“History is a set of lies agreed upon.” – Napoleon Bonaparte
- History is written by the victors. The winning team always portray themselves as righteous warriors fighting a war of self-defence. This is of course BS. Things are never so black and white. The truth is we have 2 devils fighting over who gets to eat the cake. Both are mass murderers!
- If any country implements an oil embargo against America right now, it is clearly a war declaration. Yes, the Japanese were provoked into a war with the US. Pearl harbor was merely the convenient setup to drag the American sheeple onto WW2.
Pearl Harbor: A Successful War Lie
One type of “defensive” war is one that follows a successful provocation of aggression from the desired enemy. This method was used to begin, and repeatedly to escalate, the Vietnam War, as recorded in the Pentagon Papers. Setting aside the question of whether the United States should have entered World War II, in either Europe or the Pacific or both, the fact is that our country was unlikely to enter unless attacked. In 1928 the U.S. Senate had voted 85 to 1 to ratify the Kellogg-Briand Pact, a treaty that bound — and still binds — our nation and many others never again to engage in war.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s fervent hope for years was that Japan would attack the United States. This would permit the United States (not legally, but politically) to fully enter the war in Europe, as its president wanted to do, as opposed to merely providing weaponry, as it had been doing. On April 28, 1941, Churchill wrote a secret directive to his war cabinet:
“It may be taken as almost certain that the entry of Japan into the war would be followed by the immediate entry of the United States on our side.”
On May 11, 1941, Robert Menzies, the prime minister of Australia, met with Roosevelt and found him ” a little jealous” of Churchill’s place in the center of the war. While Roosevelt’s cabinet all wanted the United States to enter the war, Menzies found that Roosevelt,
” . . . trained under Woodrow Wilson in the last war, waits for an incident, which would in one blow get the USA into war and get R. out of his foolish election pledges that ‘I will keep you out of war.’”
On August 18, 1941, Churchill met with his cabinet at 10 Downing Street. The meeting had some similarity to the July 23, 2002, meeting at the same address, the minutes of which became known as the Downing Street Minutes. Both meetings revealed secret U.S. intentions to go to war. In the 1941 meeting, Churchill told his cabinet, according to the minutes: ” The President had said he would wage war but not declare it.” In addition, “Everything was to be done to force an incident.”
Japan was certainly not averse to attacking others and had been busy creating an Asian empire. And the United States and Japan were certainly not living in harmonious friendship. But what could bring the Japanese to attack?
When President Franklin Roosevelt visited Pearl Harbor on July 28, 1934, seven years before the Japanese attack, the Japanese military expressed apprehension. General Kunishiga Tanaka wrote in the Japan Advertiser, objecting to the build-up of the American fleet and the creation of additional bases in Alaska and the Aleutian Islands:
“Such insolent behavior makes us most suspicious. It makes us think a major disturbance is purposely being encouraged in the Pacific. This is greatly regretted.”
In 1935 the most decorated U.S. Marine in history at the time, Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, published to enormous success a short book called “War Is a Racket.” He saw perfectly well what was coming and warned the nation:
“At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals…don’t shout that ‘We need lots of battleships to war on this nation or that nation.’ Oh, no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate our 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only. Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.
“The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline in the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.
“The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon’s shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern, through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.”
In March 1935, Roosevelt bestowed Wake Island on the U.S. Navy and gave Pan Am Airways a permit to build runways on Wake Island, Midway Island, and Guam. Japanese military commanders announced that they were disturbed and viewed these runways as a threat. So did peace activists in the United States. By the next month, Roosevelt had planned war games and maneuvers near the Aleutian Islands and Midway Island. By the following month, peace activists were marching in New York advocating friendship with Japan. Norman Thomas wrote in 1935:
“The Man from Mars who saw how men suffered in the last war and how frantically they are preparing for the next war, which they know will be worse, would come to the conclusion that he was looking at the denizens of a lunatic asylum.”
The U.S. Navy spent the next few years working up plans for war with Japan, the March 8, 1939, version of which described “an offensive war of long duration” that would destroy the military and disrupt the economic life of Japan. In January 1941, eleven months before the attack, the Japan Advertiser expressed its outrage over Pearl Harbor in an editorial, and the U.S. ambassador to Japan wrote in his diary:
“There is a lot of talk around town to the effect that the Japanese, in case of a break with the United States, are planning to go all out in a surprise mass attack on Pearl Harbor. Of course I informed my government.”
On February 5, 1941, Rear Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner wrote to Secretary of War Henry Stimson to warn of the possibility of a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor.
As early as 1932 the United States had been talking with China about providing airplanes, pilots, and training for its war with Japan. In November 1940, Roosevelt loaned China one hundred million dollars for war with Japan, and after consulting with the British, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau made plans to send the Chinese bombers with U.S. crews to use in bombing Tokyo and other Japanese cities. On December 21, 1940, two weeks shy of a year before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, China’s Minister of Finance T.V. Soong and Colonel Claire Chennault, a retired U.S. Army flier who was working for the Chinese and had been urging them to use American pilots to bomb Tokyo since at least 1937, met in Henry Morgenthau’s dining room to plan the firebombing of Japan. Morgenthau said he could get men released from duty in the U.S. Army Air Corps if the Chinese could pay them $1,000 per month. Soong agreed.
On May 24, 1941, the New York Times reported on U.S. training of the Chinese air force, and the provision of “numerous fighting and bombing planes” to China by the United States. “Bombing of Japanese Cities is Expected” read the subheadline. By July, the Joint Army-Navy Board had approved a plan called JB 355 to firebomb Japan. A front corporation would buy American planes to be flown by American volunteers trained by Chennault and paid by another front group. Roosevelt approved, and his China expert Lauchlin Currie, in the words of Nicholson Baker, “wired Madame Chaing Kai-Shek and Claire Chennault a letter that fairly begged for interception by Japanese spies.” Whether or not that was the entire point, this was the letter:
“I am very happy to be able to report today the President directed that sixty-six bombers be made available to China this year with twenty-four to be delivered immediately. He also approved a Chinese pilot training program here. Details through normal channels. Warm regards.”
Our ambassador had said “in case of a break with the United States” the Japanese would bomb Pearl Harbor. I wonder if this qualified!
The 1st American Volunteer Group (AVG) of the Chinese Air Force, also known as the Flying Tigers, moved ahead with recruitment and training immediately and first saw combat on December 20, 1941, twelve days (local time) after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
On May 31, 1941, at the Keep America Out of War Congress, William Henry Chamberlin gave a dire warning: “A total economic boycott of Japan, the stoppage of oil shipments for instance, would push Japan into the arms of the Axis. Economic war would be a prelude to naval and military war.” The worst thing about peace advocates is how many times they turn out to be right.
On July 24, 1941, President Roosevelt remarked, “If we cut the oil off , [the Japanese] probably would have gone down to the Dutch East Indies a year ago, and you would have had a war. It was very essential from our own selfish point of view of defense to prevent a war from starting in the South Pacific. So our foreign policy was trying to stop a war from breaking out there.”
Reporters noticed that Roosevelt said “was” rather than “is.” The next day, Roosevelt issued an executive order freezing Japanese assets. The United States and Britain cut off oil and scrap metal to Japan. Radhabinod Pal, an Indian jurist who served on the war crimes tribunal after the war, called the embargoes a “clear and potent threat to Japan’s very existence,” and concluded the United States had provoked Japan.
On August 7th four months before the attack the Japan Times Advertiser wrote: “First there was the creation of a superbase at Singapore, heavily reinforced by British and Empire troops. From this hub a great wheel was built up and linked with American bases to form a great ring sweeping in a great area southwards and westwards from the Philippines through Malaya and Burma, with the link broken only in the Thailand peninsula. Now it is proposed to include the narrows in the encirclement, which proceeds to Rangoon.”
By September the Japanese press was outraged that the United States had begun shipping oil right past Japan to reach Russia. Japan, its newspapers said, was dying a slow death from “economic war.”
What might the United States have been hoping to gain by shipping oil past a nation in desperate need of it?
In late October, U.S. spy Edgar Mower was doing work for Colonel William Donovan who spied for Roosevelt. Mower spoke with a man in Manila named Ernest Johnson, a member of the Maritime Commission, who said he expected “The Japs will take Manila before I can get out.” When Mower expressed surprise, Johnson replied “Didn’t you know the Jap fleet has moved eastward, presumably to attack our fleet at Pearl Harbor?”
On November 3, 1941, our ambassador tried again to get something through his government’s thick skull, sending a lengthy telegram to the State Department warning that the economic sanctions might force Japan to commit ” national hara-kiri.” He wrote: ” An armed conflict with the United States may come with dangerous and dramatic suddenness.”
Why do I keep recalling the headline of the memo given to President George W. Bush prior to the September 11, 2001, attacks? “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S.”
Apparently nobody in Washington wanted to hear it in 1941 either. On November 15th, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall briefed the media on something we do not remember as “the Marshall Plan.” In fact we don’t remember it at all.” We are preparing an offensive war against Japan,” Marshall said, asking the journalists to keep it a secret, which as far as I know they dutifully did.
Ten days later Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary that he’d met in the Oval Office with Marshall, President Roosevelt, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, Admiral Harold Stark, and Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Roosevelt had told them the Japanese were likely to attack soon, possibly next Monday. That would have been December 1st, six days before the attack actually came. “The question,” Stimson wrote, ” was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition.” Was it? One obvious answer was to keep the fleet in Pearl Harbor and keep the sailors stationed there in the dark while fretting about them from comfortable offices in Washington, D.C. In fact, that was the solution our suit-and-tied heroes went with.
The day after the attack, Congress voted for war. Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin (R., Mont.), the first woman ever elected to Congress, and who had voted against World War I, stood alone in opposing World War II … One year after the vote, on December 8, 1942, Rankin put extended remarks into the Congressional Record explaining her opposition. She cited the work of a British propagandist who had argued in 1938 for using Japan to bring the United States into the war. She cited Henry Luce’s reference in Life magazine on July 20, 1942, to “the Chinese for whom the U.S. had delivered the ultimatum that brought on Pearl Harbor.” She introduced evidence that at the Atlantic Conference on August 12, 1941, Roosevelt had assured Churchill that the United States would bring economic pressure to bear on Japan. “I cited,” Rankin later wrote, ” the State Department Bulletin of December 20, 1941, which revealed that on September 3 a communication had been sent to Japan demanding that it accept the principle of ‘nondisturbance of the status quo in the Pacific,’ which amounted to demanding guarantees of the inviolateness of the white empires in the Orient.”
Rankin found that the Economic Defense Board had gotten economic sanctions under way less than a week after the Atlantic Conference. On December 2, 1941, the New York Times had reported, in fact, that Japan had been “cut off from about 75 percent of her normal trade by the Allied blockade.” Rankin also cited the statement of Lieutenant Clarence E. Dickinson, U.S.N., in the Saturday Evening Post of October 10, 1942, that on November 28, 1941, nine days before the attack, Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., (he of the slogan “kill Japs, kill Japs!” ) had given instructions to him and others to “shoot down anything we saw in the sky and to bomb anything we saw on the sea.”
Whether or not World War II was the “good war” we are so often told it was, the idea that it was a defensive war because our innocent imperial outpost in the middle of the Pacific was attacked out of the clear blue sky is a myth that deserves to be buried.
David Swanson is the author of “War Is A Lie”
from which this is excerpted.
- War is a business. It is all about deception, fabricating evidence, initiating false flag attacks and selling/marketing it to the sheeple as a righteous act of self-defence. The so-called Gulf of Tonkin incident which America used as a pretext for invading Vietnam did not happen! Pearl harbor was a setup by America and allowed to happen to drive the sheeple into WW2. Do not be taken for a ride.
- I do not believe the sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan was done by North Korea. It was most likely an accident. The Anglo-American Illuminist cabal took the opportunity to blame the North for the ‘attack’! This is reallly about positioning your forces/chess pieces for an eventual conflict with China. The Korean people (and very likely the Japanese too) are mere pawns who are being manipulated and will be sacrificed to fulfil the objectives of the Luciferian New World Order.
The Cheonan Incident: Pretext for Threatening North Korea
As relations between the two Koreas worsen, the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan continues to be a significant source of contention. On May 20 of this year, the South Korean-led Military-Civilian Investigation Group (JIG) announced the results of its investigation, charging that a North Korean submarine had torpedoed the vessel. Since then a number of commentators have pointed out numerous flaws in the investigation’s conclusions.
The report itself, however, remained secret, and the world public was expected to take the JIG’s conclusions largely on faith. Unable to dampen down widespread skepticism of the JIG’s conclusions, the South Korean government finally released its report to the public in September. This was not the original report as issued in May. South Korean investigators took into consideration some of the public criticisms and attempted to address them in the final version. (1)
I first wrote about the sinking of the Cheonan in July. The issuance of the final report since then seemed to call for a re-examination of the evidence, as has the coming to light of some new pieces of information.
The first impression one gains from reading the JIG’s report is that it makes a much stronger case for its argument than the previous approach of keeping everything under wraps. As a result, it does appear that a non-explosion cause for the Cheonan’s sinking can probably be ruled out, as can that of an internal explosion.
Yet upon closer examination, many of the old questions remain. I will not detail the points I made in my previous article on the subject, as those mostly still stand. (2) Instead, I will focus primarily on what is new.
In its preface, the report claims that the JIG “took into consideration every single possible cause of the sinking.” That is not quite the case, as a rising mine continues to be ignored as a potential subject. The main focus of the report is in proving that a non-contact explosion took place, and that the Cheonan had neither run aground nor collided with another object. In this goal, the report has largely succeeded, although it is still true that not all of the evidence is consistent with any one of the conceivable scenarios. Having narrowed the prospects down to an external explosion, the report persuasively demonstrates that the damage was consistent with a non-contact explosion below the Cheonan’s hull. No contact mine or contact torpedo could have caused damage of this nature. With that task accomplished, the report is thereafter mainly intent on proving that a torpedo was responsible, specifically the one whose components were found on the seabed.
Of particular interest is the examination of the deformation to the hull. U.S. investigators on the JIG determined that the explosive charge would have had to be in the range of 200-300 kg. In its report to the UN, South Korea claimed that “numerous simulations of an underwater explosion” had shown a detonation of an explosive charge in that range. The North Korean CHT-02D torpedo, it pointed out, has “a net explosive weight of up to 250 kg,” thereby falling within the range estimated by the U.S. team. (3)
But in reading the released report, it turns out that the U.S. team did not base its estimate on “numerous simulations.” Instead, it “analyzed the seismic and acoustic waves detected” at the time of the explosion and conducted a visual examination of damage to the hull. (4) South Korean investigators took that data and conducted a simulation, in which the team was able “derive a result within a limited period of time.” That is, the tests were rushed in order to meet the pre-election deadline. Single simulations were performed for explosive charges at three levels: 250 kg, 300 kg and 360 kg. (5)
The results of the simulations, however, do not back up the claim of an explosive charge in the range of 200-300 kg. In preparing the final report, further simulations were performed by the JIG, including a broader range of explosive charges. (6)
At 250 kg, the test “partially match[ed] the actual damage.” (7) The diagram of the simulation damage at 250 kg clearly indicates that the phrase “partially match” is stretching language to the point of meaninglessness. A side-by-side diagram contrasts the sharp and severe upward damage to the hull of the Cheonan and its complete split in two, against the small rift in the bottom and mild dent on the sides in the simulation result. (8)
Only at the 360 kg charge did equivalent damage occur in the simulation. (9) This presented a problem, which the JIG solved by a fudge, now declaring that the charge was in the range of 250-360 kg. The upper limit was what matched the evidence. And the lower limit was included because the goal was to attribute the sinking to a North Korean CHT-02D torpedo, which carries a maximum charge of no more than 250 kg, even though that level was incapable of causing the kind of damage the Cheonan suffered.
What about a sea mine? Three types of mines were analyzed: bottom, moored and floating mines. Contact floating and contact moored mines were ruled out given the nature of the damage. As for a non-contact moored mine, the JIG pointed out that the strong current and large tide difference in that area made their use ineffective. The stronger the current, the more the tether would angle closer to the sea bottom, bringing the mine farther below the surface. Furthermore, the depth of water in this area varies by a range of four meters due to tides. The Cheonan that day was zigzagging through the waters and, the JIG claims, it had patrolled “near the incident site at least more than ten times,” thus indicating “that there were no prior mine installations.” (10) Actually, that would be proven only if the Cheonan had repeatedly followed precisely the same path, not varying by an inch, and if currents had remained the same throughout. No anchors or mooring devices were discovered on the seabed, which the JIG pointed to as additional evidence for dismissing a moored mine as a potential culprit.
… to continue reading click here!
Urgent: Stop the U.S./S. Korean Attack – Know the Facts and Take Action!
KNOW THE FACTS: North Korea Lost Close to 30% of Its Population as a Result of US Bombings in the 1950s!
‘Proof’ That The Cheonan Was Sunk By North Korea Has Been Thoroughly Discredited !
Beneath The Surface: The Investigation Into The Sinking of The Cheonan!
North And South Korea On The Brink Of War, Russian Diplomat Warns!
First Nuclear World War Just Around the Corner?
War Preparations? Biggest U.S.-Israeli Joint Infantry Exercise Ever! US, South Korea to Stage Another Military Exercise! US Provocation: Chinese General Criticises US Navy Exercise!
Russian Probe Sees No North Korea Hand In Cheonan Sinking! Russia Says Sea Mine Sunk Cheonan.
US Professors Raise Doubts About Report on South Korean Ship Sinking!
The New Gulf of Tonkin: South Korean Torpedo Sunk Warship?!
The Korean Crisis: Cui Bono?
South Korean Pastors Question Conclusions of the Cheonan Sinking Investigation! Who is Staging a War Between North and South Korea?
Did an American Mine Sink The South Korean Ship Cheonan?
Attack Against South Korean Ship Looks Like False Flag Operation!
Russia Wants ’100% Proof’ N.Korea Sunk Ship!
Beijing Suspects False Flag Attack on South Korean Corvette!
The Sinking of The Cheonan: Another Gulf of Tonkin Incident?!
Questions Raised Following Cheonan Announcement!
The Sinking of the Cheonan: We Are Being Lied To!
Probe Concludes German Made Torpedo Sank South Korea Ship!
- At some point in time, I believe the FedRes will openly admit that QE has failed. This will pave the way for the revaluation of gold (ie devaluation of USD against gold) upwards massively. Paul Brodsky thinks US$8,000/oz is about right. I believe that it will go above US$10,000/oz! There is a huge bubble in fiat currencies (not in gold). It is a CONfidence JOB. The sheeple have been misled into thinking fiat currencies are real money for the past 40 years! Here is his excellent excerpted article/presentation:
Paul Brodsky: Dollar will be devalued against gold at $8,000
I’m going to take what many in this room may see as a radical point of view — that our almost 40 year-old global monetary system has already been irreparably harmed, and that it’s well on its way to being replaced.
I don’t think the world will end after the current monetary system does. We won’t wake up one morning to find our property has been taken away, at least not in nominal terms. But I do think there will be a major transfer of wealth – manifest through unimaginable inflation — and that investors that begin to view asset values in real, inflation-adjusted terms today will benefit at the great expense of those that don’t.
There are only two ways economies can de-lever. Either the value of credit can deflate naturally, or the stock of base money can be expanded to an amount that would let debtors meet their obligations. Pick your poison. Credit deflation implies shrinking output and rising bankruptcies, unemployment, and maybe even social unrest. Monetary inflation, on the other hand, implies a general cheapening of the currency’s relative purchasing power.
In the end we think there’s only one outcome. Monetary inflation is the only politically practical answer because most voters are debtors, and most debtors would greatly benefit from having the burden of repaying their debts inflated away.
In a fiat system there is no formal capacity constraint on money creation, and so in Western economies, where policy is dominated by Keynesian political economists mandated to actively solve economic problems, there is literally no mechanism to limit money creation.
In such policy-centric economies we can have debt deflation and monetary base inflation at the same time. This odd combination challenges modern economic orthodoxy at its core, yet it describes precisely the current economic environment. Most contemporary economists and investors see “disequilibrium” today because their models have broken down. We think in reality they are mis-diagnosing inflation’s pathology.
For example, they call price increases “inflation”, which of course is wrong. Money growth is inflation, as Von Mises, Hayek and Friedman showed. Most Western economists also model increasing demand versus supply as necessarily inflationary, which is wrong too. In a fiat system the supply of goods and services may overwhelm the demand for them, however price levels may be kept constant or even rise as demand falls — simply because central banks can decide to digitize more money.
The point here is that money growth ultimately leads to price increases that may then show up in price baskets. Want proof? Most everyone didn’t see the runaway inflation of the seventies until it was too late. The CPI, interest rates and capacity utilization were falling in 1972, much as they are today. But just two years later US CPI had risen from about 3% to 12%.
Why did prices suddenly jump? Not because there were bad guys in the Middle East hiking oil prices or because there was bad weather in the US Midwest. Prices rose in the seventies because Washington started printing money in the sixties. This drove down confidence in the Dollar.
We think the greatest upside and least risk is in precious metals, specifically gold. Why? Because gold is a currency, not a capital asset, that does not rely on output growth for appreciation. Its appreciation depends on the dilution of paper money vis-à-vis goods and services with inelastic demand properties.
Gold is not an investment in the normal sense. It is cash in a scarcer currency. It has no more or less intrinsic value than the Dollars, Euros or Loonies in our wallets but it will maintain its relative scarcity to them. So then – the bubble we’re seeing today is not in gold but in paper money, which has grown in the US by 130% in the last two years and is about to double again. Gold’s so called “exchange rate” versus paper money will continually be re-priced higher.
Have you asked yourself how the gold price has climbed for 10 years when consensus has been there’s been no price inflation? We think it’s because confidence in paper currencies has been dropping as their supplies have been increasing. Individual investors, hedge funds and now central banks have begun to dabble. Institutional investors are sure to follow. Goods and service providers and wage earners across the globe will continue to demand increasingly more paper for their goods and services.
And consider this: in the last two years the US monetary base grew over 130% and yet output grew a total of only 7.5%. This compares to 88% growth in overall output over the previous twelve years on a 95% growth rate in base money. The point here is that the efficacy of monetary inflation on output growth has diminished substantially.
So we think there has to be an unconventional way for policy makers to press the economic reset button — something as “preposterous” as breaking the gold exchange standard in 1971.
We think we know what to expect: ultimately the Fed will formally devalue the dollar to gold and then it will conduct monetary policy on the much higher dollar/gold exchange rate, just as it has conducted credit policy with interest rates over the last generation.
A few years ago, Lee and I modeled gold using the old Bretton Woods formula and we came up with a “Shadow Gold Price”. When we divide today’s US Monetary Base by official US gold holdings we arrive at a dollar value of about $8,000 an ounce. A big number to be sure, but math is math. An $8,000 gold price would represent the magnitude of dollar devaluation necessary to reconcile all past monetary base inflation. It is a price based on fundamentals, modeled using post-War experience.
Is $8,000 a realistic target for gold? Why not? In fact we could see it rising even higher given the ongoing political imperative for monetary inflation.
We shouldn’t be price anchored. At its speculative peak in 1980, spot gold traded at a premium to the Shadow Gold Price. Today, it trades at an 80% discount. When gold was trading at $50 back in the seventies, who thought it would peak at $850, or who thought the NASDAQ would peak at 5000, or, for that matter, that 2-year Treasury notes would trade at 35 basis points today? As with all other multi-year bull markets, we think gold will go parabolic at some point before its bull run is over.
Physical bullion is held in strong hands. Financial asset investors holding derivatives like Comex futures won’t be able to take gold’s price down for any length of time because fundamentals are not on their side and because they have no staying power in their positions. Besides, we know several central banks holding billions and trillions in paper dollar reserves that would have a bid for all they own – and more.
So it is with great humility and rationality that I admit to you today: my name is Paul Brodsky and I am a gold bug…at least until the ratio of debt to base money contracts to the point where we can get positive real returns in financial assets again.
- Why is long-term interest rates going up instead of coming down? Didn’t Helicopter Ben say he would monetize bonds with QE? The market is signalling their inflation fear. It is saying INFLATION dead ahead. Of course, those of us who follow real economic statistics (like www.shadowstats.com) know that it is already here. Commodity prices are on a tear upwards!
U.S. 10-year yields rise to highest level since June
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Treasury prices fell on Wednesday, pushing yields on 10-year notes to the highest level since June, as investors signal worry that the U.S. is not dealing with its budget deficit.
At the intraday high in 10-year yields, they were up 30 basis points from Monday, the fastest 2-day rise since September 2008 — just after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. Bond prices pared a decline after the government finished its sale of 10-year notes, though it had to pay the highest yield since May.
Yields on 10-year notes … , which move inversely to prices, rose 10 basis points to 3.24%. The yields touched 3.34%, the highest level in six months and up from 2.94% on Monday — still the biggest 2-day increase since June 2009 in late afternoon trading.
Yields on 2-year notes .. rose 9 basis points to 0.62%, having touched the highest since July: 0.65%.
Thirty-year-bond yields .. increased 6 basis points to 4.43%, after reaching the highest since May. The Treasury Department sold $21 billion in 10-year notes at a yield of 3.34%, the highest level since May. The auction is a reopening, meaning the debt sold will mature at the same time and carry the same coupon as the sale in November.
Bidders offered to buy 2.92 times the amount of debt sold, the lowest so-called bid-to-cover ratio since December 2009. The average at the last four reopenings was 3.13 times.
“It is extremely revealing of just how poor conditions are when we get one of the weakest 10-year auctions on record, even after the worst two day downdraft in 10-year yields since the turbulent, dark days of September 2008,” said strategists at Nomura Securities. Demand from two bidding classes that are looked at as indications of foreign and domestic interest came in relatively close to the average of recent auctions. See auction results.
The results were “mildly disappointing,” said bond strategists at RBS Securities. “Whether the auction results will be enough to provide a floor to the market remains to be seen.”
- QE, creating money out of thin air, has not worked and will not work. It is simply currency debasement. It drives ‘asset prices higher’ ie the stock market higher. It does not create jobs and does not solve the overwhelming debt load in the economy. If Helicopter Ben can solve economic woes by waving his magic QE wand, he should go the whole hog and create millions of dollars for each American! He should abolish all taxes and all mortgages by creating money out of thin air till infinity!
Fed´s QE Ponzi Scheme begins to Backfire
In a taped interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” that aired on December 5th, Federal Reserve chief Ben “Bubbles” Bernanke tried to brainwash the American public, into believing that “Quantitative Easing” (QE), is absolutely necessary in order to prevent further losses of jobs, and tried to assure his listeners that he has the skills to keep inflation under control. The US-jobless rate would have been far higher, “something like it was in the Depression, at 25%,” — had the Fed not provided tens of trillions in loans to Wall Street banks and other financial companies, he said.
Two-years ago, the Wall Street Oligarchs played the central role in the greatest financial scandal in the history of the world, – one which wiped out tens of trillions of dollars in wealth, nearly bankrupted giant corporations and entire countries, and plunged the world into the deepest slide in global trade since the Great Depression. Huge profits were made in sub-prime mortgages, based on a Ponzi scheme of exotic financial derivatives and packages. When it came crashing down, the public treasury was looted to cover the financial aristocracy’s losses.
Since then, the Fed has carried QE-1 between March 2009 and March 2010, in which it bought $1.45-trillion in mortgage-backed securities and $300-billion in Treasuries. Together with pegging interest rates at zero-percent, printing of hundreds of billions of dollars, and flooding the financial markets with cheap credit, – the Fed enabled US banks and S&P-500 companies to record bumper profits, even as they slashed jobs and capital spending, and suffered revenue declines.
With QE-1, the Fed channeled interest free money into the coffers of the Wall Street Oligarchs, which in turn, was used to buy higher yielding Treasury bonds. In a single stroke, the Fed monetized the US-government’s debt, and at the same time, bankers earned double or triple the interest rate at which it was borrowed. They pocketed billions under the scheme. Wall Street banks also bought high-grade corporate and junk bonds, and emerging market bonds, to fatten their profit margins. At the end of the day, QE-1 was utilized to recoup the gambling losses of the financial aristocracy, and created fertile conditions for driving-up equity markets.
Bernanke is well known as an addicted money printer, and he’s the most idolized Fed chief among gold and silver worshippers. Beyond his epoch history making with QE, the Fed chief is also famous for the “Bernanke Put”, which is deeply ingrained in traders’ minds – they need not worry about market declines, since the Fed will always bail them out with rate cuts. If interest rates are already slashed to zero-percent, then the Fed would open the floodgates with massive injections of QE.
In this regard, Bernanke is widely admired by high stakes rollers on Wall Street, for his ability to rig the stock market, regardless of the economic fundamentals. Following a sharp correction in the US-stock market last May and June, and steep job losses, Fed chief Bernanke rode to the rescue with promises of QE-2. Within months, the S&P-500 recouped its earlier losses, and stock market bulls praised Bernanke and his radical band of money printers, to the high heavens.
Bernanke has gone several steps further. He’s assured Wall Street that the federal funds rate will be pegged near zero-percent interest rates through 2012, and that he’s not bothered by a weaker US-dollar. Asked on “60-Minutes” if the Fed could cross the Rubicon again, and unleash QE-3, Bernanke replied, “It’s certainly possible. It depends on the efficacy of the program. It depends, on inflation. And finally it depends on how the economy looks,” he said.
So far, the Fed has injected $1.85-trillion into the money markets, under its QE-1 and QE-2 experiments, which in turn, have fueled huge parabolic rallies in key industrial commodities, such as cotton, copper, rubber, and crude oil, and jettisoned precious metals into the stratosphere. Soybeans have increased 30% under the influence of QE-2, and live cattle prices are at all-time highs. “If the Fed did not act, then given how much inflation has come down since the beginning of the recession, I think it would be a more serious concern,” Bernanke explained.
…. to continue reading click here!
- Do you believe the propaganda in the MSM? America is on the road to recovery, economy is no longer in recession, new jobs are being created, inflation is not a threat, America is unlike Eurozone our debt problem is much smaller….etc. These are BS, propaganda, disinformation and outright lies. Only the banksters and the Wall Street casino are doing well.
US state governments’ debts soar
American states have taken drastic measures, bracing for more cuts, layoffs, and tax increases as they collectively owe trillions of dollars in debt. Some of the measures include releasing the prisoners early or laying off police officers. Some analysts, though, believe the root of the problem is that government employees have traditionally been overpaid.
States now do not have enough money to pay for pensions and will be forced to renegotiate retirement benefits of government workers. “Unless they can renegotiate these liabilities, because they can’t pay them, they’re far too big, you have to look at bankruptcy by state governments as an alternative,” economist Rollin Amore told Press TV.
The problem has been kept mostly hidden from the public eye. The finances of some states and local governments are comparable to the run-up to the subprime mortgage meltdown or that of the debt crisis hitting nations in Europe, analysts say.
Although the federal government is battling to reduce its deficit of nearly USD 1.5 trillion, President Barack Obama has stressed that he is hopeful about a recovery. “We’ve seen some encouraging signs that a recovery is beginning to take hold. An economy that had been shrinking for nearly a year is now growing. The challenge now is to do whatever it takes to accelerate job creation,” Obama said.
No state has gone bankrupt since the Great Depression but currently a handful of cities have declared or are considering bankruptcy. At least 15 million Americans are currently jobless.