China’s threat to Taiwan is ratcheting up fears of a third world war. A comment by the Chinese government saying they will “never tolerate Taiwanese independence” has prompted fears an all-out invasion is imminent.
The chilling threat was made by Premier Li Keqiang as top Chinese officials met in Beijing for the annual meeting of parliament on Monday. “We will never tolerate any separatist schemes or activities for Taiwan independence,” Li Keqiang said. He also stated that China will promote the peaceful growth of relations across the Taiwan Strait and “advance China’s peaceful reunification. We will remain firm in safeguarding China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and will never tolerate any separatist schemes or activities for Taiwan independence.”
According to The Daily Star, China has been infuriated over plans made by the US to strengthen ties between Washington and Taipei. The plans would allow Taiwan bosses to enter the US “under respectful conditions” and meet their American counterparts. Officials had already told Taiwan on Friday the country would only get burnt if they relied on the US, adding to the warnings from state media about the risk of war.
Beijing considers democratic Taiwan to be a wayward province and integral part of “one China”, ineligible for state-to-state relations and has never renounced the use of force to bring the island under its control. China’s hostility towards Taiwan has risen since the election to president of Tsai Ing-wen from the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party in 2016.
Global tensions have continued to increase in recent years, with many signaling China as the country to watch. Fears heightened as China’s Communist dictator Xi Jinping just gave himself the go-ahead to remain in power for as long as he wants. There are about 3,000 delegates to China’s National People’s Congress, and theoretically, they can vote any way they want. But in its history, it has never vetoed a proposal by China’s Communist Party.
There is already massive dissent online because of Xi’s power grab, and China’s censors are working hard to squash it. They temporarily (although nothing is as permanent as a tempory government edict) banned the use of the phrases “personality cult” and “my emperor,” and also references to Winnie the Pooh; a character long used to mock Xi Jinping based on an apparent resemblance. The letter ‘N’ has also been banned by the Chinese government because of it’s reference to the number two, signaling two terms in office. But they Chinese have kindly lifted the ban on the letter as of Monday.
WATCH livestream at 10am PST (1pm EST) below. In the first hour, Vin discusses news that affects your liberty – the political fallout from the Florida school shooting, latest cryptocurrency news, statists hate Uber and free markets. And, in the second hour, MC Laubscher is here to talk about building wealth outside of Wall Street and away from the tax man.
M.C. Laubscher is a wealth strategist, educator, and financial freedom fighter. He is the President and CEO of Valhalla Wealth Financial and creator and the host of the popular business and investing podcast, Cashflow Ninja. His mission is to help as many people as possible eliminate the control banks and financial institutions have over their lives by building their wealth in a variety of ways outside of Wall Street. He believes the best way to achieve this in the Information Age, is by reclaiming the banking function in your own financial life through structuring an efficient cash flow management system and creating and building assets that provide multiple streams of income.
The Swedish government is warning its citizens to be prepared to survive on their own for at least a week, which is unusual advice for Sweden to dispense. Is there trouble on the horizon?
Shortly before Christmas, the Swedish government quietly published a paper called “Resilience.” Initially, the requirement had been for people to be prepared for 3 days without help, but it seems like that was a baby step. The government itself wants to be prepared for a 3-month long civil emergency and they’re urging citizens to take responsibility, too.
It really makes you wonder what is looming ahead, doesn’t it?
A publication called SVT reported today:
“Because we have the security policy situation we have today, we say that we will make our planning at government level to face a security crisis for three months,” says Eva-Lena Fjällström, Deputy Director of the County Administrative Board in Västerbotten.
Previously, it has been said that citizens will be able to cope for three days in the event of a crisis. Now it’s extended to one week.
“I think it’s important that you can manage yourself. Society has changed and is vulnerable and complex with many dependencies. It can easily be a disturbance so we have to manage ourselves, “says Eva-Lena Fjällström. (source)
The same publication provided video instructions for putting together a “crisis box.”
The Swedish government is also urging young people to get better prepared.
It’s also interesting to note that back in November, an article introducing the idea of preparedness was published and geared toward 18-year-olds. (One must also wonder if this is a gentle nudge toward a potential draft?) It referenced a study done to measure the preparedness levels of the country’s young people.
“In order to strengthen Swedish emergency preparedness, it is important that as many people as possible be prepared to cope with themselves during a crisis. Therefore, it is gratifying that almost nine out of ten 18-year-olds believe that they should take responsibility for themselves and their relatives in a crisis, “says Nils Svartz, Deputy Director General at MSB.
Nevertheless, the survey shows that many young people are not prepared for a crisis. Only one in three has water for three days and even fewer have prepared to communicate and receive important information from the radio if the electricity is lost. (source)
Some Swedes will see this as a different way of life.
The YouTube channel Swedish Homestead (find it here) recently released a video that discussed the national government’s warning for Swedes to be prepared to handle life for at least a week without the help of the government. According to the vlogger, this is not the norm there and the government is “the Big Brother who handles everything.”
There were mentions of “war” and “crisis” but it appears that not many details were given as to the exact nature of the threat.
Many people in Sweden would be incredibly vulnerable in a situation in which they were forced to be independent. Plus, an influx of migrants has to have put a further strain on resources. Nearly 20% of the population has immigrated from another country – 1.7 million people in Sweden are foreign-born in a country with a population of 9.9 million.
Sweden isn’t alone in unpreparedness
But wouldn’t we see the same types of issues described in the video here in America? How many Americans could go for weeks or months with the food they had on hand and the food they could produce? How many Americans make their land work for them? How many Americans have the skills to actually produce food for themselves and procure safe drinking water?
Sadly, not very many.
Just like Sweden, many Americans are locked into a system where we are reliant on imported goods, municipal water, and a reliable transportation system to bring us supplies on a regular basis.
While we may not like to think about it, a vast majority of our own population would not be able to be self-sufficient in an emergency that lasted for more than a few days.
The world seems to be becoming increasingly dangerous every year, with threats of nuclear devastation, petro-wars, economic collapse, and religious differences. Our own country has become rigidly divided in a right vs. left paradigm. While none of us personally can fix those issues, we CAN be prepared to take care of our own families, protect our property, and stay informed.
Thank you to Molly for this tip! Other links provided by Toby Cowern of Tread Lightly
Please feel free to share any information from this article in part or in full, giving credit to the author and including a link to The Organic Prepper and the following bio.
On November 12, Asgardia cemented its presence in outer space by launching the Asgardia-1 satellite. The nation is slowing coming to fruition.
The “nanosat” is roughly the size of a loaf of bread and undertook a two-day journey from NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia, the United States, to the International Space Station (ISS). It contains 0.5 TB of data belonging to 18,000 of Asgardia’s citizens, such as family photographs, as well as digital representations of the space nation’s flag, coat of arms, and constitution. While Asgardia’s citizens willremain based on earth, for the time being, the satellite launch brings the nation one step closer to space.
Asgardia-1 made its journey to the ISS aboard the OA-8 Antares-Cygnus, a NASA commercial cargo vehicle.
Now it must wait forabout three weeks asvital supplies and scientific equipment are transferred from the NASA ship to the six people currently living at the ISS. The nanosat will then be detached from the NASA vehicle and begin its own orbital journey around the earth. Citizens’ data will remain in orbit for between five and 18 months, the typical lifespan of this type of satellite. It will then burn out and disappear.
Russian scientist Dr. Igor Ashurbeyli founded the world’s first independent nation to operate in outer space in October 2016. Named after a Norse mythological city of the skies, Asgardia is free to join and so far, about 114,000 people have signed up. Within 40 hours of the project being announced in 2016, over 100,000 people had applied for citizenship on Asgardia’s website. After three weeks, Asgardia had 500,000 applicants. Anyone over 18 years old, with an email address, regardless of gender, nationality, race, religion, and financial standing can apply for citizenship — including ex-convicts, provided they are clear of charges at the time of application
According to CNN, Ashurbeyli says the project’s mission is to provide a “peaceful society,” offer easier access to space technologies and protect Earth from space threats, such as asteroids and man-made debris in space.
For Ashurbeyli, the launch fulfills a pledge he made when establishing the “space nation” to take its citizens to space via their data. “I promised there would be a launch,” he says. “We selected NASA as a reliable partner … because we have to meet the commitments that I made 13 months ago.”
“I was interested in doing something unusual that nobody else was doing,” Ashurbeyli told CNN. “It was my dream to create an independent country.” That ambition became more concrete after Ashurbeyli gave a speech at a conference on space law at McGill University in Montreal in 2016, where he was inspired by a discussion about the laws governing murder, marriage, and divorce in space. “I thought: ‘Why not organize a country?’ Not only for lawyers. But for technicians, for engineers, for every human … because he’s currently restricted by the laws of the country he was born in.”
I have written many times in the past about the singular conflict at the core of most human crises and disasters, a conflict that sabotages human endeavor and retards critical thought. This conflict not only stems from social interaction, it also exists within the psyche of the average individual. It is an inherent contradiction of the human experience that at times can fuel great accomplishment, but usually leads to great tragedy. I am of course talking about the conflict between our inborn need for self determination versus our inborn desire to hand over responsibility to a community through group effort — sovereignty versus collectivism.
In my view, the source of the problem is that most people wrongly assume that “collectivism” is somehow the same as community. This is entirely false, and those who make this claim are poorly educated on what collectivism actually means. It is important to make a distinction here; the grouping of people is not necessarily or automatically collectivism unless that group seeks to subjugate the individuality of its participants. Collectivism cannot exist where individual freedom is valued. People can still group together voluntarily for mutual benefit and retain respect for the independence of members (i.e. community, rather than collectivism).
This distinction matters because there is a contingent of political and financial elites that would like us to believe that there is no middle ground between the pursuits of society and the liberties of individuals. That is to say, we are supposed to assume that all our productive energies and our safety and security belong to society. Either that, or we are extremely selfish and self serving “individualists” that are incapable of “seeing the bigger picture.” The mainstream discussion almost always revolves around these two extremes. We never hear the concept that society exists to serve individual freedom and innovation and that a community of individuals is the strongest possible environment for the security and future of humanity as a whole.
Thus, the mainstream argument becomes a kabuki theater between the “ignorantly destructive” populists/nationalists/individualists versus the more “reasonable” and supposedly forward thinking socialists/globalists/multiculturalists. The truth is, sovereignty champions can be pro-individual liberty and also pro-community or pro-nation, as long as that community is voluntary.
Collectivists will have none of this, however, and despite their intellectual and “rational” facade, they will often turn to brutality in order to disrupt any movement to decentralize power.
The civil unrest in the Spanish region of Catalonia is an interesting example of the tyranny of the collectivist ideology. According to mainstream doctrine, Spain is supposed to be a “decentralized unitary state” made up of “autonomous communities,” all with their own statutes and self governing bodies “loosely” regulated by the Spanish constitution of 1978. Catalonia, along with a couple other regions and cities in Spain, has long fought for true autonomy from the central government in Madrid. This separatist culture was crushed under the heel of Francisco Franco’s dictatorial regime after the Spanish Civil War which started in 1936.
After Franco’s death in 1975, Spain began its “transition to democracy” (democracy being the tyranny of the majority rather than tyranny by military regime). Once again, Catalonia’s push for independence returned.
The reasons for a Catalan secession are multitude and are of course noble or nefarious depending on which side you talk to. From my research, it would seem the primary drive for Catalonia is economic. Spain is one of the more indebted member states in the European Union with a national debt near 100% of GDP. The “great recession” starting in 2008 struck Spain particularly hard, with around 21% of the general population officially in poverty and over 40% of all children officially in poverty. Unemployment according to government statistics hovers near 18%.
Catalonia is the most prosperous region in Spain’s economy, accounting for nearly 20% of total GDP. Catalans also assert that taxation in their region is a primary pillar for the Spanish government, which has not returned the favor with sufficient investment in infrastructure in the region. In essence, there is a “taxation without representation” feel to the conflict, and Americans in particular know very well how that kind of situation can end.
On the other side of the debate, it is clear that if Catalonia leaves the Spanish system on negative terms, then Spain’s already crumbling economy will be destroyed. The motivation for Spain to keep control of Catalonia is high just on the grounds of economic disaster.
Beyond the economic issue, another interesting side note on Spain is its intense social justice (cultural Marxism) programs. While Europeans often suggest Spain as being a “conservative” government, in policy and action this is simply not true. Spain is notorious for being one of the most militantly feminist governments in the EU aside from Sweden, and this is saying something given the socialist nature of the EU. Gender laws and divorce laws in the country offer some of the most draconian double standards against men I have ever witnessed. Perhaps this will give you a kind of litmus test for the sort of culture we are dealing with here, and maybe it accounts for some discontent in certain portions of the Spanish population.
Catalonia itself is often cited as being “more liberal” in its political orientation in comparison to the rest of Spain. Of course, the term “liberal” can mean many different things in Europe depending on the nation, and American definitions do not necessarily apply. Just as Europeans tend to have no understanding whatsoever of what “conservatism” means in the U.S., Americans have a hard time understanding all the intricacies of the various levels of “liberalism” in Europe.
That said, what side of the political spectrum Catalonia sits on is irrelevant to greater discussion.
What I actually enjoy pointing out here is the fact that whether you look at the Franco era of nationalist totalitarianism, or the “semi” socialist and hyper-cultural Marxist era of today, the Spanish government STILL acts the same in its despotism against Catalan separation or independence. It is not as if the socialists set out to right the wrongs of the Franco regime once it fell. Not at all. Instead, they merely perpetuated the same attitude of centralization while wearing a smiling face. Once again, we see that there is very little difference between fascism and communism/socialism when we get down to core behaviors and policies.
Collectivists, regardless of what other labels they use to identify themselves, have certain rules that they consistently follow in order to maintain power. One of those rules is that the collective is indivisible. They might pontificate endlessly about their superior democratic ideals, but when some people vote to leave en masse, either in polling booths or with their feet, the mask of benevolence always comes off and the true monster behind collectivism is revealed.
As we have seen in Catalonia, this monstrous behavior is undeniable. The Spanish government has set out to prevent not just separation, it has sought to prevent the very act of voting on separation using police and military force. In essence, martial law was been declared in Catalonia in order to stop the people from enacting the very democratic ideals the Spanish government claims it enshrines.
Despite the vicious measures of interference, reports suggest that the vote was still successful, with 90% of the citizenry in support of independence. What happens now is unclear, but I can tell you two things are relatively certain.
First, a 90% vote in favor will result in a militarized response from the Spanish government. If the vote was less overwhelming, the government might attempt to pit one side of the population against the other, causing internal strife and disrupting secession. This strategy is unrealistic given the mass movement for independence. So, the only other option for the government is full blown martial law.
Second, such a crackdown will result in a violent counter-response. This happened in the 1970s in Catalonia and I see no reason why it would not happen again. When you have almost an entire population in agreement on separation and you use force to stop them from attaining it, they will become violent. Civil war is inevitable if martial law is declared.
It is vital that we examine the root ideological catalyst in this scenario.
The most rational solution would be for the Spanish government to accept the Catalan vote (if they believe in “democracy” as they claim, then they have to accept it, otherwise they appear extraordinarily hypocritical). This could result in a more harmonious economic relationship and less drastic damage to Spain’s fiscal structure. However, this is not going to happen. Instead, Spain is going to use the age old collectivist tactics of intimidation and carnage to oppress the Catalan’s and subsume their economic production (as socialist governments always do). When civil war erupts, and it will, production in Catalonia will grind to a standstill and Spain STILL loses 20% of its GDP.
You see, this is a lose/lose scenario for Spain, all because the collectivist doctrine demands a jackbooted reaction to any movement for decentralization. Collectivist systems are parasitic in nature; they see the citizenry as food, as units of production for the state that cannot be allowed to leave, for the “greater good of the greater number.” Collectivists rationalize their behavior as essential to the well being of the society at large, but this is dishonest, for their behavior more often harms society by crushing individual innovation and instigating wars that might not have ever happened in the first place.
There is at the same time the matter of sovereignty movements across Europe. The only people who benefit from stopping these movements are globalists/collectivists. They may also benefit by sabotaging these movements after the fact, making an example of them and holding them up to the rest of the world as symbols of the “failures of populism.”
It is important to point out here that Catalonia is not necessarily seeking independence from the EU, only Spain. Some might argue that this makes the Catalan vote irrelevant. I disagree.
Some people might also argue that if secession happened in the U.S., the response would be the same. I would argue that just because it might happen the same way, this does not mean it is right. If leftist Californians, for example, followed through with their latest threats to secede from the U.S. and a massive shift of leftists and cultural Marxists move to the state, frankly I would be ecstatic. Let these people separate and congregate. Let them fail or succeed on the merits of their own ideas and ethics. If they are allowed to organizewithout interference and they fail, then this is simply more proof that their ideology was unsound and impractical. California’s large percentage of U.S. GDP would simply transfer to other states if in fact the productive people there are not leftists and they migrate away, leaving the separatists to wallow in their naive ideology.
If Catalonia separates without interference and succeeds economically and socially, then perhaps it is not for Spain to try to subvert or destroy the region, but to emulate their model and learn from them. If people wish to walk away from a community, they should be allowed to do so. This is very simple. Self determination is not dependent on political expediency or mutual benefit. It is an inherent human right. Communities and borders should be based on principles that the population stands by and every system should remain voluntary. If they do not stand by said principles and they work to thwart voluntarism, then those communities are worthless and should not exist at all.
When a collective acts to stop people from leaving, all they are doing is exposing the fact that their reasons for existing are inadequate and unconvincing. This goes for Spain, it goes for the EU and it goes for the rest of the world. Globalists and collectivists should take note — decentralization is the true model for the future. In the long run, forcing people into participation in the system is a losing battle.
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
Unsuspecting Americans to be Hit Hard by this U.S. Scheme to Confiscate Your Savings:Alan Greenspan, 20-year head of the US Fed, reveals Washington’s nasty trick to confiscate the savings of unsuspecting Americans. Here’s How Some Americans Are Preparing
