Saturday, December 14, 2019

The Critical Reason for Vault Storage That Everyone Overlooks


by Jeff Clark, GoldSilver:

Gold and silver are your financial backstop. Your core strategy to profit from the upcoming wealth transfer.

What’s ahead will be very exciting for those that have a meaningful stash of physical gold and silver. Imagine as the next crisis worsens, your net worth soars.

But what happens to your plan if your bullion is stolen? Or gets misplaced? What if it falls into middle earth from an earthquake or is washed away in a flood? Gold usually survives the average house fire—but what condition would it be left in? A dealer won’t pay as much for damaged metal, and some may not buy it at all.

The dilemma with holding physical gold and silver is that no storage plan is 100{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} foolproof. And since bullion comes with no replacement policy—no claim check you can turn in to get your metal back—the investor is left in a precarious position. Are we just out of luck?

While the risk of these events is slim, they can be devastating if they occur. How do we protect against worst case scenarios?

There’s only one viable solution…

Insurance: the Ultimate Backstop

It’s a sobering reality: if your gold or silver is lost—regardless of how or why or from where—it’s gone for good. You simply have no way to make yourself whole.

It would be the ultimate injustice to go to great lengths accumulating physical metal for both protection and profit—and then see it disappear in one mishap.

The only way to make up for the loss at that point is if you have insurance.

When the topic of insuring gold comes up, most people assume they can just add it to their homeowner’s policy. Or maybe even take out a separate insurance policy.

But there are two major pitfalls with that route. See if you’re comfortable with the risks…

1. Home insurance policies for gold are usually very expensive.

Consider the cost of insuring your home-stored gold:

  • Premiums are usually exorbitant—2{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} or more of the value annually, according to our survey. That’s a pricy add-on, especially when you consider…
  • Policies almost never cover a rise in the gold price. If your gold is stolen and the price is over $2,000/ounce at the time, will you be fully compensated? Answer: No. Replacement value lies with the original appraisal (unless you’re able to build it into the policy, which would make it even more expensive). If gold reaches $5,000 you won’t be very happy when they hand you a check for $1,300 per ounce.
  • Insurance typically won’t cover negligence on your part, acts of God, and terrorism. And be careful with that “negligence” part: “I’m sorry sir, but you didn’t take reasonable safeguards with your metal so we consider that negligence. Claim denied.”

There’s another reason we shy away from taking out an insurance policy on home-stored bullion…

2. Home insurance breaks the one-confidant rule.

To insure your metals means you will be required to reveal to strangers the details of your bullion holdings—the forms of gold and silver you own, how many ounces, and where and how they’re stored.

  • Are you comfortable revealing all the details of your gold and silver to insurance agents, appraisers, corporate offices, and even office staff?
  • How secure is their paperwork and digital record of your policy, and who has access to it?
  • How confident are you that absolutely no one in this chain of people will never mention it to absolutely anyone?

Once you go down the path of releasing the details of your home-stored bullion, how this information is used and who has access to it is out of your control.

An insurance policy can protect you from one set of risks, but shouldn’t expose you to others. This makes home insurance plans unacceptable to us.

So if you want to insure your metal, how do you get it at a reasonable cost and yet avoid these additional risks?

GoldSilver’s Allocated Storage Program: the Ultimate Insurance Policy

When you chose allocated storage at checkout, your holdings are automatically insured. No extra paperwork, no extra scrutiny, no break from confidentiality.

The benefits of our insured storage program would be critical in a time you need it most:

  • Full Insurance: Your gold and silver are insured for full replacement value, up to $50 million per account. Try getting a home insurance policy for that amount—even if you could the cost would be prohibitive.
  • No storage location in the world is 100{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} secure from threats like natural disasters, but professional storage with GoldSilver is 100{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} insured.
  • Independent Audits. Your holdings are audited by a top accounting firm and verified regularly. You receive custody certificates documenting your holdings, and of course can log on to view your account 24/7.
  • Very Affordable: Your storage fee is just 0.06{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of the metal value per month, $4 monthly minimum, per customer account. It covers storage, insurance, auditing, and accounting. It is, on average, less than half of what a home insurance policy costs. Check out this fun table of how the costs compare to a cappuccino and movie ticket (scroll down).
  • Fully Allocated: The gold and silver you buy is shipped directly to storage, and held in full in your account’s name and title (individually, joint, trust, or LLC). No pool accounts, no shared ownership, no fractional claims on large bars—just what you bought, in your title, all the time.

The reality is, our allocated storage program is far cheaper than insuring home-stored bullion, much safer, and can be just as private.

Keeping some bullion close at hand is important. You should have a little readily accessible in the event of an economic or personal emergency. A financial “go bag” if you will. Secure it properly, and tell only one other confidant where it’s located.

However, storing all your tangible assets at home or in a bank automatically pushes your risk quotient much higher.

The bottom line is, you have no control, and little recourse, should you become the victim of theft or natural disaster. In the event of another Houston, wouldn’t it be nice to know your gold is safe and sound and available to sell or take delivery with a few clicks?

Get Started with Insured Storage

We believe every investor should use professional storage once they have a small stash close to home, and we’ve made it as affordable as possible to get started. And all vaults automatically come with full insurance.

Read More @

Silver: Quiet Possibly The Single Most Effective Propaganda Campaign In History


by Rory Hall, The Daily Coin:

David Icke, during his 2014 annual Wimbledon Stadium presentation, was discussing how our perception of everything is based on what we believe to be true or what we have been taught to be true. Even if a person is presented a contrarian physical piece of evidence most people will not accept it as true and continue to believe their perception of truth.

When there are a few that control the many, you can’t do it physically. You can do it physically in a small area you can’t do it physically across the world. You have to program the perception of the people so that they see the world that suits you.

These are three major CIA people:

William Casey, CIA Director – We’ll know when our disinformation programming is complete when everything the American public believes is false.

William Colby, CIA Director – The CIA owns everyone of any significance in major media.

James Angelton – Head of CIA Counter intelligence –  Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the state.

Allow those words to sink in just for a moment. Does this change your perception of the truth? Does it impact your perception of the truth in any way? Is David Icke just a “nut-job”?

We make choices everyday about who we are, what we believe and how we arrived at this point or that point. These choices reflect our perception of the world we live in.

Look at how the American perception of gold and has been shaped. What about money and currency? Most people have no idea there is a difference between the two. The reason for this lack of knowledge was developed through decades of misusing these vitally important words. People’s perception of gold is that it is for jewelry and has little value outside of rings, earrings or some other form of jewelry. Rarely is jewelry seen as a mechanism for harnessing and preserving wealth. Even the people that sell jewelry, outside of bullion dealers that sell it as a store of wealth, understand what they are offering for “melt” at the local pawn shop. They simply see another piece of jewelry.

Gold is money and gold has been money for thousands of years. Silver has been money even longer than gold. People have truly been dumbed-down when it comes to silver. Most people perceive silver as being almost worthless and, for the most part, they don’t even want it as jewelry, it’s for “silverware” and not much else. Talk about an effective propaganda campaign! WOW!

The use of the word “money” to describe the fiat currency, Federal Reserve Note, is a hold over from when actual dollars, not the Federal Reserve Note that is called a “dollar”. Money, which is gold, before the introduction of the Federal Reserve System, was paper currency that was backed by gold and the paper “note” carried value because a person could take it to the bank, turn it in and receive the amount of gold the “note” represented. What would a person get for a Federal Reserve Note today if it were presented to a banker and ask for the value it represented? Another worthless, fiat paper currency of the same amount. “Legal Tender” are the words actually printed on these “mini contracts” sold to the U.S. Treasury Department from the Federal Reserve.

Silver is the problem the bankers currently face. There simply isn’t enough silver for all the uses and all the physical silver demand around the world. Each year the Silver Institute publishes an annual report showing all the silver mined, all the varieties of demand and uses, The Silver institute also presents the “surplus or deficit” for each year. Was there any silver left over or how much more demand was there than actual silver?

For the past several years silver has been reported as being in a deficit. I’m not exactly sure how this works if one would go to a silver warehouse and find an I.O.U. or how one would even come to realize there is a deficit unless it is based on manufacturing or unfulfilled demand.

The Silver Institute recently released their Annual Silver Report, for Supply and Demand, published in 2017

[Editor’ Note – The Silver Institute prohibits reproduction of their charts and other information. By clicking this link you can see the Supply and Demand]

Read More @

Christopher Columbus and the Falsification of History


by Antonius_Aquinas, Market Oracle:

The Los Angeles City Council’s recent, crazed decision* to replace Christopher Columbus Day with one celebrating “indigenous peoples” can be traced to the falsification of history and denigration of European man which began in earnest in the 1960s throughout the educational establishment (from grade school through the universities), book publishing, and the print and electronic media. It is amazing that, as of yet, the federal holiday commemorating the Genoese explorer’s world- changing voyage has not come under attack. It is doubtful that in the current radicalized leftist ideological atmosphere, the national government’s recognition of Columbus will survive much longer.

Most of what has been taught about Christopher Columbus and his holy and heroic patroness has been distorted, lied about, and politicized for the advancement of leftist causes, the most important of which is the smearing of the great European men of the past and to ridicule their descendants’ pride in their glorious heritage. The historical untruths have not stopped with Columbus and Queen Isabella, but are being spread about conditions of the pre-Columbian societies.

Instead of an idyllic land where the inhabitants lived in peace and harmony with one another until the evil, conquering white man appeared, life in the pre-Columbian Americas’ was, to say the least, quite grisly. A recent archeological discovery in Mexico City of the ancient Aztec Empire shows again what most knew, prior to the onslaught of leftist historical revisionism, that human sacrifice was practiced on a large scale.**

Archeologists have found more than 650 skulls where human sacrifices were conducted at the site of Templo Mayor, which was one of the primary temples of the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan. The new find substantiates the description of Andres de Tapia, a Spanish soldier who accompanied conquistador Hernan Cortes in 1521, and his account of the discovery of tens of thousands of skulls which were in the temple that became known as Huey Tzompantli. The number of skulls must have been vast for they “struck fear” in the hearty and seasoned Spanish explorers.

That the Spanish immediately ended this hellish practice is not much spoken about by history professors in their lectures to their gullible students, nor did the Los Angeles City Council refer to the satanic ritual during their announcement. Such inconvenient facts do not fit the liberal paradigm of the evil, marauding conquistadors subjugating the innocent Mesoamerican peoples to Spanish rule. Nor will there be much mention that Columbus’ discovery brought civilization to the pagans and more importantly – and horrifically for the politically-correct – Christianity to the indigenous peoples and a chance for eternal salvation.

The takedown of Columbus is also a swipe at the figure who made his exploits altogether possible. For Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand’s underwriting of the great Genoese Admiral’s voyage came only after they had completed their sacred mission of ridding the Iberian Peninsula of the dreaded Moors. Once accomplished, the Queen fulfilled her promise to finance Columbus. It has been contended by some scholars that the discovery of the New World under Spanish auspices was a reward by Divine Providence for the freeing of Spain of the Mohammedan menace.

Instead of enslavement and plunder that leftist historians accuse the Spanish Crown as motives for the exploration, the exact opposite was the truth, as candidly stated by Columbus himself: “she [Isabella] would continue the experiment for the glory of God and His Church, even if the islands yielded nothing but rocks and stones. She had spent more money . . . on enterprises of less importance, and would consider all she had disbursed well employed, for it would result in the spread of [Christianity] and the good of Spain.”***

Read More @

Size Matters


by Jeff Thomas, International Man:

Recently, Doug Casey commented, in an essay, on the senselessness of giving to organized charities. I take a similar view. So, are we both heartless, having no concern for the well-being of others? Not at all.

Personal generosity is a laudable quality, but giving to a large organized charity is just plain foolish. At best, three-quarters of your donation will be gobbled up by the administration of the charity. If you genuinely wish to be of value to others, your generosity would be more effective on a local level, where you give directly to those who will benefit from it, and you’re more certain of the outcome. The larger the charity organization, the greater the certainty that much, if not all, of your donation will fail to reach those you hoped would benefit.

Similarly, the concept of community is that we surround ourselves with others, as this provides us with a better life. The concept originated before mankind even existed—lions hunting in a pride, monkeys shrieking at the approach of a predator, etc. Humans originally formed tribes for similar reasons. Then, the idea of community expanded as some individuals proved to be better at different tasks. One might have been a more proficient hunter, whilst another constructed a better shelter or made better tools.

This, in turn, developed into the idea of a fixed community, with some buildings being used as dwellings and others as places of business. The more people, the greater the diversity of skills and the greater the choice of whom to seek out, to fulfill tasks.

Hence, we develop the assumption that “bigger is better.” But, at some point, as a community grows larger, we find that depersonalisation occurs. We find that we have little personal relationship with the folks on the other side of town and our willingness to help them diminishes, as we come to realise that the favour is unlikely to be returned.

The effectiveness of “community” is based on the level of voluntary give-and-take.

This concept is reinforced in a situation where we live our entire lives in the same location, increasing the likelihood that we’ll be surrounded by family members, including in-laws and friends and associates with whom we develop symbiotic relationships over a period of years. The longer those relationships exist, the less immediacy we require on a return within the give-and-take.

The logical conclusion of “bigger is better” is city life, in which people come and go frequently and each individual becomes more solitary in his view as to what type of behaviour is most useful to him. The larger the population, the more the sense of “community” dries up.

Although a high-population community can function effectively, it tends to come apart in times of strife. If a riot occurs, your car is more likely to be senselessly burned by someone you don’t know and have never harmed. Likewise, during a food crisis, your neighbour is more likely to shoot you to gain the loaf of bread you’re taking home.  

So, somewhere between city living and “going it alone,” there’s an ideal size for a community, where neighbours are likely to help one another as needed, because they recognise the likelihood of a return on their “social investment.”

In the US, the Amish have arguably been more successful at this than anyone else. Whenever a community exceeds forty or so families, they begin the formation of another church district (community). This assures that each person benefits personally from the assistance of the others, even to the extent that the entire community gets together to raise a barn for a young married couple, without charging them. (At some point in everyone’s life, the favour has either been returned, or will be.)

The English country village has my personal endorsement as the most civilised form of community man has ever created, as it has one of every service that’s needed, but little more. But, although I’m British, I choose not to live in an English village, because they all fall under the aegis of a controlling and impersonal national government, within which I have no meaningful voice. Worse, at least for the present, that national government falls under the control of an even more dictatorial uber-government—the EU.

For a community to have an effective government, it would never grow beyond the level of the town hall—a meeting place in which each resident’s voice has a similar weight. (Even then, it would stand the risk of being more a democracy than a republic.)

But, as soon as a community grows beyond that size, the individual has an ever-decreasing say in managing his own affairs. In addition, he faces decreasing interplay between himself and his fellow citizens, leaving him ever more greatly exposed in those times when mutual respect and assistance may be essential.

Today, we’re approaching a period that will include the greatest level of social, economic and political change that we’ll ever face in our lifetimes. Whilst it will impact us all, the primary objective should be to minimize its impact on us so that we can come out the other side of it as undamaged as possible. (If we prepare ourselves well enough, we may even exit this period in a better position than we now have.)

In such a time, it would be wise to have the option to live in a small community, where we’re known and our involvement is respected. As conditions become more difficult, our voluntary participation in the survival and/or betterment of the community would be the glue that keeps its function ongoing. (And, here, I cannot stress the word, “voluntary” strongly enough. A community that has laws and regulations that demand contribution is a poor choice, regardless of its size.) 

Read More @

China Begins To Reset The World’s Reserve Currency System

by Dave Kranzler, Investment Research Dynamics:

It’s a strategic move swapping oil for gold, rather than for U.S. Treasuries, which can be printed out of thin air.  – Grant Williams

A report released by the Nikkei Asian Review indicates that China is prepared to release a yuan-denominated oil futures contract that is convertible (backed by) physical gold.  The contract will enable China’s largest oil suppliers to settle  oil sales in yuan, rather than in dollars, and then convert the yuan into gold on exchanges in Hong Kong and Shanghai.

This is a significant step in removing the global reserve currency status of the dollar and resetting the the global economic and geopolitical “landscape.”  Over the past several years, China has quietly established yuan-based currency exchange facilities, which has set up the ability to implement this new non-dollar trade settlement financial instrument. According to the Brookings Institute, 34 Central Banks around the world have signed bilateral local currency swap agreements with the PBoC as of of the end of September 2016, including the major oil-producing countries.  With this new contract, China’s largest oil suppliers will now be able to transact directly with China, and other oil importing countries, using yuan which are directly convertible into gold to settle the trade.

As Alasdair Macleod asserts, “It is a mechanism which is likely to appeal to oil producers that prefer to avoid using dollars, and are not ready to accept that being paid in yuan for oil sales to China is a good idea either.”

Since 1973, OPEC oil has been quoted and traded using to U.S. dollars, otherwise known as “petrodollars.”  The “recycling” of petrodollars into U.S. Treasuries has been the life-blood of the U.S. economic and political system.  In addition to reducing a major source of funding for the the U.S. Government’s enormous deficit spending, the introduction of a gold-backed yuan oil futures contract is an important step toward removing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. More significantly it reintroduces gold into the global monetary system.

Read More @



from Stefan Molyneux:

Moral Outrage Over Low Wages: Canada Joins Trump With Threats of Walking Out on NAFTA

by Mish Shedlock, Mish Talk:

The threat of total abandonment of NAFTA took on a second front today as Canada’s biggest private-sector union said NAFTA should be scrapped if Mexico cannot agree to better labor standards.

Please consider Sharp Differences Over Labor Surface at NAFTA Talks in Mexico.

Tensions over sharp differences in pay between Mexican workers and their Canadian and U.S. counterparts surfaced on Sunday as negotiators discussed labor market rules in talks to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Canada’s biggest private-sector union said NAFTA should be scrapped if Mexico cannot agree to better labor standards, clashing with Mexican business leaders who argued that workers rights were a matter for each country to resolve internally.

Mexican political and corporate leaders firmly resist demands to bring wages into line with U.S. and Canadian levels, arguing the big cost advantage the country enjoys over richer peers should decrease as economic development advances.

Labor union leaders in the two wealthier nations say laxer labor standards and lower pay in Mexico have swelled corporate profits at the expense of Canadian and U.S. workers, making resolution of the issue a major battleground of the NAFTA talks.

Jerry Dias, national president of Canadian union Unifor, said NAFTA had been a “lousy trade agreement for working-class people” and that the union was pushing his government to walk away from the talks if it could not secure them a better deal.

“If labor standards aren’t a part of a trade deal, then there shouldn’t be a trade deal,” Dias told reporters in Mexico City on the sidelines of a second round of negotiations to update the 1994 trade agreement among the three countries.

Bosco de la Vega, head of Mexican farm lobby, the National Agricultural Council, said more trade, not intervention in labor markets, was the best way for the region to grow economically.

“Mexico can’t interfere in the labor market issue in the United States and Canada. We ask the same: that they don’t interfere in these matters,” he told reporters at the talks.

Moral Outrage Over Free Trade

Are bad jobs at bad wages better than no jobs at all? Should the US demand third world economies pay “living wages”?

If so, and if countries don’t oblige, should the US impose tariffs so the US does not lose jobs to such countries?

This is what I think…

Moral outrage is common among the opponents of globalization–of the transfer of technology and capital from high-wage to low-wage countries and the resulting growth of labor-intensive Third World exports. These critics take it as a given that anyone with a good word for this process is naive or corrupt and, in either case, a de facto agent of global capital in its oppression of workers here and abroad.

But matters are not that simple, and the moral lines are not that clear. In fact, let me make a counter-accusation: The lofty moral tone of the opponents of globalization is possible only because they have chosen not to think their position through. While fat-cat capitalists might benefit from globalization, the biggest beneficiaries are, yes, Third World workers.

Workers in those shirt and sneaker factories are, inevitably, paid very little and expected to endure terrible working conditions. I say “inevitably” because their employers are not in business for their (or their workers’) health; they pay as little as possible, and that minimum is determined by the other opportunities available to workers. And these are still extremely poor countries, where living on a garbage heap is attractive compared with the alternatives.

And yet, wherever the new export industries have grown, there has been measurable improvement in the lives of ordinary people. Partly this is because a growing industry must offer a somewhat higher wage than workers could get elsewhere in order to get them to move. More importantly, however, the growth of manufacturing–and of the penumbra of other jobs that the new export sector creates–has a ripple effect throughout the economy. The pressure on the land becomes less intense, so rural wages rise; the pool of unemployed urban dwellers always anxious for work shrinks, so factories start to compete with each other for workers, and urban wages also begin to rise. Where the process has gone on long enough–say, in South Korea or Taiwan–average wages start to approach what an American teen-ager can earn at McDonald’s. And eventually people are no longer eager to live on garbage dumps.

The benefits of export-led economic growth to the mass of people in the newly industrializing economies are not a matter of conjecture. A country like Indonesia is still so poor that progress can be measured in terms of how much the average person gets to eat; since 1970, per capita intake has risen from less than 2,100 to more than 2,800 calories a day. A shocking one-third of young children are still malnourished–but in 1975, the fraction was more than half. Similar improvements can be seen throughout the Pacific Rim, and even in places like Bangladesh.

Why, then, the outrage of my correspondents? Why does the image of an Indonesian sewing sneakers for 60 cents an hour evoke so much more feeling than the image of another Indonesian earning the equivalent of 30 cents an hour trying to feed his family on a tiny plot of land–or of a Filipino scavenging on a garbage heap?

The main answer, I think, is a sort of fastidiousness. Unlike the starving subsistence farmer, the women and children in the sneaker factory are working at slave wages for our benefit–and this makes us feel unclean. And so there are self-righteous demands for international labor standards: We should not, the opponents of globalization insist, be willing to buy those sneakers and shirts unless the people who make them receive decent wages and work under decent conditions.

This sounds only fair–but is it? Let’s think through the consequences.

First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries’ populations. At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better off.

And it might not even do that. The advantages of established First World industries are still formidable. The only reason developing countries have been able to compete with those industries is their ability to offer employers cheap labor. Deny them that ability, and you might well deny them the prospect of continuing industrial growth, even reverse the growth that has been achieved. And since export-oriented growth, for all its injustice, has been a huge boon for the workers in those nations, anything that curtails that growth is very much against their interests. A policy of good jobs in principle, but no jobs in practice, might assuage our consciences, but it is no favor to its alleged beneficiaries.

You may say that the wretched of the earth should not be forced to serve as hewers of wood, drawers of water, and sewers of sneakers for the affluent. But what is the alternative? Should they be helped with foreign aid?

And as long as you have no realistic alternative to industrialization based on low wages, to oppose it means that you are willing to deny desperately poor people the best chance they have of progress for the sake of what amounts to an aesthetic standard–that is, the fact that you don’t like the idea of workers being paid a pittance to supply rich Westerners with fashion items.

In short, my correspondents are not entitled to their self-righteousness. They have not thought the matter through. And when the hopes of hundreds of millions are at stake, thinking things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a moral duty.

Purposeful Plagiarism

I need to point out that everything above following “This is what I think…” was not written by me (but it does reflect my exact beliefs).

Believe it or not, Paul Krugman wrote that, and here is the link: In Praise of Cheap Labor.

Krugman wrote that before he lost his mind.

Read More @

Hitler’s ‘Brown Shirts’ Were Oddly Similar To Antifa’s Tactics And Methods Today- The Rise of Antifa Nazism


by Susan Duclos, All News Pipeline:

“I admit that I have always harbored an exaggerated view of self-importance — to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god.” This opinion was confirmed in 1993, when George Soros told the British newspaper The Independent, “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”

As the mainstream media becomes more militant as their influence over the American polulance wanes, they have spent over a year attempting to encourage Antifa groups violence by justifying and excusing their behavior with claims that Antifa groups are standing up against “White Supremacists,” while they label anyone that disagrees with their communist ideology and violent methods, as a “neo-nazi.”

The truth, in contrast, is that Antifa uses the same methods and tactics that Hitler’s “Brown Shirts” did.


Keeping in mind that Antifa uses violent methods to suppress free speech by conservatives for political purposes, which are fascist methods, and the same methods used by Hitler’s ‘Brown Shirts,’ while claiming to be anti-fascists, what is even more disturbing, heard in the video below is that an Antifa member, speaking to crowd which includes members (seen on the back of a shirt at the 7:36 minute mark), the speaker who claims to be a U.S. military veteran, directly quotes a number of statements to incite the crowd, to justify their “anti-capitalism” ideology.

The first quote the speaker reads off of his device, word for word, is “We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!”

The quote itself is not surprising coming from a group that espouses communist, socialist, and anti-capitalism ideology, but what the speaker never bothered mentioning to the crowd, is that the quote is attributed  Gregor Strasser, a prominent member of the Nazi partyuntil he became a rival to Adolph Hitler and was murdered in 1934. (Some also attribute this quote to Hitler himself)

The next quotes the Antifa speaker uses are directly from Adolf Hitler, which includes “Benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter.”

What the speaker left out of that quote, was the ending “The Third Reich will always retain the right to control the owners of property.” He begins the next quote, by neglecting to use the words “Third Reich” and instead replaces it with the “The “American Nation” will always retain its right to control to control the owners of property,” in an attempt to conflate Hitler’s terminology with American capitalism.

He then goes on to use six more Adolf Hitler quotes.

Read More @

WATCH: DNC Fraud Lawsuit Provides Update, Hope


by Elizabeth Vos, Disobedient Media:

Disobedient Media previously reported that the DNC Fraud lawsuit had been dismissed by Judge Zloch. Today, Elizabeth Beck, one of the attorneys for he plaintiffs in the case against the DNC, posted a video update on the suit’s status via social media. The update provided hope for supporters and plaintiffs in the case for the potential that the litigation might continue through the appeals process.

Beck explained that as judge Zloch had dismissed the case on jurisdictional issues, a new case brought in a separate court could potentially use his ruling as “persuasive evidence.” She cited rule four of the civil rules of federal procedure, which she explained states that in a civil case, the notification of appeal required by rule three must be filed with a district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgement that the order appeared from. She explained that the thirty days will b concluded on September 24th 2017, approximately 3 weeks from now.

Elizabeth Beck went on to say that if no notice of appeal is filed by that time, then there would be no appeal. She recognized that many members of the public have expressed their desire for the case to continue, adding that it is the most viable route going forward, as opposed to new cases being filed. Beck noted that at present there are three law firms involved in this suit, including Beck and Lee. She stated that Cullin O’brien, a Harvard Law grad, and Tony Hernandez are both solo law practitioners with their own firms.

She explained that because of the usual terms of plaintiff’s contingency lawyers, the Becks have not been paid throughout the case; Beck emphasized on this point that her statement in that regard was not a complaint, but simply the normal routine procedure in this type of suit. Elizabeth Beck further explained that since the case had been dismissed, no copycat cases had been filed anywhere in the country. She said that the lawyers involved in the suit are in no way obligated to take the case further, and that they have never solicited donations to fund this case; it is not the way plaintiff’s contingency cases work.

However, Beck then stated that Jared Beck is in the process of writing a book, which will be in response to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s upcoming publication titled ‘What Happened,’ in response to her loss to Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential race. Due to the likely lack of content on the DNC lawsuit, the Becks considered it necessary to write a response to this text, and are in the process of finding a publisher for the book.

Beck stated that the proceeds of the book would serve as a legitimate way to fund the DNC lawsuit through appeals, if need be, to the Supreme court of the United States. She emphasized repeatedly that this is not considered to be soliciting donations.

Beck went on to state that members of the class are welcomed to submit their stories, which would be welcomed as inclusions in the text.

Disobedient Media will continue to provide coverage of this important ongoing story as it unfolds. The update can be viewed below:

Read More @

The Deep State: How They Got Their Power To Manipulate For Ultimate Control


by Mac Slavo, SHTFPlan:

While many in the United States firmly believe that the government just isn’t working, it is.  But it’s only working for the powerful and rich elites in the government and the media who have a desire to cling to their oppressive control of others and the money many are willing to allow them to steal.

The fight has never been between the republicans and the democrats.  As Americans choose sides, their rights and freedoms are sold to the highest bidder. According toIntellectual Takeout, the fight is between “us” and the deep state; not those on the right and those on the left.  More and more often we are seeing bureaucrats, lobbyists, and elected officials of both parties circle the wagons in an effort to prevent any true reforms of the government. They constantly write laws they exclude themselves from,  come up with inventive ways to tax us to our breaking point and destroy the healthcare system.  And this is all by design.

According to Joost Meerloo in his seminal book The Rape of the Mind, the author discusses the psychology of brainwashing that’s allowing every American to succumb to tyranny right before their eyes and not only not realize it, but beg for more oppression.  “The burning psychological question is whether man will eventually master his institutions so that these will serve him and not rule him,” said Meerloo in his discussion of the Deep State or the “administrative machine” published in 1956.

Meerlo describes the rise of the deep state as:

“… The development of a kind of bureaucratic absolutism is not limited, however, to totalitarian countries. A mild form of professional absolutism is evident in every country in the mediating class of civil servants who bridge the gap between man and his rulers. Such a bureaucracy may be used to help or to harm the citizens it should serve.

It is important to realize that a peculiar, silent form of battle goes on in all of the countries of the world — under every form of government — a battle between the common man and the government apparatus he himself has created. In many places we can see that this governing tool, which was originally meant to serve and assist man, has gradually obtained more power than it was intended to have.

… Governmental techniques are no different from any other psychological strategy; the deadening hold of regimentation can take mental possession of those dedicated to it, if they are not alert. And this is the intrinsic danger of the various agencies that mediate between the common man and his government. It is a tragic aspect of life that man has to place another fallible man between himself and the attainment of his highest ideals.” –The Rape of the Mind

Meerlo goes on to say that the power of simply being in government will corrupt:

Being a high civil servant subjects man to a dangerous temptation, simply because he is a part of the ruling apparatus. He finds himself caught in the strategy complex. The magic of becoming an executive and a strategist provokes long-repressed feelings of omnipotence. A strategist feels like a chess player. He wants to manipulate the world by remote control. Now he can keep others waiting, as he was forced to wait himself in his salad days, and thus he can feel himself superior. –The Rape of the Mind

But what we are seeing now is not only the corruption of the government. We are witnessing the deep state pulling the strings of every politician and fight to keep their power and money. The members of the Deep State are fighting for not only their jobsand their power but their sense of being. It is an ego boost to control entire populations. But what meaning do they have in life if they were shown that they are in fact dispensable, that they and their departments can be eliminated? In the end, their egos depend upon the maintenance and growth of the power and prestige.

Read More @

“Self Drive Act” Passes House Committee 54-0: Safety Standards Scrapped, 25,000 Driverless Cars Coming Right Up


by Mish Shedlock, Mish Talk:

Many contend that self-driving trucks and cars will not happen anytime soon for numerous reasons (most of them easily refuted).

One of the reasons is of lack of approval from Congress.

That argument will go on the ash heap of history by the end of the year because a bipartisan House Panel Approves Legislation Speeding Up Deployment of Self-Driving Cars.

An influential U.S. House committee on Thursday approved a revised bipartisan bill on a 54-0 vote that would speed the deployment of self-driving cars without human controls and bar states from blocking autonomous vehicles.

The bill would allow automakers to obtain exemptions to deploy up to 25,000 vehicles without meeting existing auto safety standards in the first year, a cap that would rise to 100,000 vehicles annually over three years.

Automakers and technology companies believe chances are good Congress will approve legislation before year end. They have been pushing for regulations making it easier to deploy self-driving technology, while consumer groups have sought more safeguards. Current federal rules bar self-driving cars without human controls on U.S. roads and automakers think proposed state rules in California are too restrictive.

The House of Representatives will take up the bill when it reconvenes in September, while senators plan to introduce a separate similar measure.

“Our aim was to develop a regulatory structure that allows for industry to safely innovate with significant government oversight,” said Representative Greg Walden, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Initially, authors proposed to allow automakers and others to sell up to 100,000 vehicles immediately. Representative Frank Pallone said the phase-in period was essential so “millions of exempted cars will not hit our roads all at once.”

Under the House proposal, states could still set rules on registration, licensing, liability, insurance and safety inspections, but could not set self-driving car performance standards.

Automakers praised committee passage, while Consumer Watchdog privacy director John Simpson said preempting state laws “leaves us at the mercy of manufacturers as they use our public highways as their private laboratories.”

The issue has taken on new urgency since U.S. road deaths rose 7.7 percent in 2015, the highest annual jump since 1966.

Automakers say that without changes in regulations, U.S. self-driving car testing could move to Europe and elsewhere.

25,000 Driverless Cars Coming Right Up

This is playing out exactly as I expected. In 2018, there will be 25,000 cars and trucks on the and highways and in cities, driving themselves. I suspect most initial testing will be on highways. If that goes well, there will be 100,000 self-driving cars on the roads by 2019-2020.

Read More @