The Countries Most (& Least) Satisfied With 'Democracy'

Across the globe, the spread of right- and left-wing populism and authoritarian politics have shaken the very foundations of democracy.

As Statista"s Niall McCarthy notes, a new survey from Pew Research has found that people across the globe are generally unhappy with the functionality of their political systems, though levels of satisfaction with democracy vary hugely between countries.

As can be seen from the following infographic which shows a selection of countries from the survey, people in India have tremendous faith in democracy. 79 percent of those polled said they are satisfied with the way democracy is working in India compared to 11 percent who are dissatisfied. Germany also recorded a high level (73 percent) of satisfaction with democracy.

You will find more statistics at Statista

In many other developed countries, however, faith is waning.

In the United Kingdom and Japan, 47 percent of people are not satisfied with how democracy is working in their countries while in the U.S., that rises to 51 percent. France, South Korea and Brazil all recorded dissatisfaction levels of 65 percent or higher... but Greece tops the charts with only 21% of its citizenry "satisfied" with the weay democracy is working.

JPMorgan: "Large Parts Of Society Are Not Seeing Any Growth In Income And Job Opportunities At All"

Last week, BofA"s HY credit strategist Michael Contopoulos, laid out a list of the four things that keep him up at night, which included:

1. Zombie Companies And Massive, Rising Student Debt Loads 

2. Sliding Used Car Prices, Rising Delinquencies And Subprime Defaults

3. Declining Loan Growth, Lack of commodity rebound and tighter balance sheet

4. Lack of Investment, No Small Business Creation And No Earnings growth

(there was more in the full article)

Having let the genie out of the bottle, just 24 hours later it was JPM"s turn to unveil its own answer to this same question, and in his weekly Froday note, JPM"s Jan Loeys said that when it comes to what "keeps the bank up at night" in the context of the bank"s economic outlook "regime change is the main risk."

While that in itself is hardly unexpected or new, what we found surprising is that even JPM now admits that "large parts of society are not seeing any growth in income and job opportunities at all and thus demand change"  and as a result "regime change could thus come from politicians deciding we have gone too far in the trade-off between stability and growth."

And in a preview of things yet to come, JPM concedes that "the anger of those left behind by slow and stable growth could lead to more populist measures that eventually give us both less stability and less growth."

Or, alternatively, just wait until all those who voted for Trump in hopes of a radical systemic overhaul, end up being disappointed.  That"s when the real regime change will begin.

Here is the full excerpt from JPM"s note explaining what keeps America"s most valuable bank up at night:

The most frequent question we receive from you today is: What keeps us awake at night? To us, the main risk to our strategy and markets is a change in what we like to call the regime we are currently in.

The regime we believe we are in is one of a slow and stable global expansion, with cautious economic agents, conservative fiscal authorities, and determined central banks that provide easy money, but retain strict control on financial leverage. We note there are many potential shocks, from political turmoil to policy errors, that could disturb markets, but we will treat them as just volatility that should not affect our strategy if these shocks do not change the regime we are in. The shocks that keep us awake are the ones that could change the current regime into another one.

• Regimes do not last forever. Some die because they do not deliver the goods to society and voters demand change. Some die of their own success. The Global Moderation Regime from the mid-80’s to 2007 brought good growth, low macro volatility and shallow recessions. The longer it lasted, though, the more agents assumed it would be forever, thus inducing them to apply less caution and more leverage. This ultimately made the regime vulnerable to a regional fall in house prices in 2006-07 that would otherwise not have done that much damage.


• We note the current slow-and-stable regime risks coming to an early end if too many economic agents are dependent on easy money, or if it does not deliver the goods to society. This analyst thinks the latter risk is more acute as large parts of society are not seeing any growth in income and job opportunities at all and thus demand change.


• Regime change could thus come from politicians deciding we have gone too far in the trade-off between stability and growth, and that it is time to let companies and banks loose, through deregulation and tax reform/stimulus. Alternatively, the anger of those left behind by slow and stable growth could lead to more populist measures that eventually give us both less stability and less growth.


• The alternatives to our Slow-and-Stable regime could thus be called Growth, and Populism. Slow-and-Stable has been good for both equities and fixed income, with equities outperforming. A Growth Regime could boost equities even more, but would likely hurt fixed income badly as it would bring more inflation and monetary policy tightening than investors are prepared for. Populism would likely hurt both equities and bonds.

Study Finds That Populist Leaders Generate 'Yuge' Equity Rallies Averaging 150% Over 3 Years

Back in mid-January Bridgewater"s Ray Dalio, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, offered up his first thoughts on the populist wave sweeping across the globe (we covered it here).

And, once you"ve recovered from the laughing fit inspired by the irony of a bunch of billionaires sitting around discussing their displeasure with the masses of the world voting to undo their decades of power consolidation, you can continue with the following summary of Dalio"s comments from Bloomberg:

DALIO:  POPULISM MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE GLOBALLY

DALIO: POPULISM IS BY DEFINITION NATIONALIST

DALIO: POPULISM IS POLAR OPPOSITE OF DAVOS

DALIO: POPULISM IS AN EXPRESSION OF `FED-UP-ISM’

DALIO: WE’LL SEE MORE PROTECTIONISM, REVERSAL OF GLOBALISM

DALIO: `NATIONALIZATION, PROVINCIALIZATION MAY TAKE HOLD’

DALIO: GLOBALIZATION HELPED REDUCE WEALTH GAPS INTERNATIONALLY

DALIO: DEREGULATION HAS CONS BUT ALSO PROS; GETS THINGS GOING

DALIO: CAN MIDDLE BE COHESIVE ENOUGH TO CURB EXTREMISM?

DALIO: TECHNOLOGY, GLOBALIZATION CAUSING INCOME DIFFERENCES

DALIO: POPULISM SCARES ME

...suffice it to say that he"s not a big fan of populism.

Therefore, it should probably come as little surprise that, as we noted recently, after initially praising Trump"s policies, Dalio turned sour on the new administration shortly after his trip to Davos...

“Nationalism, protectionism and militarism increase global tensions and the risks of conflict. For these reasons, while we remain open-minded, we are increasingly concerned about the emerging policies of the Trump administration.”

All of which culminated with a new, massive 60-page report from Dalio, entitled "Populism: The Phenomenon", which, in addition to reviewing the history behind historical populist waves around the world, put on full display Dalio"s fears about the economic consequences of a Trump administration.

Populism is not well understood because, over the past several decades, it has been infrequent in emerging countries (e.g., Chávez’s Venezuela, Duterte’s Philippines, etc.) and virtually nonexistent in developed countries.  It is one of those phenomena that comes along in a big way about once a lifetime—like pandemics, depressions, or wars.  The last time that it existed as a major force in the world was in the 1930s, when most countries became populist.  Over the last year, it has again emerged as a major force.

Given the extent of it now, over the next year populism will certainly play a greater role in shaping economic policies.  In fact, we believe that  populism’s role in  shaping economic conditions will probably be more powerful than classic monetary and fiscal policies (as well as a big influence on fiscal policies).  It will also be important in driving international relations.  Exactly how important we can’t yet say.  We will learn a lot more over the next year or so as those populists now in office will signal how classically populist they will be and a number of elections will determine how many more populists enter office.

That said, at least according to Satyen Mehta a money manager at Neon Liberty Capital Management, despite Dalio"s dire warnings, populism has historically resulted in massive and sustained equity rallies that have historically averaged over 150% over three years...a phenomenon that he attributes to populists creating short-term stimulus that supports growth even as the nations’ debt burdens swell.  Per Bloomberg:

If the last two decades of anti-establishment rule are any guide, the world may be on the brink of some monster stock rallies as it takes a turn toward populism.

A look at 10 of the 21st century’s most recognized populist leaders shows that in the three years after their election, local equities soared an average of 155 percent in dollar terms. And the rallies often continued as long as a decade after the vote.

"While conventional wisdom suggests investors should be wary of populist leaders, equity markets were actually much more resilient when their policies turned out to be more benign than initially feared," Mehta said.

Here is a just a small sample of some of the returns reviewed by Mehta after populist leaders took over in various countries around the world.

The pattern of outsize returns for countries run by populists has been seen from Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, as well as in Poland, Egypt and India. Under leaders generally considered leftist, equities have done particularly well, producing 221 percent returns in three years. Right-wing heads of state saw 122 percent gains over the same period, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The numbers get a little trickier longer term, but for countries where there’s available data stock investors saw returns of 355 percent in the populist countries over five years and 442 percent 10 years down the road.

Of course, it should be noted that timing is everything and we suspect it was easier for Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to preside over outsized equity returns in Brazil after taking office in 2003 after the tech bubble pretty much laid waste to equity markets around the world.  Trump, on the other hand, has taken office just as equities are trading at all time highs on pretty much any metric you may want to look at.

From "Dissensus" To "Democrazy": A Warning From Deutsche Bank

Last October, Deutsche Bank"s credit derivatives expert Aleksandar Kocic, one of the best stream-of-consciousness, James Joyceian writers among the Wall Street sell-side, penned what was at the time the best summary why the existing politcal system was fracturing with every passing day. As Kocic put it, the most likely origin of the anti-global sentiment expressed in the past year, in the UK with Brexit and in the US with Donald Trump - incidentally, Kocic wrote his essay three weeks before Trump won -  was the result of a "buildup of discontent due to failure to develop a convincing response to economic slowdown in the last years."

Kocic said that having been repeatedly ignored for years as central banks took the reins in hopes of fixing the global economy, only to leave a world that is vastly better for the 1% and starkly worse for everyone else, "this has recently emerged as the main theme of public discourse." More relevant, however, to the current presidential campaign, is the dead-end which as Kocic frames it, show "to what extent the Change is as necessary as it is politically impossible."

While the Deutsche Banker did not explicitly phrase it, the reality is that it is indeed globalization - with its focus on "global economic interests" - that has left ordinary people, affected by local issues, disenchanted and increasingly angry, to wit: "The underlying problem can be traced back to the fact that economic interests have become increasingly global while politics, the ability to decide, remained passionately local and, as such, unable to operate effectively at the planetary level."

Finally, on the topic of the culprit, not even the Deutsche Bank strategist could hide who was responsible: "global oligarchies."

Politics is viewed as a problem, instead of a solution while social costs caused by this state of affairs are being recognized and articulated by the emerging populist wings, whose main novelty has been their hostility to global oligarchies.

He summarized his archetype of civilization and its discontents to "global oligarchy" in the following diagram:

The resulting, and very angry, popular response to these oligarchies, is the reason why Sanders (on the left) and Trump (on the right) emerged, in the process unleashing "a “transverse” direction which represents the antagonism between the local and the global."

Less than a month later, Trump won. Call it the "price of dissensus" as Kocic titled his October essay (which we urge readers to skim at the following link).

* * *

Fast forward 6 months later, when having set the stage for the "who" and "why", Kocic then breaks down the "what", and specifically what happens once those candidates who oppose the global oligarchies, are put in power. The Deutsche Banker"s assessment is less than glowing.

First, he points out what we have said for over 8 years, namely that the "great unwashed" and angry middle-classes of the developed world will confuse the great wealth transfer inspired by central banks as the "globalism" to which they are responding by electing fringe non-politicians such as Trump,  or voting through Brexit, in hopes of a "creative destruction" cleanse, that will restore normalcy:

The initial embrace of populism has gained traction based largely on a belief that political disruption, as a mode of change, deserves the same status that creative destruction used to have in the post industrial era with resulting political entropy becoming one of the main sources of market volatility.

What this means in practice is that "in the months following Brexit and the US elections, we learned that on this new socio-political landscape the skill set required to win the elections seem to be quite different (and not necessarily overlapping) with the skills required to govern. It has gradually become clear that candidates’ appeal which arises from their outsider’s position does not necessarily carry over beyond their victory: While being confrontational and anti-establishment might create an advantage during the campaign, it becomes an impediment once the elections are won and the candidate is in the office."

And so the DB strategist - who correctly explained the appeal of outsiders in October - looks back at the post-globalist revulsion, and finds that it leads to an even more problematic place, to wit.

... in the UK there seem to be signs of the “buyer’s remorse” whose overtones are difficult to ignore. In the US, on the other hand, we have accumulated some, albeit limited and preliminary, data about the convertibility of the populist narrative – the link between populist promises and policies and actual deliverables. In the last month, the market has been taking a pause and reassessing the preelection enthusiasm. The new “data points” warrant a recalibration of the convertibility of he populist narrative. 

While Deutsche Bank"s warning is certainly applicable, we would disagree with a part of it, for the simple reason that the underlying catalyst for the pent up wave of populist anger - the broken process of wealth creation and distribution itself - remains unchanged, and dominated by central banks (as Citi discussed just earlier today).  In other words, the population has once again been fooled into believing that by voting for Trump, or Brexit, they are "fixing" the underlying problem, i.e., the "creative destruction" discussed by Kocic, when in reality nothing real changes. The only tangible change is for purely theatrical, and optical purposes, i.e., a "political disruption" which recent events have demonstrated is not even a disruption, but merely a continuation of existing policies.

Meanwhile, "independent" central banks (which are not at all independent, recall "Bernanke"s Former Advisor: "People Would Be Stunned To Know The Extent To Which The Fed Is Privately Owned") continue to operate in the background, layering even further resentment to the broken status quo.

We do, however, agree with Kocic" conclusion that the "new “data points” warrant a recalibration of the convertibility of he populist narrative. This recalibration is likely to create political headwinds for the advancement of populism in Europe and force a reassessment of its merits and future success in general."

In which case a critical question is required: if, as Kocic implies, the political process itself is broken, and as anger and resentment continues to pile up after the recent "populist" disappointments, just how will the massed millions express their frustrations and anger with a system which is more broken - both politically and economically - by the day?

Unfortunately, the all too obvious answer is most likely the correct one.

We reproduce his full essay below.

Democrazy, by Aleksandar Kocic

Parliamentary elections in Western democracies are defined by the existence of two similar mainstream parties and a numerically dominant center. The elections are won through defections between the left and right center, while the role of the fringe and populist voices was effectively aimed to re-center the center. As a consequence, democratic elections were (most of the time) peaceful and nondisruptive with hardly any market volatility around them.

This has been the case until last year. The increasing visibility and the following mobilized by alternative populist parties in recent years alone has destabilized the political process with politics has becoming one of the main sources of market volatility. As early as 2013, political poll results began to show patterns which unambiguously indicated that people in developed democratic economies were growing increasingly disenchanted with the ruling elites. The data seemed to suggest a high chance of an outsider candidate or party winning the elections. This has had a nontrivial impact on the subsequent political campaigns, political landscape and the democratic process in general.

The populist narratives that emerged in the last years are a result of the new identity politics with strong indication of their disruptive character in the context of the existing market functioning. Their intrinsically protectionist backbone with an emphasis on borders and boundaries, with increasing economic rigidities, implies suboptimal allocation of capital and is not constructive for economic growth. The initial embrace of populism has gained traction based largely on a belief that political disruption, as a mode of change, deserves the same status that creative destruction used to have in the post industrial era with resulting political entropy becoming one of the main sources of market volatility.

In the months following Brexit and the US elections, we learned that on this new socio-political landscape the skill set required to win the elections seem to be quite different (and not necessarily overlapping) with the skills required to govern. It has gradually become clear that candidates’ appeal which arises from their outsider’s position does not necessarily carry over beyond their victory: While being confrontational and anti-establishment might create an advantage during the campaign, it becomes an impediment once the elections are won and the candidate is in the office.

Although in the UK, it is still premature to talk about the long-term consequences of Brexit, there seem to be signs of the “buyer’s remorse” whose overtones are difficult to ignore. In the US, on the other hand, we have accumulated some, albeit limited and preliminary, data about the convertibility of the populist narrative – the link between populist promises and policies and actual deliverables. In the last month, the market has been taking a pause and reassessing the pre-election enthusiasm. The new “data points” warrant a recalibration of the convertibility of he populist narrative. This recalibration is likely to create political headwinds for the advancement of populism in Europe and force a reassessment of its merits and future success in general.

Populism, Parties, & Politics - European Instability In 1 Simple Map

While Rutte"s victory in Holland has the elites and the media proclaiming the populist revolution is dead (despite a surge in Wilders" support relative to mainstream parties), movements driven by Euroskepticism and "anti-establishment" sentiment remain top of mind in all of Europe’s key elections this year.

On some level, as Goldman notes, the “populist” political trends in these countries are nothing new; strong populist influences have ebbed and flowed in Europe over time. But this tide has again swelled in recent years for both economic and socio-cultural reasons.

While few think Euroskeptic forces will win control of government in any of the upcoming elections, as GS Chief European Economist Huw Pill argues, even that result should be far from comforting for proponents of the European vision. And one glance at the statistics below makes it clear that anti-establishment-ism is anything but dead in Europe...

Did somebody say fragmentation?

Largest party’s % of the vote in parliamentary elections (lhs) vs. number of parties that won seats in the same election (rhs), period average

In Pill"s view, mainstream European parties are caught in a trap, with needed reforms likely to draw ire from both ends of the political spectrum. The upshot: Unless mainstream politicians use their (expected) wins this year to capitalize on the favorable macro environment and move swiftly to overcome voter concerns, Euroskeptic threats will continue to rise and support for European integration will further erode.

Mexico's Presidential Frontrunner Blasts Trump's "Neofascism"; Says "Can't Wait To Redo NAFTA"

Last month we wrote about "Mexico"s Fiery, Trump-Like Populist Who Looks Increasingly Likely To Win The Presidency In 2018."  As we noted before, Pena Nieto’s PRI party, which has held power for most of Mexico’s modern history, has seen its popularity eroded in recent months due to a series of corruption scandals, surging gasoline prices and a perception among Mexican voters that Pena Nieto himself has been too soft in combatting an aggressive Trump Presidency.

But, the growing populist sentiment that is sweeping Mexico and forcing Pena Nieto"s ratings to all-time lows, is the same sentiment that has vaulted Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to the top of the list of likely presidential candidates to be elected in 2018.  Staying true to his reputation, Lopez Obrador spent the better part of today blasting the Trump administration in a series of interviews. 

In fact, speaking at the Washington Press Club earlier, Lopez Obrador said that the poor distribution of income and bad tax policies, not immigrants, were the cause of America"s economic distress.  Per The Hill:

"President Trump"s approach of blaming migrants for the problems of the United States has been excessive. We will not allow that, you can"t implement a campaign of hate against Mexicans because that is neofascism," he said.

Lopez Obrador was in town to present a complaint against Trump"s executive orders on immigration at the Interamerican Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

"We are denouncing that Secretary [of Homeland Security John] Kelly"s executive measures affect not only Mexicans, but migrants from all over the world," said Netzaí Sandoval, the lawyer who wrote the claim.

Meanwhile, Lopez Obrador vowed to take a more "firm" approach in re-negotiating the NAFTA free trade agreement with the Trump administration saying that while Nafta “didn’t hurt” Mexico"s economy “it is also not our salvation."  That said, he went on to warn that any cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico would be short lived if the Trump administration didn"t change it"s rhetoric on migrants.

Lopez Obrador said that once in power, he would change the nature of the bilateral relationship "without disrespecting anyone, but with firmness."

He said it is "very probable" that he will win the upcoming election, scheduled for July 2018.

"We will convince the government of the United States and Trump that the best thing is a good deal, an understanding based on cooperation for development," he said.

But Lopez Obrador warned the overlap between his administration and Trump"s would be short-lived if the Trump administration did not change its tune on migrants.

As we pointed out earlier this morning, Peter Navarro, Trump"s top trade advisor, seemingly took a slightly less combative stance on NAFTA and was quoted by Bloomberg as saying he wants the US, Canada and Mexico to form a trade "powerhouse", supposedly one which is quite different from the existing "NAFTA" trade arrangement. 

The Trump administration is re-examining a critical component of the free trade pact: the rules of origin, which dictate what percentage of a product must be manufactured in the U.S. for it to carry a Made in America label, Navarro said.

“We have a tremendous opportunity, with Mexico in particular, to use higher rules of origin to develop a mutually beneficial regional powerhouse where workers and manufacturers on both sides of the border will benefit enormously,” said Navarro. “It’s just as much in their interests as it is in our interests to increase the rules of origin.”

For example, under the current agreement, 62.5 percent of the total value of cars sold in North America must originate in the U.S., Canada or Mexico to avoid import tariffs. The U.S. wants to raise that threshold, making it harder for parts from other countries to enter the supply chain.

Since the comment appeared less combative than some more aggressive trade-related statements out of the administration, the market took them in stride and sent both the Canadian Loonie and the Mexican Peso to session highs.

Finally, here"s is Bloomberg"s interview with the so-called "Trump of Mexico".

“Rebranding Liberty As Evil” As Globalists Prepare to Blame Populists for Everything

This article was written by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market.com and first published at PersonalLiberty.com.

Editor’s Comment: Taking Brandon’s point into account, what is happening now appears to be a mass hoax in that crowds from the “liberty” movement, the “truth” movement, the “conservative” movement, the “populist” movement and several other labels are being goaded into supporting an overreaching executive branch, a fresh rally for war in the middle east, and a brutal police state crackdown at home – a crackdown that appears to be developing in the effort to deport many illegal immigrants, ban migrants from middle east countries and beat back protesting and rioting liberal crowds.

There are so many fronts to this game, that many people have lost their identity and completely abandoned their principles in effort to cheer on ‘their candidate,’ whether that is Trump in the White House, Bernie or Hillary outside the White House or anyone else in between. As Brandon Smith has pointed out in many of his previous articles, there have been many short term gains against the globalists, and they can never true to defeat the liberty movement (in particular) if-and-only-if liberty-minded individuals maintain their principles – of freedom as an ideal, of protection for the Bill of Rights, of economic freedom for individuals and small businesses, etc.

If people only hold onto liberty and other high-minded ideals when they advocate candidates, movements or issues, we could hardly go wrong. On the other hand, if people look the other way to back a particular individual, their entire stance/movement/policies can be debunked and set aside, if it can be shown that people who originally advocated liberty/freedom have instead endorsed or participated in evil, in unconstitutional acts and, ultimately, defeated themselves.

For those who advocate personal freedom to the extreme point of self-reliance, off grid living, and readiness for any/all emergencies, those people can never be defeated as long as they live up to their principles. Somewhere in there is the hope for the future; the rest is dragging us back down into chaos and agonizing poverty and dependence.

The Globalist Long Game – Redefine Liberty Activism As Evil “Populism”

by Brandon Smith

One of the most favored propaganda tactics of establishment elites and the useful idiots they employ in Marxist and cultural-Marxist circles is to relabel or redefine an opponent before they can solidly define themselves.  In other words, elites and Marxists will seek to “brand” you (just as corporations use branding) in the minds of the masses so that they can take away your ability to define yourself as anything else.

Think of it this way: Say you want to launch an organization called “Movement Blue,” and you and others have gone through great struggle to grow this organization from the ground up.  However, just as your movement is about to achieve widespread recognition, someone else comes along, someone with extensive capital and media influence, and they saturate every outlet with the narrative that your movement is actually more like “Movement Red,” and that Movement Red is a terrible, no-good, bad idea.  They do such a good job, in fact, that millions and millions of people start calling you “Movement Red” without even knowing why, and they begin to believe all the negative associations that this label entails.

Through the art of negative branding, your enemy has stolen your most precious asset — the ability to present yourself to the public as you really are.

Negative branding is a form of psychological inoculation.  It is designed to close people’s minds to particular ideas before they actually hear those ideas presented by a true proponent of the ideas.  But beyond that, negative branding can also be used to trick groups and movements into abandoning their original identity.

For example, the concept of economic freedom for individuals –the freedom from overt government interference or government favoritism for certain people over others, the freedom to compete with ideas and ingenuity to build a better business and a better product, the freedom to retain the fruits of one’s labor — used to be widely referred to as “free markets”, as defined by Adam Smith.  The very basis of free market philosophy was to remove obstruction and economic oppression from the common man in order to inspire a renaissance in innovation and prosperity.  The problem is, you rarely hear anyone but libertarians talk about traditional “free markets” anymore.

Though Karl Marx did not coin the term “capitalism,” he and his followers (and editors) are indeed guilty of the pejorative version now used.  It has always been Marxist propagandists who have sought to redefine the idea of “free markets” in a negative way, and the use of the term capitalism is how they did it.  They have been so effective in their efforts that today even some free market proponents instead refer to themselves as “capitalists.”

While “free markets” denote freedom of the common man to pursue a better life through productivity and intelligence and merit, “capitalism” denotes a monstrous and blind pursuit of wealth and power without moral regard.  One gives the impression of fairness, the other gives the impression of tyranny.

Is there even such an animal as “capitalism?”  I can’t really say.  What I do know is that the system we have today, a hybrid mutation of corporatism and socialism, is certainly NOT a free market system if we are to follow the true definition and the original intent.  Yet, whenever cultural and economic Marxists attack the notion of economic freedom, they use the system we have now as an example of the failures of “free market capitalism.”

This is the magic of negative branding, and it is used in every facet of social life and geopolitics.

Now, before I get into the term “populist,” I recognize that people opposed to my position will immediately spring into a tirade about how liberty and sovereignty champions brand those against our ideals “in the exact same way.”  This is not quite true, though.

When we refer to “globalists” in a negative manner, we are taking a pre-existing label, something that they often call themselves, and pointing out that their philosophy is flawed and highly destructive based on historical evidence and verifiable facts.  We are not seeking to redefine them as anything other than what they already are.  We are merely exposing to the public what they OPENLY promote and believe and then offer our side and our evidence as to why their beliefs are wrong.

This is not what they do to us.  Instead, globalists and their cronies prefer that the public does not get to hear our views directly from us.  They rarely, if ever, actually use our publications as a source for their attacks on our principles.  They would much rather tell the public what we are and what we believe before they are ever exposed to us.  This is why you will often find that many participants in protest groups at events held by anti-globalists like Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos have never actually seen or heard a single speech by the men in question.  They have no idea what we really stand for.  In fact, they protest our speakers, groups and movements based on what they were told we stand for by other biased sources.

This brings us to “populism.”

There has been a deep and concerted propaganda campaign taking place against liberty activists, sovereignty champions, anti-globalists, anti-SJW groups, and conservatives in general.  I noticed this particular campaign accelerating at the beginning of 2016, and it was the primary reason why I chose to take a hard stance on my predictions for Brexit passage and a Trump election win.  The propaganda narrative could be summarized as follows:

Since early 2016 (according to globalists and the mainstream publications featuring their opinions), there has been a rising tide of nationalists and “populists” in western nations.  This sudden surge in “populism” is inexorably tied to the Brexit movement and the support for candidates like Donald Trump.  Populism will overrun the existing “stability” of globalism and cause severe economic crisis in numerous countries.  It finds its roots in the “less educated” portions of the population, as well as in older generations that think they have something to lose if globalism succeeds.  It is also driven by an “irrational fear” of economic change, global interdependence and multiculturalism.  Populists are predominantly naive and desperate for “strongmen” leaders to fight for them.  Some of them are motivated by self interest, while others are motivated by racism.

You can see these sentiments expressed bluntly in numerous mainstream media outlets.  The Guardian has no qualms about linking the Brexit to “racism” and populism, for example.  The Washington Post also has had no problem linking the Tea Party and Trump supporters to racism and populism as well.

Beyond the paper-thin accusations of racism, the general thrust of the negative branding is clear; if you are against globalism (or elitism) and its major tenets, then you are a “populist.”  This is reiterated in recent articles from Bloomberg and The Guardian.

But in such publications, the most egregious argument is the one that is not directly made.  The insinuation is that “populism” is not just defined by a fear of corruption through organized elitism, but that this fear is UNFOUNDED.  Meaning, anyone who argues against the mechanizations of globalists, for instance, is not only redefined as a “populist,” but he/she is also, essentially, ignorant or insane.  See how that works?

The populist label is often used to describe a political movement built on the cult of personality, a sycophantic love affair with a celebrity dictator that tends to have ulterior motives.  Thus, the philosophical underpinnings of that particular movement are further eroded because they don’t even know why they are doing what they are doing; they are only playing a foolish game of follow the leader.

So, to recap, according to the establishment and their “press,” conservatives and sovereignty activists are actually “populists.” Our concerns over uncontrolled immigration and open borders are not based on rationalism and historic evidence of social and economic instability as well as the highly evidenced threats of terrorism; they are based on “xenophobia.”

Our concerns over the increasing fiscal weakness generated by the economic interdependence of globalism and our lack of self reliance are not based on math and logic, but our “lack of understanding” on how interdependence makes everything better.

Our concerns over rampant organized elitism and the corruption this entails are not based on numerous concrete examples, not to mention exposed documentation and the words of elitists themselves; they are based on a “fantasy world” of “tinfoil hatters” who just make stuff up while consuming heaping helpings of “fake news”.

If this is the case, then I suppose I should fasten my own tinfoil hat tightly and note that this narrative is part of an ongoing long-game by globalists.  They are not attempting to achieve the demonization of conservatives and sovereignty advocates today or tomorrow.  This is about preparing the public for a near future, perhaps five to 10 years from now, after they have sufficiently sabotaged the global economy and scapegoated us for the crisis this will cause.

Not possible, you say?  By all means, read my article ‘The False Economic Recovery Narrative Will Die In 2017’ for further explanation.  If we are not careful, we will be redefined not just by establishment propaganda, but by a global calamity that will be gift wrapped with our name on it and tied around our collective necks.

In the meantime, how do we fight back against this disinformation campaign?

One factor that a “populist movement” generally does not have is the ability to remain self-critical.  Populism, at least according to the mainstream media, requires a mentality of mass blind faith in a cause that is misunderstood or a leader that is dishonest.  The liberty movement and conservative groups still have some members who are not afraid to point out when we are going astray in our logic or our actions.

We have not been silenced by our own peers, yet.  Given enough crisis, it is hard to say how people will react.  A major terrorist attack, an economic panic, a war; these kinds of rip-tides can inspire a lot of intolerance for contrary views.  We are not there at this point, and as long as members of our movement are able to retain a critical eye, we will never be “populists.”

Another method is to refrain from adopting the “branding” that the establishment tries to use against us.  Beware of anyone within our groups and organizations who begins referring to himself or us as “populists” as if this is a label of which we should be proud.

In the long run, people with ill intent will call us whatever they want to call us.  The real issue is, will those labels stick?  Will we help them to stick by losing our composure and acting the way the propagandists always said we would?

Negative branding is about burning a hole in the historical record, because memes last far longer than people.  In 100 years, how will we be remembered?  This is what the globalists value most — future impressions of today by generations not yet born.  Because wars are not just fought in one moment over one piece of ground or over one idea; they are fought in ALL moments, for days not yet passed, for the posterity of all ideas, even those not yet thought of.  If we do not fight back with this in mind, winning will be impossible.

This article was written by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market.com and first published at PersonalLiberty.com.

Italy Increasingly Likely To Abandon The Euro

Submitted by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

An analysis of the political setup in Italy shows eurosceptics are on the verge of taking control of the country.

The only missing ingredient is an early election. And early elections are now the odds-on favorite.

Let’s back up a bit to fill in the pieces as to how things got to this point.

1. Former prime minister Matteo Renzi stepped down in December after holding a referendum that failed miserably. See Renzi Resigns Following Crushing Referendum Defeat: Beppe Grillo, Marine le Pen, Matteo Salvina Tweets


2. Italy’s president, Sergio Mattarella, appointed Paolo Gentiloni as the new prime minister after Renzi resigned. See Meet Paolo Gentiloni, 4th Consecutive Italian Technocrat Appointed Prime Minister: Renzi Not Vanquished Yet


3. The president said he would not hold new elections until differences between how the lower house of parliament assigned seats.


4. Point number three has been resolved. Both houses of Parliament are back on a proportional system.

New Elections

• New elections are possible now but the next scheduled elections are not until 2018.


• Matteo Renzi wants new elections in June. Even though he resigned, he wants back in. Renzi wants new elections this year because PD may oust him if he waits.


• Beppe Grillo wants elections as soon as possible because he believes he will win, and also because FI leader Silvio Berlusconi cannot run for prime minister until 2018 because of a tax fraud conviction.


• Berlusconi does not want early elections, but he is in the minority.

It is up to the president to call new elections, and there is pressure form at least two fronts for him to do so.

Election Polls

Chart from Opinion polling for the next Italian general election.

The situation for Renzi is actually way worse than it appears. Not only do polls tend to over-play support for PD, the party is about to splinter. Via email, Eurointelligence explains …

Whatever Happens in Italy, Grillo is Winning

Our pessimism about the political outlook for Italy was confirmed once more this morning with reports that the PD is now very likely heading for a split – the trigger being disagreement over the election date. Pier Luigi Bersani, Renzi’s predecessor as general secretary of the party, came out strongly against early election in June saying that the PD would be finished as a party if Renzi were to go ahead.

Renzi could assemble a majority in the Italian parliament in favour of a new electoral law and early elections, so this is technically doable. The question is, at what cost? Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement officially supports early elections, but Renzi probably has a point when he says that another year of political chaos in the PD would drive even more voters to Grillo, whose party thrives on the chaos in the country. In other words, Grillo wins both ways, and the likely design of the electoral law will also be favourable to his party. So much for the theories that there would be a technical stitch-up to keep the Five Star Movement out of power. The Italian establishment is not sufficiently united to be able to do this.

Massimo D’Alema, Renzi’s fiercest oponent within the PD, says he has done research on the potential electoral support for a party to the left of the PD which could count on 11-14% of the vote. With a weak centre-right and a fragmented left, the probability of a victory by the Five Star Movement, perhaps in alliance with other radical forces, must now be considered very high.

Wrong Five Ways

The don’t worry, it will never happen crowd said …

1. Renzi would win the referendum – Wrong


2. Renzi would not resign if he lost – Wrong


3. Renzi would gracefully step aside after he resigned – Wrong


4. PD would not splinter – Wrong


5. The other parties would pass legislation making it impossible for M5S to gain control – Wrong

That same don’t worry, it will never happen crowd also proposed

1. An alliance between Grillo and other parties won’t happen


2. If an alliance does happen, parliament will not approve a referendum on the Euro


3. If there is a referendum on the Euro, people will vote against leaving


4. It still requires a constitutional amendment

Point number 6 is in the works right now. And if such an alliance does form and win (both are highly likely in my opinion), then all that is left to stop “Italeave” is fearmongering and points 8 and 9.

Live From Davos: Ray Dalio, Christine Lagarde And Larry Summers Discuss How To Fix The "Middle Class Crisis"

How do you know with certainty that Davos has not only jumped the shark, but has become a parody of itself? One answer: when you have a handful of semi, and not so semi, billionaires - perplexed by the populist backlash of the past year - sit down and discuss among each other how a "Squeezed and Angry" middle-class should be fixed.

As Davos puts it, "once the lynchpin of developed economies, it’s now threatened by job losses and stagnant wages, paving the way for the rise of populism. In emerging markets, middle class growth rates are stalling. Have middle class problems been forgotten?" It asks rhetorically "What can be done?"

Apparently the answer is to have three people completely disconnected from the real world, sit down and provide "answers.":

In this session, starting at 0800 GMT, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde, Italian Finance Minister Pier Carlo Padoan and Founder, Chairman and Co-CIO of Bridgewater Associates, Ray Dalio, discuss what"s needed to restore growth in the middle class and confidence in the future.

And then they wonder why the annual Davos echo chamber boondoggle has become not only a global farce, but a symbol of everything that is wrong with globalization today...

Watch it live below

Davos Elite Fear “Rise of Populism… Road Leads to War, Poverty, Confrontation… And Domination”

Fearing that they are losing power, the elite are readying a heavy-handed response to populations that are growing restless and uneasy. For their purposes, the growing wave of populism is a dangerous sign…

This article was contributed by Melissa Dykes and originally published at the Daily Sheeple.

Editor’s Comment: Cloaked behind digestible buzzwords and cliches expected of a ranking member of the ruling elite is a stark threat: the uprising they see happening among the population will be mirrored in return with greater control and ruthless manipulation of human affairs. Those swarms and masses who will not fall in line will be brought to ruin through war, economic enslavement, financial poverty, restrictions and controls over the market… one way or another, those who would dare to defy the banks and the bureaucrats will be leveled again, and dominated by the shear hegemony of globalism.

A one world currency, a cultivated Internet trimmed back like bonzai, information that feeds central control and general serfdom and socialism. Humanity is at a cross-roads, and the Davos elite appear to be issued a veiled warning that those who do not stay within the confines of the system face a harsh shock and correction back into the fold.

Before us is an economy that can rise or fall, one that has been built up just so, and framed to suck the life out of the middle class and working people of this country. What do they have in store for the next few years ahead?

Surveys Show Global Trust at All-Time Low as Central Governments Are Losing Control Worldwide

by Melissa Dykes

Multiple studies are finding that trust in central governments and their institutions (including the establishment media) is at an all-time low around the world.

Love your country, but never trust its government ~ Robert A. Heinlein

— CatoTheYounger (@catoletters) January 11, 2017

Regarding a recently released global survey titled Leader’s Report: The Future of Government Communications, the Guardian reports:

Weakened and distrusted central governments around the world have been incapable of responding to the way the internet and social media have empowered populist but previously fringe groups, a unique worldwide survey of government communication chiefs has found.

The survey spanning 40 countries is the first international review to reveal how deeply governments feel they are losing control and authority over communications.

…how deeply governments feel they are losing control…

Distrust of central governments and institutions of authority plus Internet as an alternative means of gathering information have combined and snowballed into an uprising of nationalism and populism, although the people attempting to run this dog and pony show like to mush those two concepts together with radicalization and extremism… because if you don’t trust your loving central government, you obviously must be a radical extremist.

“When people feel ignored, unheard and unrepresented they turn to alternative sources of information. If governments do not communicate with citizens properly, citizens will go somewhere elsewhere for information,” the report says.

Another way of reading this? “Waaaah! Our propaganda is no longer working!”

The report also says people are “more apprehensive than perhaps at any time since the end of the cold war”. Really? Could that be because they are finally are more informed?

And yet, the people running things somehow act confused when 75% of the 300 government workers surveyed for the study admit the average citizen’s voice is not taken into account when key decisions are made.

Meanwhile one of the world’s biggest marketing firms called Edelman came out with a survey that found trust in the global power structure including governments, non-governmental organizations, major corporations, and the mainstream media is at an all-time low across the board:

The firm’s 2017 Trust Barometer found that 53 percent of respondents believe the current system has failed them in that it is unfair and offers few hopes for the future, with only 15 percent believing it is working. That belief was evident for both the general population and those with college education.

What do you want to bet that 15 percent who claims to believe the system is actually working are a part of it? The system is working after all… for the elite in charge of it.

This is the first time in 17 years that Edelman has found trust decline in all four sectors surveyed. The findings were across the board, regardless of education level.

In addition, they determined that the burgeoning wealth gap and income inequality are linked to a lack of trust; the lower the income, the less trust. Look around. That makes sense.

The Davos elite’s annual meeting is happening this week and one of the themes this year is about how nationalism will lead to war. China’s President Xi Jinping, the first to attend Davos, is promoting “inclusive globalization” at the forum, warning,

“With the rise of populism, protectionism, and nativism, the world has come to a historic crossroad where one road leads to war, poverty, confrontation and domination while the other road leads to peace, development, cooperation and win-win solutions,” Jiang said.

Jiang believes globalism is the only road to peace, the same tripe the masses of the world have had crammed down our throats by leaders like Jinping since World War II and the creation of the United Nations.

It’s been over 70 years now… how is that working out?

What’s obvious is that the system needs us to keep fighting among ourselves with manufactured race wars and other distractions because if everyone stopped for a moment to really look around at what’s going on, the masses would realize that we’re being returned to serfdom. Neo-feudalism.

But the angry masses are waking up, though.

Richard Edelman, the Edelman firm’s president and CEO, noted,

“The implications of the global trust crisis are deep and wide-ranging,” said Richard Edelman, the firm’s president and CEO. “It began with the Great Recession of 2008, but like the second and third waves of a tsunami, globalization and technological change have further weakened people’s trust in global institutions. The consequence is virulent populism and nationalism as the mass population has taken control away from the elites.“

Yeah, about that control… I’m thinking the elites are going to do whatever it takes to get that back…

The Davos elite converge once again starting on January 17th… only this time it will be overlapped by the inauguration of Donald Trump and the rise of populism in the UK, Italy, the United States and beyond.

This article was contributed by Melissa Dykes and originally published at the Daily Sheeple.

Italy's Grillo Slams Mainstream Media "Manifest Manipulation Of Reality"

"Fake news" has officially crossed the pond and once again it the mainstream media that is producing more of it (while blaming the alternative media). Beppe Grillo, founder of Italy"s Five Star anti-euro movement lashed out at the country"s journalists for "manufacturing false news," accusing them of fabricating stories to keep the Five Stars down.

"Newspapers and television news programmes are the biggest manufacturers of false news in the country, with the aim of ensuring those who have power keep it," he said on his blog on Tuesday.

As Local.It reports, he called for "a popular jury to determine the veracity of the news published," and said in cases of fake news "the editor must, head bowed, make a public apology and publish the correct version at the start of the program or on the paper"s front page".

 ...the politicians are now demanding stronger measures against bloggers...

[BUT], have never urged punishment for those who commit more serious crimes, lying in absolute bad faith, abusing the credibility of institutions. That lie can not be punished. It is not in the interest of mainstream politicians.  

All major newspapers should be closed for manifest manipulation of reality, or obliged to go out with a sticker that certifies the lack of credibility.

The media world was - of course - enraged...

The news director of the private TG La7 channel, Enrico Mentana, said he would sue the comedian, while journalists" union FNSI slammed the "lynching of all journalists".

What Grillo is proposing "is called Fascism, and those who play it down are accomplices," PD senator Stefano Esposito said.

Marco Travaglio, editor of the far-left Il Fatto Quotidiano daily, agreed with Grillo but said the popular jury idea would never work.

"The biggest lies are those spread by the television and newspapers, but the solution he is proposing is naive," he said.