Economist Intelligence Unit: Manning the Barricades
March 28th, 2009Here are EIU’s probabilities on how the economic crisis will unfold:
Scenario 1: Stimulus stabilizes system — 60% chance
Scenario 2: Stimulus fails, leading to depression — 30% chance
Scenario 3: Dollar collapse, social unrest, violent protest — 10% chance
If I was forced to guess, these would be my numbers:
Scenario 1: Stimulus stabilizes system — 10% chance
Scenario 2: Stimulus fails, leading to depression — 60% chance
Scenario 3: Dollar collapse, social unrest, violent protest — 30% chance
But I’m not so sure that these scenarios are valid. You definitely don’t need a dollar collapse to see social unrest and violent protest.
There’s going to be violence this Spring and Summer—at least in the form of false flag operations to “steal the thunder” from the real radicals and lone wolf operators who see this crisis as a once in a lifetime chance to kick the machine while it’s experiencing some difficulties.
There is definitely a groundswell of discontent out there, and it will be managed as it has always been managed in The Age of Fake Democracies, by state counter insurgency operations designed to associate clueless sign wavers with terrorism.
Of course, wild cards are a possibility. It wouldn’t take too many people—who have figured out that sign waving is an insulting farce—to carry out genuine warfare against the corporate state.
How will you know the difference between false flag operations and war?
False flag operations are symbolic. The main goal is to create fear and obedience to state authorities through the use of propaganda in the aftermath of the event. The driving propaganda, after the fact, is the main payload, not the event itself. While it is possible that imbeciles will target individual executives for assassination or use improvised explosives to create work for janitors in corporate lobbies, these types of attacks are likely to be acts of state because of their utility for propaganda purposes. Think about it: Who benefits from attacks like these? The stoned white Rastafarian, soy people with Bozo the Clown wigs and Fair Trade hacky sacks will get the blame. It’s all “the terrorists,” right?
War, on the other hand, targets critical infrastructure. Examples: Financial transaction clearing is shut down. Stock markets are shut down. Communications systems are damaged or destroyed. Energy distribution systems are damaged or destroyed.
While it’s possible that attacks of this nature could be false flag, it’s not likely because unmanageable, cascading effects could result.
So, as the situation continues to devolve, expect corporate states to try to short circuit street level activists with false flag operations and heavy follow on propaganda linking them with “the terrorists.”
While the chances of any groups or individuals carrying out substantive strikes against critical corporate state infrastructures are low, the likelihood does increase as the legitimacy of political and economic elites fades.
My guess is that all of this will wind up moving the elite’s plan along a couple of more notches, with the main focus placed on reducing the number of national currencies in use on the planet.
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit: Manning the Barricades (pdf):
This special report is the third by the Economist Intelligence Unit since the credit crisis erupted in August 2007. In the first report, we looked at the implications of a financial meltdown on the global economy. In the second, we considered the wider economic effects, including the risk of a 1990s, Japan-style collapse in the US. This time we focus on the political fallout from the crisis. To sharpen that analysis, we have created a new social unrest index that identifies where the risks are greatest. We have paired that with a new set of scenarios that chart possible paths for the global economy.
The political risks from the economic crisis are increasingly dire.
I wonder to what extent that this divergence in opinion results from a difference in understanding of how under control industrialized society is.
If things do break down for one reason or another, there may be contingency plans that are easily rolled out, that while being unpleasant, are preferable, in the mind of the masses, to the unknown.
For instance, if the electronic media go down, they could always just de-mothball the printing presses and start hawking newspapers again.
In any case, a break-down would mean a mass hiring of people for security, cop, and military work, which there are always plenty of resources for. The pay one half to kill or otherwise control the other always seems to work pretty well regardless of the technology deployed.
@ltcolonelnemo: I agree. When all other “stimulus packages” fail, war is always a great employer. And if we’re at war abroad as well as maintaining a police state at home… It’s a “win-win situation”, right?
Ah, gallows humor.
Kevin,
You wrote, “While the chances of any groups or individuals carrying out substantive strikes against critical corporate state infrastructures are low…”
I don’t think the chances are that low. As you have pointed out before, all it takes to take out a lot of this stuff is one bright boy with a shovel.
@ Ann
I just hope that the bright boy isn’t so successful that he manages to frighten any nuclear armed state into dusting off pre-planned nuclear strike scenarios when looking for someone to blame…
Asymmetric warfare, carried out by a handful of people, has the potential look like the opening phases of strategic warfare carried out by a state.
The release of nuclear weapons is not likely to result from asymmetric attacks (on critical infrastructures), but that’s what I was thinking about when I wrote, “Unmanageable, cascading effects.”