In my last post I was angry at Gerald Celente. I feel bad about that now. I’m still am critical of him dabbling in futures, but one should not gloat at others misfortune. If justice is done, one should look dispassionately at it. Not gloat. So sorry Gerald. I hope you can forgive me.
Gerald asked for publicity to this. He sounds very down. He must have lost a lot. And yes, I know it’s 10 days old.
The lesson is deal(/trade) with REAL physical gold. The gold you completely own. Get out of futures. If Celente got burned, you will probably burn too.
He describes his channel as “a channel for free thinkers, no religion, anti nationalist, anti false flag, anti war”. I’m pro-religion myself, but it doesn’t take away from the interesting and thought provoking things Paul says.
Paul has been active in reading and researching about 7/7 and 9-11. He works in China.
If you did, then to me, you deserve to have lost your money. In my eyes it’s not much different from investing in Goldman Sachs, or getting financially involved with the IMF.
“MF Global invested in the Debt of Italy Spain Portugal and Ireland. leveraged by 40:1”
So here we have a leech company living off the debt difficulties of others.
And guess what, Gereld Celente, that ‘Knight of the little people”, had investments in this company. So Gerald, your lovely man of the people’s image – rather like your rather questionable investment – has crumbled.
haha.
I don’t give a monkey’s if you say Farmers invest in futures. That sounds like spin to me. Don’t try and put yourself in with Farmers. Somehow, just somehow, I doubt it’s the same kind of futures your investment with MF Global involved.
The independent investigator bridget would rather you didn’t know of was Dr Nick Kollerstrom. Nick – while others may have been fixated with power surges – kickstarted the 7/7 truth movement with him uncovering the fact the 7:40am train, which the supposed bombers caught, was actually cancelled that day.
I read an abridged version of “Night” written by one Elie Wiesel. I wonder how Weasel would answer this question: “To what extent did Hollywood play in inspiring your book”. Am I being too cynical? Perhaps not. Or maybe there really was a clairvoyant woman on the train who did see “the fires” which Wiesel described later. Maybe James Bond 2-second-left-ticking-time-bombs really do happen like when Wiesel was in a que marching towards a fiery pit, and just before it was his turn to walk into it, for some reason the camp officials decided they’d had enough burning of people for that particular day. Lucky or what? Me? If I saw that I was being walked to my certain death I’d take my chances and run away or if my legs were chained, I’d lead-jellify my body to get a few more seconds of life while they had to drag me to the pit and hopefully take pity on me. But that is too ordinary – no Hollywood appeal there, nobody would be as bothered about that.
Wiesel’s own account makes little sense as he later describes a long period of slave labor in the camps to support the German war effort. But the fiery pit reveals an illogical event given that Wiesel reports no discrimination in its use to purge the weak and sick (i.e. unproductive slaves) from the strong and healthy (who would make the best manual-labour slaves). Wiesel’s account actually supports the notion the camps were not a ‘final solution’ but were primarily forced labour camps, which, if a despised Jew were to die there, it would not matter in the slightest to the horrendous people administering the place. But Wiesel, despite describing a labour camp where people perished in the atrocious conditions, avoids calling it so.
The camps are said to be the final solution – a plan that I’ve yet to see any evidence of whereby Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews. But oops, what about Hitters Jewish Soldiers? Quote: “perhaps as many as 150000 men”[1] in his own forces, not forgetting Colonels and Generals? E.g. Colonel Walter H. Hollaender of the Wehrmacht, General Helmut Wilberg of the Luftwaffe. Hitler must have missed those ones and no body amongst the “Actung: Juden” hoardes told him. Anyway, were these Jewish soldiers expected to kill themselves after enslaving and persecuting many other Jews? – after all, there was a final solution to carry out! wasn’t there? And it’s hard to figure out just how Hitler thought he could kill all Jews when there were Jews in North and South America – a region of which he had no control over yet housed a number of Jews. That, like the absence of ‘final solution’ documents (which I suppose may be out there), has not been properly debated upon.
But who cares about logic and consistency?
Equally astounding was Wiesels reportage close to the end of the war, when they had to leave the camp. They were forced to run and run and run and run and run and run and run to another camp in the freezing cold. Quite how Wiesel and others managed this, something that would eclipse the finest of Olympians, given that in the camp there were fed rubbish to keep them going (hummm again not much of a final solution there) is a mystery of the modern world. I recall myself, a healthy athletic boy could hardly run 800m without needing to puke afterwards. Perhaps I should have ate that magic slop Wiesel ate. I can see the adverts now “New, isotonic slop – helps you run for miles”
The earlier yarn relating to a loner from his village, who for some reason went away, miraculously escaped a massacre in which he described little Jewish girls (loner dude asked them if they were Jewish you see, just before they were killed) being thrown into the air and machine gunned by Nazis. Mr loner somehow got out of it and recount his tale to the boy Wiesel.
Wiesel said he lost his faith, yet true to Zionist form calls upon elements of Hebrew faith when convenient to do so. Reciting prayers. Wiesel has accused God of looking on as Jews died. He has attacked indifference to peoples suffering, yet the little oink-oink supports the Shoah of the Palestinians, torture against them and the theft of their rightful land, property and resources. Yes Weasel is dirt-zero. He also was involved in the Maddof ponzi scheme.
Weisel said this:
“Auschwitz cannot be explained nor can it be visualized…. The Holocaust transcends history…. The dead are in possession of a secret that we, the living, are neither worthy of nor capable of recovering…. The Holocaust [is] the ultimate event, the ultimate mystery, never to be comprehended or transmitted.” [2]
Call me suspicious but isn’t incomprehension (and inconsistencies) come attached with lies?
But anger inducing all that is about Weasel, it’s not the reason why I decided to do this post. This comes close:
“In 1948 Wiesel worked as a journalist for the Irgun, a gang of Jewish terrorists who committed the massacre at Deir Yassin, arguably one of the most pivotal events in twentieth century Palestinian history. Yet this “world-renowned humanitarian” refuses to apologize or even acknowledge the murder, mayhem, and ethnic cleansing caused by his employer. He frequently goes to Yad Vashem, the most famous Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem and from the Children’s Museum he looks across the valley to Deir Yassin. But he never acknowledges what his employer did there…” [3]
It’s because of this:
“In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Wiesel, in his priestly capacity, made a lightning visit to the White House on February 27, 2003. The Holocaust Fundamentalists were pushing for a needless, immoral and illegal war.” [4]
Excerpt: “Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq War, the sixth anniversary of the unilateral initiation of that conflict by President Bush came and went without any reference in the Zionist media to the role played by Elie Wiesel, our Holocaust High Priest, in helping to launch that conflict.”
I love this video (below). It’s one of my favourites. Why doesn’t education take up more of this style of enquiry?
The end-times (and if you are not religious, it seems to me you will still have a physical/societal end-time) seem likely to exhibit this exponential property. Rather like Firaun (possibly Ramses II) who, shortly before his own death, still was fully confident in his own arrogance.
Bill Still. A name that deserves it’s own complete sentence. What can I say about Bill. A true legend in educating people about the history and nature of money.
Bill’s got some intersting ideas, which seem so simple, yet so powerful, with regards to significantly reducing the problems that stem from the current financial system.
The main problem that Bill focus’s on, is that of (so called) sovereign governments borrowing money from private bankers. Bill argues that if this situation ended, then a great destructive force would stop wrecking national economies and most importantly the suffering of the man on the street, would diminish.
By borrowing money from private banks (or the bank of the private bankers, like the US federal reserve), interest becomes payable upon it. While the USA was able to plunder resources of other countries, it was able to use those resources to offset (some in excess) the cost of borrowing money. But it’s become harder and much more expensive to wage those wars of theft. Hence the problem of borrowed money has (“sacred”)spiralled out of control. (All to plan of course).
Anyway, the problem with Bill is that his proposals are only a half-way house. Sorry, that’s unkind, let me re-quantify. Bill proposals are perhaps a “90% way house” in his favour, but Bills proposals will also ultimately cause problems.
Why? Because bill is an advocate of creating money, by creating/printing/minting debt free notes and coins (from materials that do not reflect the actual value of what they are constructed from). Although Bill has correctly identified a principle element of usury – the borrowing of money against which the amount due for repayment is greater (in monetary terms) than the principle (initial) amount borrowed. Bills call to creating money is simply a second dimension of the same usurious beast, even though it would result in lesser severity and have the associated problems occur over a longer time span.
The best form of money has as it’s prime property that of intrinsic (inherent/fundamental/inescapable/within itself) value*. If I am to sell an object, say a sheep, I want an object or token of payment that actually reflects the value of the sheep. e.g. a gold coin. What if that gold coin could be bought for $253. Which would I be happier to receive? – the gold coin or $253? I’d much prefer the gold coin. Why? Because the gold has intrinsic value but the value of the note is nominal i.e. the note has a purely fictional value given to it. and not a real value at all. By accepting the note, I’d be selling my sheep for a temporary illusion of value.
Yes, there’s a part of the value/cost of gold that is nominal, but the nominal amount is nowhere near as significant as for the note. The intrinsic value makes it have ‘value durability’. No matter that nominal fluctuation imposes itself upon the gold, the intrinsic value remains. This is not the case for nominal fiar currency. The value of the nominal value paper note is demonstrably unstable and subject to devaluation via inflation. As mentioned, Bill Still says that currency devaluation is largely because government borrow their money, But even if a government did print it’s own money, it would be creating money out of nothing i.e. ‘making money’ (which is almost exactly the same as the outcome of lending money on interest!) and then it would have a nominal value imposed upon it, subject to the political needs of the government. So Bill’s idea is in fact just a mini-me version of the current reality. Creating money is in itself inflationary robbing those who earn from the trade of their goods and services of the results and rewards of that trade. Robbing everyone of degrees of hard earned financial security; A scandalous rip-off.
And before you write in mentioning hyper inflation in Hapsburg Spain, realise that situation was much different from what would be the case today. It’s actually poetic justice that the gain of gold based on exploitation plunder and tyranny was self-destructive. In an ideal world where fair and honest trading takes place, I simply cannot believe large amounts of gold would a) be able to accumulate in such amounts b) that there would be no healthy economic ‘sink’ for that gold to be spent. In today’s world, there are many potential costly sinks today e.g. helping the 1 in 7 on the planet that do hungry each day, cleaning up pollution, providing decent housing / regeneration and health care, construction of mega projects such as PV arrays, irrigation or arid lands, research into sustainable energy etc etc etc. None of which were available in Hapsburg Imperialist Spain.
So Bill, you are still wrong. Gold is the ultimate in currency. Your solution, although it would reduce the severity of what we see today in global finance, would still cause more problems than is the case for the use of Gold and silver.
Bill has said why would you want a currency whose quantity is restrictive – I believe I have answered his query above. Bill (and others) also argue that it’s not the token that’s important, but who controls it. Again, I think I’ve scotched that ‘concern’ above.
I am NOT saying that the common man will be utterly free of the evil manipulation of money if gold and silver were to the principle form of money. What i am saying is there is no system that is better than the use of sliver and gold. The maximum number of people would benefit and the least amount of people would suffer.
If we all used gold and silver there would be little currency speculation, bolstering G&S’s retention of value even more.
* It has intrinsic properties because of its physical properties of being rare, soft and inert/indestructible, all of which make it perhaps the most desired material for jewellery/ornamentation/beautification as well as being physically useful.
P.S. Max Keiser is also wrong, for a similar reason. He advocates using interest as a financial control. Ellen Brown is also wrong. She advocates borrowing more money to spend her way out of some of the current economic troubles in the US (and wider) economy. Inflation causes a diseased economy. I posit the way to kill any Hapsburgian type problems would simply be to give a fair chink of gold and silver to the poor (perhaps from mass employment – putting the gold aside only to cater for payment of the labour of the poor). I suggest at a stroke that such a thing would have nullified any such negative Hapsburgian pressures.
Living with the Conspiracy 24-7 
Recent Comments