratings, the 24 hour news cycle still creates the dominant narrative for current events in the public’s mind internationally, and this is why the Color Revolution tactic only works one way.

The Western Mainstream Media can turn any nobody politician\public figure into the legitimate leader of Country X overnight. No one knew who Guaido was on Monday, but the West was sure he was the only true voice of the Venezuelan people on Tuesday. The same goes for the overwhelming support for anyone opposed to Putin like Alexei Navalny, who if given the chance to run for President would surely get a low end single digit percentage.

The Mainstream Media can make heroes and villains abroad but this does not work in the opposite direction. When Jill Stein (a figure with the same relative level of popularity as Navalny if not more so) was thrown out of the 2016 debate when she tried to crash the party, no non-Western media could spin this into the catalyst for some sort of Color Revolution. If this would have happened in say Iran then calls for the overthrow of the government would be heard from TV screens and Facebook memes around the world.

Although the Russians are accused of meddling in the Yellow-Vest protests, there is simply not enough Moscow Media might to convince the French public that the Yellow vesters are the new legitimate power, wag that dog, and get a full scale Color Revolution completed. The French situation is a perfect breeding ground for a Color Revolution if it was in bad guy Country X. The level of protests are massive, police brutality is rampant and documented, and they even have a Color/symbol – their vests. All the ingredients are there but without being able to push the media narrative no CR can or will happen in France.

What this means is that for the foreseeable future the Multipolar non-Western World (Russia, China, Iran etc.) is always going to be on the defensive from CR tactics. There is however another major disadvantage that the Multipolar World has – the type of people who do go out to street protests are the type who support the Monopolar World.

The working masses of families with kids, the heartlanders across the globe, who are really the backbone of society are far too tired/busy to engage in Color Revolutions or protests of any kind, and when they do they are one off and utter failures. The actual people who are most likely to protest with ribbons because of vague complaints like a lack of “Democracy” or “freedom” are those emotional types with time on their hands and probably decent resources too.

Naive bourgeois victimhood-lifestyle teenagers and some hardcore professional activists are generally who you are going to find at CRs. The amount of people who are actual ideologues that push political agendas in their country are generally less than 1% of the population combined with trendy kids who want to feel like they are accomplishing something by chanting do not represent the will of the working-class majority. But as stated before the Mainstream Media can convince even simple folk in Country X that they do. And probably what is most important, the trendy people with free time are always inherently pro-Western. It is exactly the cosmopolitan urbanites in any country who are going to be pro-Western, farmers and factory workers usually won’t. The type of people who come out to a Color Revolution are the types who believe the US/EU hype, and are the willful useful idiots that the media needs to create its narrative.

And here is where the Virginia 2A protests come in. They, like the Yellow Vest protestors were made up of those toiling masses also known as the Silent Majority. The same Silent Majority which the Multipolar world wants to woo with calls for tradition, populism and national sovereignty. Meaning, that ideologically the Second Amendment crowd’s instincts are anti-Color Revolution even if they don’t know what that term means. They are the kind of folks who cherish America as an idea and as part of their identity. They want their traditions and culture to remain intact, meaning that this is really the forces that the leadership of Country X (that is under threat of Color Revolution) should use. This is a demonstration of just how strong the Silent Majority really is when it awakes from its slumber of fatigue.

The local government was terrified and declared a state of emergency even before the protest began and obviously, the SJW rats didn’t dare show their faces against hundreds of armed old school Americans. This show of force that didn’t use any particular force is a shining example of how strong the people the Multipolar Order supposedly loves, and we can see how much they could halt some kind of anti-American CR.

To an extent this is what happened in Venezuela when Maduro was able to successfully rally thousands of supporters to march. If in Caracas the media had footage of massed government troops on the move, beating people with clubs, it would have fed into Maduro’s downfall, but since the actual force that took over the streets were just working class normies in bright T-shirts there was not only to juicy footage to twist, the images proved to support Maduro’s legitimacy. The real winner of this situation was Maduro’s usage of the Silent Majority directly against the Color Revolutionaries. He showed a faith in his people, which is not felt in places like Russia or China. Despite the fact that the Multipolar World stands on the side of tradition on populism, the big two dominant forces in this movement do not let their populaces take action like Maduro was wise enough to allow.

If hordes of armed commoners like those at the Virginia protests showed up to the Maidan it would have never have succeeded. Instead in Ukraine they stayed home as 40,000 protestors decided the destiny of 40 million people. Although China is accused of sending thugs from the Mainland, if they were to send waves of semi-armed hillbillies into Hong Kong the issue would be resolved in a day. The simple fact is that those who are on the Multipolar side of today’s New Cold War, if given the chance to fight on the streets, will win that fight every time. They are the side with the most to lose, the most anger to vent, the most testosterone, the most love for their own way of life, and who suffer the most from Color Revolutions.

Maduro demonstrated that organizing the peasantry even with just their fists and improvised weapons, was enough to defeat years of Color Revolution prep, especially since his masses did not look at like soldiers in disguise. He had the legit support of countless thousands of normal people.  The Virginia 2A protest showed that the trendies who are the poster children of CR movements will go absolutely silent the second there is a threat of real violence. Antifa is happy to use their Black Block against one man in a MAGA hat but when it comes to actually dying for their beliefs they sit at home. Word warfare, Twitter terrorism and Media manipulation are the strengths of the Monopolar World, but ultimately the people that this system breeds are not willing to fight (in the direct literal sense) for their values and will lose through preemptive capitulation in the face of actual direct force.

If those who claim they are fighting for a Multipolar World Order do not have more faith in their populace then they will become Yanokoviches and not Maduros. Footage of government troops fighting protestors can spell doom for any leader, while the same direct action being taken by thousands of uniformless out-of-shape factory workers acting semi-independently feeds the Mainstream Media nothing and in fact strengthens one’s own legitimacy – it shows the people are on your side.

To be clear this is NOT a call for violence, in fact it is quite the opposite. Some of the most deadly events in human history have been Revolutions. Meaning, that if someone really cares about the lives of commoners they should not advocate for overthrowing governments, but for incremental change.

If the Maidan had been solved by rednecks smashing up the camps in Kiev, yes some people would have died, perhaps tens or hundreds at the most, but to date thousands have been killed and millions have suffered thanks to the successful Color Revolution of 2014. The war in the Donbass still continues many years on. Even if you loved the ideas the Yeltsin tried to push on Russia the fact is that the shattering of the Soviet Union caused millions of deaths, reform of the Soviet Union would have been far preferable from a humanitarian standpoint. If we think about the great revolutionary periods in human history, in France, Russia, China etc. they were all followed by grand scale violence and counter-revolutionary crackdown. Using the Silent Majority to block upcoming CR tactics is a far more humane solution than it may sound on the surface.

If the Multipolar World wants to survive it has to activate its Silent Majority to protect itself from Color Revolution tactics. It is ironically the populists who in many ways seem too terrified to allow their heartlanders to have the freedom to take action and fight for the motherland without a uniform and direct orders from on high.