Ladies and gentlemen, please adjust your links and feeds

This site you're at is now an archive and I currently blog at:  http://nourishingobscurity.com Please update your links, readers.

Is it game over for London?

Meanwhile, turning our attention away from the party-political, specifically EU issue, look at this: Fast approaching is the event of GAME OVER for London, a condition that has already reached critical level, according to a key reliable source of information with London connections and direct experience with its market events. How long can a major metals exchange sell contracts but have miniscule supply of gold in their vaulted possession?  The paper gold market and the physical gold bullion market have finally separated in a practical manner, meaning actual gold has almost no role anymore in London paper contract settlement. The absence of gold in London requires extraordinary tactics to settle contracts and to obtain gold bullion. Red tape procedures delay delivery for individuals, and bribes accompany gold delivery demands as standard practice.  The London Bullion Market Assn has almost zero gold, its supply having been drained in high volumes since early December, a process currently in acceleration. The opportunity to convert fiat money into precious metal at prices considered reasonable is also vanishing. The London gold banker said: "There is going on a lot more than meets the eye. The physical system is actually consolidating bigtime and is organizing itself with lightning speed, totally hidden from pretty much anyone, even the so-called insiders. The paper precious metal market and the physical precious metal market have defacto disconnected. The paper and physical gold markets currently operate in parallel universes. The outflow of physical metal from bank vaults is happening at a mind bending pace."  How the hell would I know if this is true or not?  Would someone from the City who reads this blog please come in and debunk this, giving specific reasons why it is not as stated here? Comments at new blog.

Britblog 245 not here this weekend

Sunday, October 25th Unfortunately, due to a mix-up of some kind, it appears that I am not down to do it this weekend, so sorry to readers who were shaping up to come and read it here. It was a case of two people getting their wires crossed and I was caught in the middle. To see this weekend's Britblog, go to the main site and they should have details there. Sorry about that.

There's a new treaty being signed in December, in Copenhagen

It was Wolfie who said that he'd seen these people at cocktail parties, full of grandiose ideas, hopelessly inefficient and I would add, inefficiency always accompanies ideology because instead of knuckling down to sound administration, they try to change the world and even reconstitute men and women. You can't have your mind fully on two jobs at once, not at this level. It was Sonus and people like Karl Denninger who saw, early, exactly what these people were up to and how maverick they were towards any rules they themselves had set up and had nominally subscribed to, they themselves breaching these rules and guidelines behind the scenes. It's was Tom Paine who showed that even learned people can be mistaken, saying that "there is no Them, James, there is only Us." And now Harry Hook is running a vid over at his place which sums it up well, which shows how They discovered a great portal, Climate Change, through which to ram through the measures They wanted, with the connivance of the UN. Can you spare 4:12 minutes of your life? Lord Monkton's speaking to the Americans here: One of the viewers commented: Wrong again rexoid. The President can sign any treaty he wants. It simply does not have the full faith and force of the law until it is ratified by the Senate. And in fact, in most cases he (or his agent) does sign the treaty before ratification. Example, the 1954 Hague Convention on protecting cultural property during wartime. The executive branch signed it in 1954. It was only ratified by the Senate this year. He's not wrong in this and this is the nature of the arguments of the climate push - they take something which is the truth and present that as their counter argument - it's very clever. People then think that because this part can't be refuted, which it can't and it all looks very learned with that quote about the 1954 Hague Convention wheeled in - most people will stop questioning at that point. What they, especially the Americans, don't see is that this push is exactly the same as that of the EU Treaty. For a start, you note that it is all treaty, treaty, treaty with them and the thrust of each is to erode one more freedom, to get people to voluntarily sign away their rights and freedoms, with the promise of a shining light ahead, of better times ahead, of how They, the wise ones at the top, can eliminate this terrible crisis, this recession but it's going to take some belt tightening on the part of the people. No mention is made of the obscene profits of their banks who run Congress. No mention is made of the March 23rd, 2005 agreement of Bush, Martin and Fox to cede control of the functions of the United States to an NAAC and how the internet got onto this and They stepped back on this one because it was a hot potato and probed through another portal until they hit on Climate Change. Regular readers here know that I've run articles saying that warming is a reality and that if you were in Russia, you'd agree it was so because there are unprecedented changes in twelve years. No, no, say the anti-climate change vanguard but what they really mean is no, no, don't let Gore and his buddies have this fuel for their fire. I see that too, so let's not fall out among ourselves at this 11th hour. Spreading confusion is one of their tactics, just as is kiteflying - trying something on a credulous population to see if it "grabs", if it gets a foothold or is shot down by the pesky internetters [the MSM long being in their pockets, e.g. Katie Graham in 1972]. Time once again for Senator William Jenner, of Indiana, before the U.S. Senate, on February 23rd, 1954, speaking of communism: "Today the path to total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people. We have a well-organized political action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state. It has a foothold within our Government, and its own propaganda apparatus. One may call this group by many names. Some people call it socialism, some collectivism. I prefer to call it 'democratic centralism.' The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously, to transform our Government, without our suspecting the change is underway. This secret revolutionary corps understands well the power to influence the people by an elegant form of brainwashing. We see this, for example, in the innocent use of words like 'democracy' in place of 'representative government.' " Yes, he was speaking of communism during the McCarthy days, whose legacy in most people's minds is that a lot of good people lost their jobs over communist hysteria, which brought on the Cold War and created the Space Race. If you think that the forces, which in those days were labelled communism and are these days labelled globalism, are not still in operation then that is plain naive. When the people turned against the man with the unfortunate manner, McCarthy, do you really think the forces he railed against were vanquished or did they change shape and continue in another form? Which is the more likely scenario? Only now they've become respectable, as a banker was respectable until this crash - it's all a question of image, in the end. Now, this treaty mentioned in the vid above - can the trolls' objections to it be believed? The EU Treaty couldn't and in fact hasn't come into force until it was actually signed by all countries who are party to it. Hence the second Irish Referendum and hence Vaclav Strauss. It is all based on treaties, it's their only way forward in their eyes and they are following a maxim commented on years earlier. On April 12, 1952, CFR member John Foster Dulles [who later became Secretary of State], in speaking before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky, said: "Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights." This gives the veneer of the rule of law, a veneer of legitimacy to what they do, a most vital thing to Them who manipulate and coerce behind the scenes and then present this veneer of law in public. The Nuremberg and Soviet trials were just such a performance. These days, we call them Nazi show trials and that's our own bias, our own propaganda coming through. You can say well they were show trials, everyone knows that. Actually no, you know that but one portion of the people didn't know this at the time and those who did were either victims or kept silence, for fear of governmental reprisals. Rubbish, you say, how would the government even know what you thought? They'd know because of the vast increase in security measures, the climate of suspicion they sewed and the principle of "turn in your neighbour" through a formal policy of Denunciation. When I arrived in Russia years ago, this policy was still in operation [though in the process of repeal] and I saw it actually happen. If a neighbour is not happy with another - noise, failure to sweep the landing, whatever - the neighbour need only go and denounce her and she's rewarded for her public-spiritedness. That's life under a totalitarian regime and I saw the last vestiges of it with my own eyes. It was horrifying. That is where we're headed with this new treaty. It's not a flight of fancy for one key reason - self-actualization. People who would resort to such tactics are not, repeat not, doing it for the greater good and for the greater freedom of you and me; they are doing it to subsume powers to the state. Which state? That's the question which they are keeping to themselves and we have to first guess, then publicize and finally convince our fellow man of. We're not doing such a good job so far - hence you're still reading me at this blog and I haven't yet been shut down.

[lpuk] where have they gone?

I ask at the new site: http://nourishingobscurity.com ... wherever has LPUK gone? Has anyone seen them around the blogosphere recently?