China's Colour Revolution Warning to the United States

While the world is distracted by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the global geopolitical theatre continues to involve.  On April 25th, 2022, Kazakh President Tokayev met with visiting Chinese State Councillor and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe in Nur-Sultan, the capital city of Kazakhstan.

 

As you can see on this map, Kazakhstan shares a lengthy border with both China and Russia:

 

 

Kazakhstan has a significant trade relationship with China as shown here:

 

Here is a graphic showing Kazakhstan's trading relationship with China in both exports and imports as shown here:

 

Exports from Kazakhstan to China rose by 58 percent between 2015 and 2019 and 13.6 percent of Kazakhstan's total exports end up in China.  Exports from China to Kazakhstan rose by 52 percent between 2015 and 2019.  Between 2016 and 2019, China became Kazakhstan's fastest growing export market, growing by 87 percent over the time period.

 

Here are China's top imported and exported goods from/to Kazakhstan in 2019 and the share of each:

 

Imported from Kazakhstan:

 

1.) Mineral fuels and oils and bituminous substances  $2.934 billion - 32 percent share

 

2.) Copper - $1.738 billion - 19 percent share

 

3.) Ores, slag and ash - $1.634 billion - 18 percent share

 

4.) Iron and steel - $908.7 million - 10 percent share

 

5.) Inorganic chemicals, precious metals, rare-earths - $869.3 million - 9 percent share

 

Exported from China:

 

1.) Machinery, mechanical appliances, nuclear reactors - $1.564 billion - 12 percent share

 

2.) Electrical machinery and equipment - $1.498 billion - 12 percent share

 

3.) Clothing and apparel not knitted - $1.438 billion - 11 percent share

 

4.) Footwear - $970.3 million - 8 percent share

 

5.) Clothing and apparel knitted - $897.4 million - 7 percent share

 

Since 2012, China has been the largest buyer of Kazakhstani uranium, an important element for China's growing nuclear reactor fleet.

 

Now, let's look at the most recent news that connects the two nations together as I noted above from the Ministry of National Defense of the People's Republic of China website keeping in mind the near coup/uprising that took place in Kazakhstan in early January 2022:

 

Here is a translation of the news release courtesy of Google Translate with my bolds:

 

"Tokayev (Kazakhstan's President) said that Kazakhstan and China celebrate the 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations this year. Over the past 30 years, Kazakhstan and China have become permanent comprehensive strategic partners. The two countries have maintained high-level cooperation in the international political arena and achieved remarkable results in cooperation in various fields. In recent years, I have frequently interacted with President Xi Jinping, which has brought strong impetus to bilateral relations. I believe that bilateral relations will achieve greater breakthroughs and achievements. Kazakhstan attaches great importance to the military cooperation between the two countries, and hopes that the two militaries will continue to strengthen practical cooperation in peacekeeping operations, joint exercises, personnel training, military technology and other fields.

 

Wei Fenghe said that His Excellency the President is an old friend of the Chinese people and has made outstanding contributions to the establishment and development of China-Kazakhstan permanent comprehensive strategic partnership. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Kazakhstan. Under the strategic guidance of the two heads of state, the bilateral relations have maintained a vigorous momentum of development with bright future prospects, becoming a model of good-neighborliness and friendship, mutual benefit and win-win results."

 

Here are the key sentences, aimed directly at Washington:

 

"China firmly opposes external forces deliberately instigating a "color revolution" in Kazakhstan, and supports Kazakhstan in taking effective measures to safeguard national security and social stability. We must be alert to some major powers interfering in Central Asia and disrupting the security of Central Asia. This visit reflects China's great importance and firm support to Kazakhstan. No matter what kind of risks and challenges they encounter, China and Kazakhstan will jointly safeguard regional stability and promote the building of a community with a shared future for mankind."

 

Here are the closing sentences of the press release:

  

"In recent years, the exchanges and cooperation between the Chinese and Kazakh militaries in various fields have been fruitful. The Chinese military is willing to continue to expand cooperation areas with the Kazakh side and promote the in-depth development of the relationship between the two militaries.

 

On the same day, Kazakh Defense Minister Zakserekov held a welcome ceremony for Wei Fenghe and held formal talks. The two sides exchanged in-depth views on the international and regional security situation, the situation in Ukraine, and the Afghan issue, and agreed to continue to strengthen strategic communication between the two militaries, conduct joint exercises and training, and carry out practical cooperation."

 

With Kazakhstan playing a very important part in China's ongoing economic development thanks to its abundant reserves of crude oil (the twelfth largest oil reserves in the world) and its world leading uranium production capabilities as shown here:

 

...it is very apparent why China is making diplomatic moves to strongly discourage Washington from further geopolitical maneuvering in Kazakhstan in its efforts to solidify America's position as the sole global superpower.  Kazakhstan stands to play a very important role in China's future, particularly its energy security, and the current leadership of China are not about to stand by while Washington meddles further in the affairs of Central Asia.

How the Billionaire Class is Buying Washington

A recent report from Americans for Tax Fairness goes a long way to explaining why Washington seems to  change very little no matter which party is in power.  Thanks to the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, we can see how a very small fraction of Americans have the ability to translate their wealth into political power by purchasing politicians from both sides of the political spectrum.

 

The actors of the study looked at the history of political donations from data supplied by Open Secrets by America's wealthiest individuals over the election cycles from 2010, the first election held after the Citizens United decision, to 2020.  According to their data, the authors found that billionaire contributions evolved as follows:

 

Here is a graphic showing how billionaire political contributions have risen since 1990:

 

 

In 2020, billionaire political contributions increased by nearly 50 percent from 2018 (excluding the self-funded campaigns by Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer) and again, nearly double the billionaires' contributions in the 2016 presidential election.  Since 2010, billionaire contributions to elections has increased by just under 40-fold, rising from $31 million in 2010 to $1.201 billion in 2020.

 

As background, according to Forbes, in 2010, there were 401 billionaires in the United States; this rose to 661 in 2020.  In the 2010 election cycle, billionaires donated 0.9 percent of all donations.  This rose as follows:

 

2012 cycle - 3.7 percent

 

2014 cycle - 5.7 percent

 

2016 cycle - 9.4 percent

 

2018 cycle - 9.6 percent

 

2020 cycle - 9.3 percent excluding Bloomberg and Steyer

 

2020 cycle - 46.1 percent including Bloomberg and Steyer

 

Excluding the Bloomberg/Steyer self-contributions, 21 percent of all billionaire political contributions since 1990 were made in the 2020 election cycle (rises to 46.1 percent if Bloomberg/Steyer are included) where one in ten dollars donated was sourced from the billionaire class even though they make up only 0.01 percent of all donors who contributed more than $200.

  

As you can see on this graphic, both parties were targeted by the most wealthy Americans:

 

Since 1990, billionaires have contributed $235.1 million to Democratic candidates and $330.2 million to Republican candidates.  Over the same timeframe, contributions to Democrats, their party committees and leadership PACs totalled $1.405 billion and contributions to Republicans, their party committees and leadership PACs totalled $1.628 billion.

Let's look at some of the top ten billionaire contributors and their percentage of the total billionaire contributions between 1990 and 2020:

 

Sheldon and Miriam Adelson - $524.2 million (17 percent)

 

Mike Bloomberg - $314 million (10 percent) exclude self-funding in 2020

 

Tom and Kathryn Steyer - $311.2 million (10 percent)

 

Ken Griffin - $107.4 million (3 percent)

 

James and Marilyn Simons - $92.5 million (3 percent)

 

Dustin and Cari Moskovitz - $83.3 million (3 percent)

 

Paul and Linda Singer - $63.3 million (2 percent)

 

George Soros - $57.1 million (2 percent)

 

Stephen and Christine Schwarzman - $54.5 million (2 percent)

 

Joe and Marlene Ricketts - $51.2 million (2 percent)

 

The top three donors have donated a total of $1.149 billion over the ten year period for a total of 37 percent of all donations over that same period of time. 

 

Despite the fact that the total billionaire political donations of $1.2 billion seems like a great deal of money, it is a tiny fraction of their collective net worth which rose substantially during the pandemic.  It is a pretty meagre investment by the billionaire class, an investment which can be used to influence tax laws and impact business laws which benefit the already wealthy billionaire.

 

Washington is for sale and the billionaire class is buying.

The Power Struggle Over the Pacific Ocean - Washington's Carrot and Stick Approach

Recent events in the South Pacific have clearly exemplified the globalist narrative of Washington.  As usual, let's start with some background.

 

The Solomon Islands are a sovereign nation located in the southwestern Pacific Ocean as shown on this map:

 

The Solomon Islands consist of two parallel chains of islands and with the northern chain including Santa Isabel, Choiseul and Malaita and the southern chain including Vella Lavella, Savo, the New Georgia Islands and the iconic Guadalcanal, the site of one of the major battles of the Second World War with both chains converging on San Christobal.  Most of the 686,878 citizens of the Solomon Islands live in rural communities with only 23.7 percent living in urban areas and 95 percent of them are ethnically classified as Melanesian with the overwhelming majority practicing Christianity.  The Solomon Islands are a constitutional monarchy and are a member of the British Commonwealth but gained their independence from the United Kingdom in 1976, becoming a self-governed parliamentary democracy with total independence gained in 1978.  The governor-general who serves as the formal head of state, representing the British monarchy.  Members of Parliament are elected to serve four year periods with power lying with the Prime Minister who is elected from the parliamentary membership.  

 

The islands are one of Asia's poorest nations despite the fact that the islands are rich in timber and bauxite and have significant undeveloped resources of lead, zinc, nickel and gold.  Most manufactured goods and petroleum products must be imported.  Exports consist primarily of timber, fish, copra, palm oil, coca and coconut oil.  According to the 2022 Index of Economic Freedom. the Solomon Islands have a relatively low economic freedom score ranking 22nd among 39 nations in the Asia-Pacific and 110th in the world.  Scores for investment freedom and financial freedom are among the lowest in the world with the economy reliant on the assistance of international donors for its fiscal health.  Corruption in the judiciary, mining and fishery sectors is rife and conflicts over land tenure have been a major source of civil unrest which is tied to ethnic violence.  In 2003, a multinational force led by Australia disarmed ethnic militia and restored law and order at the requires of then Prime Minister Sir Allan Kemakeza.  The islands have no regular military force.

  

Here are key economic indicators for the Solomon Islands:

 

 

It is important to note that the Solomon Islands importing partners include China (25.3 percent), Australia (15.5 percent), Singapore (9.6 percent), Malaysia (9.5 percent), Japan (5.2 percent), South Korea (5 percent) and New Zealand (5 percent).

 

With that background and keeping in mind the close economic relationship with China, let's look at recent news.  On April 22, 2022, a high-level United States delegation led by National Security Council Indo-Pacific Coordinator Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Kritenbrink, Deputy Commander INDOPACOM Lieutenant General Stephen Sklenka, and USAID Acting Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for Asia Craig Hart met with the Solomon Islands' Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare and key members of his staff and cabinet:

Here are key quotes from the statement released by the White House regarding the visit starting with what the United States will do for the people of the Solomon Islands (i.e. the carrot) with my bolds:

 

"In the meeting with Solomon Islands’ Prime Minister Sogavare, the delegation reiterated the key priorities animating the trip and also outlined specific steps the United States would take to advance the welfare of the people of Solomon Islands. The United States will expedite the opening of an embassy in Solomon Islands; advance cooperation on unexploded ordinance; launch a program on maritime domain awareness; dispatch the Mercy hospital ship to address public health; advance a dialogue on the return of the Peace Corps; deliver additional vaccines; and advance initiatives on climate, health, and people-to-people ties." 

 

...followed by the threats (i.e. the stick):

 

"The United States respects the right of nations to make sovereign decisions in the best interests of their people. The two sides engaged in substantial discussion around the recently signed security agreement between Solomon Islands and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Solomon Islands representatives indicated that the agreement had solely domestic applications, but the U.S. delegation noted there are potential regional security implications of the accord, including for the United States and its allies and partners. The U.S. delegation outlined clear areas of concern with respect to the purpose, scope, and transparency of the agreement.

 

If steps are taken to establish a de facto permanent military presence, power-projection capabilities, or a military installation, the delegation noted that the United States would then have significant concerns and respond accordingly. In response to these enumerated concerns, Prime Minister Sogavare reiterated his specific assurances that there would be no military base, no long-term presence, and no power projection capability, as he has said publicly. The United States emphasized that it will follow developments closely in consultation with regional partners."

 

I like the irony here - "The United States respects the rights of nations to make sovereign decisions...".  Since when exactly?

 

Apparently, it is perfectly acceptable for the United States to have its own military presence located throughout the world as shown on this graphic from the Watson Institute:

 

 

...and this map:

 

...but a sovereign nation like the Solomon Islands is not allowed to host a Chinese military presence of any sort without guaranteeing that Washington will "respond accordingly", a threat that is particularly fascinating given that the American powers that be have pretty much ignored the Islands since the end of the Second World War.

  

And, of course, given its proximity to Australia, the Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison had to weigh in as well because we all know that China greatly fears Australia's military capabilities:

 

 

Apparently, the powerbrokers in Washington are "irony impaired".  They seem incapable of seeing that they have been projecting their military power around the globe in the same way that they are accusing China of doing but when China does it, it's a bad thing.

Canada - Is it the Canary in the Digital Identity Coalmine?

As some Canadians found out the hard way, the Canadian government, the police state and the nation's banking system are quite capable of conspiring to help prevent the sweaty masses from accessing their bank accounts and other bank services.  While the Canadian government has retracted, at least temporarily, the immediate use of their powers to suspend an individual's banking "privileges", they have set a standard for the future and, as you will see in this posting, is not going to be one that is particularly palatable to those of us who wish to retain both our privacy and access to the funds that we have managed to save.

 

Here are some fascinating comments released in 2018 video from Neil Parmenter, the then President and CEO of the Canadian Bankers Association or CBA who stepped down from his role on December 23, 2021 with my bolds throughout:

 

"Canada is on the cusp of a revolutionary innovation that will transform the way Canadians authenticate themselves online and protect their identity - Digital ID.  All of us are living in a digital world, but we're tethered to an analogue model of how we identify ourselves: memorizing countless online passwords, carrying government issued licences, plastic cards and more.  Digital ID is a way for Canadians to identify themselves to government, businesses and to each other electronically, with ease and rock-solid security, without the need to present physical documents.  One interconnected network.  A federated digital ID ecosystem - developed in collaboration with Canada's best and brightest talent from our banks, telecommunications companies, law enforcement and government.  It would have the power and security to store every Canadian's electronic identity and attributes.  And, it would unlock countless opportunities for Canadians to verify who they are safely, quickly and securely, while only revealing the information necessary for each transaction.  A fast and secure way to bank, signup for government services, renew driver's licences or health cards, shop, travel and more.  Canada's banks are perfectly situated to help lead the creation of a federated digital ID system between government and the private sector. 

 

And now, for the most frightening/interesting part of the video:

 

"The World Economic Forum agrees that banks and financial institutions should lead the path forward for digital ID." 

 

Isn't it fascinating to see how the ruling class at the World Economic Forum manages to worm its way into every aspect of our lives?

And now, back to the somewhat less frightening part of the video:

 

"Banks are highly regulated and trusted.  They have advanced cybersecurity and privacy technology and they have the infrastructure to operate provincially and nationally.  Banks are also at the forefront of working with fintech start-ups who are bringing revolutionary mobile and online products and services to Canadians.  Digital ID can help consumers navigate between these apps and programs with trust and confidence, knowing their ID is protected at all times.  A federated digital ID approach can also significantly reduce fraud, save taxpayer money, improve regulatory compliance and make it easier to do business as an owner and as a consumer.  In fact, the Canadian Bankers Association just launched a white paper with our recommendations on how to move forward with a federated digital ID framework.  I encourage you to read it to learn more."

Here is a link to the video in its entirety:

 

Here is the cover of the CBA's white paper on Canada's digital ID:

 

The CBA claims that Canadian stakeholders stand to gain from an effective digital ID system in the following ways:

 

1.) cost savings.

 

2.) fraud reduction.

 

3.) improved regulatory compliance.

 

4.) privacy enhancing.

 

5.) future ready.

 

Let's look at what the white paper says about how privacy will be enhanced by the issuance of a national digital ID:

 

"Privacy and security of personal identification is a growing concern. A digital ID system enhances privacy and puts greater control of identity back into the hands of the consumer. Unlike physical documents, digital ID can be standardized and used between entities with the ability to adapt by adding new information. Moreover, only one version of your identity exists, significantly reducing the potential for misinformation, identity theft or the use of outdated data that does not reflect your current identity."

 

And, let's not forget the World Economic Forum's role as noted above and quoted here from the white paper:

 

"Canada’s strong financial institutions must play a key role. The World Economic Forum stated in its report that financial institutions should champion efforts to build digital ID systems and lead the creation and implementation of identity platforms."

  

Here is the World Economic Forum's report on digitalization as mentioned above:

 

Here is a quote from the report's introduction:

  

"With its mandate to improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is embracing this challenge through its new Digital Protocol Network on National Digital Policy. Through this work, the Forum intends to catalyse the prototyping of agile digital governance solutions (i.e. digital protocols) so that the trustworthiness, accountability, fairness and inclusion of all stakeholders can be more fully addressed.

 

The Forum’s Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution will host and enable the formation and functioning of the Digital Protocol Networks....

 

The outcomes of the National Digital Policy Network will be incorporated into the Forum’s Digital Economy and Society System Initiative. This will impact digital cooperation and governance in a variety of ways:

 

– Provide a set of common principles applicable to core challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

 

– Recognize and prioritize the importance of policy design and implementation, and the need for governments, businesses and civic groups to actively collaborate

 

– Discourage governments from implementing over-reactionary policies and regulations because of frustration over the inability to control transnational platforms

 

– Reduce the risk of digital policy fragmentation around the world

 

– Help companies understand that they have important global responsibilities, particularly in digital security 

– they may be transnational businesses, but they have obligations to the countries where they operate

 

Leadership from the highest levels of public, private and civic institutions will be vital for these new approaches to take root and have a positive impact. Clarity on how to balance complex and competing interests with transparency, trust and accountability will be essential for sustainable approaches to digital governance."

  

And, here is a quote from the Executive Summary:

 

"Several core themes have emerged from the plays presented in this White Paper:

 

–  Committed political leadership is vital for implementing digitalization strategies and initiatives.

 

–  Agility is paramount to the success of digitalization. Countries are rewarded for creating governance solutions which are adaptable, innovative and collaborative in their implementation.

 

–  The creation and implementation of a comprehensive digital development strategy should transcend the technology sector and embrace different sectors of society and the economy.

 

–  Adequate government structures are needed to manage the digital transformation and to protect digital infrastructure, services and data.

 

–  Multistakeholder digital governance models are unique in their ability to address the complexities of networked societies and economies.

 

–  Partnerships are essential to accelerate positive socio- economic outcomes and to create enabling policy frameworks, particularly for improving communications infrastructure and creating digital public services.

 

Above all, agility is paramount. The goal of this work is to show the importance of national and transnational governance approaches which can adapt to changing circumstances – a system that mirrors the architecture of the internet itself."

 

Through the comments in the Canadian Bankers Association video and the recent actions by the Canadian government, we are starting to see the pieces of our digital identification future coming together rather rapidly.  As it stands currently, given the patchwork of technology that exists across all sectors of the economy, when the Trudeau government wanted to punish "disobedient" citizens who participated in the protests against the COVID-19 mandates, it would have been very difficult for the powers that be to completely lockdown an individual's entire life.  With the issuance of an all-encompassing digital identification, a person's ability to access economy-wide services could easily be limited or cancelled, a reality that is very similar to the implementation of a social credit score where a citizen is punished because they do not subscribe to government-mandated behaviours that are deemed acceptable.

 

Given that Canada is now being controlled by these two World Economic Forum insiders, one of whom has very close ties to the nation's banking system:

 

 

...is Canada the canary in the digital identification coal mine?  

The federal government's response to the pandemic has provided the perfect cover for the implementation of a universal digital identity ecosystem.  If there is one thing that Canadians should have learned over the past weeks it's that our assets belong to us until the heavy hand of a tyrannical government in Ottawa says otherwise.  I, for one, have lost all trust in government and the use of a digital identity will make it much easier for the system to punish the disobedient.

Addendum:  

Here is an absolutely spot on article on this very issue, the link to a cashless society and digital imprisonment:

Europe's Uranium Vulnerability - Another Unintended Consequence of Sanctioning Russia

Europe has come to the sudden realization that it is highly susceptible to the cessation of the transmission of Russia's seemingly endless reserves of natural gas.  As such, politicians in Europe are looking for alternate sources of energy, one of which is nuclear power which relies on uranium as its feedstock.  Let's look at how reliant Europe is on Russia for its supply of uranium.

 

As background, let's look at Europe's nuclear fleet.  Here is a graphic from Eurostat showing how reliant the major European economies are on nuclear power:

 

 

In 2020, nuclear power plants generated approximately 24.6 percent of the total energy produced in the European Union.

  

Here is a table showing gross nuclear electricity production in five-year periods from 1990 to 2020:

 

By 2020, Europe was somewhat less reliant on nuclear as a source of electricity with total production falling from a high of 928.4 gigawatt-hours in 2005 to its current level of 683 gigawatt-hours.  France is the most reliant on nuclear electricity, accounting for 51.8 percent of the EU total followed by Germany with accounting for 9.4 percent of the EU total.  Germany's reduction in the use of nuclear energy since 2006 accounts for most of the drop in the EU's total nuclear energy use.

 

Here is a graphic showing gross nuclear energy production for the five highest nuclear electricity producing nations over the period from 1990 to 2020 which clearly shows the drop in Germany's use of nuclear power generation:

 

Here is a list of the six nations which increased their use of nuclear power generation:

 

Romania - up 103.6 percent

 

Hungary - up 19.3 percent

 

Netherlands - up 17.8 percent

 

Czechia - up 15.3 percent

 

Slovenia - up 1.7 percent

 

Here is a list of the seven nations which decreased their use of nuclear power generation:

 

Germany - down 61.5 percent

 

Sweden - down 26.5 percent

 

Belgium - down 26.2 percent

 

France - down 21.4 percent

 

Bulgaria - down 14.7 percent

 

Slovakia - down 14.3 percent

 

Spain - down 3.0 percent

  

Let's look at where the European Union sources its uranium.  A total of 22 percent of the world's uranium is found in the BRICS nations with 44 percent being found in OECD nations.  Here is a pie chart showing the supply sources (in percent) for 2020:

 

As it currently stands, Russia supplies just over one-fifth of Europe's uranium needs, the second largest supplier after Niger.  Domestic uranium production in Europe remains very low with 95 percent of Europe's uranium requirements being sourced from outside the EU.  Acquiring uranium itself is not the only problem that Europe faces; uranium must be enriched from 0.7 percent to between 3 percent and 5 percent before it can be used in most reactors other than Canada's CANDU reactors.  According to the World Nuclear Association, Russia has the biggest uranium enrichment capacity in the world, supplying 35 percent of the world's supply.  In addition, 18 out of 103 of the nuclear reactors in Europe are Russian designed; these reactors are found in Bulgaria, Finland (two), Hungary (four), Slovakia (four) and Czechia (six).  As an aside, Ukraine which is not part of the EU has 15 operable Russian-designed nuclear reactors at four plants that generate about half of Ukraine's electricity requirements as shown on this map:

 

While Europe could source its uranium requirements from other nations, it is highly vulnerable to a cessation of uranium/enriched uranium from Russia.  A reduction in reliance on Russia's uranium could prove to be beneficial to Kazakhstan, the world's largest producer of uranium, however, that could even prove to be problematic since most of Kazakhstan's uranium exports travel to Europe through Russia and, as shown on this graphic, Russia is a joint venture partner in some of Kazakhstan's uranium mining operations:

 

Once again, Europe is caught in an energy nightmare of its own making, an unintended consequence of sanctioning Russia for its moves into Ukraine.