Thursday, February 16, 2017

Perceptual Balance: Herd Gone MAD

The world is literally losing it's collective mind. And the primary reason for the insanity of the herd is the polarity of propaganda, mixed with a sprinkling of reality. Truly the Lions are embattled now as small dogs go wild and hungry from want of scraps ...

The number of formerly assumed-to-be-rational "little people" who have bought into the complete demonization of Russia is beyond shocking. One might conclude that these people have no conscience whatsoever, and fully embrace the American Exceptionalism Manifest Destiny Doctrine that marks them as hopelessly entrenched into the mindset of US "might-makes-right" hegemony - as an END by ANY means.

And yet these are the very same people who righteously defend the politically correct, progressive party-line of a transgender, multi-ethnic, one-world community Love-In ... showered with all the Freedom and Democracy BULLSHIT which the progressively decadent use as a shield against their obvious duplicity in the position of "for everybody but those evil, pedophile Russians".

The irony of this mass-induced paradox of oxymoronic ideology cannot be more perplexing than anything ever before witnessed, as we scratch our heads in awe. Some of the deluded were supposed intelligent and sensitive people who should be able to think rationally when presented with a choice between reality and fantasy.

And sadly, while the idea of a mass-induced psychosis would be an apt enough explanation for the phenomena, Rocheforque finds it far less likely than the proliferation of sheer and utter ignorance, which is continuously well informed by baseless propaganda, designed to create a race of pompous and useful idiots.

Is it possible that people who eagerly call for the destruction of the Russian people and their "evil" leader have never once actually viewed and listened to a speech given by Vladimir Putin on topics that relate to US - Russia relations? Is it possible that they are completely unaware of the Wall Street-backed financial coup in the privatization and destruction of Russia in the 1990's ... led by the very same people who peddle the lunacy above? Can it be possible that they do not understand that their acquiescence empowered Summers and Soros and the Clintons and others in these, and similar Coups?

Can it be that they applaud the merciless, deadly bombings, drone strikes and chemical assaults upon women, children and whole communities which they blindly do not see in innocent factions that oppose their horrid masters, and which would cause them to spontaneously soil their undergarments if even a fraction of that terror was to come within a thousand miles of their doorsteps?

Can it be possible that they have never seen, read nor heard the truth about the Ukraine and Crimea? It seems so, and yet they take the side of their masters like beaten yet faithful dogs, so thankful for the ASS CRUMBS that fall to the floor. Like poorly fed hounds, they growl and bark at any opponent the master points a finger at. Do they recognize that said opponent is a deliberate distraction from the fact that they are indeed no more than a pack of wild dogs, being treated as such - which is the REAL issue at hand, not the enemy of their masters ...

It is disgusting to watch from the monitors in the library wing of Roacheforque manor. Even the best single malts from the cellars do little to appease the dis-calm.

There are some who take the position that while Trump is far from the ideal leader to correct the failing ways of a dying empire, there can certainly be a balance struck between truth and pure neocolonialist propaganda designed to enrage the debt-slaves of their one-world plantation, which rational thought and consideration can somehow temper.

But Roacheforque sees that this is not so. The perception of the herd cannot be balanced. Clearly they have gone mad, by design, and the designers now must face that outcome. They have created a world unlike any other, and they may well die in piles of shit within it, from the monster they have created.

Monday, February 6, 2017

Political Balance

There was a point made long ago about fiat currency, our modern digital and paper money: Fiat currency, being debt-based, represents a "claim in the system" vs. "payment in full". Needless to say, for a "claim in the system" to have value, it must be thought to have future value to complete a purchase (trading the currency for something one want's or needs). But if the currency cannot complete the trade, it's function is lost and thus, so is its value.

Today, years of "strong dollar policy" have created an epic imbalance of dollar denominated "claims in the system" which hundreds of trillions in fiat denominated derivatives (in part) attempt to keep in balance. This status quo position has afforded the United States an exorbitant privilege which extends beyond purely financial or economic advantage. As we have discussed before in these annals, the international usage demand of dollars has not only kept the dollar strong, but has allowed it enormous political influence around the world - and that political influence is a direct reflection of the political will of the dollar's issuing authority.

For those new to these writings (welcome) notice I have made the distinction between "issuing nation" and "issuing authority" because in our world of privately owned central banks, a nation's "political class" has less to do with monetary policy than in times past, and even less to do with the people which that political class was once presumed to serve. That said, global fascism still presumes some degree of partnership between government and corporation. But as government becomes more "privatized" (individuals serving their own self interests as opposed to serving the interests of their constituency) the distinction becomes blurred. So to avoid confusion I will continue to use the more commonly accepted terms like "Washington" or the "United States" or "US" or "America" (and their equivalents) when describing the various Corporatist issuing authorities going forward.

The distinction above is more of a premise than a point. The point here is balance, and the lesson learned is that without monetary balance there can be no political balance.Witness the continuing changes in our world's socio-economic / political landscape. Needless to say, these are anything but balanced.

Sovereign nations, acting in their own self interests, have begun the process of rebuking the political will of the United States, including its dollar-funded military and ideological operations in their countries. The best way to do this is to refuse to accept dollars for oil. Most of Washington's Middle East initiative and much of it's other foreign policy intervention has been a reaction to countries opposing the political will of dollar primacy. Just look at any nation refusing to sell its oil or natural gas (and a few other strategic items) in dollars. There you will find the list of past interventions. These interventions were designed primarily to preserve America's self interests and maintain it's prime currency advantage - most often under the guise of "spreading freedom and democracy" so as to preserve the public opinion illusion which mainstream propaganda sources were able to maintain.

But with "alternative" (a.k.a. "real") news sources, this strategy has faltered. Calling reality "fake news", while typically bold and arrogant, was not effective, domestically. Then abroad, we have nations greatly reducing their usage and storing of dollars - in large part, again, as a repudiation of U.S. political will being imposed on their economies, and (more importantly) upon their political class.

So ... the issuing authorities of the current system's flagship currency needed to respond. When one looks at recent events in this context, it becomes clearer as to how the "America First" policy was both contrived and then later perceived.

The world hired Trump to say, in effect that: "America no longer wishes to rule the world. We are back to minding our own business and cleaning up our own house. No more expansionism, we are focused on Making America Great Again!" But do not make the mistake of taking this implied policy statement at face value. At best, it is an effort to redirect, diffuse and reduce tensions already in place, which will in essence prolong the demise of "dollar usage value".

The system's appointment with the massive iceberg that lies dead ahead is an unstoppable and foregone conclusion. Trump's election represents a reaction to that appointment, in the way of "hard over" with engines in full reverse.
In today’s world, the claims that wait to be settled are so huge that the (role) that gold is currently playing while being under the influence of .. strong dollar policy prevents it from functioning to settle these claims. In other words, at strong dollar prices, there is not enough gold in the world to settle claims – claims continue to build.

At some point, the claims will overwhelm the economy. At some point, the world will realize that their claim doesn’t really mean anything. At that point, they will do whatever they can to redeem their claim .. In the absence of the strong dollar, gold can find its rightful "role" as functioning to settle the surplus claims in the system.
- Ender
At one time it was thought that the Euro could fulfill the role of a "politically neutral currency". But the Euro members are not enough to preserve neutrality. While their politics are indeed a "sideshow", the perception around the world is unbalanced. Still, it was a step in the right direction.

The SDR has a chance to present itself to the world as an international settlement currency that is politically and even monetarily neutral (i.e. relative exchange rate impacts are fairly factored into it's value). But in a world of irrational and imbalanced claims in the system and a gradually failing FX market, the SDR remains nothing more than a supranational claim in the system.

Real things owned, like land and fine art, represent title to "payment in full" in a civilized world. But you will not find much in the way of title to such things on the "balance" sheets of the world's central banks. Still you will find shares of operating companies and claims of many sorts on our modern CB balance sheets, there has been a great deal of growth in such claims upon the future.

There is only one asset they hold which represents "payment in full" in a universally accepted way. No other CB holding represents the capability or liquidity to settle or balance claims in the system. As the currencies begin their transition that asset must also change, as there is not enough of it at it's current "average world currency price" to settle dollar claims.

Even if every single ounce of it was sucked up out of private hands and transferred to CB balance sheets, the world's supply is far too little. It doesn't matter whether gold or claims upon the system are "repriced" - the action and outcome are one and the same - to achieve balance.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

A Flower By Any Other Name

It's been a long while since I've read anything from JC Collins, but his recent post on the Hedge is definitely worth a read. Yes, I do think that the FED needs to be - and will be - eventually integrated into a multi-polar monetary role. The FED has acted as the global central bank under the dollar system for many decades, using the dollar (its product) as a global reserve asset.

It should come as no surprise, given events of at least the last decade or so, that this is a far from perfect arrangement. But we should understand that as the dollar system is a debt based system, the FED was doomed to fail eventually as debt grows exponentially toward the inevitable end of the system's timeline.

Then as we peruse Collin's post about the incremental return to gold backed currencies we see that he truly "gets it" though not in the strict "Freegold-speak" sense that has come to be understood among those "Evil, gold hoarding" acolytes of Another. As Collins refers to gold and "other domestic resources" as the sovereign backing for SDR allocation, he struggles a bit to define GDP as part of the composition. But in essence he is describing the transition from a "debt based" to an "equity based" system of the type that Eurasian infrastructure, monetary constructs, trade deals and monetary alignment (including China's inclusion in the SDR) have already begun to typify.

Just as present FX market valuation methodology includes sovereign variables in the calculation of relative strength, a similar valuation methodology validates SDR composition and value. It is the same, but different, and will overshadow FX internationally as all currencies become "more domesticated" and the SDR becomes the international accounting standard.

Again, the transition from a debt based to an equity based IMFS will weigh heavily upon gold as a measure of currency composition integrity when the currencies themselves, all backed by debt today (in essence all virtually backed by the dollar) transition.

It is hoped by the BIS system - and the bond holders of its primary dealers - that the IMF (in cooperation with newly forming peer institutions in the East) will be able to make this transition without WWIII and without a catastrophic derivative failure (i.e. the "bigger debt collapse than 2008" which everyone is predicting).

It is the hope of the families that all counter parties can see the inevitable superiority of a peaceful and somewhat uneventful transition, as gold has been flowing to where it needs to reside for some time now and we believe that most of it today rests in close enough ratios to optimal to at least begin moving in the direction of transition.

Yes, Trump is a part of this, at least the part that the little people can relate to and peaceably (we hope) absorb. The ultra-progressives will fume and rant but it is not thought that they will blow anything up before they can come to their senses, and the hard right fanatics will be placated by the perception of what is being sold to them as 'Make America Great Again". Trump will help America in this regard, though not exactly as his minions perceive, but they can be held in check nonetheless.

Change comes when the status quo becomes predictably untenable for the primary benefactors of the IMFS and many things do come into the consideration of "wealth protection and growth" that escape the eye of the commoner.

Clearly we had already arrived at this point, and the intent is clear. A return to Free markets is indeed the outcome that many will appreciate over a system where market values are controlled by a US Dollar-centric debt derivative pricing grid for interest rates, commodities, FX and equities. A controlled devaluation (a.k.a. currency inflation against the equity backed SDR and it's constituent "resources") is the only viable approach to this transition.

It can be said many ways. Freegold is just one of them.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Titanic Ideological Distractions (TIDs)

Having taken an objective look at mainstream (ABC) news yesterday, I came away with two TIDbits.

1) The ideology between the mainstream media and the Trump administration is genuinely divided.
2) "Religious vetting" needs to be looked at more carefully by ideological progressives.

To the first point, we know that "mainstream media" (as currently defined, media sources that reach the largest number of people, presumably having the greatest impact) is owned and controlled by powerful interests which are driving such things as political correctness, open borders, free trade, the Soros cartel of NGO's and the party line rhetoric of "spreading democracy" whenever regime change is in order.

The so called progressive ideology behind years of mainstream media propaganda is clearly at odds with the forces behind the growing populist movement. And this populist movement is powered by much more than a disorganized gaggle of middle class reactionary conservatives. There is power behind the movement of the sort that would never get behind the populist uprising against Wall Street, and without that power Trump would not have gotten elected, nor would his ("their") cabinet choices ever been appointed.

I do not know which power elites back Trump, or whether certain former progressive elites defected to a more conservative position, but the divide seems genuine. The left-leaning ABC even orchestrated a clearly scripted interview yesterday with House Rep. Seth Moulton, who is obviously reading his "response" from a teleprompter.

This is not just Moulton "reading his pre-interview notes", this is a presentation with two actors playing their parts. It may not be the first time a supposed live interview was scripted, but it does show the lengths at which the progressive camp will substitute news with theatrics. I do not believe we are witnessing "fake opposition for ratings" a la Jerry Springer. I believe we are witnessing real ideological opposition from increasingly "evenly matched" opponents. And that is noteworthy.

Since the topic of the Moulton presentation was Trump's "Muslim ban", let's move to the second point, which is the expected outrage against "religious freedom" in Trump's immigration order. I have seen many self-righteous progressives  respond negatively to Trump's assault on Muslims, so let us examine the religious freedom of Sharia law, as taken from the Muslim religion. Though I have written about this before, it bears repeating that Muslim states in 2013 rejected a UN ban on violence against women as violating Islamic law:
How can it continue to be maintained that Islam is peaceful and “good for women?” Not only does the Koran sanction discrimination and bigotry against women, as well as wife-beating, but Islamic or sharia law also includes the right to marry females of any age and to have sex with girls as young as nine years old. Women are considered worth one-half of men, if that, and female sexuality is viewed as so perilous that women in fundamentalist areas and families must wear oppressive clothing. Moreover, around 140 million women and girls worldwide have their genitals hacked off or otherwise mutilated, the bulk of which female genital mutilation is justified in the name of Islam.
I would hope that my female Facebook friends who consider Donald Trump an anti-Muslim misogynist will reconsider their position on religious vetting, considering that Sharia law is taken from the Quran. These are the same type of fundamentalists responsible for the Charlie Hebdo massacre, resulting from animations of Allah thought to be heretical - how's that for religious tolerance?

Yet these same ideologues rush to the conclusion that Vladimir Putin is now set to decriminalize domestic violence. I would be cautious to jump to any conclusions here until the actual  language of the law is reviewed. True, there will no doubt be some reaction to a world where one legally separated parent can list the other on a national abuse registry, for any reason, with the click of a mouse. But that reaction cannot be a slap across the cheek. Nor can it be the simple acceptance of a clearly unjust and unreasonable sentence of communal humiliation for life. There is an obvious middle ground. But no reasonable person should approve violence as an acceptable means of social conduct, including those practicing strict Sharia law at barbaric extremes (which no amount of "religious freedom" can justify).

It is always interesting to view and clarify the opposing rhetoric of social ideologies, and the measures their proponents will take to make their cases. But in the end, these are distractions which are meant to hold our attention long enough to consider buying Plavix or Lunesta.

You seldom hear real news via mainstream outlets, like the powers behind the Trump movement pivoting toward Russia to break their alignment with China. It would certainly sell a lot of Big Pharma product, but it's as "off limits" to both ideologies as the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.

These are our daily TIDbits, growing like weeds among the Flower of Understanding.

Monday, January 23, 2017

Prior Thoughts Pave the Way

For several years now I have written of nationalism, regionalism, provincialism and tribalism. I have written of these things, as the failing machinery of global corporatism nears the end of it's timeline.

Truly, one must credit Another with this insight, and it has been a long time coming - effectively 20 years since the Asian currency crisis, the LBMA exposure and the LTCM debacle (soon after). Perhaps these will be seen as the first big dominoes to have fallen.

Now we visibly see the fruit of these predictions, or at least hopefully, most of us do. There are others lost in a dream, who still do not recognize it as a fraud. Fantasies are often difficult to dispel, and we cling to them in times of change.

Why has the world come to this? Because a single nation had the ability to issue the world's preferred capital at will, for geopolitical and opportunistic reasons. It's really no more complex than that. In a truly free gold market, with all nation's having balanced holdings, the issuance of debt will have certain limitations, as it impacts the "flow" of gold reserves, which will then bear heavily back upon the issuers currency.

So today, meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Just with a different strategy to reach the same goalpost ... one that it has been moved a good bit farther down the field. We had global capitalism, now we will have regional capitalism as the new lines are drawn.

As predicted, the dollar must (and will) weaken to help re-industrialize the U.S. It is not so much an intention as a reaction. The dollar IS changing from it's former role as "sole reserve currency" as it's use falls from it's former height ... for many reasons, covered at length in these annals. And the benefit of that change? Production becomes more viable in the US, former "producer" economies gradually transform to "consumer" economies (and vice versa) and the world enters a more level playing field, balanced by the weight of each nation's non-paper CB holdings.

Profits are still taken by senior capital through the fire of change.And the currencies must and will function for the benefit of international commerce. Just with a much higher price of gold - to recapitalize and to redefine their backing with equity as opposed to debt. The SDR? It is an international bookkeeping instrument.

Many thoughts from the Flower of Understanding do spring, but the links above all point to the same conclusion. All roads lead to Rome, and all empires do change over time.

Friday, January 20, 2017

Dollar Days in Paradise

It is interesting to note the disparity between Trump's comments about the "strong dollar problem" and Mnuchin feeling comfortable with backing up and qualifying Trump's statement. This seems to indicate just who is indeed confidently "in charge" of the global dollar system, as well as who benefits from the status quo.

While that may seem obvious to some, I think it bears mentioning that ALL the FED's primary dealers (Wall Street) benefit from their inside track on the currency which their FED (whom they legally own) controls. And while that too may seem obvious to all but the oblivious, let's consider this in the context of the disparity between Trump's statement and Mnuchin's "short term outlook" qualifier.

Does Trump truly believe that a strong and prosperous middle class is the correct path to regaining America's greatness? In other words is he really going to walk that talk? And does he think we can accomplish middle class job (and wage) growth with a continuing strong dollar? It seems so, yet the man is not without contradictions ... Does Trump think that Wall Street's systemic advantage can remain intact with a weak dollar?

These would be the kind of questions a "Come to Jesus" meeting between Wall Street and the White House would entail ... but then ... Trump did load the cabinet with tentacles from Goldman.

The potential to really go after big sovereign fish with the dollar system's global advantage elevates Goldman from securities fraud and bankrupting backwater municipalities (even small countries) to becoming a strong ally in dealing with China and Russia (their banks and fledgling system).

At least, it seems, that was the feeling of the last US Administration. And increasingly, while traditional military forces are still tactical, most global war is fought financially, as with today's heated financial war between the US and Russia. As I have mentioned before, Trump does seem poised to flip some of that heat from Russia to China in order to shake up the forming Eurasian threat - which of course extends dollar system hegemony.

Global derivatives are quite political these days by their very nature, a de facto byproduct of any global corporatist or neo-fascist system. When financial warfare is the primary means of global warfare, the true definition of fascism - a merging of corporate and political interests into one controlling authority - becomes all too clear. You will find the definitions in Wki's and Google to have been conveniently changed (quite recently actually) to broaden "corporations" into a wider array of "social" groups.

But by far the principle corporation which aids the US Government is in fact the corporate conglomeration of the US FED's primary dealers (again Wall Street). One can surely see that Wall Street and the US Government are a formidable foe as partners against "other interests" in the global Eurodollar system.

But where Mnuchin's "interest" in Goldman's global derivative positions may conflict with Trump's "short term" position, I'm sure a compromise can be reached. It's what the families and their politicians do after all.

Donald must realize that various interest rate, commodity, equity and FX positions involve mostly 5 year terms, so any big change to the status quo not already calculated into the global derivative futures markets could upset the system - as well as it's primary beneficiary exorbitant advantage.

The dollar itself? There are more than 700 trillion invested in either the status quo, or systemic changes to it. And most of this is denominated in dollar or dollar equivalents (though currency composition is changing, as alluded to in earlier posts and now finally here). The current IMFS is much bigger than the Titanic by any relative comparison. And that ship turns slowly my friends.

After all, US President's only have 4 year terms. The last one to have 8 years was a much more predictable and better behaved ally of Wall Street than many prior. We will see what this horse can do in four years, to appease the masses, while the families carry out their usual business of increasing wealth, as usual.

Monday, January 16, 2017

The Assayer and The Judge

Isn't it interesting that financial services fines, which have been levied upon banks in the last 4 years or so, have steadily and increasingly been in the news. I haven't made a comparison (though I suspect someone will), but it does seem that litigation regarding market rigging, customer front running and other forms of control fraud have increased considerably in recent years.

More civil fines have been paid between 2013 and 2014 than in the 9 years prior. Paltry millions admittedly, but total fines levied upon primary dealers add up to over a quarter trillion since 2008. The wheels of justice do turn slowly, but turn they eventually do.


I think the trend will continue ... because derivatives always need protection from the rule of law. As fines are paid, counter parties are made whole, or at least partly whole, and at least in cases which matter to counter parties that can have systemic impact. Things have changed much since the era of AIG, and even later, MF Global.

Further, as the system continues to be challenged, so shall derivatives in the global marketplace. Claims will continue to be questioned, especially those involving transactions between banks which serve the emerging multi-polar vs. those who serve the existing dollar-centric system. The interdependence of banks will break down, just as the interdependence of cultures (through forced migration and the "political correctness" of cultural homogenization) continues to falter.

The "legal tender" value of wealth by decree will continue to be contested, and courts of law will be called upon to interpret and rule.

Conversely, gold is either 99.9% pure or not. There is no interpretation of purity, nor of weight. A tonne is a tonne. Only the assayer is called upon to verify - no judge is needed to rule. Not to split hairs but the correct analogy is a tonne of gold in possession vs. a contractual claim upon a tonne of gold. Which requires the rule of law to enforce or interpret?

We enter a time when people begin to question the value of contract paper, and it's printers call upon the courts to rule in favor of whatever outcome keeps the system in continuation, such that profits continue to flow.

But trends are duly noted, and change is inevitable, as time proves time and time again.