Skip to main content

The Case For Gold Gets Stronger

By now it's no secret that the Comex market is basically bogus.  It's a paper contracts markets settled in cash, almost never in delivered gold. It's been the mainstay of an arsenal of available weapons that interested parties can use to manipulate the gold price, here is my post from a year ago on the subject:

I would like to expand on this a bit, because here is a link from Zero Hedge that explores the theme further:

For a few years now I've been writing posts on a variety of different aspects of the gold price being manipulated, not just by market sculpting entities, not just because gold is a "safe-haven" investment in turbulent times (a superficial analysis which I hate because it cheapens the whole issue) but also by central banks that have have a vested interest in the inverse relationship between gold and fiat currency.  This is a key element that I often discuss because there are geopolitical (not just market) indicators we need to be following, and I don't see enough emphasis on this (obviously) by the talking head puppets on Bloomberg or MSNBC.

The key geopolitical factor is the icing over of relations between BRICS nations and the West, particularly Russia and China.  Those nations have been on an absolute gold buying binge.


As it turns out they may be buying substantially more than we actually realize.  See Here:

 I think it would not be unfair to accuse someone looking exclusively backwards at charts and trends (not looking forward in the real world) of having their heads in the sand.

Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.

Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…