Rob Kirby Seethes at those who would deny PM manipulation - disappearing thread

Jim H
By Jim H on Thu, Mar 17, 2016 - 8:50am

Well.. for the first time ever that I can remember, a thread of mine has completely disappeared off the website... I take this as high praise!  I must have really hit the target.

The main point of my thread was to highlight some audio commentary by Rob Kirby whereby he suggests that he is privy to some upcoming regulatory action, against a bank or banks, which will blow open the truth of PM manipulation.  Here is the link;

  http://www.davejanda.com/guests/rob-kirby/sunday-march-13-2016

Dave and I had our usual back and forth, with Dave suggesting that the creation of something like 470 tons of paper Gold in 10 weeks time, i.e. the increase in open interest over the recent period of Gold's price rise, was not a lot, relative to all existing Gold, or yearly mined Gold (nearly 3000 tons).  I suggested that this was in fact a LOT of Gold relative to the paltry amount of real Gold Comex delivers these days;

https://smaulgld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/comex-v-sge-since-2008-2015.png

I highly suggest listening to the audio.  We shall see if Rob's prediction about upcoming regulator action becoming public, in the next few weeks, turns out to be true.  I think Rob's tone speaks for itself as he discusses those who would deny the truth of PM price manipulation.   

41 Comments

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
They disappeared my thread on this topic.....

Team PP.com... somehow, for the first time ever in my experience, an entire thread of mine has disappeared off the website.  This is therefore a repost of the general idea, sans some back and forth between myself and Davefairtex.  I received no PM's on the topic, so I assume I was not moderated.   

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5462
"they"

Jim-

I'd be more inclined to suspect some sort of bug than imagine PP actively whacked your thread.  But then again, I don't automatically assume some sort of conspiracy each time something unpleasant happens.  :-)

As for poor seething Rob Kirby, I'd seethe too if someone said there was no manipulation.

I do wonder how he'd classify what happened last week when gold popped up above the previous high, hosing all those shorts.  "Virtuous physical buying" - 23 tons over a five minute period - perhaps?  Each time I mention this upside manipulation stuff, all I hear is crickets from the goldbugs.  Its like they want to pretend it doesn't happen.  "Don't let truth get in the way of a good story."

In a recent PM exchange, Mark pointed out to me that silver's OI is a lot higher (relative to production) than gold.  I grubbed around, and found out he was entirely correct.  What's more, it appears that silver's total OI is approximately equal to about half the above-ground supply of silver.  That is, as far as I can tell, there are 50k tons of silver floating around the world, and there is about half that much paper silver floating around COMEX.

Contrast that with 1.5k tons of paper gold, and 170k tons of actual gold.

See Jim, I think you'd have a case if you stuck with silver.  With gold, not so much.

For instance, if 20% of all gold mining companies decided to hedge next year's production once gold hit 1200, that would neatly account for the recent rise in OI.  Yet this rise in OI strikes you (and Seething Rob Kirby) as "it could only possibly be manipulation."  You don't think those CEOs were terrified by gold at 1044?  I'd hedge some of my production, certainly, if I were them, at least until the gold price stabilized.  I'd give up some of the upside in exchange for making sure my company didn't die.

Anyhow, here's the OI vs annual production chart.  Production numbers are a bit old - from USGS - and OI numbers are derived from the total short interest from the COT report.

 

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
OI vs. annual production

Nice chart Dave.. indeed.. this tells the story of both Gold and Silver's heavy manipulation in the futures market relative to other things like Copper.  As well, I would not argue with you that Silver is even more heavily (price)  manipulated than Gold is.. indeed it must be so since TPTB don't have hoards of Silver in their central banks like they do Gold.  

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5462
OI & COT commercials

Jim, what's really interesting that that the commercial shorts show the exact same pattern with respect to copper as they do for silver and gold, even though the OI/production ratios are so very different.

So either literally everything is completely controlled by some guy in an office at a bank somewhere, which I don't believe, or these guys just have computers that are better than most, with inputs from around the world that we never see, that tell them what price will (most likely) be doing, and they take advantage of it and ride the cycles, buying low/selling high.

One more point.  If the commercials go heavily short and "cap the rallies", exactly what is it they are doing at the bottoms?  Well, they are buying.  If they cap the rallies, then they are cushioning the lows too.  Can't have the one w/o the other, can we?

Commercials don't just keep increasing their short position.  It rises and falls with the market.  They short high, and buy low.

Again - what's the impact of "buying low" and "destroying paper gold" down there at the bottoms?

I'm just guessing our friendly goldbug writers don't mention this little detail.  They only look at stuff that reinforces their own belief system.

I'm happy to look into what's really going on - the silver thing surprised me, pleasantly, because I like finding new information that's real and not just one-sided goldbug propaganda.

Now I'm thinking a bit more seriously about getting a larger silver position. If (roughly) 1/3 of the traded silver is actually paper...that's kind of a big deal to me.  I don't care about what's in the vault at COMEX, that's irrelevant for supply/demand purposes.  The 1/3 ratio for silver is vastly larger than the 2.7/1000 ratio for gold.  I still maintain paper gold is a very small fraction of the above-ground gold supply, and therefore, its much less relevant for the market's supply/demand position overall.

But the silver thing has my attention.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
cycles...

Dave said,

One more point.  If the commercials go heavily short and "cap the rallies", exactly what is it they are doing at the bottoms?  Well, they are buying.  If they cap the rallies, then they are cushioning the lows too.  Can't have the one w/o the other, can we?

No question about it.. the gun has to be reloaded from time-to-time in order for this to work. The point remains - we have a paper driven market, with but a tiny amount of physical delivery taking place (most of which is just circle-jerk bank-to-bank paper delivery) where the bullion banks can create contracts out of thin air, at will, without actually having Gold.  Why don't you help our readers Dave by comparing the shorting of Gold, to, say, the shorting of stocks.  In the case of stocks, one cannot legally short without being able to borrow the shares from somewhere, right?  Not so in the Gold market.  Why?   

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
Silver OI vs production...

Another thing Dave.. I find it to be a bit disingenuous of you to indicate that you (and Mark C) just stumbled upon this "new" news about all the paper Silver out there.. I have MANY times before published versions of this chart in our "discussions";

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5462
how futures work

Ok sure Jim, I'll explain why its a reasonable thing to be able to create a short futures contract from thin air, rather than having to actually borrow gold first and then sell it into the market like a stock.  It has to do with the basics of hedging which is the reason why futures exist in the first place.

Simply put, if you are trading stock, the stock exists, and you are swapping ownership for cash.  As you say, going short means you borrow the stock from someone, and then sell it, and you are required to return the stock to the original owner at some later date when the trade is complete.

If you are trading commodities, you are trading an agreement to buy a commodity at a fixed point in the future for cash.  Right off the bat, you can see it is a different beast.  Instead of a fractional ownership of a business, a futures contract is a promise to deliver an object sometime in the future.

So why does such a creation even exist?  They exist - and have existed for probably 5000 years - so the producers and consumers of the commodity can lock in prices for the commodities they either produce or consume.  Its less about actually delivering product, and more about locking in price so that businesses can plan effectively.

Let's make it more concrete.

Lets say you are a gold mine, and you want to lock in $1250 for the gold you will produce over the next six months.  (You are very excited by $1250, since just two months ago you were petrified it would remain at $1050, and you can't make money at that price; but at $1250, you are profitable)  So to make this work, you are required to go naked short enough contracts to match the size of your production.  Why naked?  Well, you're a mine.   Right now you don't have the gold!  Duh!  Gold is in the ground, you'll get it someday (we hope), but in the meantime, you have a bunch of pieces of paper that guarantees your counterparty will fork over $125,000 for each 100 ounces you deliver 6 months from now.

Meanwhile, you can borrow money, promise people jobs at fixed salaries, and generally plan your operations somewhat insulated from the daily movement of the commodity you produce.

Six month from now you probably sell your gold to your nearby refinery for whatever the spot price is there, and you cash-settle your futures contracts because its just easier than shipping your gold off to COMEX.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5462
your charts

Jim, sadly, I can't read that chart.  Perhaps that's why it didn't have any impact on me.

Sometimes things fail for the most basic of reasons.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
Chart of OI as represented by days of production...

This is the chart.. I can't find an updated one right now;

mostshorted.jpg

Dave,  Thank you for the discussion on hedging.  Of course, were the most common use of these contracts actually to hedge real production of Gold and Silver.. by miners that actually have the Gold and Silver.. then it would be hard to make the case that the system was being abused.  Since these contracts are used primarily by speculators, including the banks that decide when and if OI increases.. the abuse potential is obvious.    

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5462
hedging

Jim, the banks don't decide when open interest increases.  Anyone who goes short increases the open interest.  This includes managed money.

What's more, there are some more esoteric hedging strategies that aren't part of futures markets specifically; you can get your bank to write you a contract that will (more or less) protect you from a limited amount of adverse price movement.  Collars, swaps - I think the driving force behind doing these deals with the banks has to do with the mines not wanting to pony up the margin and deal with margin calls if the market goes against them, but I'm not 100% sure.

As I understand it, banks write up these contracts for their mining customers, and then (presumably) they themselves hedge their related exposure to price movements using the futures markets, and just make money by charging a premium for the collars and/or swaps.

So some of the evil-looking activity by the banks really is on behalf of customers.  I am sure that some is just proprietary trading too.  I don't have any information as to what the breakdown happens to be.

Again, simply saying "get rid of all futures markets, gold must only be traded as a physical item" will cause direct harm to the gold (and other) mining companies who need to hedge some amount of future production.

In the old days they'd hedge years of production, but now its just done more selectively and more short term.  But the fact is, hedging does occur, and its a very useful ability.  And mines are just one user of this facility.  Any business that has a large inventory of gold, and wants to be able to conduct business with a sensible and predictable profit margin (rather than basically going naked long gold and "hoping for the best") will need to hedge ultimately using futures.  If we got rid of futures, banks would still provide the service because demand would remain, but they'd be able to mark their prices up even higher, and they'd have their customers even more completely over a barrel.

And eliminating speculation simply eliminates liquidity, widening spreads, which once again ensures higher profit margins for the banks.

There are ways to fix the problem without causing a bunch of unintended consequences.  Simply restricting the size of any given bank's aggregate position would seem to fix the problem.  If any bank could only be 5% of the market, for instance, problem would seem to be solved.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
Thank you Dave

There are ways to fix the problem without causing a bunch of unintended consequences.  Simply restricting the size of any given bank's aggregate position would seem to fix the problem.  If any bank could only be 5% of the market, for instance, problem would seem to be solved.

Agree.. position limits that are actually enforced, and that are fundamentally tied to some min. level of Gold for sale, would vastly improve market integrity.  

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
One more point...

Dave said,

Jim, the banks don't decide when open interest increases.  Anyone who goes short increases the open interest.

You make my point... when a bank goes short....they increase open interest.  If they want to increase open interest, they do so by adding shorts.   Banks can go short for any reason they want.. they can say they are balancing other positions, etc.  The bullion banks have extraordinary power over price in the market of paper futures.   

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5462
anyone has this power

Jim-

So anyone can go short, for any reason they want.   You can, I can, the banks can.  That's not the problem.  The problem, as I said before, and as you have agreed, is the concentration of position.  If we chop them down to 5%, we can let them go short "for any reason they want" right alongside everyone else, and the problem won't exist.

And the problem, as I see it, is that they use their position concentration to wang the market around on an intraday (or at most, one or two day) basis to hose both shorts and longs in order to cash in.  Its manipulation, and I find that disagreeable.

But our prior agreement isn't enough for you.  You really want to worry this "trend manipulation" bone to death, I can see that.  Why is this?  Let me speculate - always dangerous, but I'll give it a go:

You really want to believe that the banks have this magical power to control the trend - that way, the four year downtrend wasn't simply because nobody in the west cared about gold anymore, it was just about manipulation.  Also, you really need someone to blame for your four years of pain, some bad guy to focus your anger on.  Lastly, you also really need your goldbug writers to have been correct all along.  Otherwise, you will feel silly for having listened to them for so long - them and their broken theories that only ever look at domestic issues, imagining the dollar is going to turn into confetti any moment now.  How's that confetti theory working for you?  Looking a bit faded I suspect.

Is there no bit of evidence, no demolished theory that will ever crack your faith in these false prophets?

If the bankers had the magical power to control the trend, we wouldn't have closed today at 1256, we'd be somewhere down around 1056.  My case was much harder to make during the downtrend.  Right now - it feels like shooting fish in a barrel.  Its just so obvious.  If they could control the trend, gold would have been thoroughly smashed by now.

Gold trends like everything else.  There is manipulation, I don't like it, and position sizing will help fix it, but its focused on intraday movements, it is not trend manipulation.

We wouldn't be at 1256 if trend manipulation worked.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
Banks - everyone needs to watch this!

Dave,  you are a tireless defender of the idea that Banks are relatively powerless.  You offend your own obvious intelligence by taking this position.  This is not just about Gold or Silver - that is but one microcosm of the greater Coup.  This is about the state of the US .. the reality on the ground today.  I highly suggest you watch this, in it's entirety, and get on the right side of the spiritual war that lies ahead if we are to take back our country;

 

 

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
Paper Gold and Silver discussion...

Very good discussion here about the most recent trading dynamics.. by a group that completely understands the nature of the underlying manipulation and control via the paper markets.   

mikeg's picture
mikeg
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 30 2009
Posts: 11
Banks

Oh my, you've done it now Jim... "tin foil hat" for you sir  :-)

Great video Jim, and yes, it needs to go viral... but will not.

Why? The same reason Dave (who does great service with his public PM posts) can't buy into "trend" (I like the definition btw) manipulation (even though much more palatable than the "banking cabal" theme in John's videos). The vast majority, even those with open minds (as I suspect Dave is), find the conclusion so repugnant (to quote JFK on the subject of shadow power... and we do know what happened to him) that good people simply can't believe it... a natural state, not being critical. The remarkable 5 minute section of his /61 speech... 

http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/jfk_speech_transcript.htm

It takes a great deal of time and self awareness to cross that bridge and frankly, I wouldn't expect a very busy and productive person like Dave to have had the time or inclination (took 5 years in retirement for me)... the circular discussion smacks of feline tail hunting to me.

Unless one is prepared to accept there was zero US inflation until 1913... that Income Taxes were introduced to fund the banking ponzi... that continual war is a function of banking profit schemes... that the majority of the major corporations in the world are controlled (by definition owning directly or indirectly more shares than any other individual) by the same handful of banking families... that these same families control The Fed and all other western central banks, only they own ALL the shares and are guaranteed 6% annual ROI by law... that western nation lawmakers have been wholly captured to do their bidding (the video exposes but a single example of just how powerful 'they' are)......... (lots more... I especially like the one that gives 'only banks' the authority to create money and "loan" it to us plebs at usurious interest, and that the minute your employer puts your pay in a bank it is legally a loan that becomes a bank balance sheet liability with 'interesting' bankruptcy implications), it's not logical to believe PMs prices are manipulated to protect the credit based banking system itself (but then again, the direction of price over the past 4 years of "short term" banking control does speak volumes, doesn't it).

They are of course... and if gold had been allowed to go through $2000 it may have been too late for them, or the ponzi that is the fractional reserve, debt based monster that is hidden in full view... the 4 or 5 largest monoliths in every major western city just screams out who is in control... does it not?

Interesting back & forth, but best to let it go, stick to the critical short term conversation, and be thankful we have people inside the system like Dave who take on the truth, even if only on a 'short term' basis.

Just my take...

Many thanks to Dave for his public PM analysis... that I've used (along with other sources) to validate my COT Position based trades (2x long or short, since the fall) after years of sitting tight and watching my considerable profits disappear in a series of one way, 'short term' manipulations.

Comfortably short Ag, underwater after Janet puked all over The Dots last week, and awaiting the very bearish COT structure to resolve itself (with lots of long miners to hedge).

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5462
logic

So Jim, if the banks were all powerful, they'd never need to be bailed out.  Unfortunately, they need bailing out all the time.  "Rogue traders" (i.e. prop trading run amok) takes out a major institution every few years.

Its like saying a bunch of people, some of whom commit suicide every few years, and every 15 years all of them together as a group jump off a bridge all at the same time - these people are the most well-balanced, sane, and stable individuals on the planet.

The evidence suggests otherwise.  Their manipulations are on the margins, skimming a little here, a little there, pretty soon it adds up to real money, banging the close, coming up with instruments nobody can understand with huge margins attached, and feeding their crappy stuff to the muppets.  That's their "power".  And when it all blows up (because, often, they really don't know what they're doing - or greed overwhelms good sense, because they're like the rest of us) they come crying to the taxpayer to bail them out.

And of course they make their scams legal, because they control the politicians, who all want nice cushy jobs once their "public service" is over.

But they don't make the sun rise & set, and they don't control the markets.  If they did, they'd never, ever, need a bailout.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5462
Putting words in my mouth again

Jim-

Dave,  you are a tireless defender of the idea that Banks are relatively powerless.  You offend your own obvious intelligence by taking this position.

Really.  I'm a tireless defender of the idea that banks are relatively powerless?  Once again, you don't quote me - you just make shit up, claim it its something I said, and then run off and talk about something else.

Of course if you were to quote something I actually said, and then complain about that, we could have an honest discussion.

So what might I have actually said?   Lets see.  What's my usual thing?  Right.

What I could have said is, banks cannot overpower the market - that is, the market is more powerful than the banksMarket is more powerful than the Federal governmentMarket is more powerful than the Fed.  Unless you put enough cash in to own the entire market, market will eventually have its way.  Like nature, Market Bats Last.

As for your movie - fine thing, already knew the 10,000 ft view.

To save anyone time, if you already know that no criminal prosecutions occurred of the banker elite, this movie will show you the anatomy of how that took place, it will name names, show the chronology, and it will also show where they ended up after they left "government service" (hint: wall street law firm pulling down multimillion dollar salaries working for the TBTF banks).

You'll also pick up some tips on how to charge someone with fraud, if you happen to be an attorney at the DOJ.

So, clearly banks can control the government when necessary - the DOJ, the house, the senate, and the executive.  Obama, both Clintons, and all the little Republican wind-up toys.

Can they control the markets?

If they could, why on earth would they ever engage in fraud?

Put differently, if every bank would hand you money simply by you asking for it, why would you ever take the risk of using a gun to rob one?

HughK's picture
HughK
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 6 2012
Posts: 761
Spiritual wars?
Jim H wrote:

I highly suggest you watch this, in it's entirety, and get on the right side of the spiritual war that lies ahead if we are to take back our country;

Jim,

Your talk of spiritual war is worrying, as it implies that there are evil people and good people and you're one of the good ones.  In this case, the evil people are bankers and middle class people like you, me, and other middle class (or rich) investors at PP who realize that the banking system is corrupt are the good ones.

Here's a basic example of the problem with this.  You own miners and precious metal bullion.  So do I.  

PM mining companies do a lot of bad things.  They're famous polluters.  Not as in a little air pollution here and there, but open pit mining that destroys ecosystems and watersheds and heavy metal pollution that takes decades, centuries, and on some levels, millenia, to undo.

Here, for example, is the location of Seabridge's (ticker symbol SA) big project, right next to the Mitchell Glacier in BC.  

What do you think open pit mining next to a glacier is going to do to the watershed?  Here is the location on a Google Map.  When you and I buy miners, I'm pretty sure we don't look at which ecosystem our companies are going to degrade, and which salmon populations the mercury and sulfur is going to poison. We just look at the costs and profits and then click our mouse in our trading platform.  All very clinical and sanitized.

Mining companies also commit murder sometimes.  John Doody, who Chris has interviewed/promoted and whose service I have used, promotes Tahoe Resources, a Vancouver based miner, as one of his top silver stocks.  Tahoe's big project is in Guatemala, and there's evidence that Tahoe conspired to murder indigenous people in Guatemala, people who don't want the mine in their backyard b/c they realize that it will destroy their natural capital and that the local community will get very little of the profit.  

And this is not an isolated example.  Mining companies have more than a century long history of repressing workers' rights and funneling profits from the periphery to the core, while impoverishing local communities and wrecking the local ecosystems.

Now, I don't own Tahoe and you may not either, but the point is that mining companies that we do own are also doing various types of environmental and social damage, and passing the cost on to third parties that get little or none of the profits.  And some of them may be bribing (or toppling) governments and rubbing out local opposition in Latin America or other parts of the developing world without our knowledge.  It's certainly been done before by mining corporations.

Those who own physical bullion face similar dilemmas, although the contemporary superstition that a financial transaction breaks the chain of responsibility and impact may delude some into thinking they are morally clean.  And, as rich-world middle class (or rich) people, we all face similar dilemmas, even if we don't own bullion, because we're still prime consumers and depleters of fossil fuels, metals, fish stocks, etc.

I have a good friend who has spent the better part of the last two decades fighting for watershed protection and sustainable local enterprise near Tena, Ecuador.  He opposes my PM investments most staunchly because he sees what happens when rich-world corporations roll into local communities & ecosystems in the watersheds of Ecuador east of the Andes.

This moral gray area is simply one of the conundrums that we have to contend with as people living in an unsustainable global industrial civilization.

There are other problems with your framing of banker corruption as a spiritual war, but this is at least one of the big ones.  It just doesn't seem like you've considered your own role (and mine) in the system as it now stands.  

Because by buying miners and bullion, I'm certainly fighting the powers that be on one level.  And on another level, I am part of the powers that be, and so are the rest of us stackers and speculators.  We are among the most privileged 200-300 million on the planet, and the other 6.9 billion are at our mercy, because I can re-route a portion of my capital to extract their wealth with a few simple clicks of a mouse.

Here are the people at the funeral of Exaltación Marcos Ucelo, a Xinca man kidnapped, tortured and killed for leading protests against Tahoe's project.  What would they say about spiritual warfare?

One of the unsettling trends at Peak Prosperity over the last year or so is the way that rising anger and the sense of justified resentment has led some people in this virtual community to seek simplistic explanations and facile responses to complex predicaments.  Your claim of spiritual warfare is one example.

Life just isn't this easy, nor is it this black and white.  All of us here are smart enough and well-informed enough to be able to combine understandable system-one-level emotional outrage with system-two-level rational thought and to develop a more measured and more humble understanding of our place in our global civilization, which includes understanding our positive and negative impacts.

But, we can also choose not to process our emotions, and instead let one angry neuron in our brains trigger another, until our whole cerebral cortex is flashing red and as blind as a bull in the ring.  

And when angry thoughts trigger angry action, then watch out, because the blood of innocents will be spilled.

Such anger-based thought and action may satisfy our ego in the short-run, but it won't give us a world worth inheriting.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
So Hugh...

You seem to have just explained perfectly how average German's managed keep their heads down as Nazi Germany unfolded...  they followed your advice;  seeing their own lack of perfect goodness, they kept any moral outrage they felt in check.  Their resentment was not, "justifiable".  Most will choose your path I am sure..... guilt-based moral relativism will keep the masses anesthetized until the NWO tyranny is complete.      

On a side note:  There is no question that mining is more or less environmentally damaging.     

I think Solzhenitsyn was our most deft commentator when it comes to this issue of the evil that exists within us all, vs. the need to confront evil;

"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years.”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

 

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

 

 

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5462
finding someone to blame

Jim's mention of Nazi Germany (Godwin's Law makes an early appearance - "its never too soon to bring up Hitler!") brings to mind the time-honored scapegoating technique.  If we can only find the evildoers and string them up, all will be well.  Just that, like what Captain Redlegs said in "Outlaw Josie Wales", once you get started, "doin good ain't got no end."  You start by stringing up the bankers, and once you run out of them, you move to anyone who happens to oppose - oh pretty much anything that stands in your way.

That's what really happened in Nazi Germany.  It started by scapegoating.  The bankers, as I recall, who stabbed Germany in the back in WW1.

I propose we try a different approach here.  We need to not only criminally prosecute the bankers, we also need to remove money from politics - which includes stopping the "revolving door" - as much as possible so the structural issue goes away along with the bad people being handed orange jumpsuits.

I swear, sending just a handful of those executives off to Club Fed would do wonders for encouraging law-abiding behavior in all the others.

I'd prefer that over a spiritual war any day.  But maybe that's too boring to get anyone attention.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
Moral relativists unite!

Well done Dave.  Only you could call my pointing out the total lack of rule of law as it relates to banking crime today as, "scapegoating".  

For those who may have missed it;

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5462
Fed dividends now pay for highways

As far as I can tell, in the recent highway bill, Fed dividends to member banks are no longer 6% - they are now capped by the 10 year treasury rate, which is about 1.94%.  Again, that's as far as I can tell by reading the different reports about the version signed into law back in December 2015.

They also got into the "surplus capital" over there at the Fed.  20 billion, swiped for the highways.  That's where that 20 billion went.  Its probably a better use than most things they could have done with the money.

As for the whole banker manipulation plot - sure they want to control the markets.  I don't doubt that for a second.  I just doubt their ability to do so.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5462
which part didn't you like?

So Jim, which part of what I said didn't you like?

The part about criminally prosecuting the bankers?

Or the part about removing money from politics?

Or the part about shutting down the revolving door?

Or the part about changing the structure, rather than only stringing up the bankers as a part of some spiritual war where you are either with us, or against us?

You were the one who brought up the Nazis, not me.

HughK's picture
HughK
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 6 2012
Posts: 761
in the last 24 hours
Jim H wrote:

You seem to have just explained perfectly how average German's managed keep their heads down as Nazi Germany unfolded...  they followed your advice;  seeing their own lack of perfect goodness, they kept any moral outrage they felt in check.  Their resentment was not, "justifiable".  Most will choose your path I am sure..... guilt-based moral relativism will keep the masses anesthetized until the NWO tyranny is complete.      

Hi Jim,

In the last 24 hours, you've expressed support for the need to "purge" Washington of the Neocons, have described your position against banking corruption as a spiritual war, and have expressed support for a candidate that wants to create a database of all Muslims in the country and who will almost certainly reduce the rule of law in our system.

Your emotion-based support for Trump may bring us closer, not further, to a worse form of tyranny than what we already have.

The fact that you've picked the smallest of the three E's as the context within which you define your line in the sand suggests that you also struggle with moral relativism, which is normal, and nothing to be ashamed of.  And I do take different sorts of political action, although less than I used to and I am not very optimistic about the long-term result.  I certainly don't see myself as a spiritual warrior dressed in white.

Thus my concern that some at PP are choosing facile responses to complex predicaments, and that these emotion-based ways to approach our situation will lead to more, not less, injustice and suffering.

The way out is not going to be through a national political ideology.  Let the dead bury the dead.  The best chance we have on a micro-level is to rebuild local homesteads and local communities from the ground up, so that someday the basic building blocks of a more resilient and ethical system are present.

Cheers,

Hugh

Edit: Also there is a lot more harmony at PP when we focus on the three E's and resilient responses.  It's just a better place when people don't push their political ideologies here.  We know that national and international political systems are screwed up, but we don't agree on what do to about it.  

But we can agree on a lot of other things.  That broader agreement and insight regarding limits to growth and resilient responses has always been the comparative advantage of PP and what has set it apart from many other discussion forums on the Net.  It would be a shame to lose that.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Ummmm, no?
davefairtex wrote:

I swear, sending just a handful of those executives off to Club Fed would do wonders for encouraging law-abiding behavior in all the others.

Why on earth would we send a handful of criminal bankers to serve in the House and Senate?

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
Emotion based support for Trump?

From Hugh's previous post;

Jim H wrote:

I was fooled by Obama the first time... I can't be sure that Trump will not fool me again.  I do though think he is giving the Neocon's fits.. that he does not actually want war.. that he does not want the US meddling in foreign affairs so much.  He has said such.  

They don’t like Trump because says he’ll work things out with Putin…Trump also says we’ve got to reinvestigate 9/11 – well this drives the neocons wild. You have to ask yourself, if the 9/11 story was true, why would the neocons care if it was reinvestigated? But they are so opposed to it that there has to be something wrong with the story.   – Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

http://investmentresearchdynamics.com/sot-paul-craig-roberts-part-1-the-...

I will vote to purge the Neocon war party from power in the US as best I know how. 

I appreciate Hugh your attempts to trivialize my writings and positions as, "emotional" rantings.. and your command of English, including the use of words like, "facile", but my views are no more emotional than yours - they are just different.  I (like David Stockman) want the war mongering Neocons out of power.. and I think Trump may be the best route available.  That seems fairly logical to me.  Others think Bernie is the best way... and I would not be against supporting Bernie for that reason alone if I thought he had a chance.  

  

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
Moderator Hugh

Hugh said,

Edit: Also there is a lot more harmony at PP when we focus on the three E's and resilient responses.  It's just a better place when people don't push their political ideologies here.  We know that national and international political systems are screwed up, but we don't agree on what do to about it.  

But we can agree on a lot of other things.  That broader agreement and insight regarding limits to growth and resilient responses has always been the comparative advantage of PP and what has set it apart from many other discussion forums on the Net.  It would be a shame to lose that.

On the surface, this sounds reasonable.  To me though, it rings as yet another attempt to suppress discussion that Hugh does not like... especially since the anti-semite smear applied to SP has not gained any traction among the broader membership here. 

My contention is that, by NOT pushing a political ideology, Hugh and others are aligning themselves with the current political ideology..   Remember, whatever structure is at work behind our elected leaders is powerful enough to have suppressed the rule of law when it comes to banking crime.  They have been powerful enough to suppress a real investigation of the crime of 9/11, even in the face of a completely inexplicable building collapse.  You can choose to join me in questioning, as messy as this process may become... or you can be cowed by the intellectual sounding arguments professed by Hugh above.  

By suggesting that the current political ideology may be a big part of our problem, I am not in any way  denigrating the three E's.. far from it.  Hugh is working a very sophisticated campaign against our free speech here.. don't let him do it.. even if you don't agree with my politics.            

HughK's picture
HughK
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 6 2012
Posts: 761
Trump feeds emotions, not reason
Jim H wrote:

I appreciate Hugh your attempts to trivialize my writings and positions as, "emotional" rantings.. and your command of English, including the use of words like, "facile", but my views are no more emotional than yours - they are just different.  I (like David Stockman) want the war mongering Neocons out of power.. and I think Trump may be the best route available.  That seems fairly logical to me.  Others think Bernie is the best way... and I would not be against supporting Bernie for that reason alone if I thought he had a chance.  

Hi Jim,

It's your choice to describe your position as spiritual warfare, and to use terms like purge, not mine.  These are emotional ways of describing political preferences.

Trump feeds emotions.  It's at the heart of his appeal.  His Twitter feed is evidence enough of that, as is the speed at which he swears off former statements he's made via Twitter and in other forms.  One one day climate change is a plot by the Chinese to hamstring American competitiveness, and on the next day, he was just kidding when he said that.  This is not logical discourse, and it's relativist to the extreme.

But, it's really on the terrorism issue that we should be the most concerned about a Trump White House.  In the short-run, Trump may get rid of some particular Neocons who opposed him, and that will be emotionally satisfying for those of us who watched them lead us into a series of wars.

But he also says he'll pursue more, not less torture and would fight terrorism such as Brussels with more, not less, toughness.  And, he'll register all Muslims in a national database.

Based on the above points, it's not logical to support him if you think that the state manipulates terrorist attacks in order to increase its own power, because Trump has already told us that he'll fight even harder and one thing we can see about Trump is that he is........pragmatic when it comes to pursuing power.

So, on some levels, I'm not all that much of a relativist after all.  I believe that we should hold our conclusions in the social sciences, including politics, to the measure of reason and empirical evidence to the extent possible.  There are limitations to our ability to do this, of course, but if we're at a site that's about data and evidence, we ought to try.

And Trump's statements and proposals about national security and terrorism do not indicate that he will dial back the overreach of the national security state.

Cheers,

Hugh

HughK's picture
HughK
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 6 2012
Posts: 761
My nefarious agenda

Hi Jim,

Again, your self-described spiritual warfare against bankers blinds you to the deeper truths and deeper problems with our system, which maybe why you have contributed so little regarding the second or third E's.  

If you want to talk about deep change, then forget bankers and neocons, that's superficial stuff.  Why not address the problem at its roots: our global industrial civilization? 

Is that radical enough for you?

Part of my "agenda" here is to share ideas like these, which I'll take a quote from below.  It took me about 30 minutes to type that up and share it with PP.

And another thing I do here is to oppose ideas that have been shown to be harmful in the past.  The way that you are framing your ideas about politics  has been shown to have caused suffering and harm in the past, and I have cited examples of that.  One of the more recent examples - Guyénot's need to prove that the Jews killed Jesus - has been ignored, as I imagine that it's an inconvenient piece of data for those on board with SP's assessment of the Deep State as Jewish/Zionist in its essence.  Data can be pesky that way...

But, back to the other part of my "anti-free-speech" and status-quo agenda, a deeper look at the other two E's. 

Hence this quote from that Ben Falk passage I shared in the David Jacke thread.

Despite abundant human cleverness, we haven’t invented a better way to store energy than a stack of firewood. We haven’t yet devised a more effective means of capturing solar energy than by putting up a cow and hay in a barn through the winter. Biological energy harvesting and storage is what allowed us to survive to this point, and our experiments of replacing biological systems with mechanical and chemical systems have at best been delayed catastrophes. We must rely on some nonbiological aspects (the barn in the previous example), but wherever we do we compromise the system and our own returns in the long term. The minute a barn is built, it begins to decay.

The famous comparison of a tractor with a draft horse highlights the entropy principle at work here: A tractor and horse are comparable in the amount of work they can achieve on a small piece of land, yet after a time the tractor dies and the horse makes another horse. Only life processes are regenerative. Hence, our prospects for thriving on this planet depend on our ability to partner with life forces.”

This is far more radical - and at the same time, far more conservative - than any response to banking corruption or the Deep State.

P.S. I need to put my energy elsewhere now, so the last word is all yours, if you like.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
Guilting.....

Hugh wrote,

Again, your self-described spiritual warfare against bankers blinds you to the deeper truths and deeper problems with our system, which maybe why you have contributed so little regarding the second or third E's. 

Really amazing stuff.  Knives coming out.  Clearly I am an unbalanced type as I have not published pictures of my raised beds (which remain in their US zone 6 winter repose). 

I would have used, "may be" vs. maybe in this case.       

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5462
the other club fed

Dogs-

Why on earth would we send a handful of criminal bankers to serve in the House and Senate?

I was referring to the Other Club Fed.  As you well know!

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 297
Not a smear
Quote:

 anti-semite smear applied to SP

How can it be a smear when it's true?

Bankers Slave's picture
Bankers Slave
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2012
Posts: 523
Shoehorn!

I say bollocks to the posters here that have managed to start the false anti-semite accusations. It was all going fine until that was started. Absolutely no need for that unless you feel completely inadequate in your own self worth... and why should you be?

Anyway Jim H...you were saying!

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2840
Deflecting criticism

And attempting to shut down discussion.

debu's picture
debu
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 17 2009
Posts: 233
Play the Ball, Not the Man

HughK Wrote:

 I believe that we should hold our conclusions in the social sciences, including politics, to the measure of reason and empirical evidence to the extent possible.  There are limitations to our ability to do this, of course, but if we're at a site that's about data and evidence, we ought to try.

Noble sentiments.

But in the "Who are the Neocons?" thread, HughK has not made the slightest attempt to address the substance of SP's arguments and instead has resorted to accusing him of anti-semitism.

Similarly, HughK has studiously ignored the evidence provided in the Guyenot article SP cited and is now accusing Guyenot of being an anti-semite. Oh, and we have to debate who killed Jesus now before we can get to the neocons.

So not much data and evidence from HughK to rebut SP's or Guyenot's data and evidence. Only stonewalling and ad hominem attacks cloaked in psuedo-intellectual frippery.

Lengthy Popper quotes are all well and good but even better would be substantive, topical arguments made in good faith and in a respectful manner.

I fear it may be a long wait.

 

HughK's picture
HughK
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 6 2012
Posts: 761
Sorry for the last post, Jim
Jim H wrote:

Hugh wrote,

Again, your self-described spiritual warfare against bankers blinds you to the deeper truths and deeper problems with our system, which maybe why you have contributed so little regarding the second or third E's. 

Really amazing stuff.  Knives coming out.  Clearly I am an unbalanced type as I have not published pictures of my raised beds (which remain in their US zone 6 winter repose). 

I would have used, "may be" vs. maybe in this case.       

Hi Jim,

I said I wouldn't post again, but you're right to call me out on what I wrote that you quoted above.  I made it personal and shouldn't have.  It wasn't effective toward my overall point, but more importantly, it was mean-spirited and personal and I'm sorry for that.

Time to take a break and let the amygdala cool down.

Hugh

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 297
I get it now
Quote:

 And attempting to shut down discussion

I get it now.

On your planet, SP is free to babble at length whether he gets his facts straight or not, but no one who dislikes that is free to say so.

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2840
Incorrect
Yoxa wrote:
Quote:

 And attempting to shut down discussion

I get it now.

On your planet, SP is free to babble at length whether he gets his facts straight or not, but no one who dislikes that is free to say so.

You are free to say whatever you like. And everyone else is free to either listen to or ignore you based on the merit of your commentary.

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 297
I'll refrain


Quote:

based on the merit of your commentary.

I'll refrain from commenting on the merit of some of your own commentary. cool

mememonkey's picture
mememonkey
Status: Gold Member (Online)
Joined: Nov 1 2009
Posts: 257
reframe
HughK wrote:

Hi Jim,

Again, your self-described spiritual warfare against bankers blinds you to the deeper truths and deeper problems with our system, which maybe why you have contributed so little regarding the second or third E's.  

And another thing I do here is to oppose ideas that have been shown to be harmful in the past.  The way that you are framing your ideas about politics  has been shown to have caused suffering and harm in the past, and I have cited examples of that.  One of the more recent examples - Guyénot's need to prove that the Jews killed Jesus - has been ignored, as I imagine that it's an inconvenient piece of data for those on board with SP's assessment of the Deep State as Jewish/Zionist in its essence.  Data can be pesky that way...

 

 

Hugh,

I commend you for your clever distortions of Jim's position  to misrepresent his intentions and reframing Sandpuppy/s thesis to fit your tired charges of antisemitisim., You've clearly gone to great lengths to hear and reflect only what fits's your preconceived notions of historical truth and political correctness.

With regards to the use of the word "purge"  Jim originally referenced an article by Stockman no raving lunatic he, who speculated  

Quote:

And, yes, an Imperial City purged of Bill Kristol and his gang of bloodthirsty provocateurs would already be on the road to redemption.

Indeed, if America’s foreign policy could be seized from the grasp of the Washington War Party and its AIPAC subsidiary, the fiscal equation would be instantly transformed. Over and again, Trump seems to grasp that the real security of the homeland has nothing to do with being the world’s policeman and defense sugar-daddy.

It is obvious from the author and the context that purge used in this way is of the 'political' not homicidal nature,

I hardly think that Jim's advocating to 'purge' the neocon's as best he can with his vote put's him in league with Pol Pot  Nor does his advocacy of "Spirtitual Warfare"  make his methods and language any more nefarious than say, Gandhi's

It is you that is seizing on these terms to escalate and reframe his arguments ad absurdum

You have correctly pointed out that Trump has loathsome qualities and represents a wild card as to his true intentions,  However as Stockman, Chris, and many other's have pointed out, his positions such as they are articulated, are pretty clearly anti interventionist, anti neocon and have engendered  fierce opposition from the established neo con/war party    The alternative in our binary system is likely Hillary which is of course represents an unambiguous  vote for business as usual for Goldman Sachs, the neocons and continued interventionist wars in the Mid East and elsewhere.

One can make the case that Trumps pandering to low information voters with belligerent posturing on torture  is just that, political gamesmanship to get elected, he has walked back previous statements on torture to indicated that he would be constrained by law. 

You can't make the case that electing Hillary will not result in massive amounts of war, torture, droning etc.  she already has that blood on her hands.

Even as I share your concerns re Trump,  I have to recognize that although  t's not a good choice it is a defensible one given the context of this dichotomy

 

With regards to your reframing SP's thesis  you persist despite being corrected numerous times, to say that SP is conflating the core  nature of the Deep State with Jewish/Zionisim.   That is a strawman argument.  

  SP is repeatedly on record as indicating that Non Jewish/non Israeli elements of the US government Military industrial complex factions are implicated in 9'11, Iraq war etc.

.  Gueynot's article makes the point that the Neo Con's are universally Zionist and the philosophy has it's roots in Leftist Jewish intellectual movement which morphed iinto a right wing Likudnik alligned 5th column that is influencing American foreign policy today. The arguments are well sourced and documented and the article stand on their own.  You have yet to address the substance of that despite hovering over the thread with your compulsive accusations.

You can not discuss the Neo Con political movement with any intellectual honesty without acknowledging those simple facts. Indeed it is only by understanding the stated motivations of the Likudnik/ Zionist 'political agenda, that our foreign policy mistakes in the M.E. and elsewhere  make any sense.

The fact that the Neo Con's are Zionist and primarily Jewish in origin does not mean that they are the only component of the Deep State or the only bad actors, Nobody here is saying that.  Nor is anybody saying that Jewishness equates with NeoCon moral values. SP has gone to great lengths to make that distinction.  It is you that is asserting this in order to tear it down. all while  equating every mention of the word Jewish to antisemitism.    The thread was "Who are the Neocons"  NOT Who's in the Deep State"

In your desperate bid to moderate the discourse to reflect your sense of propriety you do a disservice to the dialog.  You can be pesky in that way,  The simpler explanation for why SP and others  no longer address your 'data' is that they have  reached that conclusion and have you on their ignore list.

Which is a shame because much of your other content  offers great insights and perspective.

mememonkey

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