Category Archives: United States

International Affairs Analyst Says Putin’s Time May Be Winding Down

Vladimir Putin has sky-high presidential approval ratings among Russians (the envy, no doubt, of every Western chief executive). He recently triumphed at the Alaska summit, where he got President Donald Trump to back off of his demand for a cease fire in Ukraine. The Russian president’s participation at the 2025 China Victory Day parade further cemented Russo-Chinese relations, and he has been credited with a reproachment between China and India. So, why is at least one prominent analyst predicting Putin’s time is coming to an end?

It seems that, after all of these achievements, Putin’s handling of the Ukraine war is coming under growing criticism – not so much from the populace, but from elements within the Russian “thinking class.” They want an end to the conflict and the punishment and/or elimination of the Western-backed Volodymyr Zelensky regime.

Thus, Putin’s political exit has been predicted by American historian and longtime Russian affairs analyst Prof. Gilbert Doctorow, the author of War Diaries. Vol. 1: The Russian-Ukraine War, 2022-2023. Doctorow now believes that Putin’s slow, methodical war of attrition against Ukraine has taken too long and, if continued, could lead to the regional conflict spinning out of control and igniting a nuclear conflagration.

Doctorow has also criticized Putin’s lenient attitude toward the many Western provocations taken against Russia, with the latest talk of the U.S. supplying Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, which could be fitted with nuclear warheads. The issuance of Tomahawks is on top of the massive aid – military, strategic, intelligence, and financial – that the West has provided without which Ukraine would completely collapse.

While Doctorow advises that Putin end the war as quickly as possible, it must be noted that the perspicacious Paul Craig Roberts has been one of the few, from almost the start of the war, who called for Putin to take decisive action to end what the Russians call a “special military operation.”

Roberts believes that the West is using the conflict as a means to ultimately collapse Russia, divide it politically, and plunder its resources. A fragmented Russia will provide no opposition to a unipolar world dominated by the United States.

In his latest article, Roberts asks:

Will he again be ‘Putin-the-Unready’ as he was in

South Ossetia in 2008, in Ukraine in 2014, in 2022

when Russia was forced to intervene in Donbas,

and when the Russian strategic bomber force was

attacked on June 1. *

In recent podcasts and essays, Doctorow has broken from most of the foreign policy analysts of the alternative media who continue to speak in positive terms of Putin’s deliberate, painstaking approach of slow attrition in Ukraine and his continuing leniency to hostile Western action toward Russia, with now demeaning talk from U.S. politicians including President Donald Trump that call Russia a “paper tiger.”

Doctorow believes that Putin’s reign has run its course:

I am suggesting that the era of Vladimir Putin is coming to

a close. . . . He no longer has the courage of his convictions,

that his threats meant to deter Western enemies are empty

verbiage. . . . He has pulled up the red lines

he clearly set out one year ago with respect to long range

missiles being supplied to Ukraine, and that he is drawing

out the war in Ukraine by not using . . . hypersonic missiles to

end the war now. **

Whether such a seemingly implausible scenario comes about or that Russia eventually attains its goals with Putin in charge, the West will continue to escalate. One bright spot, however, is that the current leadership of Europe’s most war-like states – Keir Starmer of Great Britain, Friedrich Merz of Germany and Emmanuel Macron of France – are widely unpopular and most likely do not have a long political shelf life. Hopefully, their respective replacements will focus on the monumental economic and social problems that confront each nation and the Ukraine war will be put on the back burner.

One theme sometimes heard by alternative media commentators is that the Russian economy has improved since the start of the special military operation. While Western sanctions have proved to be mostly ineffectual, wars are always a detriment to economic life except, of course, to the arms makers and their bought politicians.

The opportunity cost of producing guns, bullets, and missiles is the loss of the production of consumer goods – refrigerators, cars, computers, etc. While it might not be directly seen, Putin’s slow march through Ukraine is taking a toll on the Russian economy.

More important than the economic degradation of society is that the war is being fought between two largely white populations. The slaughter of whites will mean a decline in birth rates. This unspoken aspect of the war, no doubt, has always been a policy of the enemies of the Occidental peoples.

While a certain segment of the Russian political elite may want to replace Putin, the ultimate responsibility for the Ukraine war and (God forbid) a possible nuclear exchange is with the collective West, in particular the United States.

If President Trump really wanted to stop the killing, he merely has to cut off financial aid, end the considerable U.S. military and intelligence assistance to the Zelensky regime, and the war would be over in days.

If these ominous trends continue, it appears that only an act of Divine intervention can avoid a nuclear disaster.

*https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2025/10/03/putin-the-unready/

**https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2025/10/04/conversation-with-professor-glenn-diesen-restoring-russias-deterrent-or-emboldening-nato/

Antonius Aquinas@antoniusaquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

Venezuela Next on Trump Hit List for Regime-Change Operation

2 Replies

While it appears that the United States has finally realized that it has little leverage over Russia in the Ukraine war either to halt hostilities or alter battlefield conditions, it has, for now, begun to disengage from the contest despite the desperate pleas from Ukraine and its European backers. President Donald Trump has said that he will no longer provide the besieged Eastern European country with aid, but will sell weapons to NATO nations who will then give them to the Volodymyr Zelensky regime.

As an aside, that there has been little criticism of Trump’s arms sales, which will be used for mass slaughter, the destruction of private property, and the enrichment of the military industrial complex, is a sad commentary on the ethical standing of the Western world. At one time, there was an adherence to the concept of a “just war” and the protection of the lives of non-combatants and their property. These topics have, however, long since perished into the Orwellian memory hole.

Trump’s decision to abandon his demand for a ceasefire and begin shifting the burden for the war to Europe was, no doubt, influenced by the MAGA supporters who were pushing him to fulfill his campaign promise of ending the war or, at least, America’s involvement in it. While some analysts have called the Alaska summit only a “tactical retreat” for the U.S. Empire, it was enough of a gesture to assuage MAGA that the president was going to at last put America first in foreign policy.

These hopes, however, have been dashed with Trump’s recent actions toward Latin America.

Earlier this month, Trump reignited hostilities with Venezuela and its president, Nicolas Maduro. It must not be forgotten that, in his first term, Trump supported efforts to overthrow Maduro in a failed coup led by then Venezuela National Assembly president Juan Guaido.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the U.S. would double the reward (now $50 million) for information that would lead to the arrest of Maduro, who the Trump administration has accused of being “one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world.”

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil dismissed Bondi charge, calling it “pathetic” and a “desperate distraction” from her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and Trump’s refusal to release the files pertaining to his former close friend’s heinous crimes according to the BBC.*

On Aug. 19, the United States escalated matters further by deploying three Navy destroyers, accompanied by 4,000 troops, off the Venezuelan coast. Not only was the move aimed at combatting Maduro’s supposed drug ties – denied by him and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum – but the action appears to be another attempt at regime change. According to the Trump administration, it does not consider Maduro a legitimate president. This opinion was seconded by White House Press Secretary Karolin Leavitt:

The Maduro regime is not the legitimate government of

Venezuela. It is a narco-terror cartel, and Maduro, it is the

view of this administration, is not a legitimate president.

He is a fugitive head of this cartel, he has been indicted in

the United States for trafficking drugs into the country. **

That’s funny. When Russian President Vladimir Putin makes similar claims about the legitimacy of the Zelensky regime in Ukraine, they are dismissed by the United States and its European partners even though Zelensky has suspended democratic elections and locked up regime critics.

If Trump believes his bellicose actions in the Caribbean, which also includes talk of attacking Mexican drug cartels, will stop the flow of illicit drugs to the United States, he is delusional. The war on drugs in the 1980s, Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty, the war on alcohol in the 1920s (Prohibition), and all of America’s overseas wars have made the problems they intended to solve that much worse. The only constant from these follies has been the expansion of state power.

Drug addiction and alcohol abuse are vices that should be handled by families, churches, organizations, and,when necessary, professional medical personnel. The government cannot fix such problems nor is it constituted to do so. Even if Trump were to reduce the flow of narcotics, it may simply drive domestic illicit drug prices up, which will entice more sinister criminal elements into the trade.

Despite Trump’s campaign rhetoric, he is once again meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation with threats of armed intervention if there is not regime change. While Venezuela has taken no military action against the United States.S. nor is it likely that a conflict between the two could lead to a nuclear conflagration like in Eastern Europe, Trump’s actions demonstrate that he has no intention of pursuing an America-first foreign policy.

Unfortunately for Venezuela – and whoever is next on Trump’s list for aggression – until America cannot financially afford to police the world, the United States it will continue its hegemonic path.

*Sean Seddon, “US Offers $50m reward for arrest of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro,” BBC, 7 August 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy1wn1x521o

** Dave DeCamp, “Trump Administration Deploys Three US Navy Destroyers and 4,000 Troops Near Venezuela,” Antiwar.com, 19 August 2025. https://news.antiwar.com/2025/08/19/trump-administration-deploys-three-us-navy-destroyers-and-4000-troops-near-venezuela/

Antonius Aquinas@antoniusaquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” and the Ultimate Demise of the Dollar

The Trump – Powell Spat: A Distraction from the Debt Crisis

1 Reply

Since his return to office in January, President Donald Trump has called on Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell to cut interest rates which Powell and the Fed’s Board of Governors have refused to do. In typical child-like behavior when he doesn’t get his way, Trump has hurled insults at Powell calling him a “stupid person,” “too late Powell,” and a “numbskull.”

Trump’s juvenile attacks, although misplaced, have been quite humorous and a welcome change in tone to the respect, reverence, and almost deification that previous Presidents, Congressmen, and the financial press heap on Federal Reserve Chairmen.

Unfortunately, as with all his policies, Trump’s megalomania is on display. After the Fed’s June meeting when it once again decided to leave rates unchanged and indicated that there might be only one rate cut in 2025, Trump again slammed Powell and suggested that “Maybe I should go to the Fed. Am I allowed to appoint myself to the Fed.?” *

While Trump’s ridiculing the head of one of the sacred cows of America’s ruling establishment is welcomed, his crazed notion of putting himself, and presumably future presidents, in charge of monetary policy does not offer any viable alternative to the debt crisis that is staring the nation in the face with the U.S. in the hole in excess of now some $37 trillion.

Although Trump’s blasting of Powell has provided some comic relief from the dire economic conditions which confront the U.S., in reality both the president and the Fed Chair are wrong over interest rate policy although, in this case, Powell is less wrong. Like most of Trump’s kooky ideas – taking over Greenland, making Canada the 51^st state – not only is the slashing of interest rates counterproductive, but the idea of giving the executive branch of government control of monetary policy would turn the nation into a complete dictatorship.

Powell, too, has been mistaken in his policy of holding rates steady. Interest rates, in fact, are too low and need to be higher. At current levels, rates are too “accommodative” as price inflation remains above the Fed’s 2% target. Of course, in reality prices are rising at a much briskier pace than official government estimates.

Hiking rates would encourage savings and discourage consumption both of which would put downward pressure on consumer prices. If Trump wants to achieve his goal of a reindustrialized America, there needs to be an increase in savings. Production of goods takes place over time and without savings to fund the construction of factories, the purchase of machines and equipment, and the payment of wages, there can be no economic growth.

Trump wrongly believes that lower rates will spur economic growth. Sustained prosperity can only take place through savings and investment not money creation via credit expansion which the president is a fan of.

More fundamentally, both Trump and Powell are wrong: interest rates should not be set by governments or monetary authorities, but be determined by market forces – the aggregate decision making of individuals on how much to save or how much to consume their income. Concomitant with non-state involvement with the setting of interest rates, a return to a metallic monetary standard would prevent price inflation which would make saving more attractive.

Another reason why Trump wants lower rates is that servicing the mammoth U.S. debt would be somewhat more palatable. His “big, beautiful bill,” working its way through the Senate, will need to be financed. Lower rates would reduce the government’s borrowing costs. This irresponsible argument was also made by former Federal Reserve Chair and later Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.

Since Donald Trump has no ideological core that shapes his world vision, his outlook and policies are more often than not based on what affects him personally or who strokes his ego or lines his pockets. The proper monetary policy for the nation is not to cut interest rates, but to raise them and reduce the national debt through spending cuts. While there would certainly be short-term pain from such a policy, eventually matters would turn around and economic activity would be placed on a sound footing.

Ultimately, if sound money is ever to return to America and the Western world, its control must be taken away from central banks and the influence of mercurial politicians. The creation of money, its distribution, authenticity, and safe keeping should be left up to a decentralized non-governmental arrangement.

*Tyler Durden, “Trump Slams ‘Stupid’ Powell: ‘I Think He Hates Me. I Call Him Every Name in the Book to Try and Get Him to Cut,’” Zero Hedge, 18 June 2025. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/trump-slams-stupid-powell-i-think-he-hates-me-i-call-him-every-name-book-try-and-get-him

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

Trump’s Grandiose Political Centralization Scheme Not America-First in Spirit

4 Replies

Colorful houses of the coastal town of Ilulissat in western Greenland.

Although Donald Trump is now in office, his statements since the election indicated he has forgotten his pledge to follow an “America first” foreign policy. This is what he promised during the recent presidential contest and what he pledged in the 2016 campaign, but failed to deliver during his first term. While domestic issues are what a president is mostly concerned with, the most important decisions surround foreign affairs, since they often involve war.

Since his lopsided victory over the hapless Kamala Harris, Trump has made few references about reigning in the murderous U.S. Empire, but instead has talked about buying or invading Greenland, seizing the Panama Canal, and making Canada an American state. After the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump said that “many people in Canada love being the 51^st state,” according to The New York Times, Jan. 7.*

If Joe Biden or Kamala Harris said such things, the MAGA crowd would be up in arms and accuse them of moving the country in the direction of the New World Order.

Whether Trump follows through with such fanciful plans, it shows that he does not understand what lies at the heart of the social and economic problems that America and the Western world face. Trump’s ideas would create greater political centralization, as an American-Canadian or American-Canadian-Mexican-Greenland union would create a gigantic North American state.

For anyone concerned with individual liberty, prosperity, and the No. 1 social issue that confronts the U.S. – illegal immigration – a North American superstate would be a nightmare. Gone would be the vital ability of “dissenters” to “vote with their feet” and move to less burdensome political jurisdictions.

In the United States, one can see this taking place on a daily basis as Americans move from high-tax and high regulatory states to those less onerous. Of course, citizens cannot escape the federal government’s dictates unless one decides to expatriate. Students of the nation’s history know the often-overlooked Anti-federalists made this argument in their opposition to the Constitution which has, over time, proven to be quite prescient.

The idea that more political entities lead to greater freedom has been proven by history. The best example of this is pre-modern Europe which was made up of a host of kingdoms, duchies, and free states with no dominant central government that could tax without impunity. It is well accepted by historians that Europe’s rise in its standard of living was the result of its political decentralization that resulted in low levels of taxation.

A multitude of nation states allows for “competition,” where if one government becomes too tyrannical, people have an opportunity to flee to another land. In recent U.S. history, a number of draft-aged men fled to Canada instead of being sent off to Vietnam to fight in what they considered an immoral war. A colossal North American state would have ended such an option.

Although not explicitly discussed by Trump, a North American Union would more than likely mean the creation of a new monetary unit as was done with the euro when the European Union was formed. Despite the warnings of some economists, price inflation in Europe escalated for countries like Germany once they relinquished their monetary autonomy.

Currently, national currencies “float” against one another in terms of exchange rates. If one central bank inflates its currency too much, its money will lose purchasing power to less inflationary nations. While not nearly as good as a gold standard, there is a sort of a “check and balance” on central bank monetary debasement with floating exchange rates.

A single North American monetary unit would not face the kind of limit that now exists, where the Canadian dollar, Mexican peso and U.S. dollar vie against each other. A North American currency would be another ominous step to a one-world currency – a dream of New World Order proponents.

While Trump’s disappointing talk about political centralization looks like a betrayal of the principles of America first principles, there may be a glimmer of hope. In a recent Truth Social post, Trump reposted a video of Prof. Jeffery Sachs, a longtime critic of American foreign policy, criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s genocidal actions in Gaza and throughout the Middle East calling him a “deep, dark SOB.”

Since the video has been posted, Netanyahu has canceled his plans to attend Trump’s inauguration, the implication being the Israeli leader was offended by the comment.

Only time will tell if Trump will abandon his promised America-first policies or pursue a drive to a New World Order.

*David E. Sanger and Michael D. Shear, “Trump Floats Using Force to Take Greenland and the Panama Canal,” The New York Times, 7 January 2025.

Antonius Aquinas@antoniusaquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

School Choice: A Bad Idea

2 Replies

While the school choice movement has been a popular policy initiative for conservative politicians and parents who are disgusted with the failing and, in many areas, debauched public school system, a closer look at “choice” in education, which includes charter schools, vouchers, and scholarships, may not be the panacea for educational reform as many believe.

One of the latest developments in school choice involves the funding of an Oklahoma religious charter school. The state’s Supreme Court has ruled that the public funding of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School is unconstitutional.* While privately run, charter schools are tax financed and “must abide by many of the rules that govern traditional public schools” says Laura Meckler in an article titled “Oklahoma Weighs Nation’s First Religious Charter School,” published in The Washington Post, April 3, 2024.

The “constitutionality” of the case was challenged by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who cited state law that says “charter schools may not be sectarian or affiliated with a religious institution.” The attorney general contended that, if the school is allowed to exist, it would have “unlimited unintended consequences” and thus “the state of Oklahoma effectively has control over the school.”

Drummond said, “That’s the state controlling religion. That is a slope for which there is no end.”

While the Oklahoma Supreme Court has concurred with Drummond’s assessment in the St. Isidore school case, it is disturbing as to why the school’s backers, as well as other proponents of charter schools, do not see the obvious danger of government interference in religious education which necessarily comes once state monies are allocated.

In the past, religious institutions would have recognized the threat to their independence and would have no part in such an arrangement no matter how lucrative. The appeal of private schools has always been that the government has little oversight over the curricula, and that parents have a say in what their children are taught. Many private schools today, however, are little different than their public school counterparts in curriculum offered, discipline, and cultural outlook.

Besides the obvious constitutional issue of forcing taxpayers to support religious institutions, there is another moral issue which is rarely, if ever, discussed that exists not only with charter schools, but public education in general. Why should those that are single, childless couples, and those parents who send their children to private schools be forced to pay for public education? While taxpayers are protected from being coerced to contribute to religious institutions, why are the rights of those who do not use public schools not observed?

While constitutional conservatives have ignored this aspect of tax-funded schooling, there is another troubling aspect of public education. The public school has always been a vehicle for the left’s social-engineering schemes. One of the most egregious of these was Brown vs. Board of Education, which inaugurated the coercive racial integration movement.

It is little wonder why the American electorate has moved decidedly leftward. Several generations of young minds have spent their formative years exposed to some of the most radical ideas that are now presented as normal. At one time conservative commentators spoke about this, but, like nearly all of their other principles (except for their love of war), the right has abandoned this important aspect of American life.

The entire concept of school choice is confused, put forward by its proponents to somehow reform and act as an alternative to public education. Because of its nature – “one size fist all” – a bureaucracy cannot be reformed or offer diverse products or services to its customers.

If reformers want real choice, they should call for an end to public schooling and substitute in its place a decentralized system of education provision, where a wide variety of schools and institutions offer families genuine alternatives. In a market for education, parents can choose their children’s curriculum and also who instructs them.

Of course, a truly free educational system includes home schooling, which would be completely liberated from state interference.

Removing government from schooling would be a gigantic blow against the nanny state and, once again, place the responsibility for the education of youngsters with the family. The societal benefit of such a change would be incalculable.

Choice in education is another example of conservatives attempting to amend the welfare/warfare state. While it has gained in popularity and may receive in the future judicial approval, school choice will not fix public education, which will continue to be a breeding ground for the left. However, the elimination of government involvement in schooling would not only provide families with superior educational opportunities, but would remove a key component of the left’s power and control over society.

*https://apnews.com/article/public-religious-catholic-charter-school-unconstitutional-oklahoma-e4ef414605094313331a39cc645ede8a

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

Economic Collapse May Be the Only Way to Prevent World War III

3 Replies

The tensions between the West and Russia over the Ukraine have escalated over the past few months with an almost daily occurrence of provocations and belligerent talk mostly from members of NATO. In response, Russia sent a naval contingent to the Caribbean in a show of force. Some of the Western provocations include:

Polish President Andrzej Duda’s willingness to place U.S. nuclear weapons on Polish soil;
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius’ s call for reinstitution of a draft;
A hand-delivered check by Biden to Volodymyr Zelensky as part of the $95 billion U.S. “defense” package for Ukraine
A request by Zelensky for Westerners to train troops on Ukrainian soil; and
US and NATO okaying Ukraine to fire long-range American weapons as much as 12 miles into Russian territory

It is apparent that, until Russian President Vladimir Putin capitulates to Western demands in regard to Ukraine, NATO will continue to push the envelop. In hindsight, analysts such as Paul Craig Roberts have, from the start, urged Putin to swiftly finish off Ukraine militarily and replace the Zelensky regime with one favorable to Russia. A protracted struggle, Roberts warned, would give the West more time to supplement Ukraine: “The conflict dragged on, because having declared the intervention limited, the Kremlin left Kiev to continue the war, thus playing into Western hands as the West gradually widened the war.” *

Unfortunately for Russia, Paul Craig Roberts’s prognostication is now coming to fruition.

The counter argument to a more aggressive Russia is that Putin realizes that the West is run by a pack of sociopaths who would have no qualms launching WWIII, which would include the use of nuclear weapons, or ignite a major military conflagration in the area. The Russian president sees that the West holds a decisive military advantage over Russia even if it allied with China. The U.S. alone spends more than the combined expenditures of the top nine militaries in the world.

The United States has thus the ability and means to operate and intervene in almost any sector of the world. It is able to do so because it has had, for the longest time, an economy which was able to not only produce goods for the domestic market and also for its foreign adventures. It takes wealth to be able to arm, transport, deploy, and maintain men in distant lands.

Because of America’s relatively free economy, it could produce a seemingly endless supply of military hardware for itself, but also to buy off client states and fund proxy wars. In contrast, the Soviet Union could never export communism in any significant way after World War II because it lacked the means to do so. Its economy was a basket case that could barely feed its citizens.

While the U.S. may have the military capability to be the world’s policeman, its actions in the Ukraine are ultimately controlled by ideology. And, for the longest time, U.S. foreign policy has been one of interventionism and war with the ultimate goal of the establishment of a one-world state. Its proxy war in Ukraine is designed to cripple Russia, which stands as a roadblock to this long-desired goal.

Since it is apparent that the principles guiding U.S. foreign policy are not going to change anytime soon, the nation will continue on its bellicose course until it no longer has the means to do so. This would mean a financial crisis, most likely in the form of a dollar collapse, which would ground the economy to a halt.

In such a scenario, the United States would be following the course that Great Britain took after World War II, when its empire could no longer be sustained since the country insanely exhausted itself in the conduct of fighting two world wars.

A similar, earlier historical example was the Western Roman empire, which, through currency debasement, heavy taxation and government largesse, ruined its economy and then could no longer maintain its empire.

The ideology of Great Britain and Rome did not change, however, they simply no longer had the means to sustain and expand their empires.

Despite massive deficits, record-setting inflation, and a recent bank crisis in March, 2023, a financial crisis does not appear to be on the horizon. Although things can change quickly, for the foreseeable future, the U.S. empire is in no danger from internal collapse.

While an economic collapse would mean misery for millions of Americans, it would be, in a sense, retribution for the nation’s murderous and costly foreign policy, which has brought, and still is bringing, untold death and destruction to millions of people.

*Paul Craig Roberts, “Normalizing War with Russia,” PaulCraigRoberts.org, 6 June 2016, https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2024/06/06/normalizing-war-with-russia/

What the Rising Gold Price Signals

18 Replies

The recent run-up in the gold price has not garnered the attention among the mainstream financial media outlets as it should. Gold has, in part, been overshadowed by the rise in the price of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Naturally, the financial press, which is really an arm of the government and its central bank, wants to ignore, as much as possible, references to gold as protection against the continuing increase in the price level which itself has been deliberately understated by monetary officials. The media and government understand that precious metals are the ultimate security against runaway inflation and economic collapse.

While the increase in the gold price has reached nominal highs, it and the price of silver have not passed their all-time 1980 highs in real terms. Adjusted for inflation, gold would have to rise to about $3590 an ounce while silver would have to surpass $50 an ounce. Both are poised to exceed these watermarks in the not-too-distant future.

Precious metals will continue to escalate unless the Federal Reserve radically changes its interest rate policy to combat inflation as former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker once did. Volcker raised interest rates to double-digit levels which caused gold prices to fall. While Volcker could get away with such actions (because, at the time, the U.S. was still a creditor nation), current Chair Jerome Powell cannot because of the enormity of public and private debt. Double-digit interest rates would collapse the economy and plunge millions of Americans into bankruptcy.

The rising price of gold is anticipating some of the promised policy actions of the Fed. Since the end of last year, the central bank has indicated that it would be cutting interest rates. In addition, Powell is considering ending the Fed’s “Quantitative Tightening” (QT) program. Both are highly inflationary.

While commentators have focused on gold’s spectacular price rise, there is an underlying issue that is also taking place. The record setting gold price is signaling that the present fiat monetary order, which is based on the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, is coming to a financially unpleasant end.

Ever since 1971, when the Nixon Administration closed the “gold window,” refusing to redeem gold for dollars held by foreign central banks, the world has been on a “dollar standard” where bank reserves are held in Greenbacks. If the Fed continues to print dollars to sustain government spending at this rate, the dollar will continue to lose purchasing power and foreigners will no longer want to hold them. Foreign central banks will then turn to gold. In fact, central banks are already increasing their positions in gold which has been a catalyst that has fueled the latest rally.

Not surprisingly, the Fed has not purchased much gold (or is not admitting publicly that it has) since it would be a bad look for the issuer of the world’s reserve currency to be abandoning its own currency for gold.

Besides the severe financial implications if the dollar is dethroned, there will be dramatic geopolitical repercussions from the loss of its hegemony. Just like the British pound was replaced as the dominant world currency after England insanely exhausted itself in fighting WWII and ending its empire, America will face a similar future when the dollar becomes just another money. Many will see it as a “blessing” if and when the U.S. Empire comes to an end.

While it would appear logical and morally sound to replace the present crumbling monetary order with one based on gold and silver, a far worse paradigm than even the present one is, no doubt, being planned. The new system will be one of central bank digital currency (CBDC) which would give governments and bankers the power to monitor and control all aspects of economic and social life.

Some states have passed legislation to counter CBDC, such as Florida in 2023 under Governor Ron DeSantis who said: “The Biden administration’s efforts to inject a Centralized Bank Digital Currency is about surveillance and control. Today’s announcement will protect Florida consumers and businesses from the reckless adoption of a ‘centralized digital dollar’ which will stifle and promote government-sanctioned surveillance. . . .”*

While the press and policy makers have ignored the surge in precious metal prices, it should be a warning to everyone that difficult economic times are still yet to come with the potential of a new draconian monetary order to be installed on the horizon. Observant individuals should heed gold’s signals and take appropriate measures to safeguard their futures.

*https://www.flgov.com/2023/03/20/governor-ron-desantis-announces-legislation-to-protect-floridians-from-a-federally-controlled-central-bank-digital-currency-and-surveillance-state/

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

The Hypocrisy of the Sam Bankman-Fried Conviction

7 Replies

Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), the founder of FTX and Alameda Research hedge fund has been found guilty on all seven counts related to financial fraud and money laundering in a lower Manhattan court room. The trial took a lot less time than expected as did the jury’s deliberation of the case which speaks to the overwhelming evidence against the onetime financial guru of entertainers, crypto enthusiasts, and politicians. SBF could face up to 100 years behind bars.

Gary Gensler, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, said that “Sam Bankman-Fried built a house of cards on a foundation of deception while telling investors that it was one of the safest buildings in crypto.”* Manhattan U.S. Attorney Damian Williams concurred, calling Bankman-Fried’s actions “one of the biggest financial frauds in American history.”**

SBF’s conviction is particularly fitting since he had marketed himself as a new-style capitalist who was more interested in philanthropy and giving away his wealth, instead of enriching himself. That so many were taken in by this charlatan, especially a number of supposedly savvy investors, demonstrates again that greed remains a significant part of the human condition.

While SBF will hopefully receive his just rewards for his wrongdoings, there is another fraud that has been taking place in the financial world for quite some time which dwarfs exponentially the scam of the one-time “crypto-king.” Unlike SBF, however, this entity continues to exist and faces no prosecution, but instead is often praised for its operations.

The institution, of course, is the Federal Reserve and, for that matter, all central banks. Central banks do what FTX did but on a colossal scale. While SBF’s crimes were limited to those who foolishly invested with him, the Fed’s customers are all those who hold dollars and have little option to not use them unless they want to revert to barter and become desperately poor. Like what SBF did to his investors, the Fed has defrauded (although surreptitiously) its “customers” by robbing them of their purchasing power through monetary debasement. The loss of purchasing power by the public has been redistributed to the Fed, the political class, and financial elites.

The Federal Reserve

While Fed officials, the government, academia, and the sycophantic financial press may try and obfuscate the matter, the fact remains that the Federal Reserve has the ability to create money out of thin air and without limit. It is counterfeiting writ large. No criminal, be it SBF, Bernie Madoff, or the Mafia could ever dream of such a scenario!

The Fed’s creation of money through credit expansion is certainly more subtler than the swindling which SBF engaged in or what took place in earlier times from “coin clipping,” but the criminality of the action is the same. Under Western jurisprudence, however, central banking is now enshrined in law as a legitimate part of financial life.

As SBF wrapped himself in an aura of a benevolent and charitable new-age businessman, the Fed hides behind its criminality by presenting itself as a necessary and indispensable factor for the nation’s economic well-being. Without the Fed and its dual mandate of “price stability” and full employment, the economy would collapse.

Yet, this is a ruse. Before the advent of central banking, economic life went about quite nicely. It was only when central banks appeared that the dreaded boom and bust cycle became more frequent and severe. Moreover, in the pre-central bank era, the world was on a metallic monetary standard which protected peoples’ purchasing power.

The Fed was created by the major U.S. banks and top politicos at the time to allow banks to counterfeit without facing the consequences of their actions. Stable prices and low unemployment are secondary functions of the Fed and mostly spoken about for public relations. Protection of the system, especially the solvency of the Big Banks and now funding the national government through debt monetization, remains the prime responsibility of the Fed.

This, of course, is not to exonerate SBF. Why is it though that the laws which convicted the rogue crypto financier are not applied to America’s central bank? When sovereigns of the past debased the money supply most acknowledged its immorality and pointed out who benefited. In this supposed enlightened age where “equal justice before the law” is a ruling mandate of the legal system, its application apparently does not apply to the monetary authorities of the world.

Capitalism, at its core, is a moral argument where respect for property rights, the freedom to exchange, honest money, and the liberty to become an entrepreneur are the foundations which the system rests. Those who legitimately satisfy consumer tastes and demand are rightly rewarded. Naturally, in doing so, entrepreneurs enrich themselves but they do so by providing for the needs of their customers and in the process create jobs and incomes for those they employ, all of which is done on a voluntary basis.

Central banking is the essential instrument of “crony capitalism” which is the antithesis of free enterprise. Crony capitalism is a new version of mercantilism which was condemned by the likes of Adam Smith and was one of the factors why the American Revolution was fought. It has since come back with a vengeance.

Besides the immorality of central banking, the Fed’s manipulation of the money supply has deleterious effects on economic life. Inflation hurts the poor and the working class disproportionately while the Fed’s control of interest rates and credit is the reason for the dreaded business cycle.

The present age has prided itself in its efforts to attain justice in regard to race relations, the environment, economic equality, and now gender recognition. Yet, the immorality of central banking remains and while Sam Bankman-Fried may be incarcerated, social justice warriors (as well as conservatives) willfully ignore the counterfeiting elephant in the room. Until central banking is outlawed, a truly just social order is an impossibility.

*https://www.zerohedge.com/political/sam-bankman-fried-found

**https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/12/sam-bankman-fried-has-been-arrested.html

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

President Trump’s Role in the Ukraine War

8 Replies

With his usual braggadocio, former President Donald Trump has promised that if returned to the White House he would end the Ukraine conflict within hours and claims, as many of his supporters do, that the war would never have taken place had he been in office. Like most of his campaign promises during his 2016 presidential run – drain the swamp, pull troops out of Afghanistan, build a wall – very few were accomplished, despite the fact that the former president had a Republican House and Senate at the start of his first term.

Listening to Trump’s often incoherent statements on the Ukrainian imbroglio shows that the ex-chief executive has learned little from his four years in the Oval Office. While talk of ending wars in a few hours may garner popular support, translating them into actual results is a far different and, to say the least, difficult matter, as Trump should now realize after his fruitless years as president.

Trump had a chance to de-escalate tensions in the Ukraine that had been building especially after the Western-inspired coup of February, 2014 which replaced the democratically-elected government of Viktor Yanukovych. Yet, the former president did nothing to remedy the situation and, in fact, worsened matters by providing military hardware to the Ukraine, which the Obama Administration had denied.

Demonstrating a lack of understanding of the region’s geo-political realities, Trump decided to provide the Ukraine with military equipment. In December, 2017 the U.S. shipped, among other weaponry, Javelin anti-tank missile systems, with the first sale completed in March of the following year to the sum of $47 million. Reportedly, the former president was convinced by his advisors that the military aid would be “good for U.S. business.”

If one considers the military industrial complex a vibrant part of the U.S. economy and not a parasitical drain that redistributes scarce resources away from the production of useful consumer goods into the creation of destabilizing and murderous weapons of war, then – “yes” – military spending is good for business. For those, like Trump, who support such an idea are apparently unfamiliar with Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler who rightly called “defense spending” a racket:

I spent 33 years in the Marines, most of my time being a high-class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for Capitalism.*

After the provocative action of supplying the Ukraine with military hardware, the Trump Administration inflamed relations further by pulling out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) which was agreed to by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. The landmark treaty banned missiles with range between 500 and 5,500 km (310-3,400 miles).**

The U.S. accused Russia of non-compliance to the terms of the treaty, a charge that the Russians and many military analysts denied. This, of course, led to a greater level of distrust between the two nations and went against candidate Trump’s aims of lessening tensions between the two powers.

Trump, as with the pro-war Western media, is ignorant of the historical context that played into Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade the Ukraine. It is a well-established fact that the U.S. and Western powers gave assurances to Russia as far back as when the Berlin Wall came down that NATO would not expand eastward. That promise has been repeatedly broken as NATO now includes 31 nations with Sweden set to come on board in 2024.***

Making matters worse, the Biden Administration, the war mongers in Congress, and the U.S.’s NATO lapdogs have escalated matters with tremendous financial and military assistance, which has done little to stop the Russians, but has resulted in the needless slaughter of thousands and the wholesale destruction of Ukrainian territory. The introduction of cluster bombs into the fray and the promise of F-16 fighter-jets capable of carrying nuclear war heads has heightened the possibility of a general conflagration.

None of the declared Republican presidential contenders have critiqued the former president’s reckless Ukrainian policy. Some of the candidates (Chris Christie, Nikki Haley) have instead insanely called for greater support of the Zelensky regime!

The American involvement in the Ukrainian War has nothing to do with its national security, but with the interests of the U.S. Empire. The tragedy of the Trump Presidency is that things were supposed to be different. Instead of non-intervention, the Administration armed Ukraine, stationed troops in Syria, assassinated an Iranian general on a Middle East peace mission, and committed a host of other head scratching acts which went against candidate Trump’s pledge of an “America First” foreign policy that propelled him to victory in 2016.

To think that things will be different in a second go-around is clearly delusional, as the former president is now campaigning with never-ending war proponent Senator Lindsey Graham.

*See War is a Racket, Port Townsend, WA.: Feral House, 2003; 1935.

**“INF Nuclear Treaty: US Pulls Out of Cold War-Era Pact With Russia,” BBC, 2 August 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565

***Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, 22 January 2022 ttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com