Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,895 other followers

Source Article from

Gold Price Suppression News Going Viral: Turkey Picks Up On Story & Continues Gold Buying Spree While Prices Low

Goldfinger 1964

“The only deniers left seem to be certain people in the monetary metals industry itself for whom exposure of the scheme might be bad for their business…”

by Chris Powell of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA)

Gold researcher Ronan Manly’s detailed report for Russia Today on the history and mechanisms of gold price suppression by central banks, called to your attention by GATA a few hours ago —

— has been quickly reprinted by the Daily Sabah, a major newspaper in Istanbul, Turkey, that is published in English, German, Arabic, and Russian:…

While it’s good that word of the gold price suppression scheme is getting around the world, it’s even better here because the Daily Sabah is closely aligned with the Turkish government:

Recep Tayyip Erdogan President Of Turkey

So presumably the Turkish government not only knows all about the gold price suppression scheme but also approves of its exposure.

Of course being members of the Bank for International Settlements, the coordinator of the gold price suppression scheme, most governments and central banks also know about it and cooperate with it to some extent. Indeed, six years ago the U.S. economists and fund managers Paul Brodsky and Lee Quaintance argued in a thoughtful study that central banking’s bigger scheme with gold is to redistribute it among central banks to allow them to hedge their foreign exchange exposure in U.S. dollars against the dollar’s inevitable devaluation and then to push the gold price way up to reliquefy themselves:

As the scheme is surreptitious and involves rigging markets, it means cheating nearly everyone around the world now and right through to its conclusion, which is why it is a cosmic wrong. But as Manly’s history of the scheme suggests, proving its existence has become like proving a truism. Central banks and governments don’t deny the scheme; they just refuse to discuss it and answer questions about it.

The only deniers left seem to be certain people in the monetary metals industry itself for whom exposure of the scheme might be bad for their business. The deniers are extras playing members of the crowd in a re-enactment of the Hans Christian Andersen fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” As they are assisting the bad guys, it’s GATA’s job to expose them too.

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

Silver Doctors

Related News:

  1. Silver & Gold Is THE END POINT Of This Monetary Revolution
  2. China Prepares To Launch Its Gold Convertible Petro-Yuan March 26, 2018: Five ‘Test Runs’ Have Successfully Completed.
  3. Thirty-Six States Have Nullified Sales Taxes From Silver & Gold: Alabama & Tennessee Preparing To Nullify Taxes In 2018.

Source Article from

NY Times Story on Farrakhan and Dems Omits Ellison, Carson, Four Others

Until Friday, the New York Times had not mentioned Louis Farrakhan in a serious story since October. The Old Gray Lady tried mightily to avoid covering Democrats’ and leftist leaders’ past and recent embraces of the controversial Nation of Islam leader before finally — but very incompletely — giving in.

Jonah Engel Bromwich’s story failed to mention Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, and ignored a days-earlier call by a Republican Jewish group for the resignations of seven “Farrakhan-connected” congresspersons.

The paper’s related tweet betrayed a “Why are we even doing this?” sentiment (h/t Twitchy):


Translation: “There’s not much to see here, but click through if you want to be bored.”

Tell that to Ellison, Carson, five other congresspersons, Women’s March leader Tamika Mallory — and former President Barack Obama.

Bromwich opened with a de facto admission that the Times has been asleep at the switch (link is in original):

Louis Farrakhan, the 84-year-old head of the Nation of Islam, has been back in the headlines after a previously unreleased photo of him with President Barack Obama was published in January and Mr. Farrakhan gave an anti-Semitic speech at his organization’s annual convention last month.

The Times’s link goes to another website’s January 20 story about Askia Muhammad, the person who took the Obama-Farrakhan photo at a 2005 Congressional Black Caucus meeting. More of an Obama groupie than a genuine journalist, Muhammad willingly “surrendered the disk (containing the photo) to Minister Farrakhan’s chief of staff.” Muhammad (his own words) “basically swore secrecy” as the photo was held for over 12 years because:

Muhammad and some political observers still believe that if that photo had been released, it could have drawn enough fire – even from some of Obama’s supporters looking for excuses – to dent his chances of becoming president.

Concerning Muhammad, Bromwich reported:

… in a 2012 blog post, (he) said that he was an admirer of Mr. Farrakhan and that the minister was not an anti-Semite.

The post’s far more than admiring and undisclosed title: “Louis Farrakhan, a man for all time.”

Early Friday, the Washington Post’s dogmatically leftist Fact Checker gave DNC Deputy Chair Ellison’s claim of “no relationship” with Farrakhan Four Pinocchios: “Ellison is trying to have it both ways, publicly distancing himself while privately doing something else.”

Carson has “admitted that he, and the Congressional Black Caucus, have met with Farrakhan to work on ‘anti-crime’ and ‘discrimination’ efforts.”

Tuesday, the Republican Jewish Coalition called for the resignations of seven “Farrakhan-connected” congresspersons for associating with “the moral equivalent of a leader of the KKK.” The other five: Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Danny Davis, Gregory Meeks, and Al Green.

Bromwich’s story at the Times, which did not make Saturday’s print edition, only mentioned Davis and Women’s March leader Mallory, and asked: “Why were Tamika Mallory and Danny Davis reluctant to denounce him?”

Here’s the quick answer, Jonah: Because in their heart of hearts, they still fundamentally agree with him.

Cross-posted at

Source Article from