Thursday, August 22, 2019

Precious Metals Represent Something True

by Clint Siegner, Money Metals:

You began investing in precious metals because they represent something honest.

Gold and silver are tangible, scarce, and beautiful. People have always recognized them as such. Societies naturally gravitated toward using them as a trusted medium of exchange – money – almost as soon as societies were formed.

Over time civilizations have come and gone. The world has seen constant social upheaval and change.

Barr’s Russiagate Origin Probe Pivots To ‘Smoking Gun’ Tapes With Exculpatory Evidence

from ZeroHedge:

A DOJ internal review of the Russia investigation is now focusing on transcripts of (not-so) covertly recorded conversations between former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos and ‘at least one government source’ during an overseas conversation in 2016.

In particular, DOJ investigators are focusing on why certain exculpatory (or exonerating) evidence from the transcripts was not included in subsequent FBI surveillance warrant applications, according to Fox News, citing two sources familiar with the review.

Feds Find 23 Guns In Office Of Indicted Chicago Democrat

from ZeroHedge:

A longtime Chicago alderman and staunch gun-control advocate who was arrested on federal corruption charges stemming from an attempt to use his position to extort a company hoping to renovate a fast food restaurant in his ward was found to have 23 firearms in his offices, according to a local CBS affiliate.

Edward Burke, who has for decades been one of the city’s most powerful and most notoriously corrupt officials, reportedly relied on a city ordinance stemming from the 1870s that designated all Aldermen as “peace officers” allowing them to carry and store weapons in their offices and city buildings – where even those with a concealed carry permit are not allowed to carry them.

Market Report: China tightens control over bullion

by Alasdair Macleod, GoldMoney:

Gold and silver continued to strengthen this week, both seeing new closing highs for the year. Gold rose by $12 from last Friday’s close to trade at $1510 in early morning European trade and silver by 15 cents to $17.11.

For the last seven trading sessions, the pattern appears to be another running correction with each dip finding buyers at rising prices. The one exception was extreme volatility on Tuesday, when gold traded as high as $1535 then as low as $1480 before bouncing back to close at $1501. The cause was Trump’s announcement he would postpone tariffs on Chinese consumer goods as a Christmas gift to US shoppers. Immediately, this was seized upon as a climb-down. Rather, it shows confusion in the White House. Someone probably warned him that tariffs will drive up the rate of price inflation, making it difficult for the Fed to reduce interest rates.

Types of Gold Standards

by JP Koning, via Gold Seek:

People often throw out the phrase “gold standard” into conversation, but it’s worth keeping in mind that there have been several iterations of the gold standard over the course of history. This article describes each type of gold standard using historical examples for clarity.

1. The Gold Coin Standard, or Specie Standard
-Bimetallic Coin Systems-
Medieval coinage systems were typically bimetallic, relying on both gold and silver. To ensure the realm was well-supplied with coins, the monarch maintained a network of mints. Mints in the medieval times operated very differently than they do now. According to the principles of free coinage, access to these mints was available to anyone. By bringing their stash of raw precious metals to the mint, members of the public could ask the mint master to turn it into a specified number of coins, albeit for a fee.

Doug Casey on the Destruction of the Dollar


by Doug Casey, Casey Research,:

“Inflation” occurs when the creation of currency outruns the creation of real wealth it can bid for… It isn’t caused by price increases; rather, it causes price increases.

Inflation is not caused by the butcher, the baker, or the auto maker, although they usually get blamed. On the contrary, by producing real wealth, they fight the effects of inflation. Inflation is the work of government alone, since government alone controls the creation of currency.

In a true free-market society, the only way a person or organization can legitimately obtain wealth is through production. “Making money” is no different from “creating wealth,” and money is nothing but a certificate of production. In our world, however, the government can create currency at trivial cost, and spend it at full value in the marketplace. If taxation is the expropriation of wealth by force, then inflation is its expropriation by fraud.

To inflate, a government needs complete control of a country’s legal money. This has the widest possible implications, since money is much more than just a medium of exchange. Money is the means by which all other material goods are valued. It represents, in an objective way, the hours of one’s life spent in acquiring it. And if enough money allows one to live life as one wishes, it represents freedom as well. It represents all the good things one hopes to have, do, and provide for others. Money is life concentrated.

As the state becomes more powerful and is expected to provide more resources to selected groups, its demand for funds escalates. Government naturally prefers to avoid imposing more taxes as people become less able (or willing) to pay them. It runs greater budget deficits, choosing to borrow what it needs. As the market becomes less able (or willing) to lend it money, it turns to inflation, selling ever greater amounts of its debt to its central bank, which pays for the debt by printing more money.

As the supply of currency rises, it loses value relative to other things, and prices rise. The process is vastly more destructive than taxation, which merely dissipates wealth. Inflation undermines and destroys the basis for valuing all goods relative to others and the basis for allocating resources intelligently. It creates the business cycle and causes the resulting misallocations and distortions in the economy.

We know the old saw “The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.” No one ever said life had to be fair, but usually there is no a priori reason why the rich must get richer. In a free-market society the sayings “Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations” and “A fool and his money are soon parted” might be better descriptions of reality. We do not live in a free-market society, however.

The rich and the poor do have a tendency to draw apart as a society becomes more bureaucratic, but not because of any cosmic law. It’s a consequence of any highly politicized system. Government, to paraphrase Willie Sutton, is where the money is. The bigger government becomes, the more effort the rich, and those who want to get that way, will put into making the government do things their way.

Only the rich can afford the legal counsel it takes to weave and dodge through the laws that restrict the masses. The rich can afford the accountants to chart a path through loopholes in the tax laws. The rich have the credit to borrow and thereby profit from inflation. The rich can pay to influence how the government distorts the economy, so that the distortions are profitable to them.

The point is not that rich people are bad guys (the political hacks who cater to them are a different question). It is just that in a heavily regulated, highly taxed, and inflationary society, there’s a strong tendency for the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor, who are hurt by the same actions of the government.

Always, and without exception, the most socialistic, or centrally planned, economies have the most unequal distribution of wealth. In those societies the unprincipled become rich, and the rich stay that way, through political power. In free societies, the rich can get richer only by providing goods and services others want at a price they can afford.

As inflation gets worse, there will be a growing public outcry for government to do something, anything, about it.

Read More @

Fed Raise to DESTROY the Monetary System?! (Bix Weir)

from RoadtoRoota:

“You Are Criminalizing Diplomacy!” Professor Stephen Cohen Slams Neocon Max Boot In CNN Debate

from ZeroHedge:

Stephen Cohen schooled prominent ‘Never Trump’ neocon and Council on Foreign Relations member Max Boot on CNN’s Anderson Cooper this week on the Trump-Putin Helsinki summit and general charges related to ‘Russiagate’.

It’s worth watching especially as it underscores why recognized academic experts are rarely given airtime on the mainstream networks if their perspective lies outside the accepted media group-think on Russia. 

“I‘ve been studying Russia for 45 years,” Professor Stephen Cohen said as the debate got heated. “I‘ve lived in Russia, and I’ve lived here.”

The Sugar Conspiracy


by James Corbett, The International Forecaster:

How could it possibly have taken so long for such an obvious and undeniable truth—that sugar is the key culprit in a range of diseases and disorders—to be acknowledged?

An explosive new study in the PLOS Biology journal confirms three things that independent health researchers have been saying for years:  1) Sugar-heavy diets are worse for your health than fat-heavy diets. 2) Researchers have known this fact for decades. 3) The sugar industry actively covered up the research supporting this fact.

The study—bearing the typically unwieldy title “Sugar industry sponsorship of germ-free rodent studies linking sucrose to hyperlipidemia and cancer: An historical analysis of internal documents“—reads like an unlikely pairing of crime thriller and academic article.

At the heart of this medical thriller lies the mysteriously named “Project 259,” a research study which ran from 1967 to 1971 to examine the link between sucrose consumption and coronary heart disease. From the outside, the project, headed by Dr. W.F.R. Pover at the University of Birmingham, appeared to be just another clinical study in nutritional science. It involved a feeding experiment in which lab rats were separated into two groups, one eating a high-sugar diet and the other eating a so-called “basic PRM diet” of cereal meals, soybean meals, whitefish meal, and dried yeast. But this was not the passion project of an impartial scientist trying to get to the truth. This was a study sponsored by the “Sugar Research Foundation” (SRF), which (in case you couldn’t tell) has organizational ties to the Sugar Association, the US sugar industry’s trade association.

The results of the SRF’s experiment, according to an interim assessment issued in 1969, were extremely interesting:

“Among [Project 259’s] observations was … that the urine from rats on the basic diet contained an inhibitor of beta-glucorinidase activity in a quantity greater than that from sucrose-fed animals. This is one of the first demonstrations of a biological difference between sucrose and starch fed rats.”

As the PLOS Biology article explains, the finding was significant and important:

“This incidental finding of Project 259 demonstrated to SRF that sucrose versus starch consumption caused different metabolic effects and suggested that sucrose, by stimulating urinary beta-glucuronidase, may have a role in the pathogenesis of bladder cancer.”

So, surely these results were published to much fanfare and became the touchstone for a thoroughgoing scientific inquiry into the possible sugar-cancer link, right?


“After supporting the project for 27 months, [the Sugar Research Foundation] did not approve the additional 12 weeks of funding needed to complete the study.”

Yes, exactly as you would have predicted, the breakthrough study demonstrating a biological difference between sucrose and starch-fed rats was shelved and none of its results were ever published. But you know what was published? An article in the New England Journal of Medicine which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was a risk factor. That study, too, was sponsored by the SRF, but (surprise, surprise!) the sugar industry’s funding of the whitewash was not disclosed when the article appeared in 1965. It took 61 years for that little factoid to be dug up by researchers and published.

As I say, the fact that the sugar industry has been actively working to cover up sugar’s role in coronary heart disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer and numerous other ailments will come as no surprise to my regular readers, and even the most fluoride-addled victims of the mainstream fake news will have heard something of this story by now.

The New York Times of all places broached the subject in 2011, when it dared to ask “Is Sugar Toxic?” It was obediently followed by fellow MSM lapdog 60 Minutes asking the very same question the very next year.

In 2015, Time Magazine upped the ante considerably: “Sugar Is Definitely Toxic, a New Study Says.”

And by last year, the jig was up. As the Huffington Post informed us: “Sugar Is Not Only a Drug but a Poison Too.”

So what broke the dam? Why did the fake news dinosaur media suddenly open the floodgates on the sugar conspiracy? As always, it was a handful of brave independent researchers who really broke the story and single-handedly championed it in the face of an all-out assault from the Big Sugar lobby until the public finally caught on to the scam. Only then were the MSM (and the nutrition industry itself) forced to finally admit the obvious truth.

How could it possibly have taken so long for such an obvious and undeniable truth—that sugar is the key culprit in a range of diseases and disorders—to be acknowledged?

Dismissed as “cranks” and “quacks,” these researchers held firm for decades under incredible pressure.

Just ask John Yudkin. He was the British nutritionist who began ringing the alarm on the dangers of sugar consumption in the late 1950s. His 1972 treatise Pure, White, and Deadly: How Sugar Is Killing Us and What We Can Do to Stop It pulled no punches in its fight against sucrose: “If only a small fraction of what is already known about the effects of sugar were to be revealed in relation to any other material used as a food additive,” he writes in his opening chapter, “revealed in relation to any other material used as a food additive.”

The book, written for the layman and aimed at getting people to realize the real health effects of sugar, was a huge success. Published in the US as Sweet and Dangerous, Yudkin’s work was also translated into Finnish, German, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese and Swedish, with a revised and expanded edition was issued in 1986.

But despite this popular success (or, more accurately, because of it), Yudkin became the target of Big Sugar and its well-funded lackeys in the field of nutritional “science.” The industry tried to prevent the publication of the book at all, and, failing at that, set to work attempting to destroy Yudkin’s reputation. In that task, they were successful. By the time of his death in 1995, Yudkin was largely consigned to the dustbin of nutritional history.

It wasn’t until Yudkin’s work was rediscovered in 2008 by Robert Lustig, a pediatric endriconologist at the University of California San Francisco, that things really began to change. Lustig made a presentation on the hidden dangers of sugar consumption, “Sugar: The Bitter Truth” that became a bona fide viral video, a rare unicorn indeed in the field of 90-minute nutritional lectures. From that point on, medical researchers and the MSM were forced to admit the piles of evidence that had been staring them in the face (and/or actively suppressed by the sugar lobby) for decades.

As satisfying as Yudkin’s posthumous vindication may be, it poses the larger question: How could it possibly have taken so long for such an obvious and undeniable truth—that sugar is the key culprit in a range of diseases and disorders—to be acknowledged? After all, sugar had been a suspected cause of obesity and diabetes for decades before Project 259 and other studies began to collect the hard data on the subject. Even the most uninformed layman could fail to note the incredible correspondence between the rise of sugar in the average diet—going from 18 pounds per capita per year in 1800 to a staggering 150+ pounds today—and the rise of obesity in the general public.

The answer to that question goes to the heart of “The Crisis of Science” that I identified in this column last year. As I observed in that article:

Read More @