Hi Everyone,
It has been a rough few years for many around the world. Global responses to Covid-19 have been disastrous for societies and economies. Western Governments’ responses to the war in Ukraine has further drained resources, triggered an energy crisis and contributed to high inflation. However, none of the problems we are experiencing originate entirely from these recent events. These events merely exposed the weaknesses that have been festering in the economy and society for many decades. My post Cost of Living Crisis – A Collection of Symptoms caused by Serious Long-term Political Failure, identifies and explains the underlying causes for the current crisis and would provide useful context for this post.
In this post, I discuss how today’s hardships can lead to radical change and a better future. The desire for change strengths when current circumstances are bad or in obvious decline. Even prior to the events of the past few years. People were becoming discontent with their lifestyle and living standards. For most, standards of living were not improving unless supported by taking on additional debt. People were also becoming more disconnect with their Governments and the lack of real difference between opposing parties. Hence, the Establishment felt a need to quash meaningful opposition through the use of controlled opposition and divide and conquer strategies (discussed in next section of post).
Stagnation in living standards and lack of political choice was not sufficient reason for the majority to strive for radical change. Most would argue that life was not that bad. The events of the past few years have led more people to question the actions of their own Governments as well as their true intentions. The outcome of this questioning could lead to many people actively pursuing change.
In 2016, many people of the USA and UK demonstrated a desire for change. This desire was expressed with the election of Donald Trump as the President of the USA and the results of the referendum for the UK to leave the EU (Brexit). The Donald Trump candidacy and the Brexit referendum were litmus tests for people’s attitude towards the status quo. It is important to note that both these events were initiated by the Establishment rather than direct action from the people.
Donald Trump campaigned as anti-establishment candidate. He attacked the character and integrity of leaders from both the opposing party (Democrats) and former leaders and some existing prominent members of his own newly adopted party (Republicans). He appeared on controversial alternative media such as InfoWars to gain support from their predominantly anti-establishment audience. Most establishment (mainstream) media treated him as a threat or a potential danger to society and the country’s values. Many interpreted this as an indication that he was a threat to the Establishment. Hence, strengthening Trump’s image of being anti-establishment. Donald Trump narrowly won the 2016 Presidential Election and became President in early 2017. This was a strong message that people wanted change.
Donald Trump had one term in office (2017 to 2021). He presented himself very differently than other presidents before him. He was arrogant, obnoxious, and rude. He accepted no criticism nor accountability for any decisions he made. He was frequently ridiculed by the media (US and International) for his attitude, behaviour, appointments of staff, policies, and almost anything he did. No US President has ever been treated worse. He did not make any significant long lasting differences. He would rather shut down Government over quarrels with congress over building walls at the Mexican border, which were never completed. However, the constant fighting with Democrats, some Republicans, and various forms of media kept the illusion for many that he was different and he opposed the establishment. Their outward opposition to him cemented the perception of his opposition to them.
Prior to the 2020 Presidential Election, the majority of mainstream media and social media manipulated information regarding Donald Trump and his opponent Joe Biden. They intended to promote Joe Biden in a positive light while discarding anything negative about him. For Donald Trump it was the exact opposite (Fox Business). The target audience would have been undecided voters as his existing supporters would have seen the medias' response as yet further endorsement of him as anti-establishment. However, the overall intended outcome would have been to increase the number of votes for Joe Biden and increase overall voter turnout.
Supposedly because of Covid-19, there were an excessive number of mail-in ballots. This caused delays in the vote counting and also created opportunities for voter fraud (Fox News). The numerous anomalies that occurred during the vote counting process strongly indicated that significant voter fraud took place. According to a Vox Poll, 73% of Republican voters and 44% of all voters question Joe Biden’s victory. Below are a list of anomalies identified in the week following the vote.
Despite the strong indication of voter fraud, Donald Trump still almost won the election. This indicates that people still opposed the Establishment and still believed that Donald Trump was anti-establishment. Even though, millions of people believed the election was stolen. There was very little resistance to the results after the initial riot on 6th January outside of the Capitol Building in Washington D.C.
The European Union has become the epitome of the Establishment in Europe. It has evolved well beyond a trading block for its members. It has its own parliament, overseas embassies, courts, flag, currency, and even anthem. It is represented at international meetings and conferences such as the G7 and G20 summits and meetings. The EU also makes a substantial number of acts (directives, regulations and decisions) that affect its member nations. See Figures 1 and 2 below.
Source: Dimiter Toshkov
Source: Statista
As the EU’s role expands so does the extent it infringes on the member countries’ sovereignty. Many people in several countries began to consider the EU unfavourably (Pew Research). The people of the UK were given the opportunity to vote on its membership. They choose to leave (more than 50% voted leave). Exiting the EU was not immediate. There was a long leaving process. This involved official triggering of withdrawal (Article 50), Withdrawal Agreement, and a trade deal to replace the membership trading arrangements upon leaving. The official process was not completed until 2021. During that period there were two general elections, regular debates on whether Brexit should occur, threats for another Scottish Referendum, and media fearmongering of economic disaster. Despite, the duration and attempts to change people’s minds. Opinions changed very little as was demonstrated by the results of the general elections.
The Brexit process, following the referendum, should have been about negotiating new terms with the EU, new terms with existing trading partners outside the EU, and terms with new trading partners that were not possible while part of the EU. Therefore, when UK had officially left the EU, the transition could be as smooth as possible. Instead, despite the results of the referendum, the Brexit debate continued. The UK Establishment did not want Brexit but they liked the idea that it could be used to divide the country. Brexit became almost the sole political topic of discussion for years.
The newly appointed Prime Minister (Theresa May), did not even support the idea of Brexit. She attempted to negotiate a partial Brexit that kept the UK tied to EU rules indefinitely. A worst of both worlds scenario. Her popularity plunged when nothing was achieved for almost 2 years. She resigned and was replaced by Boris Johnson. He rushed a terrible Withdrawal Agreement that created a border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The Withdrawal Agreement was an unnecessary treaty which could have been bypassed straight for a trade deal. The only purpose it served was an artificial milestone for continued debate over Brexit. Late 2019, before the Withdrawal Agreement was official, there was another General Election, which was entirely focused around Brexit and considered by some as a proxy for a second Brexit Referendum. The Conservative Party (only party that committed to honouring the referendum) won by a large majority. This essentially ended the Brexit debate.
After the Withdrawal Agreement was official, a trade deal was required to be made before the end of the year. In 2020, Brexit was overshadowed by Covid-19 and the responses to it. Negotiations between the UK and EU continued on and off for most of the year. It was given little coverage in the media but it appeared minimal progress was made. Just like the Withdrawal Agreement, agreement was officially reached at the very last moment before the deadline (end of the year). Nothing about the disastrous Withdrawal Agreement was changed. The deal appeared fairly basic but it enables the UK (excluding Northern Ireland) to be unbound from EU control. So far, in practice, very little has changed. The two biggest events of the past few years, the response to Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine, have been handled in a very similar manner to how they would have been had the UK remained in the EU. The UK can significantly diverge from EU practices and policies but the Government may not do so in any meaningful way.
Even if Brexit does not create any positive changes in itself, it still removes the EU as a significant barrier to change. This moves the UK a step closer to real change. However, this will mean little if other steps are not pursued such as changing the British political system (see my posts Blockchain Government – Part 1: Breaking Down the Existing System and What would get me to the ballot box? for discussions on possible changes). Real change could be pushed further away if the UK become interlocked with other large economic trading blocs such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which the UK have applied to join (CNBC).
The push for change in 2016 has not amounted in significant long lasting change. The impact of Donald Trump has been mostly erased and Brexit has only been a theoretical disconnection from the EU. The opposition to the Establishment have been hijacked by controlled opposition. The Establishment identified growing opposition and the problems this would soon cause. Instead of trying to forcibly crush it. They attempted to control the direction and focus of this opposition. Donald Trump and Brexit served that purpose well. The damage was greatly mitigated but the desire for change has still remained and is arguably growing. The strategy of controlled opposition may not be as effective as more people desire change and as more people realise that the people that claim to bring change have changed very little. For real change to occur it needs to come from outside the Establishment and asserted by the people.
December of 2019 marked the beginning of the Covid-19 fiasco. The first outbreak of Covid-19 was claimed to have begun in Wuhan China. It was apparently not contained in Wuhan and spread to other parts of China and rapidly to other parts of the world. On 30 January 2020, The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern and on 11 March 2020 upgraded it to a pandemic.
Most countries responded to the WHO announcements with extreme restrictions that lasted on and off for over a year. This halted economies and divided societies. People became dependent on Government handouts because they were not allowed to work. Governments around the world used Covid-19 as a pretence to give themselves more authority and power while taking away the freedom of the people. In late 2020, the media and Governments claimed pharmaceutical companies had developed vaccines to give people protection against Covid-19. These vaccines proved to be both ineffective at protecting people from Covid-19 and had many other potentially dangerous effects on people’s health. (For more information, see my post Summary of the Vaccine Death Report).
In 2022, media attention moved away from Covid-19 to the escalating situation in Ukraine. Meanwhile the health crisis was worsening with more people suffering the effects from second, third, fourth, fifth Covid-19 jabs. Inflation was rising because of the massive increase in money supply, supply chain problems, and labour shortages. All of which was caused by the responses to Covid-19.
In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. This led to a flurry of sanctions, mass condemnation from almost all western media and Governments, huge outflow of weapons from western countries into Ukraine, widespread pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia propaganda by almost all western media, and censorship of any alternative views or even questioning views regarding the war.
The sanctions added to the world’s current economic problems as they have caused energy and food shortages for many countries in the world. Energy shortages cause the price of energy to increase sharply, which has caused the price of almost everything else to increase sharply. In response to the soaring inflation, central banks are increasing interest rates. This will increase the debt burden for most people and could make mortgages unaffordable.
Some of the current risks to people are as follows:
This is bad and it is likely to get worse in 2023. Governments normally intervene to mitigate the short-run impacts by spending to spur economic growth. For some countries this may delay the collapse. For most, spending their way out will not be a viable option because of excessively high debt and inflation. It appears too late to prevent food shortages. Food supplies might be sufficient for winter but it will be very difficult in the spring as additional food production would be limited. The poorest people and countries will be affected the most.
The events of 2016 indicated substantial resistance to the Establishment. The years following 2016 indicated that resistance was growing (e.g. Trump and Brexit support continued to grow). Using the controlled opposition strategy worked as a distraction but it did not begin to quell the discontent. The actions from 2020 onwards appear to be an indication of frustration or even desperation to maintain control over the people. All the significant problems people face today have been triggered by recent radical actions by Government and promotion by mainstream media and social media. The objective appears to be to cement control before resistance becomes too great.
The totalitarian tiptoe has become the totalitarian sprint.
The previous approach of slowly increasing control appears to have been abandoned as it was deemed too slow or becoming ineffective. The newer faster approach will achieve the end goal much faster but is far more difficult to disguise. Therefore, risks total failure.
In my 2021 post A Possible Grim Reality, I discussed the extent of the increase in social unrest using data for the number of ant-Government protests and the civil unrest index. Since that post, social unrest has continued to increase. Trends in the Global Peace Index offers some indication of this increase and includes several other statistics relating to peace. Figure 3 contains the Global Peace Index and changes from 2008 to 2022.
Source: IEP Global Peace Index 2022
This index indicates that for 8 consecutive years, peace around the world has declined. Figure 4 contains the breakdown of changes in components of this indicator from 2008 to 2022.
Source: IEP Global Peace Index 2022
Violent demonstrations showed the largest increase over the past 14 years with a 50% gain. External and internal conflicts were the second and third highest respectively. The increase in violent demonstrations is a strong indication of civil unrest and dissatisfaction with current regimes. Figure 5 contains the annual change in the indicator and the changes for different categories of regimes based on the publications’ definitions.
Source: IEP Global Peace Index 2022
Additional Information: Go to Democracy Index 2021: The China Challenge for the full list of countries categorised as Full Democracies, Flawed Democracies, Hybrid Regimes, and Authoritarian Regimes.
Violent demonstrations are increasing for all the regime types defined by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The largest jump for the violent demonstrations index has been for countries classified as full democracies. Flawed democracies also experienced a large jump and even surpassed the score for authoritarian regimes in 2021. Many Governments of countries defined as either full or flawed democracies have had highly authoritarian policies over the past few years. Most of the violent demonstrations are the people's response to this increased authoritarianism.
Note: I will be referring to parties and groups of parties as “right-wing” and “left-wing” based on usage by available media. I consider this terminology to no longer be relevant. Instead, it is being used as a means to divide people.
People are not only showing their dissatisfaction with their Governments (and by default the Establishment) through protests. They have also changed their voting patterns. This can be seen from the 2022 elections in Sweden, France, and Italy. In Sweden, there was a change of Government when a coalition of “right-wing” parties (Sweden Democrats, Christian Democrats, Moderates, and Liberals) defeated a coalition of “centre-left-wing” parties (Social Democrats, Greens, Left, and Centre) (BBC). This is significant because Sweden has a long history of the “Left-wing” parties forming Government. In France, President Macron’s political party and alliance of parties failed to obtain the majority of seats in parliament. This would be the first time since 1997 that an incumbent President did not obtain a majority in parliament. Votes went to either more “Left” designated parties or more “Right” designated parties (Wikipedia). In Italy, the Brothers of Italy Party won the General Election. They have been labelled by several mainstream media as the most “Right-wing” party since World War 2 (BBC).
The results of these elections should create more opposition to the EU. As the winning parties for Sweden and Italy campaigned on policies that oppose the general direction of the EU. President Macron who is pro-EU will have less support in parliament regarding EU politics. In elections in Hungary (EU country) and Serbia (EU candidate country), leaders (Viktor Orbán (Hungary) and Aleksandar Vučić (Serbia)) have returned to power with strong majorities. They have both shown opposition to several EU policies such as sanctions on Russia over the war in Ukraine (Zero Hedge).
The results of these elections shows a clear indication that people in Europe want significant and meaningful change. The changes in voting patterns will not bring about these changes as almost all significant opposition in politics, under existing political systems, is a form of controlled opposition. However, when the Establishment is forced to use controlled opposition it slows down their agenda. The controlled opposition needs to create the illusion that they are genuine. Therefore, they need to attack their own agenda to maintain this illusion. This conflicts with the rapid approach they have adopted over the past three years.
In my post A Possible Grim Reality, I presented the bleak outcome where people firmly fall under the control of the few. In this post, I present an alternative outcome where the tide can be turned against the oppressors. The Establishment’s rapid push for control is likely to be a mistake. Too many people are waking up to the reality that they have been lied to and manipulated. The Establishment’s response is yet more lies and manipulation. The charade they are attempting losses credibility the more they expand it. Controlled opposition and divide and conquer strategies will not work indefinitely.
Economies and societies around the world are likely to collapse in the coming years. This is designed so that the Establishment can convince the people that they have the solutions to rebuild societies and economies. This is going to be along the lines of the Great Reset. They will convince some people that this approach will save humanity. It is also likely that too many people will see through everything that has led to this point. Even controlled opposition actors will not be sufficient to turn people against each other. The people will turn on the Establishment. When this becomes apparent The Establishment will panic. They might consider or even attempt even more radical actions out of desperation. This will likely lead to disagreement and conflict within. They could start to turn on themselves as their power structure loses its grip. It could lead to their complete collapse. The world will be in a terrible state but at least we could all have a genuine opportunity to rebuild society in the way we want.
If you want to read any of my other posts, you can click on the links below. These links will lead you to posts containing my collection of works. These 'Collection of Works' posts have been updated to contain links to the Hive versions of my posts.
