Join Us at the 2023 World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida!

? Dates: November 17, 18, and 19 ? Location: Orlando, Florida, USA (or tune in from home with our virtual ticket options)

Are you ready to unlock the future of economics and finance? Prepare for an unforgettable World Economic Conference experience in sunny Orlando, Florida! This premier event is your gateway to insights, networking, and valuable resources that will supercharge your understanding of the global economy.

?️ What’s Included for In-Person Attendees:

1. Event Admission: Enjoy reserved seating assigned based on the order of ticket sales, ensuring you have a prime view of every presentation.
2. Presentation Slides: Gain access to the presentation slides from all speakers, allowing you to delve deeper into the topics discussed.
3. Video Recording: Can’t make it to a session? No worries! You’ll receive access to video recordings of all conference presentations, so you can catch up at your convenience.
4. WEC Event App: Connect with the conference on a whole new level. Access presentation slides, bonus reports, recordings, and more via the official WEC Event App.
5. Bonus Conference Materials: Get a package of bonus conference-related materials, including exclusive bonus reports and videos (as provided by Martin Armstrong).
6. Morning Information Sessions: Don’t miss out on important morning information sessions, screened on-site in the meeting room on Saturday and Sunday.
7. Networking Opportunities: Exclusive access to the Event App Networking Feature allows you to connect with fellow attendees, both in-person and virtual, fostering valuable professional relationships.
8. Culinary Delights: Savor delicious breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday, prepared to keep you energized throughout the day.
9. Cocktail Reception: Kick off the conference in style at our Friday evening cocktail reception. Meet and mingle with fellow attendees while enjoying refreshing drinks.
10. Swag Bag: As a token of our appreciation, each in-person attendee will receive a swag bag filled with goodies, including an Armstrong Economics notebook, pen, and an event collector’s mug!

Unable to travel? We also have two different ticket options for those wishing to attend virtually! 

Don’t miss this opportunity to be part of a global gathering of economic and financial minds. Secure your spot at the World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida, and gain the knowledge, connections, and resources you need to thrive in the world of finance and economics.

Space is limited, so act now and reserve your seat! Visit our Events page to register and join us in sunny Orlando this November.

Now available at all major retailers!

The eBook will be available shortly.

The second edition of “The Plot to Seize Russia – The Untold History” is now available for purchase in paperback and hardcover on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. The ebook will be available shortly.

Book description:

“Take care of Russia,” Boris Yeltsin said as he departed his presidency in August 1999. These words were directed at current Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin specifically picked Putin as his predecessor to prevent the takeover of Russia.

So, who was Yeltsin warning against? Newly declassified documents from the Clinton Administration prove that there was a plot to rig the Russian election of 2000. These never-before-seen documents confirm numerous attempts to implement pro-Western policies using the Russian oligarchy headed by Boris Berezovsky.

On the other side were the communists who desired a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union. As one of the largest international hedge fund managers, author Martin Armstrong found himself in the middle of perhaps the greatest espionage, or attempt at a regime change for Russia, in modern history.

The Plot to Seize Russia pulls back the curtain to expose the most extraordinary attempt to seize power in modern history, but with the pen rather than armies. These declassified documents reveal a plot that has altered our thinking about the relations between the United States and Russia. The thirst for power comes seething through every line of these papers that alter our perception of reality, change the course of history, and now threaten us with World War III.

COMMENT: I hear that your birthday was on the 1st, so let me wish you a happy belated birthday.

I understand your belief that your work may never receive the recognition it deserves during your lifetime. It seems increasingly apparent that powerful interests operating behind the scenes in finance and politics are deeply threatened by your analysis. Whether bankers, neocons, or politicians influenced by Marxist and Keynesian economic theories, your work challenges the established narratives upon which they depend to influence public opinion and policy.

I read the explanation on MSN, and the stark contrast between your analysis and the narratives promoted by the mainstream media is becoming more obvious by the hour. The difference is not merely one of opinion, but of how economic and political events are understood, interpreted, and presented to the public.

“The U.S. economy is accelerating, gathering enough momentum from the artificial intelligence boom and robust consumer spending to crash through wars, volatile markets and trade disruptions. Indeed, no major advanced economy has been growing like the U.S.”

There is absolutely no mention of the global economy or international capital flows, which are essential to understanding how the world economy actually functions.

I recall that you were invited to consult with the People’s Bank of China, and you remarked how impressed you were that the people you met had actual trading experience rather than merely academic credentials. You have also explained that your computer models project China will emerge as the financial capital of the world after 2032, reflecting a fundamental shift in global capital flows and economic power.

Interestingly, I asked DeepSeek whether PBOC employed the capital flow analysis that you pioneered. Its response suggested that it had incorporated your approach. That is a remarkable acknowledgment of the importance of your work, particularly when Western economic institutions continue to overlook the international movement of capital.

“Yes, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) does use capital flow analysis, but it is more accurate to describe its work as conducting cross-border capital flow monitoring, analysis, and risk prevention, rather than using “capital flow analysis” as a singular, fixed technical term. The PBOC and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) have established a systematic monitoring and analysis mechanism for this purpose.“

You have been far more influential than you may realize—or are willing to acknowledge publicly. I can see that the powerful interests seeking to suppress your analysis are themselves part of the very cycle you have identified. Their resistance to ideas that challenge established institutions is not merely an obstacle to understanding; it is symptomatic of the broader decline and fall of the West.

I spent my career in a field I once assumed was enlightened and devoted to the pursuit of knowledge. You fundamentally changed my understanding of that world. I came to realize that academia is not simply populated by specialists who fail to recognize the connections between disciplines. It is an institutional system in which specialization is rewarded, while interdisciplinary thinking is often praised in principle but penalized in practice. Those who challenge conventional boundaries frequently encounter resistance precisely because their insights threaten established intellectual authority.

What you have demonstrated is far more important than you seem willing to take credit for. You have shown that history, economics, politics, and human behavior cannot be understood in isolation. Their interconnectedness is essential to understanding the forces shaping civilization. In doing so, you are not merely offering a different approach to economic analysis; you are illuminating a path toward the future of education itself.

I know you believe you are entering the twilight of your life. Yet what you have accomplished is to shine a brilliant light on the limitations of what we presume to know. You have challenged the arrogance of institutional certainty and demonstrated how much remains invisible when we mistake specialized knowledge for genuine understanding.

Your greatest contribution may ultimately extend far beyond forecasting markets or identifying historical cycles. It may be that you have helped redefine how future generations learn to understand the world.

Happy Birthday

UT

REPLY: Thank you very much for the words of encouragement. I do believe we are all connected. I tried to pass on much of what I have learned in the Understanding the World Economy. What you say is correct. In Economics class I was taught everything is random so the government can manipulate society and across the hall in Physics class they said God does not play dice with the universe. I came to the conclusion someone was not telling the truth. That never sat well with me.

I then came across Herbert Hoover’s memoirs, which was disregarded because they wanted to blame him for everything, exposed all the lies about what I was being taught. But it was my clients who opened my eyes. Because I was the first to forecast currency at the start of FX markets after 1971, I was being dragged in around the world and that made me see the world through everyone’s eyes denominated in their currency.

There has always been the question of “accident vs. theory-first.” I believe it is not wise to begin with a theory and then try to prove it for you then may even subconsciously cherry-pick data to prove your point. Carrots are lethal because every person who has ever eaten a carrot has died. True statement, but we all die eventually.

Adam Smith did not begin with his Invisible Hand. That came from observation. He was arguing against the François Quesnay of the French Physiocrats who saw agriculture as the majority of the economy and thus held that only agriculture was the wealth of a nation. They made the same mistake as Thomas Malthus who assumed over population would be the death of society failing to also understand that technology improved food production. Smith uncovered something he did not anticipate and that is the way research is actually conducted.

The theory of supply and demand also came from a trader John Law again from observation. Some of the greatest discoveries came from accidents like Penicillin, X-rays, Microwave, Vulcanized rubber, and even the structure of DNA was partly luck when Watson and Crick saw Franklin’s Photo 51.

It was my clients around the world who opened my eyes to a fundamental truth: everyone acts according to their own self-interest, and that self-interest is measured through the purchasing power and perspective of their own currency. This realization became the foundation of my understanding of international capital flows.

I have had a front-row seat to the transformation of the global monetary system since the collapse of the Bretton Woods gold standard. As one of the early international hedge fund managers in the ’80s, I witnessed firsthand how capital moved across borders, shifting between currencies, markets, and nations in response to changing economic and political conditions. This was not something I learned from academic textbooks. It was something I observed directly in the markets through the experiences of clients operating around the world.

Yes, China invited me to consult with its central bank. What impressed me was that the Chinese had sent people to work on trading desks at major financial institutions around the world. They gained practical experience in how international markets actually functioned before returning to China to assume positions within its central banking system.

That is precisely why they understood and appreciated my Capital Flow Analysis. They approached economics from the perspective of actual market experience rather than abstract academic theory. They had witnessed the movement of capital firsthand and understood that international capital flows could overwhelm domestic monetary policy.

This stood in sharp contrast to the central banks of the West, where academic economists largely dominated monetary policy and tended to view the economy through domestic models, often overlooking the international movement of capital. This is what they and the media are doing again right now.

The fundamental difference was experience versus theory. China recognized that understanding the world economy requires understanding how capital moves internationally, why confidence shifts between nations, and how individuals make decisions based on their own self-interest and the currency in which they measure their wealth and pay taxes. That is the foundation of Capital Flow Analysis.

Germany and Japan have signed a new agreement to secure critical minerals as both nations begin confronting the consequences of their dependence upon China. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz met Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Tokyo on October 28, where the two governments agreed to diversify their sources of raw materials, develop alternative supply chains, and protect technologies essential to their manufacturing industries. For decades, Western governments encouraged their industries to become dependent upon China for the very materials necessary to sustain their economies. Now they are discovering that an economic dependency can become a strategic vulnerability the moment political relations deteriorate.

The agreement is particularly significant because Germany and Japan are two of the world’s most important industrial economies. Both depend heavily upon manufacturing, automotive production, advanced machinery, electronics, and technologies that require specialized minerals. China dominates the processing of many rare earth elements, which are essential for high-performance magnets used in electric motors, wind turbines, industrial equipment, aircraft, and military systems. It is not enough to possess a mineral deposit somewhere in the world. The material must be extracted, separated, refined, and manufactured into a usable product. China spent decades building that infrastructure while Western politicians became increasingly convinced that they could abandon domestic production and simply import whatever their industries required.

Takaichi stated that Japan and Germany would work to diversify critical mineral supplies and develop alternative sources while protecting sensitive technologies. Merz acknowledged that Japan, Germany, and the European Union must reduce their dependence upon concentrated supply chains. The joint statement expressed grave concern over the use of economic coercion, including arbitrary export restrictions and retaliatory measures. Neither government needed to name China directly. Everyone understands which country possesses the ability to disrupt these industries. Japan still obtains approximately 60% of its rare earth supplies from China despite spending more than a decade attempting to reduce that dependence.

Japan learned this lesson back in 2010 when a territorial dispute with China coincided with disruptions to rare earth shipments. Tokyo responded by investing in alternative suppliers, including Australia’s Lynas, and supporting additional processing capacity outside China. That diversification helped reduce Japan’s exposure, but it did not eliminate the problem. Sixteen years later, Japan remains heavily dependent upon Chinese materials, particularly certain heavy rare earth elements that are difficult to source and process elsewhere. This demonstrates how difficult it is to rebuild an industrial supply chain once production has become concentrated in another country. Governments can sign agreements in a single afternoon. Developing mines, refineries, and manufacturing facilities can take years.

The latest confrontation escalated after Takaichi suggested in November 2025 that Japan could become militarily involved if China attacked Taiwan under circumstances threatening Japanese security. Beijing responded in January 2026 by restricting exports of dual-use products to Japanese military end users. Additional Chinese restrictions targeted Japanese companies and organizations during the year. These measures illustrate how the Taiwan dispute is extending into economic relations. Japan is not merely concerned about the possibility of military confrontation in the Taiwan Strait. Its manufacturers must now consider whether their access to essential industrial materials could be interrupted by a diplomatic disagreement.

Germany faces a similar problem, although its vulnerability has developed through different political decisions. German manufacturers built extensive commercial relationships with China while Berlin became increasingly dependent upon Russian energy. The confrontation with Russia exposed the risks associated with concentrated energy supplies, and German industry has struggled with the consequences of higher costs and economic uncertainty. Now the government is confronting its dependence upon Chinese raw materials. The German automotive industry requires rare earth magnets for electric motors, while machinery manufacturers depend upon specialized metals and components that cannot always be replaced quickly. Germany spent decades building an industrial economy around access to reliable energy and international supply chains. Both assumptions have been severely challenged.

The new German-Japanese agreement includes plans for joint purchasing arrangements, co-financing of mining and processing projects, and cooperation between companies seeking supplies in third countries. Germany’s Economy Ministry specifically identified joint offtake agreements and financing as tools for supporting new raw material projects.

The problem is that Germany and Japan are hardly alone in pursuing these supplies. The United States has been working with allies to develop alternative critical mineral supply chains, including proposals for coordinated pricing arrangements intended to protect producers from Chinese competition. Washington has also expanded cooperation with Japan on rare earths and other strategic materials. Australia, Canada, and numerous African and South American countries are attracting greater attention because of their mineral resources. Yet deposits alone do not guarantee an economically viable supply. Investors must consider infrastructure, political stability, environmental regulations, financing costs, and the time required to bring production online. The competition for reliable supplies is intensifying precisely because so many governments neglected these issues for decades.

China understands the importance of controlling the processing stage. A country may possess substantial lithium, cobalt, or rare earth deposits, but if those materials must be shipped to China for refining, the dependency has not been eliminated. This is why Beijing’s position is so powerful. Its advantage is not simply geological. It has developed an industrial ecosystem capable of processing materials and supplying manufacturers on a scale that competitors cannot immediately replicate. China can use that position commercially, and export controls demonstrate how such capabilities can become instruments of foreign policy. Western governments are now attempting to rebuild industrial capacity that they previously allowed to migrate overseas.

There is also an important distinction between lithium and rare earth elements. Lithium is essential for many rechargeable batteries, while rare earth elements are particularly important in permanent magnets and other specialized technologies. They are not interchangeable commodities, and each has its own production and processing challenges. Governments frequently group them together under the heading of critical minerals, but securing a lithium supply does not resolve a shortage of dysprosium or terbium.

The German-Japanese partnership also extends beyond minerals. The two governments announced cooperation in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, advanced technologies, and defense. Germany is even examining possible participation in Japan’s next-generation combat aircraft program, although no specific commitment has been announced. Japan is already working with Britain and Italy on a future fighter aircraft, while Germany’s separate European program with France and Spain has faced industrial disagreements. These developments demonstrate how economic and military considerations are becoming increasingly interconnected. A secure supply of critical minerals is necessary not only for consumer products but also for aircraft, missiles, radar systems, and other defense technologies.

We are entering a period when the availability of essential commodities will increasingly influence economic policy, investment decisions, and international relations. Germany and Japan are attempting to protect their industries from disruptions they can no longer afford to ignore. Whether they succeed will depend upon their willingness to support actual production rather than simply announce ambitious agreements. China spent decades building its position while other governments assumed that international trade would always remain open. Now those governments are discovering that dependence carries a price, and the bill is coming due at precisely the moment geopolitical tensions are escalating.

I recently wrote about Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre doing something that much of Europe’s political establishment has spent years avoiding. They picked up the telephone and spoke directly with Vladimir Putin. The October 27 conversation lasted approximately 90 minutes and addressed the war in Ukraine, European security, and the possibility of renewed negotiations. Now the Kremlin has publicly declared that Putin is prepared to speak with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron as well. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated, “Of course, he is open to dialogue with everyone.” When asked whether Putin would speak with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, however, Peskov replied, “No one has called yet.”

What has happened to diplomacy? Since when did refusing to speak with an adversary become a demonstration of political strength? The entire purpose of diplomacy is to communicate with governments whose interests conflict with your own. You do not need negotiations when everyone agrees.

Stubb and Støre have demonstrated that direct communication does not require abandoning Ukraine. Both governments remain committed supporters of Kyiv. Their telephone conversation was coordinated with Ukrainian officials, and they spoke with Zelensky afterward. Stubb explained that Finland and Norway share borders and security interests with Russia, making the outcome of the war directly relevant to their own countries. He stated, “Ending the war requires direct discussions.” This should be obvious to anyone who understands international relations. The Nordic leaders did not recognize Russia’s territorial claims, withdraw their support for Ukraine, or promise to lift sanctions. They opened a channel of communication because they recognized that refusing to speak accomplishes nothing.

The reaction from other European leaders was revealing. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned against individual diplomatic initiatives, arguing that Europe should maintain a united position. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson expressed skepticism about the value of the conversation, while Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk urged caution. They fear Putin could cause further division between EU members. Why? Could they perhaps realize that billions in aid, an energy crisis, and thousands dead are not in their national best interest?

Now the Kremlin is attempting to portray itself as the party willing to communicate. Peskov has stated that Putin would answer calls from Macron and Merz, while presidential aide Yury Ushakov said the Russian president would remain available to the Finnish and Norwegian leaders. The Finnish and Norwegian initiative is significant because it demonstrates that European leaders can communicate directly with Moscow. Elected leaders should be able to speak on behalf of their constituents rather than cower in silence awaiting approval from the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

Throughout history, governments have maintained diplomatic channels with adversaries even during periods of extreme hostility. Negotiations between nuclear powers were essential during the Cold War precisely because the consequences of misunderstanding were so severe. Today, Russia and NATO possess enormous military capabilities, and the possibility of miscalculation remains a serious concern. Direct communication is one means of reducing that danger. It does not require trusting Putin, accepting Russian claims, or abandoning Ukraine.

The question is no longer whether European leaders can telephone Moscow. Finland and Norway have already demonstrated that they can. The question is whether those conversations can develop into a serious diplomatic process capable of addressing the interests and security of all parties involved. The Kremlin says Putin will answer the phone.

Europe should examine what diplomacy can actually achieve rather than treating the act of speaking as a political controversy. The war has already inflicted enormous damage, and its continuation carries substantial risks for Ukraine, Russia, and the wider European economy. Finland and Norway have reopened a channel that much of Europe allowed to deteriorate. Whether that channel produces meaningful progress remains uncertain, but the principle should never have been controversial. Diplomacy exists to prevent disagreements between governments from being settled exclusively on the battlefield.

With Democratic control of House, the party that still worships at the grave of Karl Marx and FDR, will gain majorities on committees that can propose legislation and hold hearings. Beside drooling over the thought of impeaching Trump a third time just for shits and giggles, the more serious is their passion to taget the rich. They are contemplating a National Billionaire’s Tax and Elizabeth Warren want’s her Wealth Tax on simply ownership disregarding income altogether. These two issue will surface eventually but the thirst for the bright lights and the praise of the hopeless mainstream media will target artificial intelligence and how some of these 20-somethings run around and says AI will kill all humanity as if this is Terminator-7.

I have consistently argued that sovereign debt is a Ponzi scheme that functions perfectly well until the buyer of last resort disappears – that’s you. The United States carries roughly $40 trillion in debt, but the global sovereign debt complex is closer to $400 trillion. The arithmetic is alarming, but arithmetic alone has never toppled a bond market. What topples it is the realization that the debt cannot be rolled over at a price anyone will accept.

I am NOT the only one to have found that it was President Johnson’s Great Society that was the primacy force that broke the back of Bretton Woods. I knew John Exter, a board member of the Fed, who was the first to see the handwriting on the wall. John in 1968 warned that the Gold Standard would collapse. They ignore John as well, but that came in 1971.

Economic historians and official histories consistently identify the combination of Vietnam spending and Great Society programs as the root cause of the inflation that destroyed the dollar-gold convertibility by 1971. The Federal Reserve History notes that U.S. inflation rose from less than 2% in early 1965 to 6% by the end of 1969, making fixed exchange rates unsustainable. The French economic education site Citéco lists both “expensive wars, particularly in Vietnam” and “Johnson’s Great Society Programs” as the factors that increased U.S. budget deficits and undermined the system.

Just like Europe, politicians are NEVER wrong – only the people. They will NOT alter their philosophy of socialism despite that this collapsed both Russia and China. They simply refuse to accept their philosophy is just wrong.

Our computer has shown that the economy will now enter a recession into 2028. The Democrats only need to talk about wealth taxes, rising social security taxes with Elizabeth Warren saying the rich don’t pay their fair share proving it’s just a tax and not some security fund for your future, and then the Billionaire Tax they want to impose nationally after lying to their billionaire backers in a bait & switch game. The billionaires who they insist should repent for making too much must must give it to them as if this is their stairway to haven – REPENT, REPENT!

The fools who actually think that voting for the Democrats will solve all the problems is hilarious. They blame trump for 80 years of fiscal mismanagement. Their solution, as always, will be to punish the productive class. The computer shows that nether party is ever willing to reform because they look to elections every 2 years, not the long-term. The problem is that long-term is becoming closer every year.

We can see that the computer has targeted 2032 the same as the ECM, which is not included in this Array. The Democrats have to win to show the average person that neither side matters because nobody cares about the long-term – just the next election.

The light at the end of the tunnel is approaching when we get to correct the flaws of this system. No war without a public referendum. Term limits – 1 time in and out to end the perpetual lobbying, and no cushy private sector job to influence your buddies on the Hill. The day is coming – we get to fix the future and leave behind a worthwhile system.

A protest took place in Zurich on Saturday night, which escalated into violence and clashes with police. The incident began around 10:30 PM on October 31st, 2026 in the Langstrasse area and later spread to Helvetiaplatz, continuing until approximately 1:30 AM the following day.

Several hundred people gathered in response to a call under the slogan “We’ve had enough – in Switzerland too,” with some participants wearing Halloween masks. The demonstrators set fire to barricades constructed from trash bins, bicycles, and other objects, and torched a car. They also attacked police with fireworks, bottles, and stones, and damaged shop windows and bus stop facilities. Additionally, a police patrol responding to a medical emergency was attacked, delaying assistance to an injured teenager.

Zurich police deployed water cannons, tear gas, and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd. Police reported that the situation was brought under control by approximately 1:30 AM. The situation in Zurich has calmed down and there are no indications of ongoing riots or protests.  Yet this is what I have warned about. This is how the 1848 Revolutions began in Sicily as swept through Europe even toppling the French Government. These things are always a CONTAGION and the rising discontinue will escalate as we head into 2028 as the economy turns down and fuels costs rise.

This will spread eventually to USA.

COMMENT:

C

REPLY: Thank you

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, first I must thank you for coming to Paris. Unlike in the United States, you were on French national TV. You truly made an impression here.

My question is this: you said that the EU consumes more than 50% to feed the bureaucracy. The view here is that our economy is doing extremely badly, as you warned would happen at your talk here. People need to know that this idea of socialism is what is collapsing. No matter what happens, the government is completely run by a group of incompetents who juggle billions while families struggle just to put food on the table. Macron, as you said, blamed Trump for the rise in energy, but he omits his support for Ukraine and the sanctions on Russia that started the rise in fuel costs.

Are we headed to a new Sixth Republic? Would you advise establishing a new government?

Andre

ANSWER: In 2025, France’s total public expenditure reached €1.7141 trillion, with public spending equal to 57.3% of GDP—the highest share in the European Union. This is the core problem: the government consumes 57.3% of the economy, leaving minimal living standards for the people. The protests began with a major movement known as “Block Everything” (Bloquons tout), which held its first major day of action on September 10, 2025 (2025.693). Cyclically, this could reach a major crest as late as August 12, 2027.

However, the protests in France became large-scale and nationwide starting on October 17, 2026 (2026.794). What began as a student movement over school conditions escalated into a broad national upheaval involving hundreds of thousands of people and significant violence. In the short term, this could continue into December 16, 2026.

This coming week may see renewed conflict. Macron’s mistake is what all government do when they are threatened with collapse – they lash out at the the people and try to suppress them, but this does not solve the problem – it only postpones it. We are headed into a world recession into 2028 and this will magnify the unrest. The risk that the French government will fall turns up in 2028/2029.

The economy is not working. GDP is falling and Europe is desperate for war. You are hearing all the government telling people to stock up for what is their intended war. They will create some sort of false flag to claim they have been attacked by Russia.

Here is Former Defence Select Committee Chair, Tobias Ellwood, talking about how this government is not doing enough investing in military in the UK. Clearly war is in the air in Europe. Escalation is somehow “guaranteed” despite Putin having said repeatedly that he is NOT interested in a greater war with Europe.

The idea that a threatened ruler starts a war to hold onto power is an old observation in political thought. The concept is a recurring theme in history and political science, articulated by various thinkers and observers.

A quote attributed to Plato captures the essence:

“When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.”

Henry Kittredge Norton (1928) in his book Back of War, he described it as an “old trick” where a governing power, “threatened by rising discontent and opposition within the borders of its own country, precipitates a foreign war to reunite the country and vindicate its own authority.”

Political scientists have documented this dynamic in many specific cases. I am NOT pulling this out of thin air. Even recently, Saddam invaded Iran in 1980 partly as a “pre-emptive strike to shore up his personal rule” against internal threats. He also reportedly told interrogators that a principal reason for invading Kuwait was his belief that he needed to keep his restive army occupied.

The entire reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution was to thwart this problem of governments using military power because it is just there. The Price of Savoy was one of the most outstanding generals who influenced Montesquieu who in tuen influenced the Founding Fathers that a standing army is dangerous for the state will always use it because it is there. No war has been authorized by a Declaration issued by Congress since WWII. This proves the very point that Savoy made that kings created war because they had an army that needed to do something.

Idi Amin (Uganda) back in the 1978 war with Tanzania is cited as an example where Amin’s primary goal was to deal with a threat from his own military forces, not a foreign adversary.

Hérault de Séchelles (1791) during the French Revolution, summarized the logic succinctly:

“War will justify all your steps; for, in brief, it is at home that war must be made on rebels before it can be carried abroad.” 

When I say the EU is desperate and Russia is the best enemy money can buy, they face the same choice. The EU will crumble and break apart, or they create war with Russia to retain power. This is a well-established principle in political theory and a recurring pattern in historical analysis.

PRIVATE BLOG – Gold the Crash into ’27?

Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please visit Ask-Socrates.com.

https://ask-socrates.com/