Archive | May 2nd, 2015

The May 2nd Odessa Massacre: Why Obamas Coup-Regime Still Runs Ukraine

NOVANEWS
Global Research
odessa tragedy

The May 2nd Ukrainian massacre of anti-regime pamphleteers last year at the Odessa Trade Unions Building, burning these pamphleteers alive there, was crucial to the Obama Administrations solidification of its control over Ukraine. That massacre was designed to, and it did, terrorize the residents in all areas of Ukraine which had voted overwhelmingly for the man whom Obama had just ousted, Viktor Yanukovych. Especially in the Donbass region, Yanokovych had received 90%+ of the votes. In Odessa, he had received three-quarters of the votes. (Later will be explained why this terror against the residents of such regions was necessary for Obamas purpose of solidifying his control over Ukraines government.)

So, the shocking methods of executing these people, and its being done in public and with no blockage of video images being recorded of these events by their many witnesses, and with the newly-installed Obama government in Kiev doing nothing whatsoever to prosecute any of these horrific murderers, there was a clear message being sent to the people who had voted for Yanukovych: If you resist the new authorities in any way, this is how you will be treated by them. This is how you will be treated (and that video was posted to the Internet by the perpetrators and their supporters, by headlining, “48 Russian Subversives Burned To Death In Fire At Trade Unions Building Fire In Odessa, so that any other ‘Russian Subversives’ would have no doubt. However, those victims identities were subsequently published, and all of the victims were actually Odessa locals, none were Russians. The perpetrators were racist fascists, after all; and, so, being a Russian meant, to them, being from a hated ethnicity, not necessarily being a citizen of Russia.) Terror was the obvious purpose here, and Obama was behind it, but nazis were in front of it, and they were proud of their handiwork proud enough to film it and then to display it to the public.

If the President that you had voted for were subsequently to be overthrown in an extremely bloody coup or even if it had happened in an authentic revolution then how would you feel? And, if, two months later, people who were peacefully printing and distributing flyers against the illegally installed replacement regime were publicly treated this way, then would you want to be ruled by that regime?

Yanukovych had been elected in 2010 in an election that was declared free and fair by international observers; and, furthermore, according to wikipedia, ”All exit polls conducted during the final round of voting reported a win for Viktor Yanukovych over Yulia Tymoshenko.[162][163][164]. But, starting in Spring of 2013, which was as soon as Obama got into position all of his key foreign-affairs appointees for his second Presidential term, after the 2012 U.S. election, the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine immediately started organizing, for Maidan square in Kiev, public demonstrations to bring Yanukovych down, and they placed at the head of this operation the co-founder of the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine, Andriy Parubiy, a man who had long studied Hitlers methods of political organization. The troops, actually mercenaries, that provided the snipers who fired down onto the demonstrators and police in Maidan square in Kiev in February 2014 and pretended to be from Yanukovychs security forces, were trained not by Parubiy but instead by Dmitriy Yarosh, who was the head of Ukraines other large racist-fascist, or nazi, organization, the Right Sector, whose CIA-and-oligarch-backed army numbered probably between 7,000 and 10,000. Yarosh selected the best of them for this operation. Whereas Parubiy was the main political organizer and trainer of Ukraines far-right, Yarosh was the main military organizer and trainer of Ukraines far-right.

So, Obamas operation to oust Yanukovych was fully dependent upon Ukraines far-right, which was the only nazi movement that still retained deep and strong roots anywhere in Europe after World War II. Obama built his takeover of Ukraine upon people like this. As is clear there, they were very well trained. Yarosh had been training them for more than a decade. (He had been doing it even prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union.) Yarosh had carefully studied successful coups; he knew how to do it. Just as Obama had very skillfully selected his political campaign team for his 2008 White House run, he very carefully selected his American team for what would become the chief feature of his second-term foreign policy: his war against Russia, central to which was his campaign to install rabid haters of Russia into control of Ukraine, right next door to Russia (in the hope of ultimately placing missiles there, against Russia). He had groomed Dick Cheneys former foreign-affairs advisor Victoria Nuland as the spokesperson for Hillary Clintons State Department (Nuland and Clinton were also personal friends of each other, so she was a skillful choice for this post), and then he boosted Nuland in the second term to the State Department post which oversaw all policymaking on Ukraine. Likewise Obama boosted Geoffrey Pyatt into the Ambassadorship in Ukraine, as the operative there to carry out Nulands instructions. Nuland made the decision to base the Maidan demonstrations upon the political skill of Paribuy and the paramilitary muscle of Yarosh. They headed her Ukrainian team.

Wikipedia says of Parubiy, and of Obamas other Ukrainian operatives:

Parubiy co-led the Orange Revolution in 2004.[5][11] In the 2007 parliamentary elections he was voted into theUkrainian parliament on an Our UkrainePeople’s Self-Defense Bloc ticket. He then became a member of the deputy group that would later become For Ukraine!.[5] Parubiy stayed with Our Ukraine and became a member of its political council.[12]

In February 2010 Parubiy asked the European Parliament to reconsider its negative reaction to former Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko’s decision to award Stepan Bandera, the leader of the [racist-fascist] Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, the title of Hero of Ukraine.[13]

In early February 2012 Parubiy left Our Ukraine because their “views diverged”.[14] In 2012 he was re-elected into parliament on the party list of ”Fatherland”.[15] [Yulia Tymoshenko heads the Fatherland Party; and she had been Obamas choice to become the next President of Ukraine, but she was too far-right for even the far-right voters of northwestern Ukraine, so Poroshenko won instead.]

From December 2013 to February 2014 Parubiy was a commandant of Euromaidan.[16] He was coordinator of thevolunteer security corps for the mainstream protesters.[17] He was then appointed Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine.[6] This appointed was approved by (then) new Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on June 16, 2014.[18]

As Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, Parubiy oversaw the “antiterrorist” operation againstpro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.[19]

Working directly under Parubiy in that anti-terrorist operation or ATO, was Yarosh, who in an interview with Newsweek, said that he has been training paramilitary troops for almost 25 years, and that his divisions are constantly growing all over Ukraine, but over 10,000 people for sure.

On May 14th of last year, there appeared, at Oriental Review, an important news report, Bloodbath in Odessa Guided by Interim Rulers of Ukraine, which described the roles of Yarosh, and of these others. It opened: “The information provided below was obtained from an insider in one of Ukraines law-enforcement agencies, who wished to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. It said:

“Ten days before the tragedy a secret meeting was held in Kiev, chaired by the incumbent president Olexander Turchinov, to prepare a special operation in Odessa. Present were minister of internal affairs Arsen Avakov, the head of the Ukrainian Security Service Valentin Nalivaychenko, and the secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Andriy Parubiy. Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoiskiy, the Kiev-appointed head of regional administration of the Dnepropetrovsk region, was consulted in regard to the operation.

During that meeting Arsen Avakov has reportedly came up with the idea of using football hooligans, known as ultras, in the operation. Ever since his time as the head of the Kharkov regional administration he has worked closely with the fans leaders, whom he continued to sponsor even fromhis new home in Italy.

Kolomoisky temporarily delivered his private Dnieper-1 Battalion under the command of law-enforcement officials in Odessa and also authorized a cash payment of $5,000 for each pro-Russian separatist killed during the special operation.

Mykola Volvov was wanted by the Ukrainian police since 2012 for fraud.

A couple of days before the operation in Odessa Andriy Parubiy brought dozens of bullet-proof vests to local ultra-nationalists. This video shows an episode of handing the vests to the local Maidan activists in Odessa. Take note of the person who receives the load. He is Mykola Volkov, a local hard-core criminal who would be repeatedly screened during the assault on Trade Unionist House gun-shooting at the people and reporting about the incident by phone to an official in Kiev.

Preparations

Ultranationalist militants from the extremist Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA-UNSO), who could be recognized by their red armbands, were also used during the operation. They were assigned a key role in the staging of the provocations: they masqueraded as the defenders of the tent city on Kulikovo Field, and then lured its occupants into the House of Trade Unions to be slaughtered.

Fifteen roadblocks were set up outside of Odessa, secured by militants under the personal command of Kolomoiskys Dnieper-1 Battalion, as well as Right Sectors thugs from Dnepropetrovsk and the western regions of Ukraine. In addition, two military units from the Self-Defense of Maidan arrived in Odessa, under the command of the acting head of the administration of the president, Sergey Pashinsky the same man who was caught with a sniper rifle in the trunk of his car on Feb. 18 on Independence Square (Maidan) in Kiev. Pashinsky later claimed that he had not been fully informed about the plans for the operation and had dispatched his men only to protect the people of Odessa. Thus, there were a total of about 1,400 fighters from other regions of Ukraine in the vicinity at the time thus countering the idea that there were residents of Odessa who burned down the House of Trade Unions.

Deputy chief of Odessa police and principle coordinator of the operation Dmitry Fucheji mysteriously dissappeared soon after the tradegy in Odessa.

The role of the Odessa police forces in the operation was personally directed by the head of the regional police, Petr Lutsyuk, and his deputy Dmitry Fucheji. Lutsyuk was assigned the task of neutralizing Odessas regional governor, Vladimir Nemirovsky, to prevent him from putting together an independent strategy that could disrupt the operation. Fucheji led the militants right to Greek Square where he was allegedly wounded (in order to evade responsibility for subsequent events).

The operation was originally scheduled for May 2 the day of a soccer match, which would justify the presence of a large number of sports fans (ultras) downtown and would also mean there would be a minimal number of Odessa residents on the streets who were not involved in the operation, since the majority of the citys population would be out of town enjoying their May Day holidays.

It should also be noted that Kolomoysky himself was directly connected to the U.S. White House.

If not for this horrific massacre, then the voters in the anti-coup regions would have remained inside the Ukrainian electorate, participants in the May 25th Presidential election to succeed Yanukovych as Ukraines new President: they would have been Ukrainian voters because the public sentiment in those regions still was not yet predominantly for separating from Ukraine; it was instead for the creation of a federal system that would have granted Donbass, Odessa, and the other anti-coup areas, some degree of autonomy. But that way, with the moderating influence of the voters in the far southeast, the resulting national government wouldnt have been rabidly anti-Russian, and so wouldnt have been, like the present one is, obsessed to kill Russians and to join NATO, for a NATO war against Russia. Obama needed to get rid of those voters. He needed them not to participate in the 25 May 2014 election. The May 2nd massacre was the way to do that. Here was the electoral turnout in the 25 May Ukrainian Presidential election. As you can see, almost all of the voters in that election were located in the parts of Ukraine that had voted overwhelmingly for Yulia Tymoshenko in the 2010 election, against Yanukovych.

Obama did his best to get the nazi queen Tymoshenko elected as Ukraines President; but, now that she was publicly and openly campaigning as the rabid anti-Russian that she had always been, and now that even many Ukrainian conservatives had qualms about going to war against Russia, since there was now so much political rhetoric favoring doing that, Poroshenko won, Tymoshenko lost. Poroshenko had played his cards just right: having been a supporter of the Maidan and of the overthrow of Yanukovych but not publicly associated with the nazis. He was even one of the people who informed the EUs investigator that the coup was a coup, no authentic revolution.

Publicly, Poroshenko gave no hint that he knew that Yanukovych had been framed for the February sniper-attacks that had been organized by the U.S. White House and that the overthrow had been a coup. In fact, on May 6th, just days after the massacre, and less than a month before the 2014 Presidential election, Poroshenko said, Proof was presented at the Verkhovna Rada’s session behind closed doors today that what happened at the House of Unions can be called a terrorist attack. (This had to be behind closed doors because it was fictitious and thus needed to be blocked from being examined by the public.) By that time, the polls already showed that he was going to win the election, and he knew that his only real audience was the man sitting in the U.S. White House.

Obama didnt get the more overt anti-Russian President that he had wanted, but he still controls Ukraine. The installation by Nuland of Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the temporary new Prime Minister to lead Ukraine after the coup, until a new President would be elected on May 25th, turned out to be permanent, instead of temporary. And Petro Poroshenko cant do anything that Obama doesnt want him to do. So: Obama still remains the virtual Emperor of Ukraine.

The people of Ukraine shouldnt praise or blame either their Prime Minister or their (perhaps merely nominal) President for what has been happening in their country after the coup; they should instead praise or blame those mens master: Barack Obama. Hes the person who made Yatsenyuk the Prime Minister, and who controls Poroshenko even though he didnt prefer him over Tymoshenko.

Ukraine is just part of the American Empire now. Any Ukrainian who doesnt recognize that would have to be a fool. Its the outright nazi part of the American Empire, but its part of the American Empire nonetheless. Obama is the first U.S. President to install a racist-fascist, or nazi, regime, anywhere; and he did it in Ukraine, which has long been the ripest place in the world for doing that sort of thing. The May 2nd massacre was an important part of the entire operation. This is why that important massacre is ignored as much as it can be, in the U.S.

Its important history, but its history that 99% of Americans are blocked from knowing. So: pass this article along to everyone you know (and, via facebook etc., even to some people you dont know); and they, too, will then have access to the documentation thats linked-to here, just as you did.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on The May 2nd Odessa Massacre: Why Obamas Coup-Regime Still Runs Ukraine

Eyeballing I$raHell Binyamin Naziyahu

NOVANEWS
Binyamin and his Benzion Netanyahu
By Uri Avnery
There are two different opinions about Binyamin Netanyahu. It is difficult to believe that they concern the same person.
One is that Netanyahu is a shallow politician, devoid of ideas and convictions, who is led solely by his obsession to remain in power. This Netanyahu has a good voice and a talent for making shallow speeches on television, speeches devoid of any intellectual content – and that’s
This Netanyahu is highly “pressurable” (a Hebrew word invented almost solely for him), a man who will change his views according to political expediency, disclaiming in the evening what he has said in the morning. None of his words should be trusted. He will lie and cheat anytime to assure his survival.
The other Netanyahu is almost the exact opposite. A principled patriot, a serious thinker, a statesman who sees danger beyond the horizon. This Netanyahu is a gifted orator, able to move the US Congress and the UN plenum, admired by the great mass of Israelis.
So which of these descriptions is true?
Neither.
If it is true that the character of a person is shaped by his early childhood, we must examine the background of Netanyahu in order to understand him.
Extremist lineage
He grew up in the shadow of a strong father. Benzion Millikowsky, who changed his foreign name to the Hebrew Netanyahu, was a very dominant and very unhappy person. Born in Warsaw, then a provincial town in the Russian Empire, he immigrated to Palestine as a young man, studied history at the new Hebrew University in Jerusalem and expected to become a professor there. He was not accepted.
Benzion was the son of an early adherent of Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky, the extreme rightist Zionist leader. He inherited from his father a very extremist outlook, and passed it on to his three sons. Binyamin was the second one. His elder brother, still a child himself, called him Bibi, and the childish appellation stuck.
Benzion’s rejection by the prestigious young Hebrew University turned him into a bitter man, a bitterness that lasted until his death in 2012, at the age of 102. He was sure that this rejection had nothing to do with his academic qualification, and everything with his ultra-nationalist opinions.
His extreme Zionism did not stop him leaving Palestine and seeking his academic luck in the United States, where a second-rate university gave him a professorship. His life’s work as a historian concerned the fate of the Jews in medieval Christian Spain – the expulsion and inquisition. It engendered in him a very dark world view: the conviction that Jews will always be persecuted, that all goyim (non-Jews) hate the Jews, that a straight line connects the auto-da-fé of the Spanish inquisition with the Nazi holocaust.
During the years, the Netanyahu family went back and forth between the US and Israel. Binyamin grew up in America, acquired perfect American English, essential for his future career, studied and became a salesman. His obvious talent for this profession attracted a Likud foreign minister, who sent him to the UN as Israeli spokesman.
Benzion Netanyahu was not only a very bitter person, who accused the Zionist and Israeli academic establishment of failing to recognise his academic stature. He was also a very autocratic family man.
The three Netanyahu boys lived in constant awe of Father. They were not allowed to make any noise at home while the Great Man worked in his closed study. They were not allowed to bring other boys home. Their mother was completely devoted to her husband and served him in every way, sacrificing her own personality.
In every family, the second child of three is in a difficult position. He is not admired like the eldest, nor indulged like the youngest. For Binyamin this was especially hard, because of the personality of the eldest.
Eclipsed by elder brother
Yonatan Netanyahu (both names mean “God has given”) seems to have been a specially blessed boy. He was good-looking, gifted, much liked, even admired. In the army, he became the commander of the revered Sayeret Matkal (General Staff Commando Unit) – the elite of the army’s elite.
As such he was the ground commander of the daring 1976 Entebbe commando raid in Uganda, which liberated the captive passengers of a flight hijacked by Palestinian and German guerrillas on the way to Israel. Yonatan was killed and became a national hero. He was also adored by his father, who never quite accepted the qualities of his second son.
Between his father, the embittered Great Thinker, and his elder brother, the Legendary Hero, Binyamin grew up as a quiet but very ambitious boy, part Israeli, part American. He worked for some time as a furniture salesman, until he was discovered by the far-right Likud foreign minister, Moshe Arens.
Between his obsessive need to be approved by his father and to be found equal to his glorious brother, Netanyahu’s own character was forged. His father never quite appreciated him, once saying that he would make a good foreign minister, but not a prime minister.
The rich and the warmongers’ man
Being his father’s son, Netanyahu incited the people against Yitzhak Rabin after the Oslo Agreement and was photographed on the speaker’s balcony during the demonstration in which a symbolic coffin of Rabin was carried around. Soon after, when Rabin was murdered, he denied all responsibility.
Rabin’s successor, Shimon Peres, failed miserably, and Netanyahu became prime minister. It was a total catastrophe. On the evening after the next elections, when it be came clear that he had lost, multitudes streamed to Tel Aviv’s central square (now named after Rabin) in a spontaneous demonstration of joy like that at the liberation of Paris.
His successor, Labour’s Ehud Barak, had no more luck. A former army chief of staff, admired by many and especially by himself, he compelled President Bill Clinton to convene an Israeli-Palestinian peace conference at Camp David. Barak, who was quite ignorant of Palestinian attitudes, came to dictate his terms and was shocked when they were rejected. Coming home, he declared that the Palestinians want to throw us into the sea. Hearing this, the public threw him out and elected the tough far-right general, Ariel Sharon, the founder of Likud.

Netanyahu, the man who was kicked out just a few years earlier by the cheering masses, came back as an imperator.

Netanyahu became minister of finance. As such he was quite successful.Applying the neo-liberal ultra-capitalist teaching he had absorbed in the US, he made the poor poorer and the rich richer. The poor seemed to liked it.
Sharon was the father of the settlements in the West Bank. To strengthen these, he decided to give up the Gaza Strip with its few settlements, which were a disproportional drag on the army. But his unilateral retreat from the Gaza Strip shocked the rightist camp. The elder Netanyahu called the move a “crime against humanity”.
Inpatient with opposition, Sharon split the Likud and founded his own Kadima (“Forwards”) party. Netanyahu again became the leader of Likud.
As usual, he was lucky. Sharon suffered a stroke and fell into a coma, from which he never recovered. His successor, Ehud Olmert, was accused of corruption and had to resign. The next in line, Tzipi Livni, was incompetent and unable to form a government, though all the ingredients were there.
Netanyahu, the man who was kicked out just a few years earlier by the cheering masses, came back as an imperator. Again the masses cheered. Shakespeare would have loved it.
Since then, Netanyahu has been elected again and again. The last time was a clear personal victory. He vanquished all his competitors on the right.
A man of very strong far-right beliefs
So who is this Netanyahu? Contrary to popular opinion, he is a man of very strong beliefs – the beliefs of his far-right father. The entire world is out to kill us at all times, we need a powerful state to defend ourselves, all of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan has been given us by God (whether he exists or not). Everything else is lies, subterfuges, tactics.

Netanyahu will lie, cheat, repudiate himself, raise false flags – all for the purpose of achieving his one and only real goal… the Jewish state from the sea to the river.

When, in a famous speech at Bar-Ilan university near Tel Aviv, Netanyahu embraced the principle of “two states for two peoples”, those who knew him could only smile. It was as if he had recommended the eating of pork on Yom Kippur.
He dangled this statement before the eyes of the naive Americans and let his justice minister, Tzipi Livni, lead endless negotiations with the Palestinians, whom he despises. Whenever it seemed that the negotiations were nearing some goal, he quickly put up another condition, such us the ridiculous demand that the Palestinians recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. He would not dream, of course, of recognising the Palestinian territories as the nation state of the Palestinian people – a people he does not really believe exists at all.
On the eve of the last election, just now, Netanyahu announced that there would not be a Palestinian state as long as he was in power. When the Americans remonstrated, he repudiated himself. Why not? As his Likud predecessor, Yitzhak Shamir, famously said: “It is permitted to lie for the fatherland.”
Netanyahu will lie, cheat, repudiate himself, raise false flags – all for the purpose of achieving his one and only real goal, the rock of our existence (as he loves to say), the heritage of his father – the Jewish state from the sea to the river.
The trouble is that, in this area, the Arabs are already the majority, a small majority, but one that is bound to grow steadily.
A Jewish and democratic state in the entire country is impossible. The popular joke has it that this is too much even for God. So He decreed that we have to choose two of the three attributes: a Jewish and democratic state in part of the country, a Jewish state in all of the country that will not be democratic, or a democratic state in all of the country that will not be Jewish.
Netanyahu’s solution to this problem is to ignore it. Just go on, enlarge the settlements and concentrate on the immediate problem: install his fourth government and plan for his fifth, four years from now.
And, of course, show his father, who is looking down on him from heaven, that after all little Bibi, his second son, is worthy of him.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Eyeballing I$raHell Binyamin Naziyahu

Gold, Silver and “Crashing Markets”. It’s Ugly if You Look Under the Hood

NOVANEWS
Global Research
The Flight into Gold and Silver

My plan for today was to write a very basic piece hitched to the one written yesterday “the money has to go somewhere”. The plan was to point out that gold (and silver) will be the final destination for monies dislodged from crashing markets all over the world. Along came the Q1 figures for U.S. GDP, a disaster on many levels. So switching gears, let’s look at the first quarter, how quickly the economy has deteriorated and what it means in the future and in relation to the past. I do plan to tie this together at the end because no matter how you look at it, gold is a magnet for what will be shaken loose.

Q1 GDP came in at .2% growth, this was a whopping $6 billion worth of growth for the quarter. This number was an obvious disappointment as estimates were around 1%+. Of course the apologists were immediately out in full force to remind us of how terrible the winter was and “weather” was to blame. I would ask, isn’t that what “seasonal adjustments” are for? Steve Liesman of CNBC even posed the question why seasonal adjustments are “not working”. The obvious answer is because you can only stretch, massage and outright lie about economic numbers so far before you cannot any longer …because even the blind will see it.

Breaking the quarter down and looking under the hood, were it not for the biggest inventory build of any quarter in history, the quarter would have shown a negative. What exactly does this mean? It means the consumer or final user has shut off their purchases. It means “stuff” was produced but wasn’t sold. The inventory build number was over $120 billion, can this happen again in the 2nd quarter? And what if the end buyer keeps their pocketbook shut again? Something must give, either the inventory gets sold or the producers must cut back production drastically.

It is worth mentioning that QE 3, the “final QE” ended in the fourth quarter. Is this an example of the economy convulsing because the juice was taken away? And let’s not forget, today (yesterday) was a Fed meeting and announcement, can they possibly even hint about raising rates and actually withdrawing some of the previous “juice”? Another “blame” is being pinned on the strong dollar, can the Fed really raise rates and put a further bid under the dollar?

What does this mean for the future of the economy and more importantly the financial markets? The markets are at record high valuations, the news of an economy going in reverse can only augur for lower earnings. The strong dollar can only augur for a Fed who doesn’t want a stronger dollar. The leverage in the financial system is so thin already, can the risk be taken that something will snap? I don’t believe so, I also believe it will not be long before QE 4 gets floated seriously and then implemented.

As I wrote yesterday, “the money has to go somewhere”. It looks to me like some sort of come to Jesus moment is close in both the economy and the markets. If you have been awake, you understand the economic and financial systems, are dichotomized yet so intertwined, a spark anywhere means a fire everywhere! Literally hundreds of $trillions will be shaken, some of it “shaken loose” and will look for a safe place to hide.

All the gold ever mined in history is worth some $6 trillion, what do you suppose will happen when $10′s of trillions seek the safe harbor of gold? No matter how you look at it, the Fed is in a box of their own making, any action or inaction has the possibility of shaking the tree and dislodging capital, forcing it to look for safety. The result will be your “no offer” moment in time. As capital floods toward the only monetary asset that cannot default, owners will pull their wares off the shelf and withdraw their offers. This only makes sense because the movements will be so large and so fast, no one will even know what various assets are worth or where they will settle until after the dust clears.

I leave you with this thought, if you need to build a fire or light a cigarette, how much would you pay for a BIC lighter? The same could be asked about “money”, if one needs to put capital somewhere that cannot ever default (which is gold only), what is one ounce of gold worth? It is crystal clear to me, when this question gets asked, it may take some time for the physical market to clear and give an answer! The true value of gold will shine as a vortex of defaults occurs.

Posted in USAComments Off on Gold, Silver and “Crashing Markets”. It’s Ugly if You Look Under the Hood


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk