Brzezinski has written and spoken extensively to elites at American and Western think tanks and journals, warning that this awakening poses the "central challenge" for the U.S. and other powerful countries, explaining that,

"most people know what is generally going on... in the world, and are consciously aware of global iniquities, inequalities, lack of respect, exploitation."

Mankind, Brzezinski said in a 2010 speech,

"is now politically awakened and stirring."

But Brzezinski is hardly the only figure warning elites and elite institutions about the characteristics and challenges of an awakened humanity.

 

The subject of inequality - raised to the central stage by the Occupy movement - has become a fundamental feature in the global social, political and economic discussion, as people become increasingly aware of the facts underlying the stark division between the haves and have nots.

 

While inequality is both a source and a result of the concentration of power in the hands of a few, it also represents the greatest threat to those very same power structures and interests.

 

As many if not most of us are by now aware, the global state-capitalist system is run by a relatively small handful of powerful institutions, groups and individuals who collectively control the vast majority of planetary wealth and resources.

 

Banks, corporations, family dynasties and international financiers like the IMF and World Bank form a highly interconnected, interdependent network we now think of as the global oligarchy.

 

 

 

 

Thomas Pogge explained in the Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law that in the 20 years following the end of the Cold War, there were roughly 360 million preventable poverty-related deaths - more than all of the deaths in all of the wars of the 20th century combined.

 

By 2004, over 1 billion people remained "chronically undernourished" and nearly a billion lacked access to clean drinking water and shelter. Roughly 1.6 billion lacked access to electricity while 218 million children were working as cheap labour.

 

Pogge noted that almost half of humanity - roughly 3.5 billion people - lived on less than $2.50 a day, and that all of these people could be lifted out of poverty with an expenditure $500 billion, which is roughly two-thirds of the annual U.S. Pentagon budget.

 

Preceding the statistics that would get popularized with the Occupy movement, Pogge asserted that the top 1% owned approximately 40% of global wealth while the bottom 60% of humanity owned less than 2%.

"We are now at the point where the world is easily rich enough in aggregate to abolish all poverty," Pogge wrote. "We are simply choosing to prioritize other ends instead."

Still today, every year, approximately 18 million people - half of whom are children under the age of five - die from poverty-related causes, all of which are preventable.

 

Seen through this lens, poverty, and by definition, inequality, has become the greatest purveyor of violence, death and injustice on Earth.

 

Meanwhile, the international charity Oxfam noted that the 100 richest people in the world made a combined 2012 fortune of $240 billion - enough to lift the world’s poorest out of poverty four times over.

 

In the previous 20 years, the world’s richest 1% increased their income by 60%, perpetuating a system of extreme wealth which is, according to an Oxfam executive,

"economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive."

Not only that, a former chief economist for McKinsey & Company published data in 2012 for the Tax Justice Network that reported the world’s super rich had hidden between $21 and $32 trillion in offshore tax havens - a trend that has been increasing in the past three decades to reveal that inequality is,

"much, much worse than official statistics show."

In early 2014, Oxfam released a report revealing that the world’s 85 richest individuals had a combined wealth equal to the collective wealth of the world’s poorest 3.5 billion people - approximately $1.7 trillion.

 

Meanwhile, the world’s top 1% own roughly half the world’s wealth, at $110 trillion. 

 

Oxfam noted:

"This massive concentration of economic resources in the hands of fewer people presents a significant threat to inclusive political and economic systems... inevitably heightening social tensions and increasing the risk of societal breakdown."

 

 

 

 

 

What Does All the Inequality Mean in Terms of Instability?

 

Where there is great inequality, there is great injustice and where there is great injustice, there is the inevitability of instability.

 

This relationship, between inequality and instability, has not gone unnoticed by the world’s oligarchs and plutocratic institutions. The potential for "social unrest" has gotten especially high since the onset of the global financial and economic crisis that began in 2007 and 2008.

 

The head of the OECD warned in 2009 that the world’s leading economies would have to take quick action to resolve the global crisis or face a "fully blown social crisis with scarring effects on the vulnerable workers and low-income households."

 

The major credit ratings agency Moody’s warned back in 2009 that the growing debts among nations would "test social cohesiveness" as investors demanded countries impose still more painful austerity measures, leading to growing "political and social tension" and "social unrest."

 

In February of that same year, the Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO) warned that following the economic crisis, many nations were,

"going to be confronted by unrest and inter-religious and inter-ethnic conflicts."

Brzezinski himself said,

"There’s going to be growing conflict between the classes and if people are unemployed and really hurting, hell, there could even be riots."

And meanwhile, the top-ranking U.S. military official and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, commented that the global financial crisis was a greater security concern to the U.S. than either of the massive ground wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

"It’s a global crisis," he said, and "as that impacts security issues, or feeds greater instability, I think it will impact our national security in ways that we quite haven’t figured out yet."

Mullen's point was reiterated by U.S. intelligence director Dennis Blair, who warned Congress that the global crisis was,

"the primary near-term security concern" for the U.S., adding that "the longer it takes for the recovery to begin, the greater the likelihood of serious damage to U.S. strategic interests."

Blair noted that as a result of the crisis, roughly 25% of the world’s nations had already experienced,

"low-level instability such as government changes." If the crisis persisted beyond two years, Blair noted, there was a potential for "regime-threatening instability."

U.S. intelligence analysts were also fearful of a "backlash against U.S. efforts to promote free markets because the crisis was triggered by the United States."

 

In November of 2008, the U.S. Army War College produced a document warning that the U.S. military must be prepared for the possibility of a,

"violent strategic dislocation inside the United States," possibly caused by an "unforeseen economic collapse" and/or a "purposeful domestic resistance" and the "loss of functioning of political and legal order."

Under "extreme circumstances," the document warned,

"this might include the use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States."

In 2009, the British spy agency MI5, along with the British Ministry of Defence, were preparing for the potential of civil unrest to explode in Britain's streets as a result of the economic crisis, [noting] that there was a possibility the state would deploy British troops in major cities.

 

 

 

 

A December 2009 article in The Economist warned that increased unemployment and poverty along with "exaggerated income inequalities" following the global economic crisis made for a "brew that foments unrest."

 

In October of 2011, the International Labour Organization warned in a major report that the jobs crisis resulting from the global economic crisis "threatens a wave of widespread social unrest engulfing both rich and poor countries," and pointed out that 45 of the 118 countries studied already saw rising risks of unrest, notably in the E.U., Arab world and Asia.

 

In June of 2013, the same ILO warned that the risks of social unrest including "strikes, work stoppages, street protests and demonstrations," had increased in most countries around the world since the economic crisis began in 2008.

 

The risk was "highest among the E.U.-27 countries," it noted, with an increase from 34% in 2006-2007 to 46% in 2011-2012.

 

The most vulnerable nations in the E.U. were listed as Cyprus, Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain, a fact,

"likely due to the policy responses to the ongoing sovereign debt crisis and their impact on people’s lives and perceptions of well-being."

The E.U.’s,

"bleak economic scenario has created a fragile social environment as fewer people see opportunities for obtaining a good job and improving their standard of living," warned the ILO, and advanced economies were "going to suffer a lost decade of jobs growth."

An October 2013 report by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies warned that the long-term consequences of austerity policies imposed by E.U. governments,

"will be felt for decades even if the economy turns for the better in the near future."

The report noted:

"We see quiet desperation spreading among Europeans, resulting in depression, resignation and loss of hope... Many from the middle class have spiraled down to poverty."

The study further reported,

"that the rate at which unemployment figures have risen in the past 24 months alone is an indication that the crisis is deepening, with severe personal costs as a consequence, and possible unrest and extremism as a risk. Combined with increasing living costs, this is a dangerous combination."

 

 

 

In November 2013, The Economist reported:

"From anti-austerity movements to middle-class revolts, in rich countries and in poor, social unrest has been on the rise around the world."

While there are various triggers - from economic distress (Greece and Spain) to revolts against dictatorships (the Arab Spring) to the growing aspirations of middle class populations (Turkey and Brazil),

"they share some underlying features," the magazine reported.

The common feature, it noted,

"is the 2008-09 financial crisis and its aftermath," and an especially important factor sparking unrest in recent years was "an erosion of trust in governments and institutions: a crisis of democracy."

A sister company of The Economist, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), measured the risk of social unrest in 150 countries around the world, with an emphasis on countries with institutional and political weaknesses.

 

The EIU noted that,

"recent developments have indeed revealed a deep sense of popular dissatisfaction with political elites and institutions in many emerging markets."

Indeed, the decline in trust has been accelerating across the developed world since the 1970s.

 

The fall of Communist East European regimes in 1989 eroded that trust further, and the process sped up once again with the onset of the global financial crisis.

 

According to EIU estimates, roughly 43% (or 65) of the countries studied were considered to be at "high" or "very high" risk of social unrest in 2014. A further 54 countries were considered to be at "medium risk" and the remaining 31 were considered "low" or "very low."

 

Comparing the results to a similar study published five years previously, an additional 19 countries have been added to the "high risk" category.

 

Among the countries considered a "very high risk" for social unrest in 2014 were,

• Argentina

• Bahrain

• Bangladesh

• Bosnia

• Egypt

• Greece

• Lebanon

• Nigeria

• Syria

• Uzbekistan

• Venezuela

• Yemen

• Zimbabwe

Among the countries in the "high risk" category were,

• Algeria

• Brazil

• Cambodia

• China

• Cyprus

• Ethiopia

• Guatemala

• Haiti

• Honduras

• Iran

• Jordan

• Laos

• Mexico

• Morocco

• Nicaragua

• Pakistan

• Peru

• the Philippines

• Portugal

• South Africa

• Spain

• Tunisia

• Turkmenistan

• Turkey

• Ukraine

It doesn't take demonstrators filling the streets to tell us that inequality breeds instability.

 

While many factors combine under different circumstances to lead to "social unrest," inequality is almost always a common feature. Injustice, poor governance, corruption, poverty, exploitation, repression and corrosive power structures all support and are supported by underlying conditions of inequality.

 

And as inequality is no longer a local, national or regional phenomenon but a global one, so too is the "threat" of instability that the world's elite financial, media and think-tank institutions are now so busy warning about. So long as inequality increases, so will instability.

 

Resistance, and even revolution, are the new global reality.

 

 

As an annual gathering of thousands of leading financial, corporate, political and social oligarchs in Davos, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has taken a keen interest in recent years discussing the potential for social upheaval as a result of mass inequality and poverty.

 

A WEF report released in November of 2013 warned that a "lost generation" of unemployed youth in Europe could potentially pull the Eurozone apart.

 

One of the report's authors, the CEO of Infosys, commented that,

"unless we address chronic joblessness we will see an escalation in social unrest," noting that youth especially "need to be productively employed, or we will witness rising crime rates, stagnating economies and the deterioration of our social fabric."

The report added:

"A generation that starts its career in complete hopelessness will be more prone to populist politics and will lack the fundamental skills that one develops early on in their career."

In short, if the global ruling class - known affectionately as the Davos Class - doesn't quickly find ways to accommodate the continent's increasingly unemployed and "lost" youth, those people will potentially turn to "populist politics" of resistance that directly challenge the global political and economic order.

 

For the individuals and interests represented at the World Social Forum, this poses a monumental and, increasingly, an existential threat.

 

The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report for 2013-2014, entitled "Assessing the Sustainable Competitiveness of Nations," noted that the global financial crisis and its aftermath "brought social tensions to light" as economic growth was not translated into positive benefits for much or most of the planet's population.

 

Citing the Arab Spring, growing unemployment in Western economies and increasing income inequality, there was growing recognition that dangerous upheaval could be on the way.

 

The report noted:

"Diminishing economic prospects, sometimes combined with demand for more political participation, have also sparked protests in several countries including, for example, the recent events in Brazil and Turkey."

The WEF report wrote that,

"if economic benefits are perceived to be unevenly redistributed within a society," this could frequently result in "riots or social discontent" such as the Arab Spring revolts, protests in Brazil, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and other recent examples.

The report concluded that numerous nations were at especially high risk of social unrest, including China, Indonesia, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, India, Peru and Russia, among others.

 

In early 2014, the World Economic Forum released the 9th edition of its Global Risks report, published to inform the debate, discussion and planning of attendees and guests at the annual WEF meeting in Davos.

 

The report was produced with the active cooperation of major universities and financial corporations, including Marsh & McLennan Companies, Swiss Re, Zurich Insurance Group, National University of Singapore, University of Oxford, and the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center.

 

It included a large survey conducted in an effort to assess the major perceived risks to the global order atop which the Davos Class sits.

 

The report noted that the "most interconnected" risks were fiscal crises, structural unemployment and underemployment, all of which link to "rising income inequality and political and social instability."

 

The young generation now coming of age globally, noted the WEF, "faces high unemployment and precarious job situations, hampering their efforts to build a future and raising the risk of social unrest." This "lost generation" faces not only high unemployment and underemployment, but also major educational challenges since,

"traditional higher education is ever more expensive and its payoff more doubtful."

Perceiving the innovations and skills of today's generation which are enabling the growing foment, the Forum noted:

"In general, the mentality of this generation is realistic, adaptive and versatile.

 

Smart technology and social media provide new ways to quickly connect, build communities, voice opinion and exert political pressure... [youth are] full of ambition to make the world a better place, yet feel disconnected from traditional politics and government - a combination which presents both a challenge and an opportunity in addressing global risks."

The Global Risks 2014 report cited a global opinion survey on the,

"awareness, priorities and values of global youth," which the authors refer to as "generation lost."

This generation, noted the survey,

"think independently of this basic fallback system of the older generation - governments providing a safety net," which "points to a wider distrust of authorities and institutions."

The "mindset" of today's youth has been additionally shaped by the repercussions and apparent failures to deal with the global financial crisis, as well as increasing revelations about U.S. intelligence agencies engaging in massive digital spying.

 

For a generation largely mobilized through social media, online spying has held particular relevance, as,

"the digital revolution gave them unprecedented access to knowledge and information worldwide."

 

 

 

Protests and anti-austerity movements were able to,

"give voice to an increasing distrust in current socio-economic and political systems," with youth making up significant portions of "the general disappointment felt in many nations with regional and global governance bodies such as the EU and the International Monetary Fund."

The youth,

"place less importance on traditionally organized political parties and leadership," which creates a major "challenge for those in positions of authority in existing institutions" as they try "to find ways to engage the young generation," adds the report.

According to the World Bank, more than 25% of the world’s youth, or some 300 million people, "have no productive work."

 

On top of this,

"an unprecedented demographic ‘youth bulge’ is bringing more than 120 million new young people on to the job market each year, mostly in the developing world."

This fact,

"threatens to halt economic progress, creating a vicious cycle of less economic activity and more unemployment," which "raises the risk of social unrest by creating a disaffected ‘lost generation’ who are vulnerable to being sucked into criminal or extremist movements."

Noting that more than 1 billion people currently live in slums - a number that has been steadily increasing as income inequality rises - the report stated that

"this growing population of urban poor is vulnerable to rising food prices and economic crises, posing significant risks of chronic social instability."

Growing income inequality is now being termed a "systemic risk," according to the WEF.

 

And in a stark admission from that institution representing the world’s major profiteers of global capitalism, the report acknowledged that globalization ,

has been associated with rising inequality between and within countries" and that "these factors render poor people and poor countries vulnerable to systemic risks."

The four major "emerging market" BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China,

"now rank among the 10 largest economies worldwide."

But slow political reforms within these countries, coupled with external economic shocks (like financial crises caused by Western nations and their corporate institutions) could aggravate the "existing undertones of social unrest."

 

Within the BRIC nations and other emerging market economies,

"popular discontent with the status quo is already apparent among rising middle classes, digitally connected youths and marginalized groups," the report went on.

Collectively, these groups,

"want better services (such as healthcare), infrastructure, employment and working conditions," as well as "greater accountability of public officials, better protected civil liberties and more equitable judicial systems."

Further, a,

"greater public awareness of widespread corruption have sharpened popular complaints."

Both Brazil and Turkey have made universal healthcare systems a constitutional obligation, which was a stated ambition of other emerging market nations such as India, Indonesia and South Africa.

 

The failure to create these healthcare systems "may arouse social unrest," warned the WEF.

 

The World Economic Forum’s chief economist, Jennifer Blanke, stated:

"The message from the Arab Spring, and from countries such as Brazil and South Africa is that people are not going to stand for it any more."

David Cole, the group chief risk officer of Swiss Re (one of the contributing companies to the WEF report) commented:

"The members of generation lost are not lost because they have tuned out. They are highly tuned in. They are lost because they are being left out or they are deciding to leave." 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/16/income-gap-biggest-risk-global-community-world-economic-forum

The World Economic Forum’s Risk report for 2014 was primarily concerned with "the breakdown of social structures" and "the decline of trust in institutions."

 

It warned of risks of,

"ideological polarization, extremism - in particular those of a religious or political nature - and intra-state conflicts such as civil wars."

All of these issues relate directly "to the future of the youth."

 

It’s an interesting paradox for an organization to see the greatest threat to its ideological and social power being "the future of the youth" when it has already written off the present generation as "lost."

 

However, this is a view shared not only by the World Economic Forum but, increasingly, by other powerful institutions creating something of an echo chamber through the mainstream media.

 

The head of the IMF has warned that youth unemployment in poor nations was "a kind of time bomb," and the head of the International Labor Organization (ILO) warned in 2011 that the,

"world economy" was unable "to secure a future for all youth," thus undermining "families, social cohesion and the credibility of policies."

While there was,

"already revolution in the air in some countries," as reported in the Globe and Mail, the dual crises of unemployment and poverty were "fuel for the fire."

In April of 2014, the World Economic Forum on Latin America reported that the primary challenge for the region was "to reduce inequality," noting that between 70 and 90 million people in Latin America had entered what were referred to as the "consuming classes," or "middle classes," over the previous decade.

 

However, Marcelo Cortes Neri, Brazil’s Minister of Strategic Affairs, explained,

"When we talk about middle class we think of the U.S. middle class, with two cars and two dogs and a swimming pool. That is not Latin American middle class or the world middle class."

He added that the emerging so-called "middle class" in Latin America and elsewhere,

"could become a problem for governance," commenting: "They are the ones that put pressure for better levels of education and healthcare; they are the ones that go to the streets to demand rights."

Neri then posed the question:

"How prepared is Latin America to have a robust middle class?"

In particular, youth between the ages of 15 and 29 raised specific concerns for Latin America’s elite, with Neri warning:

"This is the group I am most worried about. They have very high expectations and so the probability they will get frustrated is enormous."

When one of the world’s most influential organizations representing the collective interests of the global oligarchy openly acknowledges that globalization has increased inequality, and in turn, that inequality is fueling social unrest around the world manifesting the greatest potential threat to those oligarchic interests, we can safely say we're entering a new era of global instability and resistance.

 

 

In November of 2011, Bob Diamond, the CEO of one of the world’s largest banks, Barclays, stated in a speech:

"We’ve seen violent protests in Greece, public sector strikes across Europe, [and] anti-capitalist demonstrations that started on Wall Street have spread to other places around the world."

Diamond added:

"Young people have been especially hit hard by high levels of unemployment. The threat of further social unrest remains if we don’t work together to generate stronger economic growth and more jobs."

A March 2013 report by senior economic adviser George Magnus of UBS Investment Research, entitled "Social Unrest and Economic Stress - Europe’s Angst, and China’s Fear" noted that,

"the wave of social unrest that rumbled across Europe between 2008 and 2011 has become less intense... [and] has come as a cause for relief in financial markets."

Yet, he wrote, the occasional upsurge in large-scale national and European-wide anti-austerity protests and strikes,

"signifies the deep malaise in the complex and fragile trust relationship between European citizens and their governments and institutions."

Since 2010, approximately 13 out of 19 E.U. governments had been voted out of office or had collapsed, indicating that,

"public anger... is far from dormant, and its expression is mostly unpredictable."

Social unrest, added the UBS report,

"is a systemic phenomenon" that is "highly uncertain, complex and ambiguous," and which can lead "to the toppling of governments, or even political systems."

Social unrest across the E.U.

"has been notable more for the public expression of lack of trust in the institutions of government, including in Brussels," the headquarters of the European Union.

This "lull" in social unrest, warned Magnus, "is most likely deceptive."

 

The present problem in Europe "is the same" as the main problems in Europe of the 1930s - when mass poverty, unemployment and social unrest led to the rise of fascism.

 

The underlying problem in both eras was,

"the inadequacy of mainstream, political channels to address rising public concern about the loss of economic security, social stability and, yes, cultural identity."

Citing an OECD study, the bank report noted that,

"austerity has gone hand-in-hand with a variety of forms of social and political instability, and politically-motivated violence."

There have been,

"heightened levels of social unrest and shocks to the political system in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy... sometimes requiring the force of the state to suppress it."

These are especially important matters for banks to pay attention to, since the European debt crisis was caused primarily by the big banks - and the austerity and "structural reform" policies (along with the bailouts that accompanied them) were designed for the benefit of those banks as well.

 

Thus, resistance to austerity and "reform" is, in effect, resistance to the bailouts for the big banks.

 

In May of 2013, JPMorgan Chase released a report, "The Euro Area Adjustment: About Halfway There," which assessed "progress" in the European Union on the issue of austerity and structural reform.

 

The "adjustment" of European society, claimed the report, was "about halfway done on average," noting that the process would continue for much of the rest of the decade although it faced major challenges, including the development of "new institutions" in the E.U. and what the bank called "national legacy problems."

 

This vague term referred to,

"the constitutions and political settlements in the southern periphery [of the E.U.], put in place in the aftermath of the fall of fascism, [which] have a number of features which appear to be unsuited to further integration in the region."

Just what does this mean?

 

The bank explained that "fiscal austerity" was likely to be a major feature in the E.U. "for a very extended period."

 

However, if the European Monetary Union is to survive the coming decade, "deep seated political problems in the periphery... need to change." But what precisely are these "deep seated problems"?

 

The bank elaborated that many of the southern periphery states’ constitutions "tend to show a strong socialist influence," referring to the fact that many constitutions guaranteed various social rights for populations, including labor, healthcare and educational and civil rights.

 

Further, the bank reported that many of these nations suffer from the following features:

"Weak executives; weak central states relative to regions; constitutional protection of labor rights; consensus building systems... and the right to protest if unwelcome changes are made to the political status quo."

The translation: democracy itself is the problem. As such, JPMorgan noted,

"the process of political reform has barely begun."

In other words, out with democracy and in with financial and corporate oligarchy.

 

The bank’s report also noted that there were a number of potential threats as the process of "political reform" advanced, including,

"the collapse of several reform minded governments in the European south," a "collapse in support for the Euro or the E.U.," the possibility of "an outright electoral victory for radical anti-European parties," or perhaps even "the effective ungovernability of some Member States once social costs (particularly unemployment) pass a particular level."

JPMorgan Chase warned that while there wasn’t a current situation of "ungovernability" in E.U. states, the longer-term prospects were,

"hard to predict, and a more pronounced backlash to the current approach to crisis management cannot be excluded."

AXA, one of the world’s largest financial institutions and insurance companies, published a report in July of 2013 written by Manolis Davradakis, entitled "Emerging Unrest: Looking for a Pattern," which expressed particular concerns and perspectives on the issue of social unrest.

 

The report noted that emerging market economies,

"are currently experiencing a surge in political risk due to social unrest that is being fueled by reasons that differ from those that resulted in the Arab Spring."

 

 

 

The "main cause" of unrest in emerging market nations was,

"the rise of the middle class," as this portion of the population "realize that they continue to experience the same everyday problems as poorer population strata, namely a high crime rate, poor public services, and corruption."

The report cited examples of social unrest in Turkey and Brazil, warning that these countries could see their credit ratings cut if the social upheaval is "lasting."

 

The AXA report referred to the multiple episodes of unrest across emerging market nations in the summer of 2013 as "riots," stating that they had several points in common, namely that,

"they were sparked by a government decision affecting daily life" and that the protesters were "not affiliated with political parties or movements" but instead were "well educated members of the middle class."

These factors were reminiscent of the massive unrest that took place in the advanced economies during the 19th century when emerging middle classes were struggling,

"for better living standards and more representation in political governance."

Beyond a certain point, warned AXA,

"repressing mass demands for a more open society becomes costly and economically ineffective."

A government’s inability or lack of will,

"to acknowledge the people’s right to freedom of expression and a voice in decision-making is a source of social unrest."

AXA devised a Poor Governance Index (PGI), analyzing seven key indicators that could lead to social unrest, and concluded that the potential for instability in the BRIC nations - Brazil, Russia, India and China - was quite high.

 

It also cited increased potential for unrest in Egypt, Ukraine, Indonesia, South Africa, Tunisia and Turkey, warning that such unrest,

"may have implications for emerging market [credit] ratings."

It noted that several credit ratings agencies had already warned about the effects that "prolonged social unrest" could have on the ratings for Turkey and Brazil.

 

Going further, in July of 2013, Stephen D. King, chief economist of HSBC bank, warned that growing wealth gaps and increasing divisions between generations could result in youth uprisings similar to the Peasants Revolt of the Middle Ages.

 

King commented:

"I am intrigued at the moment that the youth are quite peaceful, and I wonder whether that might change. It is very difficult to predict but youth movements might become more focused on their own rights rather than the economy."

In October of 2013, King wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in which he warned that as bad as things already were,

"they are going to get much worse, for the United States and other advanced economies, in the years ahead," writing that both sides of the North Atlantic region had "already succumbed to a Japan-style ‘lost decade’" in which "promises can no longer be met, mistrust spreads and markets malfunction."

King wrote that,

"facing the pain will not be easy," especially as policy makers continue to "opt for the illusion" and "pray for a strong recovery... because the reality is too bleak to bear."

The "bleak" reality is that these and other big banks and financial institutions have repeatedly collapsed the global economy and profited along the way, punishing entire societies and populations into poverty through a process of plundering and exploitation as governments feared the wrath of "financial markets."

 

The banks that are now bigger, more dangerous and more powerful than ever fear the growing discontent, unrest and resistance of populations - especially the youth.

 

The world’s major financial institutions fear that the global economic system which they helped to create, and over which they rule, will ultimately come back to haunt them in the form of mass social unrest, potentially undermining their power and the system as a whole.

 

These two groups - financial institutions and the consultants that advise them - play key roles in the spread of institutionalized corporate and financial power, and as such, warnings from these groups about the threat posed by "social unrest" carry particular weight as they are geared toward a particular audience: the global oligarchy itself.

 

Organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank were responsible for forcing neoliberal economic "restructuring" on much of the developing world from the 1980s onwards, as the IMF and E.U. are currently imposing on Greece and large parts of Europe.

 

The results have been and continue to be devastating for populations, while corporations and banks accumulate unprecedented wealth and power.

 

As IMF austerity programs spread across the globe, poverty followed, and so too did protests and rebellion.

 

Between 1976 and 1992, there were 146 protests against IMF-sponsored programs in 39 different countries around the world, often resulting in violent state repression of the domestic populations (cited explicitly by Firoze Manji and Carl O’Coill in "The Missionary Position: NGOs and Development in Africa," International Affairs, Vol. 78, No. 3, 2002).

 

These same programs by the IMF and World Bank facilitated the massive growth of slums, as the policies demanded by the organizations forced countries to undertake massive layoffs, privatization, deregulation, austerity and the liberalization of markets - amounting, ultimately, to a new system of social genocide.

 

The new poor and displaced rural communities flocked to cities in search of work and hope for a better future, only to be herded into massive urban shantytowns and slums.

 

Today roughly one in seven people on Earth, or over 1 billion, live in slums (an excellent source on this is Mike Davis's "Planet of Slums".)

 

 

 

 

How the Big Institutions Have Operated

 

Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning former chief economist at the World Bank, blew the whistle on the World Bank's and IMF's policies in countries around the world - an act for which he was ultimately fired. 

 

In an interview with Greg Palast for the Guardian in 2001, Stiglitz explained that the same four steps of market liberalization are applied to every country.

 

The first includes privatization of state-owned industries and assets.

 

The second step is capital market liberalization, which,

"allows investment capital to flow in and out," though as he put it, "the money often simply flows out." 

As Stiglitz explained, speculative cash flows into countries, and when there are signs of trouble it flows out dramatically in a matter of days, at which point the IMF demands the countries raise interest rates as high as 30% to 80%, further wrecking the economy.

 

At this point comes step three, called "market-based pricing," in which prices get raised on food, water and cooking gas, leading to what Stiglitz calls "Step-Three-and-a-Half: the IMF riot."

 

When a nation is,

"down and out, [the IMF] squeezes the last drop of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up."

This process is always anticipated by the IMF and World Bank, which have even noted in various internal documents that their programs for countries could be expected to spark "social unrest."

 

And finally comes step four, "free trade," meaning that highly protectionist trade rules go into effect under supervision of the World Bank and World Trade Organization.

 

 

 

 

Expecting Riots

 

The term "IMF riots" was applied to dozens of nations around the world that experienced waves of protests in response to the IMF/World Bank programs of the 1980s and 1990s, which plunged them into crisis through austerity measures, privatization and deregulation all enforced under so-called "structural adjustment programs."

 

As the Guardian noted in September of 2012,

"the European governments are out-IMF-ing the IMF in its austerity drive so much that now the fund itself frequently issues the warning that Europe is going too far, too fast."

Thus, we saw "IMF riots" - protests against austerity and structural adjustment measures - erupting over the past three years in Greece, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere in the E.U.

 

An academic study published in August of 2011 by Jacopo Ponticelli and Hans-Joachim Voth examined the link between austerity and social unrest, analyzing 28 European countries between 1919 and 2009, and 11 Latin American countries since 1937.

 

The researchers measured levels of social unrest looking at five major indicators: riots, anti-government protests, general strikes, political assassinations and attempted revolutions.

 

The verdict:

The researchers found there was "a clear and positive statistical association between expenditure cuts and the level of unrest."

In other words, the more that austerity was imposed, the more unrest resulted. Spending cuts, they wrote,

"create the risk of major social and political instability."

The Eurozone has been referred to by some as,

"an unemployment torture chamber" due to the structural reforms to the labor market - enforced through bailout conditions - which were purportedly designed to make it easier for employers to hire and fire but, instead, "firing has utterly dominated the employers’ agendas," according to the Globe and Mail.

This has created a "lost generation" in which unemployment in the E.U. for youths between 16 and 24 amounts to roughly 25% - while in Italy it's roughly 40% and for Greece and Spain it’s as high as 60%.

 

Tom Rogers, an adviser to Ernst & Young, noted,

"Youth joblessness at these levels risks permanently entrenched unemployment, lowering the rate of sustainable growth in the future."

The head of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, warned in 2008 that,

"social unrest may happen in many places, including advanced economies."

The head of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, warned in 2009 that,

"If we do not take measures, there is a risk of a serious human and social crisis with very serious political implications."

Additionally, in November of 2009, the IMF chief warned the premier British corporate lobbying group, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), that if a second major bailout of the banks were to occur, democracy itself would be jeopardized.

The "man on the street" would not accept further bailouts, Strauss-Kahn said, and "the political reaction will be very strong, putting some democracies at risk."

 

 

 

Consulting in the Midst of a Crisis

 

Global consulting firms play a peculiar role in the global economic order.

 

The consulting, or "strategy," firms became commonplace in the 1960s onward, and were frequently seen as "home to some great minds in the corporate world," hired by corporate, financial and other institutional clients to advise management on strategy and investments. 

 

The Financial Times referred to the industry as,

"a global behemoth, employing an estimated 3 million people and generating revenues of $300 billion a year," with the industry’s "product" being "the knowledge vested in its people."

According to an Oxford team of researchers, in 2011 consulting firms advised on more than $13 trillion of U.S. institutional money.

 

Worldwide, consultants advised roughly $25 trillion worth of assets. Consulting advice was seen to be "highly influential" in the United States; yet despite the enormous power wielded by consultancy firms, the Oxford study found that the funds recommended to investors by consultants did not in the end perform better than other funds.

 

Still, the influence of giant consulting firms remains, although their reputations have taken some hits along the way.

 

The world’s largest consulting firms at the end of 2013 were McKinsey & Company, Bain & Company, Boston Consulting Group, Booz & Company, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Oliver Wyman, Deloitte Consulting, The Parthenon Group, A.T. Kearney and Accenture.

 

With these large firms advising even larger clients on strategy and investments, it's worth examining some of the advice and perspectives published by these agencies.

 

For example, McKinsey & Company, the world’s largest global management consulting firm, published a report in 2012 (Dominic Barton, "Capitalism for the Long Term," Autumn 2012) noting that in the previous few years the world had been witnessing,

"a dramatic acceleration in the shifting balance of power between the developed West and the emerging East, a rise in populist politics and social stresses in a number of countries, and significant strains on global governance systems."

For corporate executives,

"the most consequential outcome of the [economic] crisis is the challenge to capitalism itself."

And while,

"trust in business hit historically low levels more than a decade ago," McKinsey warned, "the crisis and the surge in public antagonism it unleashed have exacerbated the friction between business and society," adding to anxiety over rising income inequality and other factors.

Having interviewed over 400 business and government leaders around the world, the McKinsey report noted that,

"despite a certain amount of frustration on each side, the two groups share the belief that capitalism has been and can continue to be the greatest engine of prosperity ever devised."

However, the report warned,

"there is growing concern that if the fundamental issues revealed in the crisis remain unaddressed and the system fails again, the social contract between the capitalist system and the citizenry may truly rupture, with unpredictable but severely damaging results."

McKinsey & Company thus called for,

"nothing less than a shift from... quarterly capitalism to what might be referred to as long-term capitalism."

In another instance, KPMG, one of the world’s leading accountancy firms and professional service providers, published a report in 2013 examining a list of "megatrends" in the world leading up to the year 2030 ("Future State 2030: The Global Megatrends Shaping Governments," KPMG International, 2013).

 

One of the major trends it referred to was,

"the rise of the individual," in which technological and educational advancements "have helped empower individuals like never before, leading to increased demands for transparency and participation in government and public decision-making."

This process is "ushering in a new era in human history," KPMG went on.

 

With major social issues left unresolved such as growing inequality and access to education, services, employment and healthcare,

"growing individual empowerment will present numerous challenges to government structures and processes, but if harnessed, could unleash significant economic development and social advancement."

The report further warned that there were other major consequences with the,

"rise of the individual," including "rising expectations" and increased "income inequality within countries leading to potential for greater social unrest."

The fact that populations are,

"increasingly connected" and "faster dissemination of information through social media accelerates action" posed other concerns.

John Herhalt, a former partner at KPMG, was quoted in the report as saying,

"Citizens are not just demanding technologically advanced interactions with government, but also asking for a new voice."

Further, a 2013 survey of 1,300 CEOs from 68 countries by PricewaterhouseCoopers, another of the world's largest consulting firms, reported general views shared by CEOs around the world ("Dealing With Disruption: Adapting to Survive and Thrive," 16th Annual Global CEO Survey).

 

When asked about the ability of firms to deal with the potential impact of disruptive scenarios, the vast majority (75%) of CEOs responded that their companies,

"would be negatively affected, with major social unrest being cause for the greatest concern."

This was perceived as a greater threat than an economic slowdown in China.

 

CEOs, noted the report,

"know they’ll have to repair the bridges of trust between business and society," as the global financial crisis and its aftermath "have badly damaged faith in institutions of every kind."

Due to the revolution in social media, it concluded, many new,

"stakeholders... have an unprecedented amount of clout."

After in-depth analyses of documents, speeches and reports from the world’s major economic institutions - from international organizations like the World Bank and IMF to global consultancy firms like McKinsey & Company and PricewaterhouseCoopers; and from big banks like HSBC, JPMorgan Chase and UBS to oligarchic platforms like the World Economic Forum - three issues are prevalent in terms of assessing the fears and threats facing the global elite:

1. growing inequality

2. decline of public trust in institutions of all kinds

3. the resulting social unrest

It should be clear by now that as global inequality continues to rise, trust in institutions will continue to fall, and social unrest will explode in new and more dramatic ways than we have witnessed thus far.

 

We truly are entering a World of Resistance.