First Woman to First Woman … When I was prime minister, I created a carbon-emissions trading program … No one called for my execution by firing squad, as a supporter of Donald Trump did for Mrs. Clinton, but a radio talk-show host did say I should be put in a bag and dropped in the sea. Witches can’t be drowned, I cynically joked. –Julia Gillard, New York Times
With Hillary’s formal recognition as the Democratic presidential candidate, a number of articles have appeared about how her gender is attracting criticism.
The mainstream media continues its defense of her conduct and personality and uses many techniques to ward off criticism.
We pointed out yesterday HERE a number of articles that question why she is “hated” and then answer in generalities to try to defuse the issue.
Julia Gillard has posted an editorial at the New York Tïmes HERE on the issue, concluding – unsurprisingly – that sexism played a role in her own failure as Australia’s prime minister from 2010 to 2013.
She points out that was called both a “witch” and a “bitch” and that there had been proposals to drown her.
I have often reflected how powerful it would have been if, at that moment, a male business leader, especially one who opposed my policies, said, “I may not support the prime minister politically, but Australia must not conduct its democratic debates this way.”
Her ultimate point in the article is that Hillary Clinton, whatever her shortcomings, is similarly subject to sexism.
She offers some advice to Clinton as well, explaining that what sustains someone through “the rigors of modern politics” is “passion and purpose.”
This includes understanding what you want to happen “for your nation and the world” and building a sense of self-worth that “can survive all the ugly sniping.”
Of course, as the Guardian relates it HERE, Gillard came to power by unseating a prime minister “who had not yet served out his first term in office. Voters didn’t expect it, and they didn’t care for it.”
Gillard became the face of a treacherous assassination culture imported from Sussex Street, Sydney, a symbol of Labor’s absent moral core.
… The revelation that nice girls do carry knives was compounded by her pre-election evasion on the carbon price, which in the hands of Tony Abbott and his amplifiers became The Great Lie.
In fact, her singular achievement was “a fixed price to be imposed on carbon pollution,” which came to be known as a carbon tax. “The legislation was approved by the Lower House in October 2011 and by the Upper House in November 2011.”
While the legislation was overturned by the subsequent government, Gillard was criticized for not being honest about her intention to implement carbon legislation.
The main criticisms of her term involved “stabbing the previous prime minister in the back” and “lying about her main legislative achievement, the carbon tax.”
Gillard has much to say in her defense, but her term in office was ultimately defined in the public eye by these two actions. To speak of “sexism” as the reason for her downfall would seem to be misleading. The same goes for Clinton.
In yesterday’s article HERE we made the point that Hillary wasn’t hated for her policies but that, “In fact, there are real reasons to dislike her, and even fear her.”
A video clip of her laughing about Muammar Gaddafi’s death, the intimidation and blackmail of her husband’s lovers, the possible murder of her good friend Vince Foster and the attempt to put the entire White House travel office in jail (to replace the employees) are symptomatic of a basic lack of empathy (to say the least).
People don’t dislike and even fear Clinton because she is a woman. Their negative emotions are based on her arbitrary and vicious actions.
The reason to fear Hillary is because in these instances and many others she doesn’t seem to care about the “loose ends” she leaves. It is almost as if she takes enjoyment from flaunting what is basically sociopathic behavior. This is not just a character defect. It approaches a compulsion.
… It is not merely a lack of empathy, It is a willingness to do anything to advance her cause and goals, and often to do so in an obvious and public way. Repeating some of her myriad difficulties in a disingenuous manner … in no way minimizes the problems of her underlying character.
Conclusion: Over time and through November and the elections, we’ll be subject to many additional observations about how Hillary is being treated “differently” and subject to more scrutiny because she is a woman. But it is her character that is really at fault, an inherent, fatal, compulsive arrogance that impels her to act out in ways to prove to others that she is “above the law.” This is a dangerous personality defect and has nothing to do with her gender.
Le Pen’s niece enrolls in the ARMY as she calls on France to ‘kill Islamism’ … Marion Le Pen has said she will enroll in the French army reserve Marion Le Pen announced on Twitter she would join the French Army reserve after a spate of Islamic State-inspired terror attacks in Europe. The 26-year-old also blasted the “ineffective” French army as the country reels from the murder of 84-year-old Father Jacques Hamel by two teenagers who said they were ISIS “soldiers”. –UK Express
The horrible murder of Father Jacques Hamel in Rouen France by “ISIS soldiers” has further inflamed French anger against radical Islam and fundamentalism.
This is how wars begin.
In this case, France – and the West generally – are being whipped up against 1.5 billion Muslims around the world.
Additionally, as we pointed out recently HERE, Islamic Turkey has joined forces with Russian, creating the prospect of an even bigger world war.
More from Marion:
In another Tweet, she added: “The army is ineffective. “I am going to sign up to be in the army reserve in my constituency.” Mrs Le Pen, the granddaughter of National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, warned on Sunday: “Either we kill Islamism or it will kill us again and again.”
The “children’s crusade” has begun.
The original Children’s Crusade supposedly took place in 1212 to expel Muslims from the Holy Land. There may have been several such crusades, with at least one led by a child. The crusades ended in starvation and despair for participants.
There is no evidence that results will be any better today.
As for this most recent church horror – even before we read details, we were sure that at least one of the attackers would be known to the police, because that is the way these attacks usually work.
And we were fairly sure the attackers were dead.
We were right on both counts. The attackers were shot and one of them had been under observation from French police.
In the US, in fact, many terror attacks have been carried out by individuals known to the FBI – and in fact encouraged by them. This has led to accusations that the FBI is actually generating these attacks.
In France, the last two terror attacks are at least questionable.
There are questions and false statements surrounding the Paris terror attack. In the case of Nice, the white truck that killed 80-plus people has no blood on it and French authorities are trying to destroy tapes of the event.
Take a step back and look hard.
Anyone who examines the history of modern warfare must conclude wars are being created by those who use the violence to build a more global society.
The most prominent opponent to World War One was Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria who was killed on June 28 1914 in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip.
Not much later, Rasputin was stabbed in Russia. Rasputin was the main opponent against the war in Russia, HERE.
This second attempted murder is almost never discussed because it shows clearly that secret forces were behind the beginning of the war.
The Internet, meanwhile, has explained in detail how Hitler was funded by the Western banking community HERE before the start of World War Two.
World War One ended with the creation of the League of Nations. World War Two ended with the creation of the United Nations and the economic outlines of international finance: the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
John Maynard Keynes even wanted to create a global currency after World War Two, the bancor. That was deemed a step too far. But wait …
World War Three, if it comes, may create Jerusalem as a world capitol and usher in a faux debt forgiveness that will ease the transition to a more global regime, one that might include a world central bank and currency.
And if war does come between the West and Islam, the French among other countries will probably get what they deserve.
Increasingly they are willingly giving in to hate rather than confronting the obvious governmental forces involved in their manipulation.
In World War One they were sent in their millions “over the trenches” to die in ten or twenty seconds as a result of machine gun fire. This happened not for days or weeks but for years.
Metaphorically, anyway, this may happen again.
The idea that any of this is merely the inevitable, spontaneous result of “radical Islam” is ridiculous. ISIS like Al Qaeda before it is a Western invention as we and others have reported many times:
Globalists created Wahhabi Terrorism to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global State
You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia
America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terrorism
CIA Agent Admits Obama Created ISIS To Invade Syria
The cold-blooded banking community now fomenting this next war shows no sign of reducing the violence. The banking community through its (truly insane) monopoly central banking system has created a global depression and now needs a war to distract people and to create ever-closer globalism.
As we wrote recently, these terror attacks are part of program – a kind of neo-Gladio promotion. Eventually, sooner or later, it will succeed not just in whipping up France but also the agitated and repressed Algerian population in France that is being manipulated into violence by Western forces.
Conclusion: Even the alternative ‘Net media is not covering these events properly, blaming “Islam” for what is obviously a manipulated conflict. It has happened in the past century at least two times before and engulfed the world with madness and flames. If it happens a third time, people who do not speak out and explain what is really going on will have only themselves to blame.
How Hating Hillary Clinton Became Cool … Clinton’s unpopularity is a big problem and her email controversy helps recycle a quarter-century of anti-Clinton drama. – HuffingtonPost
This Huffington Post has posted an article presenting a new dominant social theme we can call “Hillary Hate Repetition.”
This propaganda seeks to defuse negatives feelings about Hillary by repeating accusations in so many ways and with so many variations that they become kind of nonsensical.
Repeat a word or phrase over and over again and after a while it begins to lose meaning.
That’s what is going on.
Here’s some “Hillary Hate” repetition from Google:
Why do people hate Hillary Clinton? – Quora
Hillary Clinton and Progressives: Why Does the Left Hate Hillary – Politico
The people who hate Hillary Clinton the most. – Slate
A Morning Consult Poll Asks Why Voters Hate Hillary Clinton – Atlantic
Why do People Hate Hillary? – Peter Fuhry
All the reasons that people hate Hillary Clinton : politics – Reddit
Why the hate for Hillary Clinton? (Opinion) – CNN.com
The questions are asked but answers do not necessarily provide the real reasons why people are distrustful.
Article conclusions may end up citing her age, her unwillingness to “open-up” or other supposed character defects or even a variety of questionable charges on which she has been acquitted.
In fact, she has been around for so long that many people may have lost track of the actual reasons they are suspicious of her.
To reinforce this conclusion, articles like this one at Huffington Post, attempt to establish that Hillary is mostly misunderstood, and that people’s feelings stem from confusion rather than reality.
So ingrained is the anti-Hillary sentiment, crossing party and demographic lines, that even those too young to remember anything about Whitewater or “Troopergate” know it’s cool to dislike her -– even though they may not be quite sure why.
A private person by nature, Clinton responded through the years by throwing up even more barriers against outsiders, her supporters say, culminating in the decision that led her to use a private email server to handle her official communications as secretary of state.
A November 2011 email to her top confidante stated it best: “I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”
You see? Hillary has been attacked so regularly and emphatically that she has taken to preserving her privacy at any cost – which has then caused her more problems.
She is unpopular because she is a target – and that in turn generates a defensiveness that gives rise to further targeting.
For instance, undergraduates at Virginia say they can’t trust Clinton but don’t know why.
And here from Florida:
Among those in the Sunshine State who don’t trust Clinton is the 19-year-old college sophomore son of Barbara Cady.
“’No one likes her, Mom.’ So I’ve been told,” Cady said Monday as she walked Center City Philadelphia with fellow Clinton delegates from Florida. She added that her son could not really articulate his reasoning. “He has no idea. And he’s a political science major.”
In fact, there are real reasons to dislike her, and even fear her.
A primary reason is a very short video clip in which Clinton laughs about the murder of Muammar Gaddafi. You can see it HERE.
Why on earth would you laugh about someone’s death – and it was a horrible one – in a public venue, knowing you were being filmed.
Clinton also behaved horribly to the women with whom her husband had affairs. She threatened, intimidated and even, apparently, blackmailed them.
From the Washington Times HERE in January:
Running to be the first woman president, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has taken a stern stand on combating sexual harassment and assault — and has insisted that every accuser who comes forward has “the right to be believed.”
But Mrs. Clinton took a very different approach herself 25 years ago as the wife of then-Gov. Bill Clinton, leading the effort to discredit women who came forward with their own stories of harassment or assault by her husband.
Campaign narratives written by reporters detailed how she honchoed the campaign team that handled “bimbo eruptions,” digging up personal papers and official records that could be used to undercut the stories told by a series of women.
One top aide later recounted Mrs. Clinton’s intent to “destroy” the story of one accuser, while former adviser Dick Morris said Mrs. Clinton engaged in “blackmail” to try to force women to recant their stories.
Then there is the suicide of her close friend Deputy White House counsel Vince Foster who was found dead in Fort Marcy Park outside of DC on July 20, 1993. While his death was ruled a suicide, any reasonable assessment of the evidence provides little certainty of this conclusion.
In fact back in February of this year, WorldNetDaily reported HERE on a second wound in Foster’s neck that would rule out suicide.
Newly discovered evidence unearthed from boxes stored deep in the National Archives lend credence to theories about foul play and cover-up that have been hinted at by at least three books and countless articles. The newest piece to the puzzle was uncovered by two citizen researchers, one of whom was a witness involved in the case from the beginning.
Of course, there is the travel-agency scandal. You can see a description HERE. Hillary basically had the entire White House travel agency fired in order to replace them with her own people. But she didn’t just get rid of them. She had them investigated by the FBI with the intention of putting them in jail.
The reason to fear Hillary is because in these instances and many others she doesn’t seem to care about the “loose ends” she leaves. It is almost as if she takes enjoyment from flaunting what is basically sociopathic behavior. This is not just a character defect. It approaches a compulsion.
Conclusion: Yes, as we have pointed out HERE and HERE. Hillary’s conduct provides evidence of nothing less than sociopathic tendencies. It is not merely a lack of empathy, It is a willingness to do anything to advance her cause and goals, and often to do so in an obvious and public way. Repeating some of her myriad difficulties in a disingenuous manner – as the Huffington Post does – in no way minimizes the problems of her underlying character.
Verizon is buying Yahoo for $4.8 billion … It’s official: The sale completes Yahoo’s evolution from influential search pioneer and web portal juggernaut to, in the end, a once-dominant brand that lost its way. Parties as diverse as Warren Buffett and The Daily Mail were interested in buying Yahoo. But after a sale process that dragged on for months, Verizon (VZ, Tech30), long viewed as the frontrunner, is walking away with Yahoo’s more than one billion monthly active users. –CNN Money
Another huge merger has taken place. Perhaps a billion consumer emails plus related technology will change hands, further stratifying the Internet and providing less opportunity for others.
If people believe the pace of technological innovation has slowed in the past years, they are probably correct. As ZeroHedge pointed out in May, “Venture capital investments in Silicon Valley fell almost 20 percent in the first quarter [of 2016] from a year earlier to $4.9 billion.”
We would argue this is part of a larger trend. With such gigantic companies dominating the Internet, there is less room for groundbreaking innovation.
These large companies act as gatekeepers, preserving what has already been accomplished and ensuring to a large degree that what is now developed doesn’t threaten what has come before.
As usual, intellectual property rights are at fault. Absent court enforced intellectual property rights, the pace of technological innovation might actually pick up and technology might move in new or unexpected directions.
We’ve argued before that in the modern era, intellectual property rights are not performing the functions that were intended.
This is not surprising. We certainly know from “human action” that no law works as intended. In fact, laws are basically price-fixes, redistributing wealth and reducing opportunity.
Here’s a statement by Justice William O. Douglas as pertains to a case entitled A & P. TEA CO. v. SUPERMARKET CORP., (340 U.S. 147, 1950).
Every patent is the grant of a privilege of exacting tolls from the public. The Framers plainly did not want those monopolies freely granted. The invention, to justify a patent, had to serve the ends of science – to push back the frontiers of chemistry, physics, and the like; to make a distinctive contribution to scientific knowledge.
Who exactly decides what is a “distinctive contribution.” Like most such law, the guidelines themselves are so vague as to prevent any sensible enforcement.
Here’s an excerpt from an article in the Atlantic entitled, “The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them).”
Our patent system is a mess. It’s a fount of expensive litigation that allows aging companies to linger around by bullying their more innovative competitors in court. Critics have suggested plenty of reasonable reforms, from eliminating software patents to clamping down on “trolls” who buy up patent portfolios only so they can file lawsuits. But do we need a more radical solution? Would we be possibly be better off without any patents at all?
That’s the striking suggestion from a Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis working paper by Michele Boldrin and David Levine, professors at Washington University in St. Louis who argue that any patent system, no matter how well conceived, is bound to devolve into the kind of quagmire we’re dealing with today.
In fact, the quagmire is not just one of litigation.
The real issue is one of monopoly. Google is a good example. It is very obvious that Google has a close relationship with US intel and military interests.
From Insurge Intelligence, HERE:
Insurge, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project, breaks the exclusive story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’
It is actually intellectual property rights that give Google its reach and depth. The result is a CIA controlled operation paid for by taxpayers.
It is ultimately the US judicial system that enforces intellectual property rights and the intel control attached to them.
Why should taxpayers pay to enforce Google’s intellectual property rights? It should be up to Google to enforce those rights.
Intellectual property rights are supposedly essential because otherwise there would be no incentive to innovate. In fact, we can see that applying the force of the state to technological advances probably retards innovation in the modern era.
It certainly has given US intel and military interests control they would not otherwise have had so easily.
It is increasingly obvious that intellectual property rights only benefit the largest of entities on a regular basis because it is only the largest entities that can afford to make a corrupt system work to their advantage.
In only a couple of decades the Internet has gone from a flexible and innovative environment to one that seems a good deal more regimented and increasingly less creative in the largest sense.
Conclusion: Intellectual property rights along with corporate personhood and monopoly fiat money are culprits here. Get rid of these corporate props and the size and breadth of companies will radically subside, providing increased opportunity for everyone else – and ultimately benefiting both consumers and investors.
Daily Bell Sponsor Golden Arrow Resources can be visited at Booth 51 at the Natural Resources Symposium, July 26-29, at the Fairmont Hotel in Vancouver, BC.
Golden Arrow is a Vancouver-based explorer and prospect generator focused on identifying, acquiring and advancing precious and base metal discoveries with the goal of defining world class deposits. The Group’s success at mineral discovery, as well as its achievements in community and government relations has made it a highly regarded and trusted explorer throughout Argentina.
Golden Arrow’s current focus is on advancing its flagship Chinchillas Silver Project located in Jujuy moving rapidly towards production with partner Silver Standard. Golden Arrow holds a 100% interest in the Chinchillas project which hosts a resource of 100 million ounces of silver/155 million ounces silver equivalent (AgEq) in the Measured & Indicated categories and 44 million ounces silver /90 million ounces (AgEq) in the Inferred category.
Golden Arrow contact: Shawn Perger: 1-800-901-0058 or 778-686-0135.
About The Natural Resources Symposium
Rick Rule, President & CEO of Sprott U.S. Holdings Inc. has put together the top-rated experts from mining companies, resource stocks and precious metals. He writes,
“At the 2016 Natural Resource Symposium, you’ll hear information you won’t get anywhere else. Throughout the four-day Symposium, you’ll be able to meet and interact with our exhibiting companies and their lead executives.
“We go to great lengths to vet every one of our exhibitors. You’ll also have the opportunity to mingle with other like-minded people—and experience Canada’s most beautiful city and all it has to offer in summer, which is hands down the best time of year to be here!
“When you reserve your seat, we’ll send you a complimentary online access pass to the 2015 video and MP3 recordings from last year’s sold-out event. We had a ton of great content on the gold and natural resource markets and you can have it all right at your fingertips… and watch at your leisure.
“Claim Your Discount & Your Bonus! Contact Michelle Sedita, Michael Whetstine or Barbara Perriello at Opportunity Travel today by calling +800-926-6575 or 561-243-6276, or send us an e-mail.”
Britain backs renewal of Trident nuclear programme … Trident programme involves four new vessels at an estimated cost of $54bn over the next 20 years. British prime minister affirms she would order nuclear strike … Despite opposition from the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) and some in the opposition Labour Party, parliament approved the Scottish-based nuclear-armed Trident submarines by 472 to 117 votes. – Al Jazeera
Why is Britain going to pay nearly $55 billion to “renew its ageing nuclear weapons system?”
It consists of four submarines with Trident missiles.
Why does it cost so much?
What are they doing?
Why isn’t it reported on in more detail?
It’s not a popular system. Naval nuclear weapons technician William McNeilly recently published an expose of it.
He documented 30 alleged safety and security flaws in an 18-page document: “failure to check ID cards, fire risks from rubbish, the flouting of safety procedures, and a cover-up of a collision with a French nuclear submarine.”
There’s certainly a lot of carelessness surrounding these devastating nuclear weapons.
For us, nukes resemble a dominant social theme. At least partial propaganda in other words.
Information that obviously makes people more fearful about the future – and more inclined to accept the technocratic construct of a globalist society.
- It is extremely hard to prove they don’t exist because you can’t get close enough to see one in action. You can’t even film them close up.
- Their inner-workings are classified by military security so they cannot be explained.
- Their history has been disseminated basically by military apparatuses. Reporters can only relay what they have been told.
- For years, only ONE reporter was given access to the development and testing of nuclear weapons. The narrative was thus created and perpetuated by the Pentagon, which lies as a matter of routine.
For many years, talking about nuclear weapons in any detail in the US and Japan was punishable by death. The laws still exist though not enforced anymore.
These laws were passed right after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings – as if to make sure people wouldn’t speak about the issue.
Nuclear weapons benefit the political class immensely. The average corrupt political sociopath is immediately ennobled.
One day he is trying to figure out how to embezzle a couple of extra illegal bucks from the taxpayer. The next, he is standing in a marble-lined hall and delivering a speech about how he will not under any circumstances authorize the “murder of millions” via the nuclear weapons under his control.
Or even worse, as Prime Minister Theresa May just did, he will say “yes” he is willing to authorize such murders.
In her first statement in parliament as prime minister on Monday, Theresa May said Britain needed to retain its nuclear deterrent, which had been an insurance policy for the country’s security for nearly 50 years.
May did not hesitate when a member of the opposition asked whether she would be willing to order a nuclear strike.
“Yes,” May said.
The nuclear debate has not traveled far since the beginning of July, 1946 when the famous Bikini Island nuclear tests began.
Two years ago, the controversial but prolific investigator Miles Mathis – an artist and mathematician – published a debunking HERE entitled, The Bikini Atoll Nuclear Tests were Faked.”
… For more proof, we can go to Google. You can get a picture of the Bikini Atoll today from Google Earth. That’s dated 2013, not 1945. We are told the locals can’t live there now because of radioactivity, but we see at least three proofs against that.
One, we see lots of plant life both on and offshore. Radioactivity affects plants just as it affects animals, so the island should be barren.
Remember, the Bikini Atoll wasn’t said to be blasted by only Able and Baker. It was blasted 23 times, including three of the biggest blasts ever from US testing: the 4.5 megaton Navajo and the 5 megaton Tewa, in 1956; and the 15 megaton Bravo in 1954.
The Bravo blast was also supposed to be many times hotter than the surface of the sun, but it seems the roads on the island were undamaged and natives furtively repopulated in 1968.
Mathis also says photos of the Russian Tsar Bomba that were taken 100 miles out, were faked. From all of this he deduces potential fakery not of testing but of the entire narrative of “nuclear weapons.” When we examined the Nagasaki and Hiroshima explosions, we also decided lies were being told.
Whatever happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki doesn’t confirm much that has been said about the two explosions. You can see a summary of the conflicting evidence HERE in a list format. It’s pretty comprehensive.
Here is direct testimony of some of the exaggerations that took place from Crawford Sams – (of the ‘Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission’):
The object of this instruction, called Letter of Instruction, was “You will play up the devastating effect of the atomic bomb.” All right? So I was the one who set the deadline this time. Anybody who had been in Hiroshima and died within six months, whether they got run over by a bicycle or whatnot, would be credited to the atomic bomb. …
When the bomb went off, about 2 thousand people out of 250 thousand got killed [in Hiroshima] – by blast, by thermal radiation, or by intense x-ray, gamma radiation. … You see, it wasn’t “Bing” like the publicity here [said]: a bomb went off and a city disappeared. No such thing happened. That was the propaganda for deterrent …
You don’t hear much about the effects of Nagasaki because actually it was pretty ineffective. That was a narrow corridor from the hospital … down to the port, and the effects were very limited as far as the fire spread and all that stuff. So you don’t hear much about Nagasaki.
Perhaps there were no nuclear bombs then and something else was used. Or perhaps nukes were (and are?) a good deal less powerful than portrayed. There are many videos on Youtube portraying nuclear test fakery. The debunking is increasingly extensive: HERE and HERE.
We’ve been apparently lied to about vaccines, global warming and the efficacy of central banking, just to name a few globally disseminated elite themes. Is it not possible we’ve been lied to about elements of nuclear weapons info?
Please spread the word if you too have questions. Maybe the “nuclear meme” can be subject to more intensive reporting.
Conclusion: And here was our conclusion at the time, which still stands. “The entirety of the Cold War, including the ‘arms race’ and the ‘space race’ all have elements of directed history. In other words, they are not what they seem. They are what authorities wish us to believe. While here at DB we have never written that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not bombed with nukes, we do have grave reservations about the narrative.”
How should France answer to the horror in Nice? The country is now deeply entrenched in a long-term war with few hopes of dodging future attacks. The anger of the French population is understandable. But booing a prime minister at the commemoration ceremony for the loss of innocent lives is not the smartest idea. No intelligence service could have prevented the Nice attack as nothing in the profile of the lunatic who drove over 84 people could have suggested a potential link to terrorism. – Al Jazeera
We’ve been writing regularly about the meme of “evil Islam” and our perspective that it propaganda – a dominant social theme – intended to create military tension, further authoritarianism and even, eventually, wider wars setting the West against Islam.
The lie is that Islam of itself is a terrible threat to the French – and Western – way of life.
The lies are propagated by a tiny group of people who organize fallacious themes that then become Western policy.
Global warming, the economics of central bank – and the dangers of Islam – are all examples of these themes.
The lies are regularly expanded and deepened.
Here is a famous recent quote by the Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure – Patrick Calvar:
“We are on the verge of a civil war.”
Calvar is actually describing a war that he likely wants. The whole idea of the Evil Islam exercise is to polarize Europe in preparation for increased globalist solutions.
More from Al Jazeera:
The anger of the French population is understandable. But booing a prime minister at the commemoration ceremony for the loss of innocent lives is not the smartest idea.
If the French were booing the prime minister because they understood the manipulations taking place, that would be a positive development.
But no doubt the French in question were booing because they believed the state had not taken a firm enough stance against “radical Islam.”
Unfortunately, it is the state that has created the problem, starting with the forcible absorption of Algeria that later gave rise to the Algerian War of Independence, (1954–62).
This war was a bitter one and many of the “Muslims” in France are from Algeria. They still don’t like the French establishment.
The antipathy that French Algerian Muslims harbor has been used by the mainstream media as evidence that Muslims cannot be absorbed into France.
The “Islam versus the West” meme is filled with lies.
There are as many questions about the Paris attack in France as the one in Nice.
When it comes to the recent horrible attack in Nice, photos and videos seem to show no blood on the truck. Go look on the Internet for yourself.
Every large terror incident in France has had significant questions attached. Just as in the US, evidence is easily presented that these attacks are not what they seem.
It is no doubt difficult to accept that evil forces are manipulating events in Europe and the US so as to cause tension between Islam and the West.
But this is how wars are manufactured. The West did the same sort of thing to Japan. It demonized Japan and then created a war .
And twice with Germany. In the past years it is has been revealed conclusively that banks and Western industry funded Hitler.
In much of the post-war 20th century period, the CIA and other intel agencies prosecuted Operation Gladio, which manufactured terror incidents purportedly generated by left-wing forces.
HERE, from TruthMove:
The main function of the Gladio-style groups, in the absence of Soviet invasion, seems to have been to discredit left-wing groups and politicians through the use of “the strategy of tension,” including false-flag terrorism. The strategy of tension is a concept for control and manipulation of public opinion through the use of fear, propaganda, agents provacateurs, terrorism, etc. The aim was to instill fear into the populace while framing communist and left-wing political opponents for terrorist atrocities.
Has a neo-Operation Gladio been started?
The CIA doesn’t make announcements. But in the Internet era, it doesn’t have to.
Those running these affiliated intel operations may not like it but the pattern is increasingly obvious. This is surely an ongoing strategy not a series of incidents. How cold-blooded.
Ironically, the Al Jazeera editorial provides us with some pertinent conclusions on how to face the provocations of a neo-Operation Gladio.
The only option for France today is to stand proud on its secular republican values, multiply the satire that fundamentalists want to shut down, encourage societal inclusion, educate and educate again.
A turn to the extreme right would mean a victory for the terrorists.
However painful it is, the best way to prevail for the French is to stand strong and resist the populist temptations.
The editorial is written by Remi Piet, an assistant professor of public policy, diplomacy and international political economy at Qatar University.
Two issues with it:
The first thing he does not mention is that the acts of terror are the historical result of French government policies. These policies go back a long ways.
The French bullied Algeria, absorbed Algerian Muslims and then did not give them the opportunity to integrate.
The upshot is a generation of Muslim Algerians that live in France and are bitter about their treatment.
The second problem is that the issue is not one of Islamic terrorism from a historical standpoint so much as the French state being complicit in “false flag” terrorist operations.
Today’s “Evil Islam” meme is being created by forces that want to foster tensions and then worse between Islam and the West.
The French should stand up to their government and demand accountability. But the accountability should involve a confession that “radical Islam” is being advanced by forces affiliated with the government.
The REAL problem, therefore, is not how to defend against radical Islam but how to prevent the French government and broader Western facilities and associates from creating bloody false flags designed to increase tensions.
Conclusion: The French should confront their own government and other European populations should do the same. That goes for America, too. People should demand answers and call on the mainstream media to do its job instead of remaining complicit in an unpublicized but evident neo-Gladio program.
Brian McEwen is a professional geologist with more than 30 years of exploration and production experience in open-pit and underground mining projects and operations. He is VP Exploration & Development for Golden Arrow, a sponsor of The Daily Bell.
The Daily Bell: Tell us a little more about your background.
Brian McEwen: I graduated from UBC in 1981, with a BSc in Earth Sciences, the worked in the coal mines of SE BC for 10 years, moved on to consulting with Cominco Engineering, MRDI and then AMEC. I worked around the world in open pit and underground project and mining evaluations, mostly development or production companies, as Chief Geologist, Manager of Geology, and finally Mining Manager for AMEC Peru. In 2003 I incorporated my own consulting company and worked mostly in senior or executive roles for junior companies, including Dynasty Gold, Buffalo Gold, London Mining, New World Resources, Northern Lion Gold, North Arrow and now Golden Arrow.
The Daily Bell: We want to ask some technical questions to begin with because of your role, and then we’ll get a bit more general. Tell us about your time with MRDI.
Brian McEwen: I worked with Dr. Harry Parker, my technical supervisor. I was Chef Geologist for Canada, followed by Manager of Mining in Peru. I worked on many major projects throughout the world but mostly in Latin America, including Antamina, Cerro Colorado, Spence, Quebrada Blance, Alumbrera, Lomas Bayas, Petaquilla… to name a few.
The Daily Bell: How is Golden Arrow positioned in Argentina from a success standpoint.
Brian McEwen: We have defined resources which continue to grow, and Silver Standard’s Pirquitas mine 35 kms away is running out of ore. Silver Standard is currently paying for all the pre-development costs for advancing our exploratory effort and evaluating a joint mining operation, so the project is moving forward at no dilution to shareholders.
The Daily Bell: Golden Arrow just optioned Antofalla in Argentina’s Catamarca province. How did it achieve the option? There were competitors involved.
Brian McEwen: This is a project that was brought to our attention by Hugo Caranza, our Chief Geologist. We started negotiating with the owner several years ago and recently signed off on the deal. There were other companies that we know of also pursuing this project. I believe it went to us as we have stayed in Argentina through good and bad times and started talking to the owner when the market was down. He was familiar with Mr. Joseph Grosso, Golden Arrow’s head and believed we would advance it and not sit on it.
The Daily Bell: Expand on Chinchillas.
Brian McEwen: Chinchillas is our flagship project. Since 2012 we have advanced the project from a pure exploration play to a deposit with 155 million ounces of measured and indicated silver-equivalent resources, and a further 90 million ounces inferred silver-equivalent resources. Right now the project is under option by Silver Standard, who are evaluating a combined mining operation with their nearby Pirquitas mine, which if it goes ahead will give Golden Arrow a 25% interest in the resulting mine.
The Daily Bell: Tell us about the similarities between Antofalla and Chinchillas. The mineralizations are similar? Specifically the geological complexes seen at Chinchillas?
Brian McEwen: At Chinchillas, the breccia complexes associated with the dacite domes are one of the carriers of silver, lead and zinc mineralization, and our team has noted similar geological settings and mineralization at Antofalla.
The Daily Bell: You’ve said you believe the best proposition for delineating resources at Antofalla is to assess the project for mineralization associated with certain formations.
Brian McEwen: The volcaniclastic tuffs and breccias and associated dacite domes are hosts of mineralization at Chinchillas. This is the model we followed at Chinchillas and had such success. By zeroing in on these at Antofalla we believe we have a good chance to define another deposit.
The Daily Bell: OK, good news that these techniques have proven successful so far.
Brian McEwen: You could certainly say so. In just four years we have grown what was basically a grassroots exploration project to one of the largest new silver deposits with the potential to be a significant mine in the near-term.
The Daily Bell: Chinchillas is proving to be a bigger find than you expected as a result of these techniques?
Brian McEwen: Not as a result of these techniques. It is a big deposit. Others in the past believed the geometry would not allow for a big deposit. We believed it could and are proven right.
The Daily Bell: Antofalla has a similar environment to Chinchillas. Please explain.
Brian McEwen: It is dacite domes and associated tuffs and breccias. Out initial sampling indicates the rocks are mineralized. Now we need to figure how continuous it is and at what grade
The Daily Bell:Previous operators included Northern Orion (1997) and Silex Argentina (2004–2005). Can you explain how they explored the site?
Brian McEwen: Both companies completed typical early stage sampling and drilling. I can’t speak to their strategies.
The Daily Bell: Are you looking for more properties now that the market is so hot?
Brian McEwen: Oh yes, we are looking at a lot of projects right now.
The Daily Bell: Where are you looking?
Brian McEwen: Mostly in Argentina, although I have looked at some in other countries. We have a good infrastructure in Argentina and know the country. As things have turned politically we feel we are in a good spot and the timing is right.
The Daily Bell: OK, some more general questions: Does the company foresee a continued hot market in gold and silver?
Brian McEwen: We are very pleased with the recent strength of silver and we in particular believe that silver is an important precious and industrial metal with a strong future.
The Daily Bell: Were you pleasantly surprised or did you see this coming?
Brian McEwen: We believed that the price of silver was unsustainably low so yes, we expected a turnaround.
The Daily Bell: How high can gold and silver go?
Brian McEwen: It was only a few years ago that silver was in the 35 to 45 dollar range, and there doesn’t seem to be a reason that it can’t reach that level again.
The Daily Bell: Do the new silver economics make Chinchillas more of a priority than ever?
Brian McEwen: Chinchillas is primarily a silver deposit so every increase in the price of silver will be of great benefit to future mine economics.
The Daily Bell: How about for Silver Standard?
Brian McEwen: I can’t speak for Silver Standard but if the economics of Chinchillas improve with the silver price, presumably that would make it even more attractive to them as the operator of a neighbouring silver mine that is looking to extend their mine life with the Chinchillas deposit.
The Daily Bell: Argentina is getting better or worse as a base of operations? Didn’t they just reduce taxes?
Brian McEwen: Since the 2015 presidential election Argentina has made several positive changes to the tax regime that will benefit mining operations. We believe in the country’s mineral potential and its future as a mining centre.
The Daily Bell: Would you suggest investors interested in this sector give Chinchillas a close look? What’s your feel about the project, will it move ahead?
Brian McEwen: Since the day I came on board with Golden Arrow I have been of the opinion that Chinchillas will be a mine. I have only become more confident as we have moved the project forward.
The Daily Bell: Well, good luck, and thanks for your time.
Golden Arrow/Chinchillas Contact: Shawn: 1-800-901-0058 or 778-686-0135.
GOLDEN ARROW RESOURCES has recently become a sponsor of The Daily Bell under a new marketing program. The company welcomes your interest and support. Over time, we will be presenting further coverage of Golden Arrow and its promising developments.
Donald Trump wrongly blames Hillary Clinton for creation of ISIS … Donald Trump and his vice presidential candidate Mike Pence gave their first joint interview to 60 Minutes and used the show to point the finger at Hillary Clinton for ISIS … The intervention in Libya, which she supported, did give ISIS an opening, but Trump is overstating her role by saying she is responsible for ISIS. This claim is inaccurate. We rate it False. -PolitiFact
Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact writes Hillary is NOT “responsible” for ISIS. (See above.)
PolitiFact may be technically accurate but in a larger sense it is inaccurate.
But PolitiFact like the rest of the mainstream media wants to impugn Trump’s credibility. Point out how Trump is wrong and maybe people will stop believing him – and in him.
But debunking Donald this way is probably not going to have the desired impact.
In fact, it is actually symptomatic of what’s wrong with the mainstream media generally. And why the mainstream is bleeding credibility.
In this Internet era, Western media is increasingly corrupt because its analysis is resolutely and narrowly based around “news” from “reliable sources.”
Of course the news is narrowly sourced and the “reliable sources” are all sharing the same resources and research.
More from PolitiFact:
“Hillary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies,” Trump said in an interview that aired July 17. “She is responsible for ISIS.” Trump has made this claim repeatedly. It’s wrong, and we’ll explain why.
… The sources of ISIS are complex and interconnected, said John Pike, an expert on defense and director of GlobalSecurity.org, a website that provides information on defense.
“She may ‘share some of the blame’ but there is more than enough share to go around. She was in no sense the singular author of the thing,” Pike said.
The article goes on to explain that “long-time Sunni extremist Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi established Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) which became known as ISIS.
Al Qaeda grew after Saddam Hussein was pushed from power, and thus Democrats blamed George W. Bush. On the other hand, Obama’s Iraq leave-taking post 2011 also helped create a vacuum exploited by terrorists.
True enough, but then there is CNN.
In late March, CNN reported on a “sharp criticism” HERE by Rudy Giuliani that linked Clinton to ISIS.
“She had her chance to (rally people against ISIS) [but] she helped create ISIS. Hillary Clinton could be considered a founding member of ISIS,” Giuliani said.
Giuliani is certainly not an objective observer, but his point is generally correct.
For instance Hillary could have exposed the roots of ISIS, which as we’ve shown in detail in other articles were manufactured by the CIA, Saudi Arabia, London’s City and Israel.
This is the sort of frame-of-reference the mainstream media will never provide. Trouble is, there are plenty of articles on the Internet and videos too that comprehensively explain what’s going on.
Only the mainstream media will never point them out.
Trump is wrong to say that Hillary founded ISIS, if he is speaking individually, but Giuliani’s point that she is a “founding member” is accurate in the largest sense.
PolitiFact, like many mainstream facilities, won’t provide a broad-enough viewpoint.
Trump in many ways is willing to. This is one reason why the “establishment” is having such a difficult time cooperating with him or covering his campaign.
Conclusion: Because Trump is willing to say what has not been said, mainstream political and media attacks are not working. Even when Trump doesn’t tell the truth, he “hovers” around it. And often that makes him difficult to injure or debunk.
Tesla’s stock falls after Elon Musk reveals his ‘master plan’ … CEO Elon Musk, has a “master plan” for his company and for the future of electric vehicles and autonomous driving. After more than a week of teasing about its existence, Elon Musk revealed Part 2 of his “master product plan” for Tesla on Wednesday evening. Or, as he calls it, “part deux.” -LATimes
A visionary and his master plan. Do we believe it?
We previously wrote about Musk HERE:
Elon Musk and Tesla Are the Face of Bubbling Stock Market, but Maybe Not for Long … It is true, that Elon Musk is considered by many to be a true visionary, but in our view, few visionaries turn their dreams into reality with $4.9 billion in government support.
That’s according to the LA Times last summer.
SolarCity, SpaceX and Tesla all received massive funding injections. Musk wasn’t appreciative of the estimates, calling the report “incredibly misleading and deceptive to the reader.”
But according to the Times, Tesla alone received $2.3 billion – and that was last year.
Musk’s companies make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space. But none of them make any money. And these past weeks, as The Wall Street Journal pointed out, Musk has seen his publicity sour.
The souring had to do with Musk’s proposal to buy solar-panel manufacturer SolarCity Corp. – a move criticized by Tesla analysts and followers.
Not much later it became public knowledge that a Tesla Model S in self-driving mode crashed with a fatality.
We wrote, “Of course, none of this will probably put a dent in Musk’s progress so long as Tesla’s stock stays up.”
To try to guarantee that, Musk has announced a new “multiyear, four-pronged strategy.”
[The strategy] includes new kinds of Tesla vehicles, expanded solar initiatives, updates on Tesla’s “autopilot” technology and a ride-sharing program.
Tesla’s stock Thursday morning was trading at $222, down about 3%. While the plan is bold and futuristic, financial analysts see it as vague with no hard timelines, a distraction from here-and-now concerns such as getting the upcoming Tesla 3 through the assembly line and onto the market.
Some surmised that the timing of the announcement was a way for Musk to distract from recent headlines that have raised concerns about Tesla’s autopilot function and its troubles hitting vehicle-delivery targets.
Is it possible that Musk has made his fabulous projections one time too many?
Karl Brauer, an analyst at Kelley Blue Book: “It’s sadly not a very unique or original plan. What he’s saying is, ‘I’m going to have autonomous vehicles that are purely electric driving around serving people’s transportation needs.’ Well, every automaker has already envisioned that, and many are already working toward it.”
Michelle Krebs, senior analyst at Autotrader: “As is typical, Elon Musk has laid out a grandiose plan for the future with no time frames and few specifics, and no mention of how and when Tesla will be profitable.”
The Times article rebuts criticism however. It points out that “Musk has emerged as the 21st century’s most audacious, best-known living entrepreneur, replacing the late Steve Jobs as the business world’s leading icon.”
The article cites his cars and his new company, SpaceX, as evidence of Musk’s genius. Also that NASA has given Musk tremendously profitable contracts. (We’re tempted to count that as yet another government giveaway, though admittedly most might not.)
Anyway, the article doesn’t get into Musk’s government funding. Most mainstream articles on the “most important entrepreneur since Steve Jobs” don’t.
And here, in a single quote, is the reason why Musk has such avid followers and, increasingly, determined detractors:
In his new master plan, Musk said, “We must at some point achieve a sustainable energy economy or we will run out of fossil fuels to burn and civilization will collapse. … The faster we achieve sustainability, the better.”
Good Lord. There’s plenty of energy in the world. Civilization is more likely to collapse from fedgov wars and overspending than a lack of “fossil” fuels – which are probably in part geological anyway.
Musk wants to achieve sustainability for the world (in part by traveling to Mars) but he might want to achieve it for his own companies first.
If by some chance you are interested in investing in a Musk production, please understand that he has started very few of his ventures, not even Tesla.
His primary business method seems to be to find companies favored by US federal government policies. He then buys the companies, or invests in them, and approaches fedgov for money.
As an entrepreneurial tactic, it’s reprehensible. As practical matter it seems to have worked for him thus far.
But as we pointed out in our previous article, Musk may finally be reaching the end of his ability to survive on PR and government resources.
His business, at least some of them, are so big that they will actually have to rise and fall on the revenue they produce. And the stock market will stay up only for so long.
There are increasing elements of an obvious “hustle” about Musk’s various endeavors. People are starting to notice. When the stock market finally collapses, Musk will face significant challenges.
Conclusion: It will become clear, then, whether his businesses are real or imaginary, or possibly both.
We Will Win the Global War Against Radical Islamists … “What good comes from slowing down immigration of people from the Middle East?” This is what we are hearing from the so-called smart pundits on the news this morning after a butcher dragged and crushed innocent people down a street for a mile in Nice France. This is just the latest battle in a global war being waged against anyone that is not willing to bow down to violent radical Islamism. We need to get in this war with all our might and bind the entire world together to hunt down the cowards that subscribe to the twisted ideology of radical Islamism. -Observer
This article makes a significant distinction between radical Islam and “US Muslim allies” around the world.
It is written by Lt. General Michael T. Flynn who “spent more than 33 years in Army intelligence, working closely with Generals Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus, Admiral Mike Mullen, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and other policy, defense and intelligence community, and war-fighting leaders.”
Flynn has also written a book about fighting against radical Islam.
The article is pertinent to DB because we published an article not long ago explaining that those who lived in Muslim countries were fairly civilized and democratic. You can see the article HERE.
We explained that New Gingrich, a member of CFR, was demonizing Islam for his own political purposes.We found it exploitative and even reprehensible.
We received a huge amount of commentary and condemnation, too. The basic thrust of the comments was that if you believed in Islam, you were a backer of Islam-based Sharia law and thus wished to convert the society in which you lived to radical Islam.
Every Muslim was a potential Islamic terrorist, in other words. And Sharia law was not only incompatible with the Constitution, it was inevitably going to be substituted.
We were urged to educate ourselves about the need to regard 1.5-2 billion Muslims as “enemies.”
But we argued, then as now, that the vast majority of people who are Muslims are no different than Christians. Most relate to their religion at least partly as a matter of social convention. They have other, bigger, professional and personal worries They are no more likely to insist that on Sharia law than Roman Catholics are to insist on the primacy of the Papacy in an Islamic country.
There is a huge difference between the current crop of Islamic fundamentalists and the average Muslim.
Let’s see what Flynn says about it.
-Violent radical Islamists do not follow the real message of the Quran. Its time our Muslim allies around the world make this clear. Say it every day with no caveats.
-Call them by precise language. Admit they are ideologues subscribing to radical Islamist political/religious views; that are an anathema to peace-seeking Muslims.
-As a wise Muslim scholar once said, “Islam is not a religion of peace; or war. Islam is a religion, just like any other. Peace and war depend on one’s interpretation and ends.”
-The religion of Islam has not declared war on the world. Those who would twist a few ideas taken from Islamic history and turn it into a call to wage mass violence against anyone that doesn’t think like them are the enemy.
-By segregating this small segment of violent sociopaths from the over 1.3 billion peace seeking Muslims around the world we can help those peace seeking Muslims to protect themselves so they can win the battle for the soul of Islam that is occurring today.
-We need to be disciplined in our use of the terms radical Islamism. This term separates over a billion Muslims from the enemy that butchered the innocents in Nice. We need to help the peace seeking Muslims of the world to root out this cancer.
-By segregating this small segment of violent sociopaths from the over 1.3 billion peace seeking Muslims around the world we can help those peace seeking Muslims to protect themselves so they can win the battle for the soul of Islam that is occurring today.
Good for Mr. Flynn. He separates out more than a billion peaceful Muslims from a handful of radicalized murderers.
Anyone can make an anti-religious argument and accuse believers of fanaticism. For those who will continue to insist that Islam itself is “bloody,” here’s a timeline of Roman Catholic Massacres:
Having done so well, it is too bad Mr. Flynn doesn’t follow his article’s logic to its ultimate conclusion.
He is so eager to create a war against radical Islam that he forgets – intentionally or not – to make the point that the “enemies” he identifies are in large part created and supported by his own country and by elements in Israel and other Western countries – significantly, London’s City.
There is no doubt that Al Qaeda and then ISIS are Western products.
Even terror attacks themselves constantly raise questions about the reality of mainstream media reporting.
It has emerged, reportedly, that the white truck used to mow down 80-plus people presented not even a spatter of blood on its paint at the end of the massacre. If so, how’s that possible?
And of course, the knapsacks worn by the Boston bombers were not the same color as the knapsacks containing the explosives.
The current economic depression in which the entire world is embroiled is not a coincidence. It is a result of purposeful central bank policies. You cannot consistently debase money and expect to create wealth.
The second inevitable, element of the current plot to expand globalism involves setting up and expanding regional wars to ensure the current corrupt economic system is not taken down.
The US – not Islamic countries – has been fomenting and prosecuting serial wars killing and injuring millions ever since the end of World War II. The US even helped support a terrible war between Iraq and Iran.
Muslim emigration to Europe is being encouraged. It builds tension and creates the psychological soil available to nurture military actions. Upcoming, expanded wars are intended to distract people from what has been done to them financially.
Those who currently demonize Islam – and “all” Muslims – are supporting and advancing globalist misinformation. They are ultimately, one way or another, contributing to their own enslavement.
None of this is new. The same tactics were used to generate two world wars in the 20th century.
Conclusion: There are many problems in the world today. One of the biggest is that people are either purposefully or mistakenly mis-identifying who and what is responsible for them.The West is at fault for supporting Saudi Wahhabism and creating radical Islam.
Behind The CIA Desperate Turkey Coup Attempt Column … On the evening of July 15, a group of Turkish army officers announced that they had staged a military coup d’etat and had assumed control of the country. They claimed that Erdogan was in a desperate flight for his life and that they were now in the process of restoring order … Behind the coup attempt is a far more dramatic story of the huge geopolitical shift that the often unpredictable political survivor, President (still) Recep Erdogan, was in the midst of making when Gülen’s loyalists made their desperate, now apparently failed coup attempt. –New Eastern Outlook
Here’s an idea. Is the CIA actually supportive of Turkey’s Recep Erdogan in order to provide a plausible justification for an Islamic Turkey to ally with Russia?
Erdogan is said to be jailing plotters of the recent failed Turkish coup and many others as well. It looks more like Erdogan is removing his opponents throughout Turkey and may emerge strengthened.
Why is it important what the CIA is actually trying to do? Because we believe the ultimate aim is world war and all else is windy rhetoric. Out of chaos, a “global order,” etc.
And there is plenty of rhetoric. So we will add our odd suggestions with the intention of eliciting, perhaps, reactions and even clarifications.
Let us try to summarize …
The US and the CIA have supposedly been supporting the Islamist Gulen in Pennsylvania. Gulen is old now and probably not much of a factor when it comes to actual activity in Turkey. He has degenerated into a figurehead.
In any event, Erdogan is now dismantling his network in Turkey. The two men are enemies.
We are asked to believe the CIA is firmly anti-Erdogan. The truth is could be more nuanced, at least of late. For instance, Erdogan was recently shooting down Russian jets (he just apologized) and has been a supporter of “new” pro-Western Ukraine.
It is certainly possible that the CIA’s prejudices advance and abate depending on its objectives and who can promote them. Erdogan seems a good deal more powerful than Gulen now.
An interview with F. William Engdah in the New Eastern Outlook – see excerpt above – tells us that the CIA has made a “desperate coup attempt” and lost.
Is this realistic? Or is the truth more complex?
Erdogan is not a big booster of the current secular state in Turkey. He would like to orient Turkey toward Sunni-Sharia from what we can tell.
We are also told that Erdogan has approached Russia and is in the process, once again, of becoming a Russian ally because of CIA “enmity” and continued ISIS attacks.
Now we have Middle East and near Asia map that allies Turkey with Russia against the EU, Britain and the US.
Let us note that Putin genuinely does not seem to want the war that the West is setting up in his backyard.
NATO and the US are forcing it upon him and have created tensions by gaining control of Ukraine.
But somehow the CIA at the same time has managed to lose Turkey.
The Pentagon and CIA have turned Ukraine away from Russia, maneuvered Russia into an anti-NATO posture and set four or five Middle Eastern countries aflame with war.
But they have failed with Erdogan? Or was the coup somehow intended to fail?
In any event, we see as a result the emergent creation of “sides” of a new, wider war.
On one side a marriage of moderate Islam to Russia via a resurgent quasi-Ottoman empire.
On the other side, the US, Britain and NATO.
Do the wars in the Middle East begin to make sense now? Was the idea perhaps always, sooner or later, to involve Russia in the mix and create a Russian-Islamic alliance that the West could oppose?
The Islamic migrations into Europe serve the purpose of further uniting the EU against Russia and Turkey.
Conclusion: This is our suspicion …. today. If another coupe is fomented against Erdogan with CIA backing, or something else happens, then our current perspective will obviously have to be revised. Time will tell.
Chris Christie Made a Case Against Hillary Clinton. We Fact-Checked. … … Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, whom Donald J. Trump passed over to be his running mate, was one of the stars of the Republican convention’s second night on Tuesday, delivering a detailed case against Hillary Clinton with a prosecutorial zeal … Like many indictments, the facts presented to the Republican jury were sometimes selective: not necessarily false, but often ignoring exculpatory evidence. Below is a closer look at Mr. Christie’s case. – New York Times
The pro-Hillary mainstream media has been shocked by the GOP convention and often cited suggestions that Hillary Clinton ought to be in jail rather than running for president.
The New York Times even “fact-checked” Christie’s allegations and made a fool of itself doing so. But the GOP didn’t do much better.
Let us provide some disclaimers before moving forward: We don’t necessarily agree that Hillary ought to be in jail.
Like the passport/visa system, the system of Western, precedent-based justice is a fairly new arrival.
Full-fledged authoritarianism, which involves jailing millions at any given time, is a modern invention.
We’d like to see the current US justice system jettisoned rather than applied.
Of course, Hillary ought not to be running for president either. In a normal society Bill and Hillary Clinton would not have been able to amass the power they have.
They would have been long ago exiled from positions of power – and maybe driven from the country.
On the other hand, the “national security” issues she transgressed (as opposed to the installation of the private, home-based server itself) are a proverbial “red herring.”
Western intelligence agencies have created most of the political and military tension in the world. If people’s lives are at risk as a result, the causes are usually artificial.
For instance, even most DC politicians will likely admit that the vast majority of US “classified” documents are subject to unnecessary classification.
And the Cold War itself was at least partially artificial.
As we often point out, G. Edward Griffin’s great book, The Creature From Jekyll Island, shows clearly that Wall Street funded and supported the creation and evolution of the USSR and communism generally.
There are even photos in the book of Wall Street tycoons dressing up in Red Cross uniforms to visit Russia covertly.
During the convention, the GOP’s Christie accused Clinton of fighting for two years to “keep an Al Qaeda affiliate off the terrorist watch list.”
In fact, the US and the CIA – with the secret support of Congress – helped create Al Qaeda. Clinton’s particular manipulation is simply part of this larger issue.
Christie “reminded the crowd that Mrs. Clinton had called President Bashar al-Assad a reformer and a different kind of leader.”
Hillary thus was involved in the deaths of the 400,000 people in the current civil war: “dead at the hands of the man that Hillary defended.”
In fact, the US has been interfering in Syria at least since March 1949 when a bloodless coup d’état supported by the CIA overthrew democratic rule. The Assads, father and son, are an outgrowth of this initial interference.
On Iran, Christie delivered a familiar critique of the signature agreement of the Obama administration, though it was reached a year ago last week, or two and a half years after Mrs. Clinton left the State Department.
“She launched the negotiations that brought about the worst nuclear deal in history,” he said.
But Christie neglects to mention that the CIA has been directly meddling in Iran since the 1950s. In fact there are suspicions that the US put the current Iranian government into power. See HERE.
There is no doubt America under Jimmy Carter destabilized the secular regime of the Shah of Iran. [Then] Ruhollah Khomeini, stored in France, was put on plane back to Iran (where he apparently groused to reporters that he much disliked Iranians). This was not surprising either from our point of view as Khomeini’s father is reported to have been British intelligence.
On Russia, Christie accused Mrs. Clinton of giving President Vladimir V. Putin “that stupid, symbolic reset button,” and said she had harmed the United States’ security and sought instead to strengthen Russia.
But Putin has been exercising restrain in the face of Western aggression and has been complaining that NATO is aggressively pursuing a shooting war against Russia.
On Cuba Mr. Christie said that Mrs. Clinton had “supported concessions to the Castro brothers” as part of the Obama administration’s outreach to Cuba.
In fact, there are emerging suspicions that the US actually was involved in overthrowing Cuba – predictably to create yet another US enemy.
Castro may have been financed by American interests and even received training in guerrilla warfare from US Army Special Forces. The Bay of Pigs invasion may have been engineered to fail.
We can see the above GOP national security accusations are far more simplistic than they should be.
A more hefty allegation has to do with the accusations regarding Clinton’s private email server.
This was an entirely egregious action within the context of current law.
Here the Times does an even worse job of justifying Hillary’s conduct than elsewhere in its article.
Instead of dealing with the obvious reality, the Times makes the argument that Clinton’s motivations for “setting up the personal server have never been entirely clear.”
She said it was for her “convenience,” so she would not have to use multiple devices, though the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said recently that she had used several devices anyway. The F.B.I. investigation did find that Mrs. Clinton sent email over the unsecured network while in adversarial countries, though it did not determine whether she “cared more” about protecting her own secrets.
This last statement is just another example of why the mainstream media and its most luminous facilities continue to leak credibility.
To anyone with even a cursory knowledge, Hillary obviously needed to preserve the secrecy of her dealings because she was reportedly selling state secrets and influence to the highest bidder.
The Clinton’s charitable foundation was then used as the vehicle, apparently to receive payments.
The Times article doesn’t explain Hillary’s seemingly massive and institutionalized criminality.
It also doesn’t explain her involvement in the wounding and murder of millions in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
It doesn’t explain the plan for Hillary to be the point person in the establishment of the upcoming technocratic – corporate run – globalist state.
Neither the Times nor the GOP cover themselves with glory. Christie never fully explains the REAL reason Clinton wanted the home-based server.
The result once more:US politics have literally nothing to do with the reality of the sociopolitical, economic and military stance of the US as regards the larger world.
Conclusion: The entire election, like so many before it, is based on easily disprovable rhetoric. GOP accusations are almost entirely removed from what the CIA has actually done to other countries. But a second, less embracing point – one the GOP’s rhetoric gets right – is that is that Bill and Hillary Clinton are ruthless and evil people who manipulate every part of the federal political environment for personal gain. Trump has not done nearly the damage to other people that the Clintons have. One can argue that alone makes him preferable within the current presidential context.
Global elites must heed the warning of populist rage … Real income stagnation over a longer period than any since the war is a fundamental political fact. –Financial Times
This article acknowledges that globalism is failing but then concludes if it does that Western civilization will end as well.
We entirely disagree with this argument, but we see why it is being made.
In fact, we predicted it last month.
The FT article, of course, provides a number of ways that globalism can be strengthened so that civilization as we know it will not end.
Here at DB, we hope fervently that the globalist-engineered system of international authoritarianism does topple over – and quickly. It’s a horrible system designed to fail.
Post Brexit, the development of freedom is to be demonized as “populism.” Globalism was to be advanced as the sensible solution of mature adults.
This article is a perfect example of the new elitist meme.
If governing elites continue to fail to offer convincing cures, they might soon be swept away and, with them, the effort to marry democratic self-government with an open and co-operative world order.
The article then describes why populism is gaining attractiveness, explaining that economic stagnation was causing “rage.”
This is a simplistic analysis of what’s taking place. But it serves the cause of globalism well because it implies that simple greed is behind Western discontent.
If people simply had more “things,” they would be happier.
There is no suggestion that the Internet itself has educated people about the root causes of what they continually lack.
We would argue that additional information has had a powerful impact on what people understand and what they intend to tolerate.
You won’t find this discussed in article, though.
The article bases its discussion on a McKinsey Global Institute report entitled, Poorer than their Parents?
Households have been suffering from stagnant or falling real incomes. On average between 65 and 70 per cent of households in 25 high-income economies experienced this between 2005 and 2014. In the period between 1993 and 2005, however, only 2 per cent of households suffered stagnant or declining real incomes.
The article maintains this is the root cause of “rage” against the system.
For many of those in the middle of the income distribution, cultural changes also appear threatening. So, too, does immigration — globalisation made flesh. Citizenship of their nations is the most valuable asset owned by most people in wealthy countries. They will resent sharing this with outsiders. Britain’s vote to leave the EU was a warning. So what is to be done?
Now the article advances a litany of solutions.
The first one is that sovereignty must be balanced by global cooperation. For instance, “climate change is a higher priority than further opening of world trade or capital flows.”
Capitalism itself must be reformed and finance deemphasized. A stable financial system is necessary but it must be stripped of “perverse incentives.”
International cooperation must be brought to bear to help governments with large domestic objectives.
Taxation is an important example. The wealthy need to be fairly taxed.
Investment and innovation must be expanded and modest steps can be made in this regard. Higher minimum wages and working-class tax credits are two ways to raise income.
Above all, recognise the challenge. Prolonged stagnation, cultural upheavals and policy failures are combining to shake the balance between democratic legitimacy and global order. The candidacy of Mr Trump is a result.
You see what the article has done? It’s explained that populism is the result of popular “rage” and then provided a series of supposedly wise solutions that can remove rage.
It is really important that globalism be redefined and revitalized so that populists like Donald Trump don’t take over.
How important? “Failure must not be accepted. Our civilization itself is at stake.”
That’s a hefty statement of course, and the solutions provided by the article don’t in our view, go very far toward rescuing either globalism or civilization.
Global warming is basically a hoax as we see it, so how spending billions on nonsensical solutions to a non-problem will enrich people’s lives and wallets is questionable indeed.
Higher taxes for the wealthy and higher minimum wages are simply perverse incentives. A higher minimum wage discourages employment. Higher taxes for the wealthy don’t do much for economic progress either.
It is no wonder these “solutions” are so weak. They are not intended to be helpful.
Step back and the larger view becomes apparent: Globalism is to be implemented via chaos. Nothing is supposed to work. though all of it will be tried.
Only when the misery, warfare and economic chaos have been expanded until people cannot bear it, will a meaningful (and terrible) solution be advanced.
This powerful solution will be entirely international in its parameters.
This is how full-blown internationalism is to be created.
In the meantime, the rhetorical dialectic will continue. Populism will be demonized and globalism will advance wise solutions.
Conclusion: This is merely interim propaganda. The desired state of affairs is “order from chaos.” That hasn’t occurred yet as the pain is not nearly developed enough. But it will.
Hillary Clinton said Monday that Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, was the most dangerous presidential candidate in the history of the United States. -CNN
Clinton, in an interview with CBS News’ Charlie Rose, believes Donald Trump has “no self-discipline, no self-control, no sense of history, no understanding of the limits of the kind of power that any president should impose upon himself.”
All of this could be applied to Clinton. She is by far the more dangerous of the two candidates.
If Clinton gets into office, she will start or expand wars and through large economic programs will ensure the US’s quasi-depression deepens and that the economy never truly recovers at all (even though it may seem to.)
If things aren’t getting worse, Hillary’s power is not advancing. She is good at making things worse.
As her opponent, Donald Trump’s main recommendation is that he has not been a politician before.
Donald Trump has chiefly been a builder and businessman.
But Hillary has basically been a politician.
Economically speaking, politics is price fixing. Laws are price-fixes, forbidding people from taking certain actions in favor of other ones.
We may agree or disagree with these price-fixes, but they exist and are a function of lawmaking.
Price-fixes always distort and degrade economies. The more laws you have, the more price-fixing and the more degradation.
We’ve often argued for private justice for instance in which individuals work out their own civil and criminal differences.
The less price-fixing (state control), the better.
The modern state – with its massive economic, political and judicial interference – is already well on its way to toppling.
Hillary Clinton has done well in the current system. She and her husband have built a gigantic non-profit and reportedly use it to trade favors with powerful people around the world.
She and Bill are connected at the highest levels and can influence US political and military decisions.
People will pay lots of money to anyone with this sort of clout. But the money does not apparently go directly to the Clintons. Instead it reportedly goes to their non-profit, so it does not seem as if the Clintons are accepting payments for their “help.”
How well is this non-profit run? Here, from an April 2015 New York Post in an article entitled, “Clinton Foundation a ‘Slush Fund.’
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month. The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends …
“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog.
Supporters of the Clintons would no doubt disagree with this assessment, as would Hillary herself.
In her interview, Hillary said of Trump, “What he has laid out is the most dangerous, reckless approach to being president than I think we’ve ever seen.”
More from the article:
“There is a lot of fear in our country. And when Americans are worried they’re looking for answers. He’s providing simplistic, easy answers,” Clinton said.
The article quotes poll numbers that indicate Americans are more confident about Hillary’s experience and ability to be president, even though they don’t trust her.
This is unfortunate. As political price-fixes must by definition make economies worse (unless they are removing laws), the more “experienced” a politician is, the more destructive he or she has the capacity to be.
In fact, Hillary and Bill are multimillionaires many times over. Their overarching priority is self-enrichment and the accumulation of power.
Bottom line: Hillary is being groomed for president because she will help usher in the next wave of democracy, which is a form of global technocracy.
This form of government with emphasize the power of multinational corporations and those run them.
These corporations, more than ever, will work closely with powerful politicians to generate and expand serial wars necessary to advance globalist control.
When the Gutenberg press undermined the Catholic Church and the divinity of kings, the powers-that-be began to promote “democracy.” The French Revolution was created to further the concept.
Now that the Internet has exposed the phoniness of most “democracy,” a new form of governance is being promoted. This will emphasize the global marketplace as run by multinational corporations and their technocratic “experts.”
New international trade courts are being created that will allow corporations to have equal footing with nation-states.
None of this is coincidence.
Trade deals TPP and TPIP are both foundational building blocks of this new era. Hillary, from what we can tell, is intended to be the point person to advance this paradigm.
Tomorrow’s globalism, as Hillary’s backers conceive of it, will be racked by war and ruled via corporate authoritarianism. As we pointed out previously, HERE, Hillary is no “democrat” and no “liberal.”
Conclusion: Win or lose, Hillary will continue to be a dangerous backer and builder of corporate, globalist technocracy. If she wins, she’ll pursue her goals on the national stage. If she loses, she will continue to work behind the scenes. Either way she’s dangerous.
The trouble with Trump and national security … Trump is consistent only in his inconsistency on national security issues … There are the growing challenges abroad — the rising threat of ISIS, the resurgence of al Qaeda, the menace of Putinism and a newly aggressive China, all of which should mean the party historically most trusted on national security would make the crumbling world a special feature of its electoral appeal. But no. Here’s the trouble: Donald Trump not only knows nothing about national security, he doesn’t care to know. –CNN
This is a strong and damning article by Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
The Institute is known as a conservative – though “compassionate” – think tank. But from what we can tell the gulf is wide and deep between modest libertarian entities like DB and looming “conservative” facilities like AEI.
As an anarcho-libertarian publication, DB takes the stance that government is basically the problem, not the solution.
Any time you’re telling people what to do, you are essentially “fixing a price” – transferring resources from one place to another by force.
This is inevitably an economic distortion that invades and invalidates free-market operations.
When you invalidate free-markets, you reduce or eliminate competition. When that happens, economic functions are disturbed and demeaned. Worst case, you end up with places like Venezuela where inflation is now approaching 1,000 percent.
Political solutions never work as planned and marketplace environments inevitably produce better results.
Those who work in government know this, of course. That is why they are constantly trying to manufacture domestic and international tensions and worse.
It is only in times of war and impending war – or perhaps economic emergencies – that government can really be justified.
The West supposedly won two world wars against fascist opponents but now it turns out that tomorrows model of governance involves, nonetheless, a kind of global fascism (see Hillary article, this issue.)
Generally wars of self-defense may be seen as justifiable but wars of aggression are not. It gets really hard to tell, however, as governments will claim that any war is a “defensive” one.
The sociopolitical environment surrounding and nurturing warfare is similarly filled with misleading rhetoric.
This article is a good example of that.
It has been said many times that the measure of a leader is not in his embrace of the specifics, but his vision for the nation’s role in the world. For Republicans, that means that wonks like Richard Nixon and anti-nerds like George W. Bush have shared a sense of their country’s place in history.
The article goes on like this, damning Trump for not exhibiting the traits of a wise leader. As you can see, above, the implication somehow is that both Nixon and “W” were wiser than Trump appears to be.
The author also points out that “for many of us who would indeed like to make America great again,” greatness will not be found in the GOP, at least not Trump’s GOP.
She does point out that the GOP has a lot to be “proud of,” including ending slavery and the end of the Cold War.
But, wait. Lincoln neither started nor prosecuted the Civil War in order to free the slaves. In fact, he made many public suggestions that the best place for people of African descent was back in Africa.
As for the Cold War, books like The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin, show us clearly that Wall Street supported and funded the Russian Revolution.
In other words, the rise of the USSR and the subsequent Cold War were part of cold-blooded Hegelian dialectic intended to further the current growing, globalist environment.
Seen from this perspective, the idea that the GOP ought to be “proud” of ending the Cold War is a nonsensical jumble of words.
The GOP cannot be proud of anything. It is just a label. But people in the GOP certainly cannot be proud of its actions either as regards slavery or the Cold War because historical representations in this regard are simply inaccurate.
Pletka ends by saying that the GOP convention will simply be a reminder that the candidate, a “TV host” is appealing to most of his supporters for his “brash and unapologetic ignorance and the irrefutable fact that he is not Hillary Clinton.”
OK, maybe so, but let us argue that for all his faults, Trump is preferable to someone who is “skilled” and “informed” regarding national security and foreign policy.
As we’ve tried to point out, such “experts” are constantly engaged in creating tensions and the international problems that they are then needed to solve.
Often such “experts” actually collude with the other side to create crises that are in need of endless diplomatic tending.
Most modern “international crises” like environmentalism, global warming or various sorts of resource scarcity are made-up to justify the power of the state.
Worst case, “experts” create military confrontations including full-blown shooting wars that spiral out of control and end up costing millions of civilian and military lives.
Conclusion: Trump seems to have some level of contempt for the “art of diplomacy” as it is practiced today. And apparently, he is ignorant about the finer points of national security. From our point of view, these traits can be seen as recommendations not condemnations.
Golden Arrow Resources (TSXV: GRG; US-OTC: GARWF) is best known for its Chinchillas silver-lead-zinc project in Argentina’s Jujuy province, but the prospect generator also has properties in the country’s San Juan and La Rioja provinces, and is now extending its reach into Catamarca province in an option deal to acquire a silver and base metals project called Antofalla.
“It’s one of the ones that we’ve had our eye on for a couple of years,” says Brian McEwen, the company’s vice president of exploration and development. “You can see this large area of alteration at Antofalla and we started looking at it on Google Earth two or three years ago.“
“When we signed our due diligence deal and did some chip channel sampling on outcrops we came back with some spectacular results, like 14.9 metres of 271 grams silver and 1% lead.”
Under the option deal with the private vendor—an Argentine lawyer—Golden Arrow will pay $1.56 million in staged payments over a five-year period to earn 100% of the project. The vendor retains a 1% net smelter return royalty (NSR), but Golden Arrow has the option to buy it back for $1.5 million.
“It’s an incredible deal and it’s back-ended, so we’re not putting too much upfront,” McEwen says, noting that the company’s management team and the seller had come up with the structure of the deal a year and a half ago.
“It’s fair to say that if we were going to go in and try to negotiate a deal today, it would be difficult to strike one this attractive in today’s market, given the positive outlook in Argentina [following the election of President Macri in late 2015] and the uptick in the market and metal prices in general.”
Geologists have known about Antofalla for many years and it has been looked at by other companies, McEwen says.
“We weren’t the only ones knocking on the door, but the vendor also knows that we will advance it, and put the money into the ground, and that’s really what he wants to see happen.”
Golden Arrow’s management team believes Antofalla has a similar style and type of mineralization as its Chinchillas project, which the company is advancing to a feasibility study with the help of Silver Standard Resources (TSX: SSO; NASDAQ: SSRI).
“Back in 2012 as we started working on Chinchillas, it was recognized that the Antofalla system is similar to the Miocene dacite domes and breccia complexes seen at Chinchillas which are related to silver-lead-zinc mineralization,” McEwen explains. “The mineralization also occurs in quartz veins within red beds, but following the Chinchillas model we believe the best proposition for delineating resources is to assess the project for mineralization associated with the dacite domes and volcaniclastic tuffs and breccias.”
McEwen adds that Chinchillas has been a “real success” in demonstrating strong exploration techniques. “People believed Chinchillas was too small and we went in and found it is not,” he says. “It’s a big deposit and it’s getting bigger. At Antofalla we see a similar environment with younger rocks and mineralizing events intruding much older sediments with a big footprint. The potential is there to find something significant.”
This year Golden Arrow will spend up to about $500,000 following up some of its theories about Antofalla, although if the junior gets encouraging results it might consider a drill program.
“We need to understand what we have in the existing data base and develop an understanding of the geological model,” he says. “From there we will develop and implement a plan that will include remote sensing, sampling and mapping. Geophysics may also be an option, all with an end game of delineating drill targets.”
Mineralization at Antofalla occurs in two main styles: silicified breccias that cross-cut the volcaniclastics related to the dacite domes; and in quartz veins within the red beds.
Previous operators included Northern Orion (1997) and Silex Argentina (2004-2005). Northern Orion focused mainly in the dome zone in the volcaniclastic breccias, drilling six reverse circulation drill holes. Unverified results of historic drilling include 102 metres averaging 45 grams silver and 0.58% lead, with an 18-metre interval of 128 grams silver, 0.23 gram gold and 0.88% lead.
Silex focused on the vein style mineralization, drilling six diamond drill holes—three in the Los Españoles vein and three in the Los Jesuitas vein. The best intercepts were 3 metres averaging 3.8 grams gold and 16 grams silver, and 16 metres averaging 0.5 gram gold, 77 grams silver and 1.2% lead. Trench sampling returned a best result of 2 metres averaging 9.2 grams gold, 52 grams silver and 5% lead.
The Antofalla project is made up of six continuous mining claims totalling 8,760 hectares, about 50 km south of the border separating Catamarca from Salta province. The project is road accessible and sits at an elevation of between 3700 and 5300 metres above sea level.
With interest heating up in Argentina, McEwen says, Golden Arrow is continuing to look at other potential acquisitions or option deals in the provinces of Salta and Santa Cruz, as well as in San Juan.
“One of the things that’s happened over the years—just because Argentina has not been a very attractive place to invest and it’s been difficult for companies to raise money for projects there—is that a lot of companies have left and that has given us a lot of attractive properties to look at and we are considering a lot of them.”
Donald Trump accused his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton of enabling Islamic State’s emergence with “her stupid policies” in a joint interview with running mate Gov. Mike Pence, while pledging to “declare a war” on the terror group. “Hillary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies. She is responsible for ISIS,” Trump said launching a scathing attack on Clinton’s legacy as US Secretary of State while speaking to CBS’s “60 Minutes” show host Lesley Stahl in an interview aired on Sunday. -RT
Saying that Hillary Clinton enabled ISIS, is an almost incomprehensible statement.
Doesn’t Donald Trump realize that Hillary is not alone?
She represents the most massive military and monetary forces available on this planet.
Does he not realize they can crush him?
Is he somehow doing their bidding?
We know what to think of Hillary based on her associates and history. As we wrote HERE, she represents corporatism and militarism – the coming technocracy, in other words.
We are less certain about Trump.
He may have decided to run for president on his own and thus opened up possibilities for personal and political manipulation.
But when Trump speaks bluntly about Hillary’s role in creating ISIS, he is basically making statements rarely heard in large – mainstream – venues before.
Mitt Romney never said anything like this.
GPO leaders, despite their supposed antagonism to Democrats, have never made such statements.
Many GOP-ers are pro-war. Any war. Just like Hillary.
Congressman Ron Paul was anti-war, and as a result he was eventually marginalized as a presidential candidate.
Some of Trump’s statements have Ron Paul-like resonances.
True, in this interview he said he would “declare a full-blown war on the group.” On the other hand, he clarified his statement.
“I am going to have very few troops on the ground. We’re going to have unbelievable intelligence, which we need; which, right now, we don’t have,” he said.
Trump also said negative things about NATO, as he has in the past, stating that the organization had an overly prominent role in the “war on terror” and that other nations should do more.
If Trump really does try to wipe ISIS out – or drastically reduce the power of NATO – will he be risking his own health and well-being?
The US is run by corporatist and military entities. Will they hesitate to intimidate or remove Trump if he tries to end ISIS?
Western war-interests always need an enemy after all.
When Russia began to bomb ISIS, its officials said that the Pentagon had been lying about its attacks on ISIS. Officials maintained that the US bombing was really aimed at Syrian infrastructure and thus at destroying the current regime rather than terrorist groups.
Russian officials also said there were no moderate “terrorists” in Syria and that the Pentagon had just made it up to justify a lack of aggression in certain areas.
This is certainly possible. After all, from what we can tell, ISIS (and Al Qaeda before it) were essentially CIA inventions, created with the help of others: London’s City, Israel and Saudi Arabia, etc.
At the center of the current horrible Islamic extremism is Wahhabism, jointly advanced by the US and Saudi Arabia.
We’ve written about that HERE: The Internet Just Debunked the NY Post’s War on Terror.
You can see another article HERE: Globalists Created Wahhabi Terrorism to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global State. We don’t endorse the article but find it interesting.
Trump is currently attacking the West’s modern foundation. It is a combination of technocracy and authoritarianism and enormously profitable for those in control.
Conclusion: In blaming Hillary, Trump did not fully explain how ISIS came to be. But by blaming her (when coupled with his other statements) he is opening up a “Pandora’s box” of issues relating to Western warfare. This is dangerous to those who stand behind “endless wars for endless peace.” It might be dangerous to Donald, too, if he pursues the issue to its logical conclusion.
Overcoming Our Inordinate Fear of Inflation … Why do we care so much about preventing inflation? When I put this query to baby boomers, they tell me that if I had lived through the inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s, I would understand. But … why does it stand out so strongly in our collective memory? –Bloomberg
This Bloomberg editorial provides us with lots of reasons why moderate inflation is not a terrible development.
Noah Smith is one of Bloomberg’s more original columnists, though we almost always disagree with him. Once again, with this editorial, he misses the main point in our view.
He analyzes inflation from the standpoint of communal rather than individual harm.
Thus, he concludes that in moderate doses it is not terrible at all.
The harm of inflation cited in economics textbooks seems laughably unimportant. For example, inflation generates so-called shoe-leather costs — a term for the hassle of moving money from one’s brokerage or savings account to one’s checking account.
This hassle is larger when prices change a lot, since you have to put spending cash in your wallet more often. But in the age of digital-account management, this cost is nonexistent.
A more sophisticated argument against inflation is that when companies want to change their prices but for some reason can’t, inflation distorts prices from what they should be, which decreases economic efficiency.
Economists have tried to measure these costs, and found that they’re just as small as we might expect.
He explains that University of Chicago economics professor Robert Lucas researched the costs of inflation and developed a model that showed price inflation did not produce terrible effects.
According to Lucas, “10 percentage points of inflation is only about as harmful as a 1 percent reduction in gross domestic product.”
Recession is more to be feared than inflation.
The article then looks at inflation from the viewpoint of volatility and finds this may explain people’s concern more realistically. Fast-rising prices are volatile ones and make it harder to plan.
But Smith also makes the intriguing point that it is the volatility itself that makes the difference.
If inflation is at two percent or four percent, it really doesn’t matter, he argues, so long as prices are not volatile.
It is not the rate of inflation but the volatility that makes people miserable. The article then develops some interesting insights based on the idea that people are more concerned with volatility price appreciation.
It suggests that viewing inflation and recession as equal dangers is wrong. Recession is by far the bigger danger so long as the inflationary trend is not volatile.
In reality, a loss of one percentage point of GDP probably is many times worse than a 1 percent rise in inflation.
The article’s conclusion is that the Fed ought to worry more about price volatility than inflation itself – so long as the economy is growing.
The Fed should worry about employment, in other words, rather than inflation.
As stated, from our point of view, this argument misses the main reason why people don’t like inflation.
Inflation takes control out of their hands.
People can work as hard as they want, but if some nameless, faceless individuals in Washington DC decide to change monetary parameters and heat-up inflation, all that hard work is rendered valueless.
People resent it, now more than ever – as these days millions more understand how central banks really work and the price-fixing that takes place.
Inflation deprives people of money that they made by working hard and saving.
It makes a mockery of the idea that people have control over their own destinies.
Interesting that the article doesn’t recognize this.
In a way it is a perfect Bloomberg article, beating at the heart of the Bloomberg’s ever-present authoritarian impulse.
In this variant, people’s freedom and ability to control their own savings is seen as irrelevant so long as the Fed is able to generate increased employment.
The “good of the many” is viewed as far more important than individual freedom.
It is an immaculate rendition of the technocratic meme – the propaganda that places “experts” above individuals and celebrates the power of a handful of individuals over people’s own, hard-won, human action.
Inflation makes people feel out-of-control and mocks their ability to build a better and more secure life for themselves and their families.
What’s so hard to understand about that?
Conclusion: For the Fed and its supporters, higher “employment” is preferable to people’s control over their own money. This is a terrible state of affairs, and a persistent one. As long as we’re at it, we should probably add one more observation: At the root and heart of central banking is a destructive impulse. None of what is said to be for our benefit actually is. Many now realize that as well.
Democrat Hillary Clinton will call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in her first 30 days as president, her campaign said. Clinton first made the pledge to overturn the decision in 2015 during the opening week of her presidential campaign. The 2010 high court ruling, which allowed unlimited corporate and union spending in elections, has helped release a flood of political money in federal, state and local contests. –USA Today
Hillary Clinton has decided if she is elected that she will try for a constitutional amendment to remove the Supreme Court decision called Citizens United.
Citizens United gives corporations “free speech.” In a sense, this treats them like people.
Corporate personhood is actually the root of the problem, not simply “speech.”
We’ve often pointed out that corporate personhood is one of three legs of the stool supporting the modern corporation.
The others are intellectual property rights and central banking.
Titanic flows of fiat money find their way into corporate coffers during economic crises.
Even without crises, multinational corporations are advantaged by fiat money and its resultant credit.
Intellectual property rights sound like a terrific idea but in fact these rights basically provide control of ideas to the largest and most powerful corporations.
There is no reason why corporations should be so large. Corporate personhood allows individual executives to avoid responsibly for corporate actions.
Thomas Jefferson and other founders feared corporate personhood above almost all other sociopolitical manifestations.
They had seen the horrible ruin caused by the British East India Tea Company.
They left regulation of corporations to states. Thus modern-style corporations did not begin to appear in the US until the 20th century as a result of Supreme Court decisions.
Here, from the Brennan Center:
Citizens United did not grant corporations personhood. Corporations already had it. As lawyer David Gans has documented, despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution never mentions corporations, corporate personhood has been slithering around American law for a very long time. The first big leap in corporate personhood from mere property rights to more expansive rights was a claim that the Equal Protection Clause applied to corporations.
The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War in 1868 to grant emancipated slaves full citizenship, states, “No state shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person … the equal protection of the laws.”
We have the likes of former U.S. Senator Roscoe Conkling to thank for the extension of Equal Protection to corporations. Conkling helped draft the 14th Amendment. He then left the Senate to become a lawyer. His Gilded Age law practice was going so swimmingly that Conkling turned down a seat on the Supreme Court not once, but twice.
Conkling argued to the Supreme Court in San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Rail Roadthat the 14th Amendment is not limited to natural persons. In 1882, he produced a journal that seemed to show that the Joint Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment vacillated between using “citizen” and “person” and the drafters chose person specifically to cover corporations. According to historian Howard Jay Graham, “[t]his part of Conkling’s argument was a deliberate, brazen forgery.”
As Thom Hartmann notes the Supreme Court embraced Conkling’s reading of the 14th Amendment in a headnote in 1886 in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road:
“Before argument, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: ‘The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.’” This was not part of the formal opinion. But the damage was done. Later cases uncritically cited the headnote as if it had been part of the case.
Reclaim Democracy has interesting news about corporate personhood. The movement has apparently grown far beyond Citizens United.
The Big Picture … Citizens United isn’t an isolated problem. It’s a symptom of a bigger, longstanding threat: for decades the largest corporations have been building power over our political process — power that comes at the expense of citizens.
One of the main instruments of this influence is the legal concept of “corporate personhood,” wherein corporations receive the same Constitutional protections as individuals. Corporations use these protections to claim the “right” to lie to the public, for example, or to influence elections in various ways.
A Constitutional Amendment is the only way to strip corporations of “constitutional rights.” Moreover, many kinds of electoral reform, such as public campaign financing that truly levels the playing field, are legal impossibilities without first amending the Constitution (as a subsequent Supreme Court decision on campaign finance vividly demonstrates).
For these reasons, there’s now a rapidly growing grassroots movement afoot to do so. At the head of this Movement is Move to Amend, a broad national coalition with more than 150 chapters nationwide and nearly 250,000 endorsers (Reclaim Democracy is a co-founder). More than 400 cities and towns have passed resolutions or ordinances calling to end corporate personhood or have serious efforts underway.
As a libertarian publication, we don’t believe corporations ought to be restrained by law. We don’t believe they ought to be empowered either. People should not be forced to treat corporations as people. Of course it may be a bad idea to try to create a constitutional amendment because the process is unpredictable.
Conclusion: But the premise is sound. Get rid of intellectual property rights, corporate personhood and other rights provided by judicial force and multinational corporations will subside along with their abuses, control and power. Unfortunately, since Hillary Clinton is a globalist, she will not try to remove corporate personhood but she should.