PM Daily Market Commentary - 4/16/2018

davefairtex
By davefairtex on Tue, Apr 17, 2018 - 5:08am

Gold rose +0.30 [+0.02%] to 1348.90 on moderate volume, while silver moved up +0.02 [+0.12%] to 16.66 on heavy volume. The buck was hit for -0.42%, a relatively large move, but the drop in the buck did not seem to help the metals much at all. It seemed that the safe haven bid under the metals weakened substantially, perhaps because the limited US strike on Syria this past weekend appeared more symbolic than substantive.

Gold chopped mostly sideways today, with the resulting doji candle being neutral. The forecaster wasn't happy, dropping -0.16 to -0.09, which is a sell signal for gold. Maybe the forecaster didn't like the falling dollar combined with no price movement for gold.

COMEX GC open interest rose 3,394 contracts.

Rate rise chances (June 2018) remains at 95%.

Silver also ended up mostly unchanged, printing a neutral long-legged doji candle. Unlike gold, silver forecaster liked the outcome, rising +0.18 to +0.08, which was a buy signal for silver.  How can silver show a buy, while gold shows a sell?  Perhaps the rally in industrial metals today supports a higher silver price.

COMEX SI open interest fell by -3,670 contracts today.

The gold/silver ratio fell -0.06 to 80.94. That's slightly bullish.

Miners fell slightly, with GDX down -0.39% on moderately heavy volume, while GDXJ edged down -0.09 on moderate volume. GDX printed a relatively benign dark cloud cover, while GDXJ printed a neutral spinning top. XAU forecaster moved up +0.07 to +0.24, and remains in an uptrend.

Today, the GDXJ:GDX ratio rose, while the GDX:$GOLD ratio fell. Call it neutral.

Platinum fell -0.19%, palladium climbed +1.27%, while copper rallied +0.75%. That marks 6 straight days up for palladium, while platinum chops sideways, and copper is struggling to recover.

The buck fell -0.38 [-0.42%] to 89.04. Forecaster dropped -0.13 to -0.61, which is a strong downtrend. The buck avoided making a new low today, but not by very much. In spite of the fairly large move down, the falling dollar was not much help to the metals. This tells you that gold in Euros did poorly, which is not good; I promised you a gold breakout if the buck kept falling, but given the weakness in Europe, I'm now not so sure that will happen.

Crude fell -1.01 [-1.50%] to 66.32, retreating somewhat from the new high made last Friday. The forecaster didn't like the plunge, dropping -0.25 to +0.02, which is just barely an uptrend. Crude too appeared to suffer from a somewhat more relaxed geopolitical situation.

SPX rose +21.54 [+0.81%] to 2677.84. The spinning top candle print was a bullish continuation, while the forecaster was unchanged at +0.46; that's a moderate uptrend. Utilities led (XLU:+1.37%) while financials trailed (XLF:+0.44%); this is not a bullish pattern. Utilities are slowly recovering from the lows set back in February.

VIX plunged -0.85 to 16.56.

TLT rallied +0.03%, printing a bullish belt hold candle which had a 55% chance of being a bullish reversal. Forecaster agreed, jumping +0.52 to +0.14, which is a buy signal for TLT. TY did not confirm this move, edging down -0.03%, printing a neutral doji candle, and TY forecaster dropped -0.01 to -0.26, and remains in a downtrend. The 10-year yield remains at 2.83%, unchanged.

JNK moved up +0.14%, having moved up 8 of the last 9 days. Forecaster rose +0.10 to +0.80, which is a strong uptrend. Less junky cousin HYB rallied +1.02%, triggering a forecaster buy signal. HYB is down nearly 14% over the past 5 months.

CRB edged down -0.08, with 3 of 5 sectors dropping, led by agriculture (-1.14%). Industrial metals still managed to rally strongly, up +2.69%. In spite of today's slight loss, CRB is quite near the highs set back in February.

It seemed as though geopolitical concerns have faded after a weekend US strike on Syria appeared to be more symbolic than anything else. Worries that John Bolton (who apparently advocated a much larger strike) would drive the national security agenda proved unfounded – at least for now.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/4/16/17242296/us-bombing-syria-trump-bolton

And the White House maintains that Trump still wants to pull US troops out of Syria as quickly as possible.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-trump-troops/white-house-trump-wants-u-s-forces-in-syria-to-come-home-as-quickly-as-possible-idUSKBN1HM116

All this is negative, near term, for gold as well as crude prices – but probably positive from the standpoint of near-term world peace.

Note: If you're reading this and are not yet a member of Peak Prosperity's Gold & Silver Group, please consider joining it now. It's where our active community of precious metals enthusiasts have focused discussions on the developments most likely to impact gold & silver. Simply go here and click the "Join Today" button.

 

33 Comments

Cold Rain's picture
Cold Rain
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2016
Posts: 382
Early

Looks like I was a day early with my call for gold blowing up.  At least equities want to rally strongly.  Once they retake the 100 dma, they should be off to the races.

One question I have, related to the discussion in the last blog post:  Is it actually legal for us to launch missiles or conduct an overt military campaign against another country without congressional approval?  I mean, does this violate the constitution in any way, or can we just do whatever we want as long as we have some "evidence" that supports it?

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5694
legality of launching military action

Well I suspect the strict constitutionalists would say that only Congress has the power to declare War, and absent such a declaration, the President, even though he's the CinC of the armed forces, cannot order them into action on his own authority.

The War Powers Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution) was an attempt after Vietnam to corral the tendency of Presidents to order our troops into action without a DoW.  Korea, after all, was a four year "Police Action" - not a war.

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.  The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding the veto of the bill from President Nixon.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.

Afghanistan and all the 9/11 follow-on activity was justified by the very broadly-interpreted AUMF passed by Congress on a 537-1 vote just 3 days after 9/11.  The AUMF, which has no end date, is worded like this:

... the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The DoD has added two words, I'm not quite sure how, to the AUMF: "associated forces".  Wiki continues:

The AUMF has also been cited by a wide variety of US officials as justification for continuing US military actions all over the world. Often the phrases "Al-Qaeda and associated forces" or "affiliated forces" have been used by these officials. However, that phrase does not appear in the AUMF.[12]

According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, published May 11, 2016, at that time the 2001 AUMF had been cited 37 times in connection with actions in 14 countries and on the high seas. The report stated that "Of the 37 occurrences, 18 were made during the Bush Administration, and 18 have been made during the Obama Administration." The countries that were mentioned in the report included Afghanistan, Cuba (Guantanamo Bay), Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Philippines, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. [13]

From what I understand, all military actions taken by the executive following 9/11 have used that AUMF as justification.

Radiolab had a masterful piece on the subject:

https://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/

My guess is, the only real check on a President is Congress, which would have to act to impeach the President for violating either the War Powers Act and/or usurping the constitutional authority of Congress to declare war.

It would be a nice first step if Congress would repeal the post 9/11 AUMF.

But to answer your question, Under the War Powers Act, it seems that the President can attack other countries for up to 90 days before he runs afoul of Congressional authority.

Under what authority are we engaged in Syria for the last N years?  My guess: its that gift-that-just-keeps-giving, the 9/11 AUMF.

 

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5979
International Legality of Launching attacks
Cold Rain wrote:

One question I have, related to the discussion in the last blog post:  Is it actually legal for us to launch missiles or conduct an overt military campaign against another country without congressional approval?  I mean, does this violate the constitution in any way, or can we just do whatever we want as long as we have some "evidence" that supports it?

Speaking internationally, the attacks were absolutely not in alignment with either UN charters and/or protocols, or resting upon any relevant legal precedents.

Under Article 51 of the UN charter, of which the US is a signatory, only self defense is a permitted use of force against another sovereign nation.  The one exception to that is if there's complete unanimity among the permanent members of the security council, which never even got to vote on the matter.  So there's nothing in the UN framework that would have permitted or sanctioned the attack.

The UK PM had to justify the UK's actions before Parliament so we know what they did to try and make sense o fit all.  Needless to say, Theresa May's efforts were really exceptionally lame in that regard.

From Craig Murray's site:

Dapo Akande, Professor of Public International Law, Oxford University, gave this opinion for the Labour Party…

In the opinion I reach the following conclusions:

1. Contrary to the position of the government, neither the UN charter nor customary international law permits military action on the basis of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. There is very little support by states for such an exception to the prohibition of the use of force. The UK is one of very few states that advocates for such a legal principle but the vast majority of states have explicitly rejected it.

Theresa May claimed that "customary international law" permits such bombings but there's no such customary international law in the first place.  As you might imagine, many smaller and weaker nations explicitly reject the idea that larger powers can come in and bomb them willy-nilly.  If "the vast majority" of states reject this principle, it cannot be "customary."

2. The legal position advanced by the government ignores the structure of the international law rules relating to the use of force, in particular, because a customary international law rule does not prevail over the rule in the United Nations charter prohibiting the use of force. To accept the position advocated by the government would be to undermine the supremacy of the UN charter.

The above is simple enough...UN law has already been agreed upon by all parties to be supreme.  For the UK to suddenly be claiming there's an heretofore unknown and superior law that they cannot actually cite, is beyond preposterous.  "Your honor, I cannot be tried for murder because I am now citing the usual and customary practice of determining the precise length of someone's lifespan for them.  No, I don't have any case law or precedents to go on, but I am invoking this principle nonetheless!"

3. Even if there was a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in international law, the strikes against Syria would not appear to meet the tests set out by the government. The action taken by the government was not directed at bringing “immediate and urgent relief” with regard to the specific evil it sought to prevent, and was taken before the inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were able to reach the affected area.

Here I would only ask what sort of "humanitarian intervention" is advanced by bombing what you claim are the factories and storage depots where dangerous chemical weapons are allegedly made and kept?  This argument too just leaves one's jaw flapping uselessly.

Of course, we all know that those sites had no such dangerous chemicals because of all the people touring the bombed out facilities the next day wearing only street clothes and not even dust masks.

So given that, we can be assured that the FUKUS coalition knew that too.  Which then begs the question what sort of humanitarian intervention is it to destroy a few non-threatening buildings even before any investigation had or could have taken place?

All in all, just an illegal use of force that really puts the icing on Russia's previous assertion that the FUKUS coalition are "not agreement capable."

  

 

Cold Rain's picture
Cold Rain
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2016
Posts: 382
Thank You

Thank you, guys, for the good information.  That is really helpful.  And it's really unsettling that we can essentially invade another country for any number of ridiculous assertions.  There is an ethical argument to be made if you have a genocide or something like that going on.  You have the power to act, so you should.  Or if you have a situation where you know for sure you're about to be nuked and you need to strike preemptively.  I can wrestle with either of those situations.  But this was clearly manufactured for a purpose that is still unclear to me.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5694
international law v. neorealism

I was quoting US law because US courts make rulings, and then US police forces enforce the rulings, so there is a "sovereign force" operating behind the law.  In other words, there is someone, ultimately, wearing a gun and a flag under cover of authority that takes action to enforce the rulings of the court.  As a result, what the US law says actually matters in real life.

That's just not true in the international arena.

There's a useful theory on this topic called Neorealism, expounded by Kenneth Waltz, which attempts to explain outcomes in international politics as an effect of the structure of the international system.

1) The international system’s ordering principle is anarchy.  There is no such thing as a world government, there is no supra-national authority that exists and is superior to the individual governments, who are sovereign and autonomous.

2) This structural anarchy results in a "self-help" system, where each state by and large operates on its own without having recourse to any higher authority.  Each state must be prepared to fend for itself.

3) While each state looks similar structurally (borders, passports, armies & navies, etc), the power and/or capabilities of the states varies significantly.  Variations in power yield variations in the types and magnitude of the structural constraints that states face.

4) Variations in power distribution end up being the key driver in the interactions between states and they tend to drive outcomes in the international system.

Or, to put it less theoretically, there is no international law.  He who has the guns makes the rules.  Although, socialization eventually does seem to occur, even with states that start out as "outlaw regimes."  Power will expand until it is opposed by a countervailing force.

Here's a nifty piece that summarizes Waltz and neorealism, from which I cribbed some of my summary:

http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2013/11/06/neorealism-in-international-relations-kenneth-waltz/

Bottom line: discussing international law when trying to determine potential constraints on the actions of nation-states is probably a waste of time, because - structurally speaking - international law doesn't actually exist.

This theory was viewed with some distaste by my more liberal friends back when I first ran into it, but I found it to be a good grounding for explaining how the real world worked.

Luke Moffat's picture
Luke Moffat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 25 2014
Posts: 384
Excellent info
davefairtex wrote:

From what I understand, all military actions taken by the executive following 9/11 have used that AUMF as justification.

Radiolab had a masterful piece on the subject:

https://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/

Wow, excellent podcast. From the music selection of the memorial service (the Battle Hymn of the Republic) to the hostility Representative Lee faced for voting down the AUMF - as insightful as it gets. In short, if you don't grant the President the ability to wage war against whoever he pleases you are a traitor and a terrorist. So much for the Republic...

I was thinking the same about Theresa May, how could she conduct attacks against another sovereign nation state without the approval of Parliament? As the article Chris references highlights, the UK doesn't have a AUMF equivalent (until the Deep State determines otherwise) and so she is forced to issue a worthless legal testimony.

There are a lot of references to three separate Assad endorsed gas attacks in the UK government's legal case - the latest of which appears to be a dust storm caused by shelling in cramped, underground shelters;

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-rob...

 

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 157
Scofflaws at all levels
davefairtex wrote:

Or, to put it less theoretically, there is no international law.  He who has the guns makes the rules.  

International law exists as an attempt to provide a just, peaceful basis for relationships between states, and to facilitate trade and travel. If the US destroys the system of international law, the world (and that includes US citizens) will suffer the consequences.

If we allow our US government to behave as an international hooligan and scofflaw, then why should we expect any better on a local or basis?

The US Constitution? The Magna Carta? Relics of ancient times. He who has the guns makes the rules? 

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5694
its about enforcement

International law exists as an attempt to provide a just, peaceful basis for relationships between states, and to facilitate trade and travel. If the US destroys the system of international law, the world (and that includes US citizens) will suffer the consequences.

Domestic law has power because there are armed agents of the state who will enforce it.  International law has no power because there is no supra-national organization with armed agents who will enforce it.

It is really just that simple.

The Fat Tonys of the world understand this intuitively; it is only the Dr. Johns of the world that have trouble wrapping their brains around it.

For areas of international law that don't threaten important national interests, then everyone is happy enough to go along - passport controls, embassy-as-national-territory, and so on.  But good luck stopping Saudi Arabia from bombing the crap out of Yemen...

Ultimately, every nation will be a scofflaw when they have the power, and they perceive their national interest to be at stake.  That's the core of neorealist international political theory.

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 157
Only one nation is the problem.

International law was conceived of, in a world that was more multi-polar. And it's never worked all that well. But, conceptually, there's nothing wrong with the idea of an international coalition that could step in to "stop Saudi Arabia from bombing the crap out of Yemen".

The real problem right now, is that the US outspends the rest of the world combined on military power. And  it's behaving like a street gang leader, enabling its partners in crime (like, for example, Saudi Arabia.) And, as you say, enforcing international law only to the extent that it's convenient.

Your statement that every nation would behave as a scofflaw if it could, strikes me as an example of blaming the victim. But if it's true, the only answer is to build a multipolar world. And, to fight against the political-economic machine in the US which is acting as an international scofflaw.

The real question here, is whether Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea & etc. are truly forming an alliance that will challenge Anglo-American hegemony.

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2892
FIFY
jerryr wrote:

The real question here, is whether Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea & etc. are truly forming an alliance that will challenge Anglo-Zionist hegemony.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5694
international law

International law was conceived of, in a world that was more multi-polar. And it's never worked all that well. But, conceptually, there's nothing wrong with the idea of an international coalition that could step in to "stop Saudi Arabia from bombing the crap out of Yemen".

Well sure.  A bunch of nations could gang up on Saudi Arabia.  But that's not "international law", that's a bunch of nations ganging up on Saudi Arabia.

Problem is, nobody cares enough to gang up on Saudi Arabia, because it is not in their interest to do so, and so "international law" gets ignored.  And that is my entire point.  Without a "cop on the beat", there is no international law.  Laws that aren't enforced, don't exist - for all practical purposes anyway.

Post a speed limit of 35, but don't put any traffic cops on the street.  How many people will obey? None, once they figure out there is no enforcement.  That's international law.  Posted traffic signs, with no traffic cops.

Your statement that every nation would behave as a scofflaw if it could, strikes me as an example of blaming the victim. But if it's true, the only answer is to build a multipolar world. And, to fight against the political-economic machine in the US which is acting as an international scofflaw.

I'm not blaming the victim.  I'm saying that behavior is an outgrowth of the anarchic nature of the international order.

Back when England was at the top of the heap, they too ignored "international law" when they felt like it.  Case in point: Leopard-Chesapeake affair in 1807.  British 50-gun two-decker attacked and boarded a US 38-gun frigate in search of British Navy deserters who were serving on the US vessel.  After the US ship refused to cough up the people in question, Leopard fired several broadsides into the US ship, killing 3 and wounding 18, which then surrendered.  (The losing US captain was later court-martialed).  4 people were dragged from the US ship, one of which (a British citizen) was later hanged at the yardarm for desertion.   Utterly outrageous conduct on the part of England - attacking a US Navy ship in a time of peace just in order to retrieve British deserters.  But since they had 600 warships and the US had 6..."international law" was whatever the British Admiral in the area said it was at the time. Sound familiar?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake%E2%80%93Leopard_affair

I claim: it doesn't matter who is at the top of the heap.  They will all behave the same way.

If you replace the US with a pair of nations (Russia + China, lets say), then they will become the hegemon, and they will dictate what "international law" happens to be.  Will they act better?  Worse?  They'll probably act just the same.  Whatever works for them at the moment - that will be "international law", until it stops working, and then something else will become "international law."

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5694
multi-polar worlds

Your concept of "building a multi-polar world" requires rough power equality.  Given the anarchic nature of the international system, it can't be done by any other mechanism.  Simply "passing a law" saying the world is now multi-polar won't work.  What you want requires a number of other nations to engage in a military build-up in order to achieve rough military parity with the US.  That, or you want to get the US to unilaterally disarm.  Or both.

And let's say that somehow you can convince the US to disarm at the same time you convince the other nations to build up their armed forces.  And after all the military spending was done, and there was rough military equality among nations, we would still see nations forming alliances in order to gain advantage over one another.  But the oppressive actions taken would no longer be unilateral, they'd be done by a group.

If you focus on "the US is the problem" or "the Zionist axis" is the problem - you are missing the point.  Most of the bad acts are an emergent property of power imbalance in a state of anarchy.

That said - some actors do seem to be better (or less-worse) than others.  The US is almost certainly not as bad as, say, Nazi Germany would have been under similar circumstances.  Hitler shipped millions of other people's citizens off to death camps, and we don't do that.  Stalin deliberately starved ten million Ukrainians - we don't do that.

I believe "who the hegemon is" does matter, but all hegemonic powers act fairly ruthlessly in their own national interest.  Replace the US with China - then you will get to complain about China acting ruthlessly in its national interest.  In the 1930s, Japan was the hegemon in Asia.  Anyone remember what they did?  The people in Nanking haven't forgotten.  Nor have the Koreans.

I'd like the US to spend less on defense.  If things were less unipolar, fewer terrorists would target the US.  But I do not think peace would suddenly break out around the world.  Wars would be fought for different reasons, by different people.  Would nuclear proliferation bring more peace?  That's really hard to say.  Maybe.  Or maybe it would bring catastrophe.  Maybe what we have is the least-worst option available.

If Nazi Germany had the bomb, what would have happened?  How about 1930s Japan?

I don't have answers - just explanations.

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 157
Traffic laws represent social consensus
Quote:

Post a speed limit of 35, but don't put any traffic cops on the street.  How many people will obey? None, once they figure out there is no enforcement. 

It's been months since I've seen a traffic cop on the rural road that I use when I go into town. Drivers comply with the speed limit on that road (give or take a few mph) because the speed limit is consistent with safe operating conditions for a wide variety of vehicles including log trucks and RV's that use the road. The idea that everyone on the road is secretly longing to risk their lives by driving twice the speed limit, for thrills or to get to town five minutes earlier, is not true.

Quote:

Hitler shipped millions of other people's citizens off to death camps, and we don't do that.  Stalin deliberately starved ten million Ukrainians - we don't do that.

A frequently offered justification: no matter how bad the US might be, Hitler and Stalin were worse. But, Hitler was largely invented, financed and promoted by Anglo-American/Zionist interests, for the purpose of fighting Stalin. And, Stalin didn't deliberately starve ten million Ukrainians. See:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/03/the-holodomor-and-the-film-bitter-harvest-are-fascist-lies/

Quote:

I don't have answers - just explanations.

Exactly. Somehow, the human race needs to evolve to a higher level of consciousness, a general recognition that war and other violations of international law are Not Acceptable. We need international traffic cops, yes, but also we need law-abiding national entities. Otherwise nuclear holocaust will be the end of us all.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5694
truth finally appears

At last the truth is coming out.

I have done an extensive amount of studying on Germany during the period 1933-1945.  I've spent years studying, from all sides and all perspectives.  Your statement that "Hitler was largely invented, financed and promoted by Anglo-American/Zionist interests for the purpose of fighting Stalin" is ... well let's just say it doesn't fit the facts.  It doesn't even make sense.

However, it definitely aligns with what a Russian might like to believe happened.  Never mind the Nazi-Soviet pact to chop up Poland in 1939.  Or Russia's attack on Finland in 1939-1940.  Or the execution of all those Polish officers - also in 1939.  Or the seizure of Eastern Europe in 1945.  The invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.  The invasion of Hungary in 1956.

Those were also driven by Zionist plots, I assume, that threatened Poor Mother Russia, who simply had to respond (with invasions) in order to protect itself.  Right?

Here's a key question, one I suspect you won't answer: please list the actions that Russia has taken over the last 100 years where you believe they were in the wrong.

Are there any?

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 157
What is truth?

Dave,

The first truth is that I am an American, writing these words in Eugene, Oregon. On my father's side, my ancestors came as refugees from the Irish potato famine. On my mother's side, mostly Pennsylvania Dutch, but also descended from John Alden, a signer of the Mayflower Compact.

You are welcome to come visit my farm if you like, or whatever else it would take to convince you to quit making these insinuations.

Oddly enough, my grandfather may have been responsible for my sympathy to the Russian side of the story. He believed that Communism was a superior economic system, and often said so at the family dinner table. My mother was horrified.

Quote:

I have done an extensive amount of studying on Germany during the period 1933-1945.

Perhaps so. But I'm curious if you're familiar with: Antony Sutton's books "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" and "Wall Street and the Bolsheviks"; and Guido Preparata's "Conjuring Hitler"?

It's not as if my suggestion is an idea I came up with on my own. Although those authors would, of course, hedge with elaborations and complications to my undoubtedly oversimplified summary.

Funny you should mention "Zionist plots". I was a little reluctant to use the "Zionist" word, because it's so easily misinterpreted as just a code word for "Jewish". I include Christian Zionists, British Israel cultists, and even Saudi Arabian (Wahabbi) Zionists in the category. 

The Zionists do seem to have had their finger in the Bolshevik revolution. Putin is trying to have it both ways, simultaneously maintaining Russian Orthodox and Zionist alliances. Typical politician, hard to tell where his true loyalties are.

Quote:

Never mind the Nazi-Soviet pact to chop up Poland in 1939.  Or Russia's attack on Finland in 1939-1940.  Or the execution of all those Polish officers - also in 1939.  Or the seizure of Eastern Europe in 1945.  The invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.  The invasion of Hungary in 1956.

I don't see anything here that constitutes an argument against my thesis. What is your analysis of the logical reasoning behind Hitler's choice to carry out his suicidal attack against Russia?

Russia's attacks on Poland and Finland were certainly problematic from the standpoint of international law, although (as you point out) Russia was under threat from Hitler, and might arguably have had a right of self defense. The Nazi-Soviet pact on Poland was an appeasement on Russia's part that didn't work out so well for them.

The invasions of Czechoslovakia and Hungary were clear examples of imperialist overreach on the Soviet Union's part. I don't have anything to say in defense of those actions.

I could also go further back in history to find examples of Russian bad behavior according to standards of international justice: the Russian imperialist conquest of Siberian indigenous people from 1580 to 1640, for example. Or, Peter I's conquest of Ukraine, or Catherine II's battles against the Ottomans. Those actions left fault lines that are still problematic today.

But you're right: I have a hard time coming up with any actions on Russia's part over the past 100 years, that would begin to compare with the atrocities of the Anglo-American/Zionists during that same period.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5694
thanks

Thanks for your detailed reply.

I think I'm clear now where you're coming from.

 

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 157
So we're in agreement? Or, ?....

Do I get to ask a question now?

Do you believe that Oswald killed JFK?

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5694
oswald

jerryr-

Well, he could have.  Or someone else could have.  Just from the physical standpoint, there were many wounds, not enough bullets, and Oswald ended up dead before he could defend himself.  Too many organizations stood to gain from Kennedy's death.

As for us being in agreement...no, not so much.  But we don't share a common view of reality, so I am choosing to withdraw and leave the field to you.

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 157
Wow...

"From the physical standpoint, there were many wounds, not enough bullets". And yet, you say he could have done it? I say it's flatly impossible.

Indeed we do not share a common version of reality. You are drinking far too deeply from the waters of uncertainty.

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/COPA1998EMS.html

Quote:

Think of this for a moment. The Warren Report is an obvious criminal act of fraud and no history department in any college or university is willing to say so. What does such silence mean?

It means that we are dealing with something that has affected every history department of every college and university in our society, every major newspaper and magazine, and all means of mass communication. It has affected virtually every “loyal American.” This phenomenon is what George Orwell in his novel 1984 called “crimestop” or “protective stupidity.”

According to Orwell, “crimestop” is really a form of self mind control in which we find the affected individual “stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought ... not grasping analogies ... failing to perceive logical errors ... misunderstanding the simplest arguments ... and ... being bored or repelled by any train of thought” if such is inimical to the powers that be.

As a clinician, I look at “crimestop” as a mass psychological illness, an involuntary intellectual, emotional and spiritual illness, part of the psychology of war which has pervaded our society.

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 157
And a question for Chris...

Up until a couple years ago, the question I just asked of Dave would have been banished to the "controversial topics" forum. I see there haven't been any posts to that forum since 2017, and topics such as this are now frequently discussed on the regular forums.

Do you believe there's any uncertainty about whether Oswald killed JFK? Or for that matter, whether Bin Laden orchestrated 9/11?

Do you share any common version of reality with Dave Fairtex?

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5694
asking better questions

What you asked me was, "do you believe that Oswald killed Kennedy."  I answered, "he could have."

Let's imagine a situation where Oswald was one of a team of three people shooting at Kennedy, recruited by - say - an element in the CIA that was angry about Kennedy's failure to support the invasion of Cuba.

Under that scenario, which I think is one of several different possible scenarios, it is entirely possible that Oswald could have been the one to fire the fatal shot.  Therefore, in that scenario, it is entirely possible he killed Kennedy.  Say its a 33% chance.  But only in that scenario.

There are many other scenarios too, in which he fired no shots at all - where he wasn't even involved.

Its pretty clear you want to commence an attack of some sort on me, and this is your first attempt, because I refuse to talk to you about your issues that you really, really want me to agree with you about.  I'll feed this new beast for a  brief period, but if you continue in this vein, I'm going to withdraw once again, because it won't lead anywhere interesting.  For me, at least.

In the meantime - try asking better questions.

 

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 157
Nothing was wrong with my question.

I asked you a simple question, and you gave a trick answer.

Before that, you were insinuating that I'm a Russian troll. So for whatever it's worth, I believe you started with the ad hominem personal attacks first.

And yes, you're really good at Not Talking about what I am really trying to talk about.

No further questions. See you around the forum.

 

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 157
And by the way, that is a bizarre thesis about Oswald.

I want to point out that Dave Fairtex's proposed JFK assassination scenario doesn't work. It's pretty clear from the ballistic evidence that JFK was shot from the front, while Oswald was allegedly shooting from the rear. So we don't have to worry about the possibility that Oswald was the one who fired the killing shot.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5694
i tried

jerryr-

I tried to withdraw in a polite, tactful way, thanking you for your response.  You had to push it.  So I replied to you that we didn't share the same view on reality.

This seemed to make you upset, so you tried to 'set me up' with the whole Kennedy assassination question.  The question you selected for your ambush was vague.  You could have asked, "do you believe Oswald acted alone?"  My response would have been, "almost certainly not."  You could have said, "do you believe there was a larger conspiracy to kill Kennedy""  My response would have been, "Yes, I think so."

Not my problem you chose the wrong question for your setup.

Perhaps next time you could just leave it alone when I attempt to tactfully thank you for your response.

 

 

 

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 157
Not polite at all.

"We do not share the same view of reality" is rather obviously a euphemistic way of saying "I think you're crazy. Your views are beneath consideration." And for the rest, you sound like a lawyer, or a school marm. I don't consider you a polite person at all.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5694
thanks

jerry-

"We do not share the same view of reality" is rather obviously a euphemistic way of saying "I think you're crazy. Your views are beneath consideration." And for the rest, you sound like a lawyer, or a school marm. I don't consider you a polite person at all.

Thanks for your feedback.

 

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 157
More feedback

I am not a polite person either.

It seems to me that your theory about Oswald is a perfect example of the sort of fuzzy thinking that E. Martin Schotz was talking about in his article. You're suggesting maybe it was a very small conspiracy, an innocent conspiracy. 

An American president is murdered in cold blood, an obvious coverup of government complicity ensues, and "no history department in any college or university is willing to say so." The lies continue unabated in the mass media to this day, about this and a thousand other topics.

Now, we as Americans have been immersed in this flood of propaganda for more than 50 years. Maybe all of us on the planet have been immersed in a flood of propaganda since the dawn of history.

Isn't it time for a little humility about what this immersion in nonsense might have done to us and our grasp on reality?

And with all due respect, I think that Schotz's diagnosis, of an "involuntary intellectual, emotional and spiritual illness, part of the psychology of war which has pervaded our society" seems apropos.

Otherwise, you wouldn't be looking for a Russian troll behind every post.

 

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5694
anything else

Yep.  Anything more?

 

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 157
Yep. Let's talk about American exceptionalism.

I am still waiting for an apology about the Russian Troll insinuation. I guess I'm not going to get it.

So let's suppose that I am completely lying about my Mayflower heritage (and I assure you, I'm not) and let's assume instead that I am a citizen of Mother Russia. So what?? In what way would your privileged American exceptional opinions be so superior to my Russian opinions? 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5694
i'm going to pass

I'm going to pass on the opportunity for more dialog with you.  I just wanted to give you a chance to get out what it is you wanted to say, and then we'd be done.

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 157
Odd...

You seem to want to be done with me, but you never, never let me have the last word.

As I said earlier, I expect I'll be commenting again to your posts here at this forum. So, no, we're not done yet.

Adam Taggart's picture
Adam Taggart
Status: Peak Prosperity Co-founder (Offline)
Joined: May 26 2009
Posts: 3213
Stepping In Here
jerryr wrote:

You seem to want to be done with me, but you never, never let me have the last word.

As I said earlier, I expect I'll be commenting again to your posts here at this forum. So, no, we're not done yet.

OK -- I had hoped this would resolve with some civility, but it's hasn't. So I'm stepping in here to moderate.

Jerry: your back & forth with Dave has now crossed the line into badgering/baiting.

This is not consistent with our clear commenting guidelines. I recommend strongly you read them before posting again.

In particular, please pay attention to this section:

We expect and require courteous interactions everywhere comments can be posted to the site. In an online community, social courtesies are observed, just as at a physical gathering.  One doesn't monopolize the conversation, pound the table about a single point until others' eyes glaze over, insult their host or their fellow guests, or spew patently offensive slurs.  Tactfulness is a reasonable expectation within a voluntary community.  

Please ask yourself these questions before making a post:

  1. Does my post constructively illuminate an issue or answer a specific question?
  2. If constructively critical, is it emotionally neutral and considerate? Does it offer specific, actionable solutions?
  3. If asking a question, is it a bona fide question that will lead to an increased understanding of the "Thee Es" and related topics?

Users should strive to post with integrity, accuracy and courtesy.  We expect that users will not abuse their anonymity by posting things that a polite individual would refrain from saying in person. 

You clearly don't agree with Dave's reasoning and, instead of respecting that two intelligent people can see an issue from different sides, you seem intent on browbeating him into acquiescing to your point of view. That's not how we do things on this site.

He has politely declined to engage further, which is entirely his right. I would defend you in the same manner were the situation reversed.

Please respect Dave's wishes to "politely disagree" or your future comments will be placed on 'moderator review' and not be posted to the site until/unless a moderator has deemed them in alignment with our site guidelines.

Of course, you are welcome to post any clarifications of your position that you wish. Just leave Dave out of it.

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 157
Hello Adam

Do you have anything to say about Dave's baiting of me as a Russian troll way back in post #14 of this thread, along with the badgering demand to engage either in Russian state apologetics or Russian-bashing?

You would have my permission to delete the tail end of this conversation so that it ends at post #15 or #16, if you feel that the rest doesn't contribute positively to the site. Or wherever else you feel it went off the rails.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments