Facebook Privacy Scandal: South Park Tried to Warn Us, but We Didn’t Listen

(ANTIMEDIA) — Facebook is bleeding users and credibility as it continues to face scrutiny for its role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which dominated headlines last week. One major point of contention is Facebook’s acquisition of users’ contact lists. I’ve just looked at the data files I requested from Facebook and they had every single phone […]

Gnome Underpants Gold Model, Report 21 May, 2017

There is a often-promoted plan to grow your wealth. Here’s the background. The dollar is going to be worthless. Soon! The reason is because [their peeps in high places tell them / the Chinese / end of the petrodollar / historical fiat currencies / Rothschild Jekyll Island Master Plan Private Fed / Fed printing] will cause the dollar to collapse and gold will rocket to $50,000. In fact, it’s a miracle that the price is a mere $1,253 and it hasn’t already. It will, once people discover this One Weird Secret that They Don’t Want You to Know that we have been reiterating every day for decades.

(By the way, Monetary Metals is about to publish the data to finally shine the full sunlight of disinfectant on this—stay tuned)

The plan has three phases.

Phase 1: You gotta buy gold. Now. In fact, call 1-800-BUY-GOLD now! That number, again, is one eight hundred bee yoo wye gee oh ell dee.

Phase 2: Price goes up

Phase 3: Profit!

This is a bit reminiscent of the underpants business model on South Park. South Park of course showed phase 2 as “???” but the analogy holds.

Pay particular attention to the context switch. The story switches midway from the-dollar-will-collapse to gold-will-go-up.

In fact, these are the same thing. It is important to realize because a higher price of gold does not make you richer. Sure, you have more dollars but each of them is worth proportionally less. And why would you want to exchange your gold for collapsing Rothschild private bank petrodollar printing press Monopoly money? On top of this, the tax man will take a big chunk of any price appreciation. So, if you sell you have less wealth.

Aside from being wrong as a matter of fact, it is an example of dollar thinking. It comes from the belief that gold is to be sold. That is not historically how people thought about it. Gold is money and those who have it should seek to earn a return on it, not sell it.

This week, the prices of the metals went up. Perhaps that rubber stopper under the silver elevator is durable.

However, as always we are interested in the supply and demand fundamental of the metals. We will show graphs, but first, the price and ratio charts.

The Prices of Gold and Silver

Next, this is a graph of the gold price measured in silver, otherwise known as the gold to silver ratio. It moved lower this week.

The Ratio of the Gold Price to the Silver Price

For each metal, we will look at a graph of the basis and cobasis overlaid with the price of the dollar in terms of the respective metal. It will make it easier to provide brief commentary. The dollar will be represented in green, the basis in blue and cobasis in red.

Here is the gold graph.

The Gold Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price

We changed to the August contract.

August is far from expiration, and we see no sign of temporary backwardation (another phenomenon that disproves the naked short manipulation theory). And we see something clear and revealing. There is a steadily rising scarcity (i.e. the cobasis, the red line) and falling abundance (the basis, the blue line). The trend has been ongoing for many months, with not a lot of jitter. The scarcity of gold, as indicated by the August gold spreads, has been on the rise.

For somewhat less time, the price of gold has been rising.

Our calculated fundamental closed the week up another $21, to $1,275. That’s hardly “call 1-800-BUY-GOLD now before it hits $10,000” territory, but noteworthy nonetheless.

Now let’s look at silver.

The Silver Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price

Last week, we said that “silver does not yet show any backwardation, though it’s close at -0.03%.” This week, it’s +0.1%. However, this is definitely temporary backwardation. The near contract in silver tends to fall earlier than the near contract in gold.

Obviously, past a certain date, speculators looking to bet on silver would not buy the July contract but instead the September. Everyone may have his own boundary, in part depending on how long they want to hold the position. But clearly, for the marginal silver speculator, we are past that point in the July contract.

So there is an imbalance, less and less buying. The selling (to roll July) may not be urgent yet, but silver is less liquid than gold. So a small imbalance will show up as a change in basis.

Our calculated fundamental price of silver was down a few pennies.

We will end on an amusing note. The previous week, we said:

"We saw a technical analysis trader write a note this weekend. He said he plans to short silver on Monday. When the technicals and then fundamentals align, that can make for an interesting week."

Assuming he shorted it early on Monday morning, he might have top-ticked it at $16.40. On Tuesday, he could have closed at $16.05, for a gain of 2.1%. There has to be an easier way to earn a few bucks (and we never recommend naked-shorting gold or silver).

Well, as of Friday silver is $16.84. Depending on how much leverage he used, that could be a big owwie.

Keith will be speaking at the Mining Investment Europe event in Frankfurt in mid-June. He will be in London the week of June 19, and in New York the week of June 26. If you’re interested in attending a Monetary Metals seminar on GOFO and transparency in the gold market in either city, or to meet with Keith to discuss gold investment, please click here.

© 2017 Monetary Metals

How to Be Alert to Risks but Not Engulfed by Fear

Via The Daily Bell

If you are flying a jet, and approaching a thunderstorm, is it better to go through the thunderstorm, or to fly above it, safely out of range? The thunderstorm exists, and is dangerous; you cannot change that. But what you can change is how you interact with that storm, and therefore how it affects you. Avoiding the danger still requires recognizing the storm, to understand it’s scope, and trajectory.

Last week The Daily Bell posted three articles about fear. Some readers may have mistook this for promoting fear; did The Daily Bell jump on the the mainstream media “be afraid” bandwagon? But take a closer look, and you will see that two of the articles were actually calling out the use of fear as a tool for control, and the third was alerting you to a real concern.

You could say two were trying to stop the mainstream media from dragging you into the thunderstorm, an the third was trying to help you recognize the nature of the storm, in order to avoid it.

Warning: The Media is Trying to Kill You certainly sounds like it would be promoting fear. But the article was actually about the influence the media has on humanity to the extent that their reporting on things like suicide and murder can actually increase suicides and murders. It was a warning about the amount of power the media can exert over people through their reporting. The article actually warned not to let the media scare you into taking the action they want (being engulfed in the thunderclouds).

Another article was sarcastically titled, 3 Exciting New Ways to Destroy Humanity That Everyone is Talking About. In it, we were actually pointing out how ridiculous the three scenarios were that the media was promoting as possible extinction events for humanity. We assumed the title would be understood as a joke; as if it was exciting and popular to discuss the end of humanity. The scenarios discussed, while possible, had no basis in reality. The point was despite their unlikelihood, that didn’t stop the media from reporting them in a way which spreads fear of those events, even giving absurd percentage chance of the extinction events occurring, making them seem like a plausible threat (the fear of lightning striking you at any moment).

But a third article was actually warning about something that should be on your radar. What Everyone Should Know About the New Quarantine Regulation, was meant to inform you about a threat to your rights. The government has granted itself the power to ignore due process under certain circumstances, when they deem the public health to outweigh your individual rights (recognizing the storm gathering around a supposed epidemic).

This all brings up an interesting point: when should we report things which should be kept on your radar, without going too far to end up promoting fear, and keeping you pinned down by the storm?

Media “Fear Porn”

When the mainstream media makes up a percentages for the likelihood of different cataclysmic events wiping out humanity, that is what is called “fear porn” as at least one commenter put it. Some people, apparently, get a rise out of the doom and gloom. They love a good thunderstorm.

Another mainstream article I would classify as “fear porn” is an article from Bloomberg called Fears Grow of Terror in U.S. With Weaponized Civilian Drones.

(Like this one!)

Does the article ever give evidence of these supposedly growing fears? No, not unless you think the opinion of the Deputy Director of the National Counter-terrorism Center is a good indicator of U.S. fears. He is the only person the article talks about being fearful of private drones being used in terrorist attacks.

And why is he fearful of this? Of course one possibility is that he is not fearful of this, he simply wants everyone else to be fearful of it. But another possibility is that because he has been involved in the U.S. effort to spread fear and terror via drone bombings, he sees this as a threat. He is in the midst of the storm. It’s like how power-hungry people who nefariously undermine their opponents are paranoid that they will be targeted in the same way.

Clearly the government wants you to be scared of personal drone attacks, even though it has never happened inside the U.S. before. But why?

And here is where the line becomes blurred between rejecting all fear mongering and making sure we stay abreast of their tactics for control.

We should be aware that when the government starts to promote fear of a certain event, they themselves may be planning to exploit those fears for more power. Do they want people to clamor for more regulation of private drones? Do they want the public to be primed for a false flag carried out with a personal drone?

This is like yet another article we have recently published called Another DHS “Exercise” Planned: The Risk of Terrorism Drills Becoming Reality. If we can recognize patterns seen in government, we can stop the events we fear from happening. We are not trying to spread fear of possible false flag attacks from government, rather recognize the danger in order to prevent them. If we see the storm on the horizon, we can fly over or around it, rather than through it.

Government fear plays into their goals; get citizens to accept their protection and safety net in order to maintain power and control.

Unless you think The Daily Bell is part of a government PSYOP (which apparently some readers do believe) then anything we share that seems fearful is only intended to warn of actual dangers, and not attempted to influence your behavior to run to the government for salvation. I don’t think that would work on the healthy skeptics who read The Daily Bell.

I think Daily Bell readers are far past the point of allowing the government to scare them into certain behaviors, so this probably wouldn’t be the most efficient use of CIA resources.

Nefarious Conclusion

I think the behavior most at risk of being induced among The Daily Bell readers is a paranoia about just how much control the government has, which can paralyze any productive action that would give power back to the individual.

Sometimes if we feel overwhelmed by the evil powers that supposedly dominate the earth, we may become depressed, and give up all hope of progress.

Keep in mind how incompetent the government is in almost any area. Do we really think they excel when it comes to the total control many fear they have, coupled with their uncanny ability to keep it under wraps?

In reality, the government probably wants us to think they have more control than they really do. It is like the South Park episode where Bush wants people to think he carried out 9/11 so that they will fear him, giving him more power, when in reality (in the South Park episode) he had nothing to do with it.

So remember that: among our demographics, the government may benefit more from the fear that they are all powerful megalomaniacs bent on world domination, even if such is not entirely the case (or even if their world dominance is more segmented and less organized than we are sometimes led to believe).

So the real question is, to what extent should we inform you of actual threats, and at what point does this have the opposite effect of promoting the fear we want to avoid influencing behavior?

We want to help you fly above the storm, which requires alerting you to where lightning is striking, and in what direction the storm is moving. And we want to alert you to these dangers without dragging you into the thick of the turbulence.

We try to strike a balance, but sometimes we miss. Let’s have a discussion in the comments below. Tell me what you think is the proper scope of reporting on fear, versus avoiding fear mongering.

What is your subconscious telling you about your surroundings? Intuition is real.

If you are flying a jet, and approaching a thunderstorm, is it better to go through the thunderstorm, or to fly above it, safely out of range? The thunderstorm exists, and is dangerous; you cannot change that. But what you can change is how you interact with that storm, and therefore how it affects you. Avoiding the danger still requires recognizing the storm, to understand it’s scope, and trajectory.

Last week The Daily Bell posted three articles about fear. Some readers may have mistook this for promoting fear; did The Daily Bell jump on the the mainstream media “be afraid” bandwagon? But take a closer look, and you will see that two of the articles were actually calling out the use of fear as a tool for control, and the third was alerting you to a real concern.

You could say two were trying to stop the mainstream media from dragging you into the thunderstorm, an the third was trying to help you recognize the nature of the storm, in order to avoid it.

Warning: The Media is Trying to Kill You certainly sounds like it would be promoting fear. But the article was actually about the influence the media has on humanity to the extent that their reporting on things like suicide and murder can actually increase suicides and murders. It was a warning about the amount of power the media can exert over people through their reporting. The article actually warned not to let the media scare you into taking the action they want (being engulfed in the thunderclouds).

Another article was sarcastically titled, 3 Exciting New Ways to Destroy Humanity That Everyone is Talking About. In it, we were actually pointing out how ridiculous the three scenarios were that the media was promoting as possible extinction events for humanity. We assumed the title would be understood as a joke; as if it was exciting and popular to discuss the end of humanity. The scenarios discussed, while possible, had no basis in reality. The point was despite their unlikelihood, that didn’t stop the media from reporting them in a way which spreads fear of those events, even giving absurd percentage chance of the extinction events occurring, making them seem like a plausible threat (the fear of lightning striking you at any moment).

But a third article was actually warning about something that should be on your radar. What Everyone Should Know About the New Quarantine Regulation, was meant to inform you about a threat to your rights. The government has granted itself the power to ignore due process under certain circumstances, when they deem the public health to outweigh your individual rights (recognizing the storm gathering around a supposed epidemic).

This all brings up an interesting point: when should we report things which should be kept on your radar, without going too far to end up promoting fear, and keeping you pinned down by the storm?

Media “Fear Porn”

When the mainstream media makes up a percentages for the likelihood of different cataclysmic events wiping out humanity, that is what is called “fear porn” as at least one commenter put it. Some people, apparently, get a rise out of the doom and gloom. They love a good thunderstorm.

Another mainstream article I would classify as “fear porn” is an article from Bloomberg called Fears Grow of Terror in U.S. With Weaponized Civilian Drones.

(Like this one!)

Does the article ever give evidence of these supposedly growing fears? No, not unless you think the opinion of the Deputy Director of the National Counter-terrorism Center is a good indicator of U.S. fears. He is the only person the article talks about being fearful of private drones being used in terrorist attacks.

And why is he fearful of this? Of course one possibility is that he is not fearful of this, he simply wants everyone else to be fearful of it. But another possibility is that because he has been involved in the U.S. effort to spread fear and terror via drone bombings, he sees this as a threat. He is in the midst of the storm. It’s like how power-hungry people who nefariously undermine their opponents are paranoid that they will be targeted in the same way.

Clearly the government wants you to be scared of personal drone attacks, even though it has never happened inside the U.S. before. But why?

And here is where the line becomes blurred between rejecting all fear mongering and making sure we stay abreast of their tactics for control.

We should be aware that when the government starts to promote fear of a certain event, they themselves may be planning to exploit those fears for more power. Do they want people to clamor for more regulation of private drones? Do they want the public to be primed for a false flag carried out with a personal drone?

This is like yet another article we have recently published called Another DHS “Exercise” Planned: The Risk of Terrorism Drills Becoming Reality. If we can recognize patterns seen in government, we can stop the events we fear from happening. We are not trying to spread fear of possible false flag attacks from government, rather recognize the danger in order to prevent them. If we see the storm on the horizon, we can fly over or around it, rather than through it.

Government fear plays into their goals; get citizens to accept their protection and safety net in order to maintain power and control.

Unless you think The Daily Bell is part of a government PSYOP (which apparently some readers do believe) then anything we share that seems fearful is only intended to warn of actual dangers, and not attempted to influence your behavior to run to the government for salvation. I don’t think that would work on the healthy skeptics who read The Daily Bell.

I think Daily Bell readers are far past the point of allowing the government to scare them into certain behaviors, so this probably wouldn’t be the most efficient use of CIA resources.

Nefarious Conclusion

I think the behavior most at risk of being induced among The Daily Bell readers is a paranoia about just how much control the government has, which can paralyze any productive action that would give power back to the individual.

Sometimes if we feel overwhelmed by the evil powers that supposedly dominate the earth, we may become depressed, and give up all hope of progress.

Keep in mind how incompetent the government is in almost any area. Do we really think they excel when it comes to the total control many fear they have, coupled with their uncanny ability to keep it under wraps?

In reality, the government probably wants us to think they have more control than they really do. It is like the South Park episode where Bush wants people to think he carried out 9/11 so that they will fear him, giving him more power, when in reality (in the South Park episode) he had nothing to do with it.

So remember that: among our demographics, the government may benefit more from the fear that they are all powerful megalomaniacs bent on world domination, even if such is not entirely the case (or even if their world dominance is more segmented and less organized than we are sometimes led to believe).

So the real question is, to what extent should we inform you of actual threats, and at what point does this have the opposite effect of promoting the fear we want to avoid influencing behavior?

We want to help you fly above the storm, which requires alerting you to where lightning is striking, and in what direction the storm is moving. And we want to alert you to these dangers without dragging you into the thick of the turbulence.

We try to strike a balance, but sometimes we miss. Let’s have a discussion in the comments below. Tell me what you think is the proper scope of reporting on fear, versus avoiding fear mongering.

What is your subconscious telling you about your surroundings? Intuition is real.