A Response to Mike Gleason and Chris Powell

Mike Gleason, of Money Metals Exchange, and Chris Powell of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee had a very interesting discussion on the overt manipulation of the gold and silver markets.  The following is my contribution to the discussion:

This discussion--a great one, by the way--opens up a much larger question than simply whether or not gold investors can make a profit, or even whether or not the markets can be controlled surreptitiously to the benefit of governments. It is actually the question of, "What are the limits to governmental power? Are there any limits? Do the people really have any rights? Will the people ever force governments to back down from their power grabs, as long as they're reasonably satisfied? Will the people ever even care?"
I know that is several questions, not one. I have a hard time encapsulating it in one question. Perhaps another reader, or the staff at MME can come up with one!
What's really scary, Mike and Chris, is that our current leadership was elected. They were elected by people with absolutely no interest in whether the markets, let alone metals markets, are manipulated by government. And if they were told this in a way they could understand, they would probably agree that this is a proper function of government!
The United States, more than any other nation on earth, is really just a concept. It is a concept that exists in the hearts and minds of its people. And if that concept is lost, the nation no longer has any real existence. I think we've reached that point.

Safest place to be in a terrorist attack

This is copied from Dave Hodges' Common Sense Show blog, entitled "The Safest Place to Be in a Terrorist Attack is Next to President Obama".  I think the key paragraphs are worth saving and pondering:

It is so clear that if terrorists wanted to assassinate political figures, such as a President, they could and they would. If John Hinckley can get close enough to shoot President Reagan, then a “Muhammad Atta” should be able to get even close enough to President Obama. Then why don’t they? The answer is simple, all terrorism is state sponsored terrorism and terrorists are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. And who controls the state? The elite who are using these tools of political manipulation which will perpetuate their agenda. And what is their agenda? The agenda of the NWO is clear and unmistakable. They seek to erase all national boundaries, as evidenced by the hordes of immigrants which are destabilizing the so-called Western democracies.
Through fear mongering, perpetuated by a series of so-called terror attacks, the NWO is conditioning the sheeple to accept a brutal, totalitarian dictatorship which will include the elimination of all individual civil liberties and the NWO is using Muslims to accomplish this goal.

 

Response to Nancy Armour's editorial in USA Today sports page

Ms. Armour,

I read with interest your commentary on Aaron Rodgers' "Calling out prejudiced fan".  While it was totally inappropriate for that fan to make his vulgar comment during that moment of silence, and Mr. Rodgers was correct in rebuking him, both his comments afterward and yours revealed a lack of understanding of the true nature of Islam, and of the situation we face because of our lack of understanding.

First of all, you make a false comparison between the radical Islamists and pseudo-Christian cultists:  The latter in no way reflect the teachings of the Bible or the example of their Founder, while the former much more precisely follow the precepts of the Quran than do the so-called "moderate" muslims.

Secondly, it's instructive to notice the reaction of the two groups to atrocities committed in the names of their respective religions:  In the case of evil done in the name of Christ, Christians are very quick and vocal to condemn any and all such acts.  What has been the response of the Muslim community to the bombings, beheadings, shootings, kidnappings, rapes, and other heinous deeds done in the name of Islam and of the Prophet?**Crickets**.

Perhaps the silence is due to fear.  That's VERY instructive, is it not?  Perhaps it's due to embarassment, the embarassment of holding a position that's not orthodox, and voicing that position would only show them up for the apostates they are.  And perhaps, just perhaps, it's because they are in agreement with the "extremists".

What do you think?  Which is it?

Remember, the Quran is very specific regarding the necessity of spreading Islam by the sword and of prescribed treatment of those outside the "House of Islam".

Islam, when it is in power, gives "infidels" (that's you and me) three options:  1) Convert to Islam; 2) pay a special tax and accept second-class citizen status (for Christians and Jews only); and 3) death.  There is, of course, a fourth option:  Flee for your life.

A personal anecdote may be instructive.  My wife and I have a Kurdish friend who came to the US in 1996.  As he became exposed to Christianity and compared it with the Islam he grew up with, he made this observation:  "If you take Islam to its logical conclusion, you've got to kill everyone who won't submit.  If you take Christianity to its logical conclusion, Christ died for us."  This, from an insider, Ms. Armour.

What the fan did was boorish.  What Mr. Rodgers did was the correct response to boorish behavior, but for wrong (but politically correct) reasons.  What you wrote was well-crafted and correct according to the received "wisdom" of our society, but inaccurate.
 

Thank you for your attention.

David J. Smith

My Career as a Pharmacy Tech

I spent eight horrible months as a pharmacy technician in a small-town outlet.  When I finally saw the handwriting on the wall, my main thought was, Why didn't I cut my losses sooner??  I should have been gone in four months, not eight.  I was introduced to a world I hardly knew existed.  I learned that a large percentage of the population lives from prescription to prescription.  Pain-killers are a very great portion of all scripts, and the people who are addicted to them (read: ALL OF THEM except a few post-op patients) are frantic if they don't get them.  The abuse is so widespread that we had a standing rule to double-count pain meds.  This got to be very tedious when the script called for 240 tabs (30 days x 8 tabs/day).  I'm in my sixties and on NO meds (a rarity, I'm told).  There were patients in there who were younger than me on as many as sixteen meds!  No, they didn't look healthy.  If YOU were on 16 prescriptions, do you think you'd look healthy?  My boss (pharmacist) was a walking stress test.  I can't believe he had been living like that for his forty-year career.  Like I said, at the eight-month point, it was time to GO...  I've never looked back and never regretted that decision.

Re: Isaac and Ishmael

 This was my comment on John Little's excellent article, The Heart of Darkness on Omegashock.com:


Great, great article and analysis! Such good material on so many fronts I can’t enumerate them all without fear of leaving someone out.
But I would like to add my second to your take on Islam. My wife and I spent several years overseas in Islamic countries and I can testify you’re spot on.
At one time I was thinking about the surface similarity between Islam and Judaism. There are so many parallels, e.g., fasting, almsgiving, food purity (halal=kosher), animal sacrifice to name a few. I remember thinking, There are so many similarities–why didn’t they just become Jews? Then a light went on...Ishmael would rather eat dog doodoo than join forces with his hated half-brother Isaac! So he concocted this religion, this counterfeit Judaism, both to establish his own brand and to get back into the good graces of his father Abraham, which he’s been trying to do for the last four thousand years. Remember, he was the firstborn, the heir, and was disenfranchised by his father in favor of his younger brother. You, having lived in the Middle East for as long as you have, understand that in these societies there is NOTHING that trumps inheritance. It’s all-important. Ishmael has been smarting over this all these centuries, and the enmity will never go away outside of Christ.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it! Blessings to you.

Re: Bank Bailouts, etc.

Observations: 

Mortgage debacle:  If the money given to the bankers (in 2008) had been given INDIRECTLY via paying off mortgages instead of directly into the banksters' pockets, the net result as far as the banksters were concerned would have been the same, but the effect on the economy would have been far, far different. Actually, even the banksters would have been better off, since their balance sheets would have been looking a lot better without all the defaults and foreclosures, AND they'd have the money to boot! Win-win-win. But then, how would we perpetuate the indebtedness with which the public is shackled? Such a dilemma!

Foreign Policy and Blowback:  As I view the madness with which our foreign policy is being conducted, I can't help but wonder if the opposition will be content to just watch us collapse economically into chaos, or if they'll be vindictive enough to attack when we're in that weakened state. My bet's on the latter.

Gold and Silver:  I'm amazed at the unwillingness of the public to buy at low prices, although the physical market is showing signs of rationality.

Untitled

Charlemagne (Re the devastation done by homosexuals to young boys):

I cannot help but wonder how many boys' lives, and their families' lives, must be destroyed to indulge the 1.75% of born deviants, mutants, who should abstain for the common good.

Me:

If I may offer a speculation on the motivations of that small minority who would destroy lives on the altar of their perversity--I think they realize that they are at odds with the whole fabric of the universe. This is too much of a mental/moral burden, so they feel compelled to destroy/remake the entire universe, if possible, to accommodate themselves and their sexual practices as normal. Whatever must be swept away will be. It's akin to Lenin's pronouncement that you've got to "break a few eggs (in his case, sacrifice perhaps 60 million lives) to make an omelet". The greater cause in Lenin's mind was the establishment of world communism. In the case of the militant homosexuals, it's the acceptance, even the approval, of their practices.  This is actually, if you think of it, no less of a paradigm shift than the acceptance of the marxist dialectic.

Christian Societies vs. Muslim Societies

Ron asked, in regard to the refugee crisis in Europe:

...what about my question of why Muslim countries are not taking care of these people fleeing war? Neighboring countries?

I replied:

Muslims don't really care for their own people. It's not in their worldview. You have to understand, whether you're a Christian or not, much of your worldview is shaped by your being born and living in an historically Bible-based culture. The fact you're even asking the question is evidence of that.

I was part of a Christian NGO that responded to the crisis in Iran after the earthquake in Bam some years back. My thoughts at the time were, "Hey, there's 70 million people in Iran. There are around half a million survivors of the earthquake in need of food, clothing, and shelter. You mean to tell me that 140 people in this society can't find the wherewithal to take care of one person's needs in an emergency?" And Iran wasn't a poverty-stricken basket case like, say, Bangladesh. Their per capita income is about a third of our obscenely wealthy level, and WAY above the level of the country my wife and I were living in at the time, so I had some perspective.

What the Iranians were doing in response to the crisis was to hamper and hamstring our efforts while diverting as much to their own pockets and Tehran as possible. And the grassroots efforts at sending aid and help to the devastated area that you'd expect in the US or any western country? ^Crickets.^

Some friends of mine were collecting clothing and sending it in semis to the affected areas. You know what the response of most of the recipients was? They threw the clothing on the ground since it wasn't new. I'm not sure if they were insulted being given second-hand clothing (much of what I wear was bought at thrift stores), or if they felt they'd be contaminated wearing what some infidel wore, I don't know.
Muslim societies are VERY different from historically Christian societies.

A Response to a New Convert to Animal Rights and Veganism

I too am (mostly) on a "whole-foods, plant-based diet". I've encountered a lot of "yeah, buts" when asked, but I think you can't argue with results. And people like Colin Campbell, John MacDougall, and Caldwell Esselstyn have results. The results are also evident in my own personal experience. The last time I had a thorough checkup the doctor said that all my results were "so normal, it's abnormal". At age 66, I work a job that requires much physical effort.

Having said that--I DO eat meat now and then and feel no qualms about doing so, except for the knowledge that I shouldn't do it too often, or too much. Since my worldview is informed by the Bible, I make a clear distinction between humans and animals. Yes, we ARE similar, physically, to animals--is that so surprising, since we occupy the same environment? But there is an enormous gulf between humans and animals, which even the animal-rights activists tacitly admit. The animal-rights groups are very convinced of our duty to act morally toward animals, a burden they would never place upon animals. In this respect, they are recognizing that we ARE different, and fulfilling the Biblical mandate to be stewards of the natural order, although they would never admit it.

That doesn't mean I advocate cruelty or wanton violence to animals. Far from it. Since we are the humans, the ones made in the image of God, we understand the moral aspects of our dealings with other living things. The animals do not. The steward (that's us) is placed OVER those things which are entrusted to him and for which he must give an accounting. The animal-rights proponents' logic, IMO, is a little skewed since it starts with the false premise that the difference between humans and animals is one of degree, not of kind, but their conclusion, that it is contingent upon humans to care for animals, and not vice-versa, is entirely consistent with their humanity.

I find it interesting that you admit your moral perceptions have been greatly influenced by your desires. That's a very great part of the human experience in a nutshell! However, we can't always arrive at correct conclusions regarding ethics, morality, or many other things simply starting from ourselves and working our way out by reasoning, because that same reasoning has been demonstrated by our own experience to lead to false conclusions. How do you know your original premise (eating "dead animals" is okay) was wrong, and your later conclusion was right?

On the subject of "rights": I don't use that term very often. Libertarians (and all other political groups) like to use the term to run interference for them, but I find I can't truthfully or honestly use it very often, or very forcefully. I find myself instead confronted with the reality of privileges, obligations, and blessings.

Symbolism and the Left's Success

Critical Weary was bitterly complaining about the left's indifference to, even support for, Communism when it is responsible for far more deaths worldwide than their favorite bogeyman, Nazism.  Scotty chimed in, describing the situation in his country of Scotland and wondering why people were so irrational.  Now that you have a little background, here's my contribution to the discussion:

Scotty,

Good commentary. The left IS irrational, that can’t be denied. How to explain the strength of the movement? They are very, very good with SYMBOLISM. I read a piece yesterday about how symbols are much more powerful than words, and a light went on. I suddenly realized why the left is so successful with their weak, pathetic arguments. They’ve mastered symbolism. Symbolism communicates at a deeper level and bypasses the logical functions. Trying to bring a cogent argument to such a person convinced by symbols is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

A couple of quotes from the article (http://allnewspipeline.com/Black_Magic_Satanists_Rule_World.php):

“Remember the saying of the Chinese sage Lao-Tzu, who said that “symbols rule the world, not rules or laws”? Symbols communicate at a deeper level than words, because they are decoded by the right, intuitive brain, whereas words are decoded by the left, logical brain. Symbols are able to penetrate more deeply into our subconscious”
“Words attempt to rule the world, but they can never be as powerful as symbols.”

You can go ahead a read the article–you may think it’s a little off-the-wall, but the writer makes very insightful comments about the nature of symbolism.

Rush Limbaugh, a spokesman for the right (with which/whom I’m not in total agreement) likes to characterize the left as “symbolism over substance”. Very true, and insightful.

We who would oppose the left’s lunacy need some of their fluency with symbols.

McDonald's struggling, Starbucks prospering. Comment on "Fast Coffee and the Internet" (Daily Bell)

The big difference between Mickey D's and Starbucks? McD's is fast food (and decent coffee) for the unwashed masses, while Starbucks is clearly aimed at the upscale techie. I wonder if Starbucks' business model would have flown in the '50s? You know, the era of 850-square-foot postwar boxes cleverly disguised as housing for the proletariat? Containing one bathroom, one TV, and one car in the driveway? The occupants of which were reveling in their new-found prosperity? Somehow, I doubt it. I doubt if Ralph Kramden would have patronized Starbucks. Our current ridiculous level of wealth makes the Starbucks phenomenon possible.

On Money

Part of a conversation with Max Hernandez, author of an interesting book entitled "Thieves (sic) Emporium"

Doublenickel:
"Smart boy. Money is what people say it is. And sometimes, people change their minds. So money is not always the same thing. Today, the answer to your question is dollars. But, tomorrow, it might be gold."
Sam, you forgot a key factor in your "subtle" definition: the reason people "say" the dollar is money is because the FedGov has a gun held to their heads demanding that they accept it in transactions. That's all. If those (legal tender) laws were revoked, OR if it became obvious to a critical mass that the gov is running a scam, people would "change their minds" in a heartbeat. Except for the cows, of which there are many. But even they'd learn soon.
What's the scam? I'm glad you asked. It's substituting that which is NOT money for that which IS.
NOW we need a definition, don't we?
Your definition excludes the free market, which is what Parker fears above all else. In order to arrive at a proper definition of money, you must include a free market IN MONEY, which we haven't had in a long time.

Max Hernandez:

If I may jump in here for Sam, please explain something to me. Is it your contention that the entire world economy has been, since 1971 (or 1933, or 1913, or 1694, take your pick) operating without money? And, as nearly as I can tell, also mostly without barter, right? So what do you call the type of economy that has been in existence since then, this strange beast that uses neither barter nor money?
Humanity needs something to facilitate three-party transactions. Without that 'thing', we would all be condemned to a tribal existence because specialization of labour would be practically impossible. You can play whatever games you want with definitions, but, for my 'money', that 'magic' substance, the one that allows civilization to exist, is always best called 'money'.
Are we using the U.S.Dollar for that 'magic substance' right now because we are forced to? Maybe. But the point is irrelevant as far as its definition is concerned. Whether pushed into using a particular candidate for it by force or not, money is what the marketplace chooses it to be.

doublenickel:

I know about money's solving the problem of coincidence of wants, so you needn't start from square one. You're using two terms that should be called something else: Money, and the US Dollar. What passes for "money" these days is really "currency". "Money" has the attribute of being a store of value. The so-called "US Dollar" doesn't have that attribute. As far as "US Dollar" is concerned, it should be called the Federal Reserve Note, or FRN. The term "US Dollar" has a definition. The use of that term by the authorities (not necessarily by yourself) in referring to the FRN is fraudulent.
"...money is what the marketplace chooses it to be." I agree. But in the case of the FRN, the marketplace didn't do the choosing. The choosing was done for us by our betters.
As an aside, people speak of substituting "paper" for metal. "Paper" is not what's being offered. The government printing press doesn't print paper per se, it prints documents. This is the scam. A document's value is not in itself, but in what it refers to, in the information contained. The dollar "bills" or Federal Reserve "notes" (both of which terms indicate debt) make a promise to pay. In the case of the dollar bill, it's 371.25 grains of silver or 1/20.67 ounce of gold. In the case of the FRN, it's...nothing.
Whether paper, base metal (in the case of coins), or computer entries, the FRN is a document which promises to pay nothing. To quote Ben Bernanke, FRNs can be created in unlimited quantities "at essentially zero cost". This is not a characteristic of an item of value. That is, it doesn't fit the definition of a scarce resource. The marketplace only assigns values to items which have this attribute of scarcity. This is why, in your (excellent) story, the FedGov was willing to summarily execute those attempting to cut in on its monopoly. They wouldn't do this to gold miners. On the contrary, they'd stand ready to buy their product.
BTW...JFK, like your fictitious characters, found out how serious the FedGov is about protecting its monopoly.

On the Holocaust

An email I sent my Uncle Frank (aka Fwank) in response to a forwarded editorial re Planned Parenthood's PR firm (in it, the writer recommended a mandatory tour of Auschwitz for the PR firm's members):

Uncle Fwank,

Thanks for forwarding this.  I took the tour in the summer of '89 during my stay in Krakow, just an hour away.  It's very sobering.  Followed up by Yad Vashem in Jerusalem in '93.  Double whammy.

But you know, I don't think we've got a generation here that would react in a human manner to such atrocity.  Frankly, I think if these folks were to take the mandatory tour, they'd be looking for the nearest McDonald's afterwards, having worked up an appetite:  "It's quite a long tour, y'know.  Looking at musty old relics and such.  Interesting for history buffs, but..."

Which is precisely why they're going to win the day on this one.  Because the whole society has caught their disease.  They really don't have to do much.  Just let Americans' short attention spans and tolerance for the grotesque and horrible do their work for them.  Sure, there are some RADICALS with POLITICAL AGENDAS out there who're trying to make a big deal out of this, but y'know, they don't care EVEN ONE LITTLE BIT about women's health.  They've LOST THEIR MORAL COMPASS (Harry Reid).

Blessings,

Dave

I don't see any other ethnic group besides Anglo-Saxons who freed another ethnic group on moral grounds at the cost of 630,000 men in all of history. And it looks like that was just the down payment. The Civil War, insofar as it was about slavery (there were other factors), was about the only disinterested war I can think of--where the motivation was not survival or economic gain, but rather, moral principle. What an amazing thing! What a testimony to the greatness of our nation and the Judeo-Christian values it was founded upon! No one else, no other nation that I can think of, would have even considered it. I guarantee that our present society, departed as it is from those values and given over to pragmatism and self-indulgence, would never make that sacrifice. Today we face another moral watershed--the killing of unborn children. Will we pass this test? There is a difference between the two, however: One, the enslavement of Africans didn't automatically involve their wholesale slaughter, and two, it's unlikely that those seeking to abolish state-sanctioned killing of the unborn will be asked to give their lives for their convictions. So in the present case, the compelling issue is even greater, while the sacrifice required is less. And even so, we can't seem to bring ourselves to deal with it. Woe to us.