The Saker: How I Became A Kremlin Troll

Authored by The Saker,

Today, with the kind permission of Phil Butler, I am posting the full text of my contribution to his book “Putin’s Praetorians: Confessions of the Top Kremlin Trolls“.  There are a couple of reasons for that.  The main one is that I strongly believe that this book deserves a much bigger visibility than it has received (this is also why, exceptionally, I am placing this post in the top “analyses” category and not elsewhere).  Please read my review here to see why I feel so strongly about this book.  Frankly, I am rather shocked by the very little amount of reviews this book as generated.  I don’t even know if somebody besides Russia Insider has bothered writing a review of it or not, but even if somebody has, it is still a crying shame that this most interesting volume has been so far ignored by the alternative media including the one friendly to Russia.  So by posting my own contribution here I want to bring back this book to the “front page”, so to speak, of our community.  Second, I want to ask for your help.  Right now the Kindle version of the book has 15 reviews on Amazon and only 1 review for the printed paper version.  This is not enough.  I am therefore asking you to 1) buy the book (Amazon wants reviews by purchasers) and 2) write a review on Amazon.  Guys – that is something most of you can do to help, so please do so!  We need to show the world that there is what I call “another West” which, far from being russophobic is, in fact, capable of producing real friends and even defenders of Russia.  So, please, do your part, help Phil in his heroic struggle, get the paper version of the book and review it on Amazon!

 

Thanks a lot for your help, hugs and cheers,

 

The Saker

*  *  *

How I became a Kremlin troll by The Saker

By birth, experience, and training, I truly had everything needed to hate Putin.  I was born in a family of “White Russians” whose anti-Communism was total and visceral.

My childhood was filled with (mostly true) stories about atrocities and massacres committed by the Bolsheviks during the revolution and subsequent civil war.  Since my father had left me, I had an exiled Russian Orthodox Archbishop as a spiritual father, and through him, I learned of all the genocidal persecutions the Bolsheviks unleashed against the Orthodox Church.

At the age of 16, I had already read the three volumes of the “Gulag Archipelago” and carefully studied the history of WWII.  By 18 I was involved in numerous anti-Soviet activities such as distributing anti-Soviet propaganda in the mailboxes of Soviet diplomats or organizing the illegal importation of banned books into the Soviet Union through the Soviet merchant marine and fishing fleet (mostly at their station in the Canary Islands).  I was also working with an undercover group of Orthodox Christians sending help, mainly in the form of money, to the families of jailed dissidents. And since I was fluent in Russian, my military career took me from a basic training in electronic warfare, to a special unit of linguists for the General Staff of the Swiss military, to becoming a military analyst for the strategic intelligence service of Switzerland.

The Soviet authorities had long listed me, and my entire family, as dangerous anti-Soviet activists and I, therefore, could not travel to Russia until the fall of Communism in 1991 when I immediately caught the first available flight and got to Moscow while the barricades built against the GKChP coup were still standing.   Truly, by this fateful month of August 1991, I was a perfect anti-Soviet activist and an anti-Communist hardliner.  I even took a photo of myself standing next to the collapsed statue of Felix Derzhinsky (the founder of the ChK – the first Soviet Secret police) with my boot pressed on his iron throat.  That day I felt that my victory was total.  It was also short-lived.

Instead of bringing the long-suffering Russian people freedom, peace, and prosperity, the end of Communism in Russia only brought chaos, poverty, violence, and abject exploitation by the worst class of scum the defunct Soviet system had produced.  I was horrified.  Unlike so many other anti-Soviet activists who were also Russophobes, I never conflated my people and the regime which oppressed them.  So, while I rejoiced at the end of one horror, I was also appalled to see that another one had taken its place.  Even worse, it was undeniable that the West played an active role in every and all forms of anti-Russian activities, from the total protection of Russian mobsters, on to the support of the Wahabi insurgents in Chechnya, and ending with the financing of a propaganda machine which tried to turn the Russian people into mindless consumers to the presence of western “advisors” (yeah, right!) in all the key ministries.  The oligarchs were plundering Russia and causing immeasurable suffering, and the entire West, the so-called “free world” not only did nothing to help but helped all the enemies of Russia with every resource it had.  Soon the NATO forces attacked Serbia, a historical ally of Russia, in total violation of the most sacred principles of international law.  East Germany was not only reunified but instantly incorporated into West Germany and NATO pushed as far East as possible.  I could not pretend that all this could be explained by some fear of the Soviet military or by a reaction to the Communist theory of world revolution.  In truth, it became clear to me that the western elites did not hate the Soviet system or ideology, but that they hated Russian people themselves and the culture and civilization which they had created.

By the time the war against the Serbian nation in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo broke out, I was in a unique situation: all day long I could read classified UNPROFOR and military reports about what was taking place in that region and, after work, I could read the counter-factual anti-Serbian propaganda the western corporate Ziomedia was spewing out every day.  I was horrified to see that literally everything the media was saying was a total lie.  Then came the false flags, first in Sarajevo, but later also in Kosovo.   My illusions about “Free World” and the “West” were crumbling.  Fast.

Fate brought me to Russia in 1993 when I saw the carnage of meted out by the “democratic” Eltsin regime against thousands of Russians in Moscow (many more than what the official press reported).  I also saw the Red Flags and Stalin portraits around the parliament building.  My disgust by then was total.  And when the Eltsin regime decided to bring Dudaev’s Chechnia to heel triggering yet another needless bloodbath, that disgust turned into despair.  Then came the stolen elections of 1996 and the murder of General Lebed. At that point, I remember thinking “Russia is dead.”

So, when the entourage of Eltsin suddenly appointed an unknown nobody to acting President of Russia, I was rather dubious, to put it mildly.  The new guy was not a drunk or an arrogant oligarch, but he looked rather unimpressive.  He was also ex-KGB which was interesting: on one hand, the KGB had been my lifelong enemy but on the other hand, I knew that the part of the KGB which dealt with foreign intelligence was staffed by the brightest of the brightest and that they had nothing to do with political repression, Gulags and all the rest of the ugly stuff another Directorate of the KGB (the 5th) was tasked with (that department had been abolished in 1989).  Putin came from the First Main Directorate of the KGB, the “PGU KGB.”  Still, my sympathies were more with the (far less political) military intelligence service (GRU) than the very political PGU which, I was quite sure by then, had a thick dossier on my family and me.

Then, two crucial things happened in parallel: both the “Free world” and Putin showed their true faces: the “Free world” as an AngloZionist Empire hell-bent on aggression and oppression, and Vladimir Putin as a real patriot of Russia. In fact, Putin slowly began looking like a hero to me: very gradually, in small incremental steps first, Putin began to turn Russia around, especially in two crucial matters: he was trying to “re-sovereignize” the country (making it truly sovereign and independent again), and he dared the unthinkable: he openly told the Empire that it was not only wrong, it was illegitimate (just read the transcript of Putin’s amazing 2007 “Munich Speech”).

Putin inspired me to make a dramatic choice: will I stick to my lifelong prejudices or will I let reality prove my lifelong prejudices wrong. The first option was far more comfortable to me, and all my friends would approve. The second one was far trickier, and it would cost me the friendship of many people. But what was the better option for Russia? Could it be that it was the right thing for a “White Russian” to join forces with the ex-KGB officer?

I found the answer here in a photo of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Vladimir Putin:

If that old-generation anti-Communist hardliner who, unlike me, had spent time in the Gulag, could take Putin’s hand, then so could I!

In fact, the answer was obvious all along: while the “White” and the “Red” principles and ideologies were incompatible and mutually exclusive, there is also no doubt that nowadays true patriots of Russia can be found both in the former “Red” and “White” camps. To put it differently, I don’t think that “Whites” and “Reds” will ever agree on the past, but we can, and must, agree on the future. Besides, the Empire does not care whether we are “Red” or “White” – the Empire wants us all either enslaved or dead.

Putin, in the meantime, is still the only world leader with enough guts to openly tell the Empire how ugly, stupid and irresponsible it is (read his 2015 UN Speech).

And when I listen to him I see that he is neither “White” nor “Red.”  He is simply Russian.

So, this is how I became a Kremlin troll and a Putin fanboy.

The Russia-China Plan For North Korea: Stability & Connectivity

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

Moscow has been busy building agreements that would extend Eurasian connectivity eastward. The question is how to convince the DPRK to play along...

Chinese President Xi Jinping (centre) and his wife Peng Liyuan welcome Russian President Vladimir Putin ahead of a banquet dinner during the BRICS Summit in Xiamen, Fujian province, on September 4, 2017

The United Nations Security Council’s 15-0 vote to impose a new set of sanctions on North Korea somewhat disguises the critical role played by the Russia-China strategic partnership, the “RC” at the core of the BRICS group.

The new sanctions are pretty harsh. They include a 30% reduction on crude and refined oil exports to the DPRK; a ban on exports of natural gas; a ban on all North Korean textile exports (which have brought in US$760 million on average over the past three years); and a worldwide ban on new work permits for DPRK citizens (there are over 90,000 currently working abroad.)

But this is far from what US President Donald Trump’s administration was aiming at, according to the draft Security Council resolution leaked last week. That included an asset freeze and travel ban on Kim Jong-un and other designated DPRK officials, and covered additional “WMD-related items,” Iraqi sanctions-style. It also authorized UN member states to interdict and inspect North Korean vessels in international waters (which amounts to a declaration of war); and, last but not least, a total oil embargo.

“RC” made it clear it would veto the resolution under these terms. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the US’ diminishing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson Moscow would only accept language related to “political and diplomatic tools to seek peaceful ways of resolution.” On the oil embargo, President Vladimir Putin said, “cutting off the oil supply to North Korea may harm people in hospitals or other ordinary citizens.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Photo: Reuters

“RC” priorities are clear: “stability” in Pyongyang; no regime change; no drastic alteration of the geopolitical chessboard; no massive refugee crisis.

That does not preclude Beijing from applying pressure on Pyongyang. Branch offices of the Bank of China, China Construction Bank and Agricultural Bank of China in the northeastern border city of Yanji have banned DPRK citizens from opening new accounts. Current accounts are not frozen yet, but deposits and remittances have been suspended.

To get to the heart of the matter, though, we need to examine what happened last week at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok – which happens to be only a little over 300 km away from the DPRK’s Punggye-ri missile test site.

It’s all about the Trans-Korean Railway

In sharp contrast to the Trump administration and the Beltway’s bellicose rhetoric, what “RC” proposes are essentially 5+1 talks (North Korea, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea, plus the US) on neutral territory, as confirmed by Russian diplomats. In Vladivostok, Putin went out of his way to defuse military hysteria and warn that stepping beyond sanctions would be an “invitation to the graveyard.” Instead, he proposed business deals.

Largely unreported by Western corporate media, what happened in Vladivostok is really ground-breaking. Moscow and Seoul agreed on a trilateral trade platform, crucially involving Pyongyang, to ultimately invest in connectivity between the whole Korean peninsula and the Russian Far East.

South Korean Prime Minister Moon Jae-in proposed to Moscow to build no less than “nine bridges” of cooperation: “Nine bridges mean the bridges of gas, railways, the Northern Sea Route, shipbuilding, the creation of working groups, agriculture and other types of cooperation.”

Crucially, Moon added that the trilateral cooperation would aim at joint projects in the Russian Far East. He knows that “the development of that area will promote the prosperity of our two countries and will also help change North Korea and create the basis for the implementation of the trilateral agreements.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-in visit the Far East Street exhibition at Russky Island in Vladivostok. Photo: Sputnik / Mikhail Klimentyev

Adding to the entente, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono and South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha both stressed “strategic cooperation” with “RC”.

Geo-economics complements geo-politics. Moscow has also approached Tokyo with the idea of building a bridge between the nations. That would physically link Japan to Eurasia – and the vast trade and investment carousel offered by the New Silk Roads, aka, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU). It would also complement the daring plan to link a Trans-Korean Railway to the Trans-Siberian one.

Seoul wants a rail network that will physically connect it with the vast Eurasian land bridge, which makes perfect business sense for the fifth largest export economy in the world. Handicapped by North Korea’s isolation, South Korea is in effect cut off from Eurasia by land. The answer is the Trans-Korean Railway.

Moscow is very much for it, with Putin noting how “we could deliver Russian pipeline gas to Korea and integrate the power lines and railway systems of Russia, the Republic of Korea and North Korea. The implementation of these initiatives will be not only economically beneficial, but will also help build up trust and stability on the Korean Peninsula.”

Moscow’s strategy, like Beijing’s, is connectivity: the only way to integrate Pyongyang is to keep it involved in economic cooperation via the Trans-Korean-Trans-Siberian connection, pipelines and the development of North Korean ports.

The DPRK’s delegation in Vladivostok seemed to agree. But not yet. According to North Korea’s Minister for External Economic Affairs, Kim Yong Jae: “We are not opposed to the trilateral cooperation [with Russia and South Korea], but this is not an appropriate situation for this to be implemented.” That implies that for the DPRK the priority is the 5+1 negotiation table.

Still, the crucial point is that both Seoul and Pyongyang went to Vladivostok, and talked to Moscow. Arguably the key question – the armistice that did not end the Korean War – has to be broached by Putin and the Koreans, without the Americans.

While the sanctions game ebb and flows, the larger strategy of “RC” is clear – a drive aimed at Eurasian connectivity. The question is how to convince the DPRK to play along.

In Warning To North Korea, US Releases Video Of Overnight Minuteman ICBM Launch

As previewed last night, at 2:10am PT, the U.S. military successfully test-launched an unarmed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, about 130 miles northwest of Los Angeles, and just days after North Korea’s second test of an ICBM. An Air Force statement said that the test was not a response to recent North Korean actions, but shows that America"s nuclear enterprise is "safe, secure, effective and ready to be able to deter, detect and defend against attacks on the United States and its allies."

The launch is said to “validate and verify the effectiveness, readiness, and accuracy of the weapon system,” according to Colonel Michael Hough, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command’s 30th Air Wing.

“Team V is postured to work with Air Force Global Strike Command to test launch the Minuteman III missile,” Hough said in a statement. “Our long history in partnering with the men and women of the 576th Flight Test Squadron shows that the Western Range stands ready and able to create a safe launch environment.”

The ICBM was equipped with a test reentry vehicle - just like the previous three launches in 2017 - which officials said showed it traveled about 4,200 miles to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The operation was conducted by a team of Air Force Global Strike Command Airmen from the 90th Missile Wing, along with the 576th Flight Test Squadron and the 30th Space Wing stationed at Vandenberg.

This is the fourth Minuteman ICBM launched from the Vandenberg base this year. The first 2017 test took place in February, involving a Minuteman III that traveled to the Marshall Islands, carrying a non-explosive warhead. Another test was conducted by the Air Force on April 26. Days later, a third test missile launched from Vandenberg base.

Air Force Global Strike Command has tested 299 Minuteman III ICBMs over the program"s history. The Minuteman IIIs are the U.S. military"s only land-based ICBMs. And while some have suggested that the launches are in direct retaliation to the recent NKorea ICBM launch, the U.S. military schedules four test-launches each fiscal year, with the actual schedule plotted out several years in advance, so it"s unrelated to recent events, Air Force Capt. Michele Rollins, a spokesperson for the strike command, told NBC.

Last week, North Korea tested an ICBM for the second time. The missile flew for 45 minutes and traveled more than 1,000 kilometers laterally, defense officials and analysts said. U.S. officials believe the missile broke up upon re-entering the atmosphere.

The Minuteman III ICBM launches during an operational  test at 2:10 a.m. PT
on Aug. 2, 2017, at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California

Analysts said that the North"s test Friday demonstrated that a broader part of the mainland United States, including Los Angeles and Chicago, is now in range of Pyongyang"s weapons. Asked about possible U.S. military action against North Korea, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders reiterated on Tuesday that "all options are on the table" but the administration would not "broadcast what we"re going to do."

The focus for the administration remains on stopping North Korea"s nuclear program and halting their aggression, Sanders said.

As we reported yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham said Tuesday that President Donald Trump has told him he"s willing to go to war over North Korea"s missile program if the rogue nation continues to aim ICBMs at America.

Meanwhile, Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Norio Maruyama said he was unaware of the remarks, but that his country was in favor of the Trump administration"s posture "using both words and action to show that all choices are on the table."

Separately, another longstanding ally in the region, the Philippines, is set to host an international regional security meeting on Monday, when leaders could pressure Pyongyang to halt its intermediate-range missile tests. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is expected to attend the meeting in Manila. On Wednesday, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte went on the attack against North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, whom he referred to in a speech as a "fool" and a "son of a bitch" according to Reuters.

"That chubby face that looks kind ... If he commits a mistake, the Far East will become an arid land," Duterte said. "It must be stopped, this nuclear war."

"A limited confrontation and it blows up here, I will tell you, the fallout can deplete the soil, the resources and I don"t know what will happen to us," he added. Duterte has previously called for the U.S. to show restraint in dealing with Kim"s totalitarian regime.

Unite and Rule: EU As NATO's Auxiliary Economic Alliance

Authored by Nauman Sadiq via Oriental Review,

According to a recent infographic by New York Times, 79,000 US troops have currently been deployed in Europe out of 210,000 total US troops stationed all over the world, including 47,000 in Germany, 15,000 in Italy and 17,000 in the rest of Europe. By comparison, the number of US troops stationed in Afghanistan is only 8,400 which is regarded as an occupied country. Thus, Europe is nothing more than a backyard of corporate America.

Both NATO and EU were conceived during the Cold War to offset the influence of Soviet Union in Europe. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that the Soviet Union was dissolved in December 1991 and the Maastricht Treaty that consolidated the European Community and laid the foundations of the European Union was signed in February 1992.

The basic purpose of the EU has been nothing more than to lure the formerly communist states of the Eastern and Central Europe into the folds of the Western capitalist bloc by offering incentives and inducements, particularly in the form of agreements to abolish internal border checks between the EU member states, thus allowing the free movement of labor from the impoverished Eastern Europe to the prosperous countries of the Western Europe.

No wonder then, the neoliberal political establishments, and particularly the deep state of the US, are as freaked out about the outcome of Brexit as they were during the Ukrainian Crisis in November 2013, when Viktor Yanukovych suspended the preparations for the implementation of an association agreement with the European Union and tried to take Ukraine back into the folds of the Russian sphere of influence by accepting billions of dollars of loan package offered by Vladimir Putin to Ukraine.

In this regard, the founding of the EU has been similar to the case of Japan and South Korea in the Far East where 45,000 and 28,500 US troops have currently been deployed, respectively, according to the aforementioned infographic.

After the Second World War, when Japan was about to fall in the hands of geographically-adjacent Soviet Union, the Truman Administration authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to subjugate Japan and also to send a signal to the leaders of the Soviet Union, which had not developed their nuclear program at the time, to desist from encroaching upon Japan in the east and West Germany in Europe.

Then, during the Cold War, American entrepreneurs invested heavily in the economies of Japan and South Korea and made them model industrialized nations to forestall the expansion of communism in the Far East.

Similarly, after the Second World War, Washington embarked on the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe with an economic assistance of $13 billion, equivalent to hundreds of billions of dollars in the current dollar value. Since then, Washington has maintained its military and economic dominance over Western Europe.

Notwithstanding, there is an essential stipulation in the European Union’s charter of union according to which the developing economies of Europe that joined the EU allowed free movement of goods (free trade) only on the reciprocal condition that the developed countries would allow free movement of labor.

What’s obvious in this stipulation is the fact that the free movement of goods, services and capital only benefits the countries that have a strong manufacturing base, and the free movement of people only favors the developing economies where labor is cheap.

Now, when the international financial institutions, like the IMF and WTO, promote free trade by exhorting the developing countries all over the world to reduce tariffs and subsidies without the reciprocal free movement of labor, whose interests do such institutions try to protect? Obviously, they try to protect the interests of their biggest donors by shares, i.e. the developed countries.

Regardless, while joining the EU, Britain compromised on the rights of its working class in order to protect the interests of its bankers and industrialists, because free trade with the rest of the EU countries spurred British exports.

The British working classes overwhelmingly voted in the favor of Brexit because after Britain’s entry into the EU and when the agreements on abolishing internal border checks between the EU member states became effective, the cheaper labor force from the Eastern and Central Europe flooded the markets of Western Europe; and consequently, the wages of native British workers dropped and it also became difficult for them to find jobs, because foreigners were willing to do the same job for lesser pays.

Hence, raising the level of unemployment among the British workers and consequent discontentment with the EU. The subsequent lifting of restrictions on the Romanians and Bulgarians to work in the European Union in January 2014 further exacerbated the problem and consequently, the majority of the British electorate voted in a June 2016 referendum to opt out of the EU.

The biggest incentive for the British working class to vote for Brexit has been that the East European workers will have to leave Britain after its exit from the EU, and the jobs will once again become available with better wages to the native British workforce.

Although the EU’s labor provisions ensure adequate wages and safeguard the rights of workers, but the British working class chose to quit the EU on the basis of demand and supply of labor. With East European workers out of the country, the supply of labor will reduce hence increasing the demand. The native British workforce can then renegotiate better terms and conditions from the owners of industries and businesses, and it will also ensure ready availability of jobs.

Regardless, instead of lamenting the abysmal failure of globalization and neoliberal economic policies, we need to ask a simple question that why do workers choose to leave their homes and hearths, and families and friends in their native countries and opt to work in a foreign country? They obviously do it for better wages.

In that case, however, instead of offering band aid solutions, we need to revise the prevailing global economic order and formulate prudent and far-reaching economic and trade policies that can reduce the imbalance of wealth distribution between the developed and developing nations, hence reducing the incentive for immigrant workers to seek employment in the developed countries.

Free movement of workers only benefits a small number of individuals and families, because the majority of workforce is left behind to rot in their native developing countries where economy is not doing as well as in the developed world, thanks to the neoliberal economic policies. A comprehensive reform of the global economic and trade policies, on the other hand, will benefit everyone, except the bankers, industrialists and the beneficiaries of the existing neoliberal world order.

More to the point, the promotion of free trade by the mainstream neoliberal media has been the norm in the last several decades, but the implementation of agreements to abolish internal border controls between the EU member states has been an unprecedented exception.

Free trade benefits the industrialized nations of the EU, particularly Germany and to some extent the rest of the developed economies of the Western Europe; but the free movement of labor benefits the cheaper workforce of the impoverished Eastern and Central Europe.

The developed economies of the Western Europe would never have acceded to the condition of free movement of labor that goes against their economic interests; but the political establishment of the US, which is the hub of corporate power and wields enormous influence in the Western capitalist bloc, must have persuaded the unwilling states of the Western Europe to yield to the condition against their national interests, in order to wean away the formerly communist states of the Eastern and Central Europe from the Russian influence.

Had there been any merit to the founding of the EU, the Western Europe would have promptly accepted Turkey’s request to join the EU. But they kept delaying the issue of Turkish membership to the EU for decades, because with a population of 78 million, Turkey is one of the most populous countries in Eurasia.

Millions of Turks working in Germany have already become a burden on the welfare economy of their host country. Turkey’s accession to the EU would have opened the floodgates of immigrant workers seeking employment in the Western Europe.

Moreover, Turkey is already a member of the NATO and a longstanding and reliable partner of the Western powers; while the limited offer to join the EU, as I have already described, serves as an inducement to the formerly communist states of the Eastern and Central Europe to forswear their allegiance to Russia and to become the strategic allies of the Western powers.

Thus, all the grandstanding and moral posturing of unity and equality of opportunity aside, the hopelessly neoliberal institution, the EU, in effect, is nothing more than the civilian counterpart of the Western military alliance against the erstwhile Soviet Union, the NATO, that employs a much more subtle and insidious tactic of economic warfare to win over political allies and to isolate the adversaries that dare to sidestep from the global trade and economic policy as laid down by the Western capitalist bloc.

Finally, the fabled divide-and-rule policy that has been deployed by imperialist powers to weaken resistance movements against imperialism in their former colonies is a historically proven fact, but at the same time, neocolonial powers also use unite-and-rule strategy to create friendly alliances and to institute a centralized command and control structure in order to buttress the global neocolonial world order.

Europe's Mass Migration: The Leaders Vs. The Public

Authored by Douglas Murray via The Gatestone Institute,

• "[T]he more generous you are, the more word gets around about this -- which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa. Germany cannot possibly take in the huge number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe." — Bill Gates.


• The annual survey of EU citizens, recently carried out by Project 28, found a unanimity on the issue of migration almost unequalled across an entire continent. The survey found that 76% of the public across the EU believe that the EU"s handling of the migration crisis of recent years has been "poor". There is not one country in the EU in which the majority of the public differs from that consensus.


• At the same time as the public has known that what the politicians are doing is unsustainable, there has been a vast effort to control what the European publics have been allowed to say. German Chancellor Angela Merkel went so far as to urge Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to limit posts on social media that were critical of her policies.

Is Bill Gates a Nazi, racist, "Islamophobe" or fascist? As PG Wodehouse"s most famous butler would have said, "The eventuality would appear to be a remote one". So far nobody in any position of influence has made such claims about the world"s largest philanthropist. Possibly -- just possibly -- something is changing in Europe.

In an interview published July 2 in the German paper Welt Am Sonntag, the co-founder of Microsoft addressed the ongoing European migration crisis. What he said was surprising:

"On the one hand you want to demonstrate generosity and take in refugees. But the more generous you are, the more word gets around about this -- which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa. Germany cannot possibly take in the huge number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe."

These words would be uncontroversial to the average citizen of Europe. The annual survey of EU citizens recently carried out by Project 28 found a unanimity on the issue of migration almost unequalled across an entire continent. The survey found, for instance, that 76% of the public across the EU believe that the EU"s handling of the migration crisis of recent years has been "poor". There is not one country in the EU in which the majority of the public differs from this consensus. In countries such as Italy and Greece, which have been on the frontline of the crisis of recent years, that figure rockets up. In these countries, nine out of ten citizens think that the EU has handled the migrant crisis poorly.

How could they think otherwise? The German government"s 2015 announcement that normal asylum and border procedures were no longer in operation exacerbated an already disastrous situation. The populations of Germany and Sweden increased by 2% in one year alone because of that influx of migrants. These are monumental changes to happen at such a speed to any society.

Philanthropist and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates recently said in an interview: "...you want to demonstrate generosity and take in refugees. But the more generous you are, the more word gets around about this -- which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa. Germany cannot possibly take in the huge number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe." (Photo by World Economic Forum/Wikimedia Commons)

At the same time as the public has known that what the politicians are doing is unsustainable, there has been a vast effort to control what the European publics have been allowed to say. Chancellor Merkel went so far as to urge Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to limit posts on social media that were critical of her policies. This was just one example of a much wider trend. Across the continent, any private or public figure who dared to warn that importing so many people in such a disorganised manner was the origin of a catastrophe found themselves impugned with the darkest imaginable motives.

Even after the November 2015 terror attacks in Paris, and the discovery that members of the terror-cell had slipped in and out of Europe using the migrant routes, European leaders dismissed public concerns about the migration crisis. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker berated the public and the few politicians who opposed Merkel after the Paris attacks:

"I would invite those in Europe who try to change the migration agenda we have adopted - I would like to remind them to be serious about this and not to give in to these base reactions that I do not like."

It is understandable that some humanitarian impulse might prevail during a period in which thousands of people were crossing the Mediterranean and many were drowning. Back then in 2015, at the height of the crisis, Bill Gates himself urged America to take in migrants at the levels that Germany was taking them in. Since then, however, Gates has noticed what most people who live in Europe have noticed -- which is that while opening your country"s borders may have a short-term moral appeal, it causes a whole variety of long-term societal concerns.

It is these concerns -- which the European public can see all around them, as well as on their newspapers" front-pages -- which lead the majority of the public across Europe to want the flow of migrants to be reduced. In his recent German newspaper interview, Bill Gates also expressed this sentiment -- and starkly -- saying, "Europe must make it more difficult for Africans to reach the continent via the current transit routes."

All this is, of course, true. It is not possible for Europe to become the home for everyone and anyone in Africa, the Middle East or Far East who manages to cross a fairly narrow stretch of water. The people of Europe have known this for a long time. Some people -- heavily criticised by the mainstream media and the political class -- have even expressed this. But perhaps now that a measured and surely non-Nazi philanthropist such as Bill Gates has noticed it, something will change. It is probably too much to hope for that the Western European political class might actually listen to his advice. But might they at least rein in their disdain for the reasonable concerns of the general public?

GOLD $80 OFF LOWS MAY BE 'TIP OF ICEBERG', BUT BEWARE THE YEN

Summary
via the Soren K. Group and Marketslant

• The Yen is showing signs of being too strong vs the USD and a reversal is looking likely


• Gold and the Yen have a strong positive correlation to each other when itcomes to their performance vs the USD


• If the Yen reverses, itwill put a damper on  Gold"s rally


• A pullback in Gold is not unhealthy


• The longer term  chart still has Gold on a path to $1370 and $1550 so far.


• Buying dips in Gold above $1245 and $1217 is preferred now given the previous comments


• Bonus:
  Given the unrest in the Middle and Far East, we also could see a
  decoupling of the "what"s good for the Yen is good for Gold" concept.

Make Sense?

Gold Today:

“The desire for gold is the most universal and deeply rooted commercial
instinct of the human race.” So said Gerald M. Loeb, founding partner of
Wall Street brokerage E.F. Hutton & Co. and “the most quoted man on
Wall Street” according to Forbes, in his 1935 book The Battle for Investment Survival.

Latest prices HERE

And here is Grant"s Interest Rate Observer on the 6 year bear breakout chart making the rounds.

Spot gold rose to its highest levels since November near $1,295 per ounce, good for a 13% gain so far in 2017.

In so doing, the yellow metal broke a technical downtrend that has been in place since its September 2011 peak of $1,900 per ounce, according to Sheba Jafari of Goldman Sachs. Still, true believers don’t have too much to be excited about as yet, gold’s weekly average price over the past five years of about $1,314 per ounce is 1.5% higher than current levels.

The pep in the yellow metal may be evidence of market fear rather than reflationary exuberance. The Chinese Gold and Silver Society Exchange expects 2017 mainland gold imports to increase by 50% from the prior year, amidst increased safe haven demand. Likewise, the Japanese yen sits at its strongest level against the greenback in nearly six weeks in another sign of retrenching risk appetite.

Stateside, the spread between two- and ten-year U.S. Treasury note yields has narrowed to around 85 basis points, its lowest since September: Steepness, or lack thereof in the Treasury curve, has historically signified market expectations for economic growth.

The Chart in Question:

So what is the deal?

First the Bad News: USDJPY on the verge of another big move and that is bad for Gold

Background: The chart below shows a rally in the YEN as meaning it takes less YEN to buy a USD.  It shows the parallel between Yen buying strength and Gold buying strength. Gold and the JPY share a high positive correlation when it comes to their relationship to the USD. In fact, more so than any other major paper currency last we checked.

We wrote the following last week  as one possible explanation  of the high correlation between the YEN  and Gold.

 There are several potential reasons for the eerie parallel between JPY and Gold. One simple one is this. In Asia, the JPY is viewed as the most stable regional currency. The Yen is viewed as the USD of the far east. So when Chinese and other Asian players seek safety, they buy Gold and Yen as well as USD (especially) if the crisis is EU based. We feel as the Asian Cartel picks up more strength and the USD Petrodollar becomes less powerful, this JPY/ Gold positive correlation will strengthen more.

Read  more from that post:  Gold Ready to Rocket

But now the Yen May be Poised to Weaken vs the USD

Now it seems the YEN is poised for a big move; specifically a weakening vs the USD. The  wave counts are calling for a possible numerical rally in the USD/JPY.  It means the yen may now weaken vs.the USD.  If that is true, then Gold longs should take note. Gold could pull back. 

 That said, nothing here suggests a Gold pullback  is not a buy. Just that if the Yen chart rallies (weakens vs.the USD), one leg of Gold"s rally table will be kicked out. The EW charts below imply that JPy above 110 and Gold may not hold.

The Yen is oversold numerically at 109 (overly strong vs the USD). The call here is for a possible reversal which would mean  a numerical rally in the Yen to potentially 136. This is a weakening vs.the USD. Remember our chart at top shows that a rally in the YEN means a lower numerical number. The charts to follow are inverted. The analysis below is solid. Our only caveat is that picking tops and bottoms with EW is not easy. Oversold can remain this way for some time. Got it?

The Good News: Gold"s Rally May be Tip of Iceberg

Since calling the low in wave (ii) blue at 1214, the price is now up $80 dollars! [Edit - indeed, not an easy feat in EW]
That"s not a bad haul in itself, but I think its just the tip of the iceberg for whats to come here.

We"ve only Just Begun?

What do the chart tea leaves tell us?

ELLIOT WAVE ANALYSIS

Via Bullwaves.org

USDJPY

My Bias: LONG
Wave Structure: rally in wave [C]
Long term wave count: wave [C] is underway, upside to above 136.00
Important risk events: JPY: Final GDP q/q. USD: Crude Oil Inventories.

The price declined again today as called for by last nights wave count.
The target at 10940 was met, todays low so far reached 109.22.
The declining trend channel suggests one more decline to meet the line once more.
That could happen at about 108.70,
at which point the price would be perilously close to the lower invalidation line at 108.127.

At the moment we have a significant bullish divergence evident in MACD on the 4hr chart.
This is a setup very similar to early April which yielded a 600 point rally!
The wave count is now calling for another significant rally in wave [iii] grey.
And the price is sitting at a higher low with extreme oversold levels on display.
We are on the verge of a big move here if the wave count proves correct.

For tomorrow, watch for signs of a turn up again.
A break of resistance at 110.23 again will be the first sign that the rally has begun.

30 min

4 Hours

Daily

GOLD

Let"s take a look at Enda"s Elliot Wave Update written last night. And it is still spot on

My Bias: Long towards 1550
Wave Structure: ZigZag correction to the upside.
Long term wave count: Topping in wave (B) at 1550
Important risk events: USD: Crude Oil Inventories.

Today"s further rally in GOLD has bolstered the idea that wave "iii" brown is underway.
I have altered the short term count to show today"s high as the high of wave "1" pink.

Since calling the low in wave (ii) blue at 1214, the price is now up $80 dollars! [Edit - indeed, not an easy feat in EW]
That"s not a bad haul in itself, but I think its just the tip of the iceberg for whats to come here.

Now the price has reached the upper trendline of the rising trend channel,
the price should begin to use that upper line as support rather that resistance.
A minor correction in wave "2" pink i now called for,
but the lows at 1277 should support the rally.
A further break of today"s high will signal wave "3" pink is underway.

30 min

4 Hours

Daily

DOW JONES INDUSTRIALS

30 min

4 Hours

Daily

My Bias: market topping process ongoing
Wave Structure: Impulsive 5 wave structure, possibly topping in an all time high.
Long term wave count: Topping in wave (5)
Important risk events: USD: Crude Oil Inventories.

It looks like wave "2" blue could be complete at todays lows.
The declines today look corrective and fit well with last nights wave count.
The target for wave "2" was set at 21116, and the low of the day reached 21117!
21117 is also the Fibonacci 38.2% retracement level,
so the chances of a new rally in wave "3" are quite good now.

The price has bounced in an impulsive fashion off that low, wave "3" may already be underway.
For tomorrow, watch that low at 21117, it should hold from here.
But any break will simply mean wave "2" is extending in a more complex wave form.
A break of today"s high at 21178 will add weight to the idea that wave "3" is underway.

Read more by Enda Glynn

Watch Live: Navalny Arrested As Opposition Protests Sweep Russia

In a day of anti-corruption protests across Russia, thousands of people crowded into Moscow"s Pushkin Square on Sunday for an unsanctioned protest against the Russian government, part of a wave of demonstrations taking place throughout the country. For the Moscow demonstration, around 8,000 people took to the streets according to police. As the rally continued, police used loudspeakers to call on the protesters to disperse. A number of people were detained for disorderly conduct, among whom was the prominent leader of the anti-Putin opposition.

Alexei Navalny, the anti-corruption campaigner who is leading the opposition to President Vladimir Putin, was arrested while walking from a nearby subway station to the demonstration, according to Associated Press journalists at the scene.

Opposition figure Aleksey Navalny waves as he sits inside a police van after
after being detained during a rally in Moscow, Russia, March 26, 2017

Navalny and his Foundation for Fighting Corruption had called for the protests, which attracted crowds of hundreds or thousands in most sizeable Russian cities, from the Far East port of Vladivostok to the European heartland. The protests were the largest coordinated outpourings of dissatisfaction in Russia since the massive 2011-12 demonstrations that followed a fraud-tainted parliamentary election.

There were no immediate figures on the demonstration size in Moscow, but the one-hectare Pushkin Square was densely crowded as were sidewalks on the adjacent Tverskaya Street, suggesting that more than 10,000 people had showed up. Law enforcement say that somebody sprayed “irritant gas” in the square, but rejected reports that it was part of a police action.

?????????? ?????? #???????????? pic.twitter.com/BLBW0YlIuR

— An Bo (@ann_bo_) March 26, 2017

Scuffles with police erupted sporadically and some demonstrators were arrested, including a gray-haired man whom police dragged along the pavement. "It"s scary, but if everyone is afraid, no one would come out onto the streets," said 19-year-old Yana Aksyonova, explaining why she attended.

According to AP, the protests Sunday focused on reports by Navalny"s group claiming that Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has amassed a collection of mansions, yachts and vineyards. The alleged luxuries include a house for raising ducks, so many placards in Sunday"s protests showed mocking images of yellow duck toys.

"People are unhappy with the fact that there"s been no investigation" of the corruption allegations, said Moscow protester Ivan Gronstein.

Protests, some sanctioned and others in violation of a municipal ban, also took place in other Russian cities on Sunday, including Novosibirsk, Barnaul, Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk, Khabarovsk, and Vladivostok.

?????? ????????? #???????????? #26????? pic.twitter.com/lxCj6EOj4o

— Egor Sakhonenko (@EgorSakhonenko) March 26, 2017

In the Pacific port city of Vladivostok, police forcefully detained some demonstrators near the city"s railway terminal, in one case falling down a small grassy slope as they wrestled with a detainee.

In St. Petersburg, an unsanctioned opposition rally was held just next to another unconnected gathering of demonstrators who rallied for traditional values. Police estimated the number of participants in the opposition event at around 3,000 in St. Petersburg, and said that three individuals were facing administrative action for minor violations.

???????? ??????? ?? ????????? ? ??? #???????????? pic.twitter.com/z8epm65NwT

— ??????? ?????? (@ars_ves) March 26, 2017

The rally in Novosibirsk, which was sanctioned by the local authorities after a court ordered them to overturn a ban, attracted around 1,500 people, according to the mayor’s office. At another sanctioned event in Tomsk, around 400 protesters showed up, according to local law enforcement.

4 ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? ? ????????????? #???????????? @navalny pic.twitter.com/zHRficDSNm

— d (@ltfitw) March 26, 2017

In Vladivostok, 25 activists have been detained by police for trying to violate a ban on public gatherings. Police released those detained shortly afterwards. The usual procedure for such cases of detention (which is not an actual "arrest") is to identify the individuals for potential administrative action and then release them.

????????? ????? ? ?????????? #???????????? pic.twitter.com/KYVIlmJvX9

— ??????? ?????? (@ars_ves) March 26, 2017

Some demonstrators showed up with their faces painted green, a reference to a recent attack on Navalny when an assailant threw a green antiseptic liquid onto his face.

It is unlikely that anti-Putin sentiment will sweep Russia, however. As recently as last Devember, the approval rating of the Russian President hit a near-record high reaching 86.8%. according to the Russian Center for Public Opinion Research (VTSIOM). The share of respondents who said that they trusted the president was at 62.1 percent, a slight rise from 61.3 percent a week ago, trending upwards from the 59.2 percent recorded in early December.

Live from Moscow:

The Number 1 Reason Why Trump Is Good For Stocks

Via ConvergEx"s Nicholas Colas,

 The US equity market is very different than before Election Day 2016, and that’s not just because we are at fresh all-time highs.  There were plenty of new highs from 2013-2016, after all.  What’s different is the lack of sector and asset class correlation now versus 2009 – 2016.

Simply put, they are finally back to normal.  The drop in correlations among the 11 sectors of the S&P 500 has been profound, from 75-80% pre-Election to 57-62% afterwards.  This month’s reading of 57% points to the lasting nature of the change; this is a not blip.

The ramifications of this shift are: 1) lower S&P volatility (because, math) 2) getting sector bets right is now even more critical to outperformance and 3) it applies not only to domestic US equities, but to global managers who must allocate to EAFE and Emerging Market assets (correlations are structurally lower there as well).

It has been 94 days since the US Presidential election and Donald Trump’s surprise win.  In some ways it feels like yesterday, if only because it was not the expected outcome.  And in other ways, it feels like it was years ago.  Especially if you follow US equity markets, which have been remarkably quiescent.  If a modern day Rip Van Winkle went to sleep on November 7th, woke up today, and looked at a chart of the S&P 500 he might think “Oh, Hillary Clinton won…  And everything is status quo.  I am a little surprised US stocks rallied so hard, but there’s no volatility.  Yep – Hillary won.”

To see the effect of the Trump victory, you have to look at something other than price levels; you have to examine asset and sector price correlations.  We have been doing this monthly since 2009, and the story has been largely the same.  Correlations among the 10 (now 11) sectors of the S&P 500 have averaged 80-90%, and Emerging Markets and EAFE (Europe, Asia, Far East) equity markets have similarly tracked US equities.  This was known as ‘Risk On, Risk Off” for much of the post 2009 period of market history.  Everything goes up on the same days, and down on the same days.

Well, the world is very different now, and by a magnitude I would have thought impossible 95 days ago. We have attached some tables and charts to this note (click at the top for the PDF), but here is the highlight reel:

• Average sector correlations to the S&P 500 were 57.1% last month. On the eve of the US elections, they were 66% and for the prior year they had ranged from 70-80%.  From 2009 – 2015, they were rarely below 80% and were +90% for 5 months straight in 2011. Since the election, sector correlations to the S&P 500 have been 56.8% (December), 61.2% (January) and that 57.1% reading we just mentioned.  Keep in mind that 50% is a good estimate for a pre-Crisis long run average, and we are basically there now after almost a decade of unusually high correlations.


• The same observation holds for international equity markets. They have been tied at the hip to US stocks since the Financial Crisis as well, but now correlations for the EAFE country stocks to the S&P 500 are 61.4% and for Emerging Market equities it is 34.6%. The ramp down post-US election was a little slower.  Correlations last month were 74.3% (EAFE) and 55.1% (Emerging Markets).


• The story in other asset classes is mixed. Precious metals (gold and silver) have been consistently in the low-correlation camp since 2009, and remain so today.  High yield corporate bonds are seeing higher correlations to US stocks in the past month (now 72.9%, but 62.5% last month and 54.7% the month before that).  High quality corporates and long dated Treasuries now sport (no surprise) a negative correlation to US stocks (-30.2% and -35.9%, respectively).

Since correlations were uniformly high before Election Day and now have reverted to much lower long term averages, we are going to chalk this up entirely to Donald Trump’s victory.  Nothing else is sufficiently different so as to explain it.  And as much as the recent spate of new highs is a welcomed development, we had new highs before the Election. The drop in correlations is really “New new”.

The big question is “OK, what does this mean?”  Three thoughts to wrap up this note:

Point #1: Lower correlations mean less price volatility in the S&P 500. That’s just math:  the lower the correlation between assets in a portfolio, the lower the overall volatility. That’s one reason why the CBOE VIX Index has been so low (along with realized volatility).  We’ll have to wait and see how much the sector correlations stay low when we get a systemic shock, but for now we can expect volatility to remain under pressure.

Point #2: Getting sector and stock bets right just got a whole lot more serious.  As correlations drift lower, different sectors will tend to show greater price and performance dispersion.  Use Health Care as an example.  Say you underweighted that group at the end of last year.  Big mistake: it is up 4.1% year to date, and only overweights in Tech (+5.9% YTD) and/or Consumer Discretionary (+4.8% YTD) would have saved you so far.  No other sector has better YTD performance than those three.

Point #3: The same goes for international equity portfolios.  Emerging markets are up 8.2% in dollar terms so far in 2017. EAFE is up 3.9% - more than the S&P 500’s 3.1% price return.

We will close with two reminders.

• Next week is St Valentine’s Day (Tuesday). Make sure whatever you might be getting your significant other arrives on Monday, not Tuesday.  If you leave it up to UPS or FedEx or the local florist, your gift will arrive at 5pm.  You don’t want to leave your special someone hanging, do you?


• The day after Valentine’s is the unofficial middle of the first quarter. The drop in correlations has put a lot of managers on the back foot. Just consider Financials – last quarter’s “It” sector has underperformed in Q1 (2.1% versus 3.1% for the S&P 500). Or Energy, last year’s big winner and with a lot of funds still overweight (down 3.3% YTD).

That’s the rough part about the sudden drop in correlation; being wrong just got a lot more expensive.  Underperforming groups like Energy and Financials are on a short leash as we transit the mid-quarter point. They both worked today, but they have a lot of ground to cover.  You might not see this turmoil on the market’s surface, but it is there.  And it will most likely get even choppier.