ללא מחבר No Author

That Time When the British Chancellor Stole His Country’s Gold and Gave It to the Banksters

Gordon Brown Dumped Britain’s Gold to Save Goldman Sachs & JP Morgan

 11  7331

The Telegraph’s Thomas Pascoe has released a riveting account of why Gordon Brown dumped 400 tonnes of Britain’s gold (which has been dubbed Brown’s Bottom) intentionally at the lowest price possible.

Pascoe’s sources have informed him that one globally significant US bank was short 2 tonnes of gold at the time of the 400 tonne gold dump.

Goldman Sachs reportedly approached Treasury Head of Commodities Gavyn Davies to explain its dire predicament, and the immediate global financial consequences should The Vampire Squid default on its gold delivery obligations.

Pascoe alleges that Gordon Brown used various mechanisms (telegraphing the sale, using an auction rather than the London fix, etc) to intentionally sell Britain’s gold reserves at the lowest possible price to save the necks of Goldman Sachs’ massive gold shorts (which likely included JP Morgan which was even more massively short gold at the time).

When Brown decided to dispose of almost 400 tonnes of gold between 1999 and 2002, he did two distinctly odd things…

It seemed almost as if the Treasury was trying to achieve the lowest price possible for the public’s gold. It was.

ABSOLUTE MUST READ!!!

From the Telegraph:

One decision stands out as downright bizarre, however: the sale of the majority of Britain’s gold reserves for prices between $256 and $296 an ounce, only to watch it soar so far as $1,615 per ounce today.

When Brown decided to dispose of almost 400 tonnes of gold between 1999 and 2002, he did two distinctly odd things.

First, he broke with convention and announced the sale well in advance, giving the market notice that it was shortly to be flooded and forcing down the spot price. This was apparently done in the interests of “open government”, but had the effect of sending the spot price of gold to a 20-year low, as implied by basic supply and demand theory.

Second, the Treasury elected to sell its gold via auction. Again, this broke with the standard model. The price of gold was usually determined at a morning and afternoon “fix” between representatives of big banks whose network of smaller bank clients and private orders allowed them to determine the exact price at which demand met with supply.

The auction system again frequently achieved a lower price than the equivalent fix price. The first auction saw an auction price of $10c less per ounce than was achieved at the morning fix. It also acted to depress the price of the afternoon fix which fell by nearly $4.

It seemed almost as if the Treasury was trying to achieve the lowest price possible for the public’s gold. It was.   …

This plan worked brilliantly when gold fell and the other asset – for the bank at the heart of this case, yen-backed securities – rose. When the prices moved the other way, the banks were in trouble.

This is what had happened on an enormous scale by early 1999. One globally significant US bank in particular is understood to have been heavily short on two tonnes of gold, enough to call into question its solvency if redemption occurred at the prevailing price.

Goldman Sachs, which is not understood to have been significantly short on gold itself, is rumoured to have approached the Treasury to explain the situation through its then head of commodities Gavyn Davies, later chairman of the BBC and married to Sue Nye who ran Brown’s private office.

Faced with the prospect of a global collapse in the banking system, the Chancellor took the decision to bail out the banks by dumping Britain’s gold, forcing the price down and allowing the banks to buy back gold at a profit, thus meeting their borrowing obligations.

Read more

From Silver Doctors, here.

(Note: The original Telegraph article has apparently been scrubbed.)

We Are Jews, NOT Hebrews!

“eved ivri” and not “eved yisrael”

This limud should be l’zecher nishmas my father whose yahrzeit is this Shabbos.
Meforshim are bothered by the term “eved ivri.”  Why not “eved yisrael?”  Putting aside the fact that the term “Ivri” is ambiguous (is an “Ivri” someone who comes from a place, “Eiver ha’Nahar,” or is it a people, or something else?  — see Ibn Ezra), the fact is throughout chumash we are referred to as Bnei Yisrael.  Therefore, if we are referring to a member of Klal Yisrael who became a slave, shouldn’t it be “eved yisrael?”

If you remember the parshiyos from earlier this year (or cheat and use a concordance) I think the answer will be clear.  The term “Ivri” comes up again and again in the beginning of Shmos.  A few examples: the “miyaldos ha’Ivriyos: (1:15) save Jewish babies, including Moshe, who bas Pharoah refers to as being “m’yaldei ha’Ivrim.” (2:6)  Later, Moshe goes out and sees an Egyptian hitting an “ish Ivri” as well as two “Ivrim” who are fighting.  Hashem tells Moshe to tell Pharaoh that the G-d of the “Ivrim” has appeared to him (3:18).  At this point in history there is no Jewish nation.  There is a large family, a tribe of related members.  It is only later, post-exodus, after kabbalas haTorah, that we become a nation.  Once that happens, the term “Ivri” vanishes.  The only occurrence of the term “Ivri” after the exodus is in reference to the Jewish slave.  We are now Bnei Yisrael, Am Yisrael, not Ivrim.

Perhaps the Torah deliberately uses the term “Ivri” with respect to the slave to indicate that the slave has forfeited his identity as a “citizen” in the nation of Am Yisrael.  He still retains his relationship to us as a people, he still retains his identity as a member of the family/tribe of bnei Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, the organizational unity of “Ivrim” that pre-dates our nationhood, but he has forfeited his rights and privileges beyond that.

In Parshas Shmos, when Moshe and Aharon first appear before Pharoah, they tell him (5:1) that “Hashem Elokei Yisrael” has demanded the release of his people to celebrate a “chag.”  Pharoah responds that he does not recognize the deity they are talking about and therefore won’t agree to terms.  Moshe and Aharon then repeat the same request (5:3) using slightly different language, telling Pharoah that “Elokei ha’Ivrim” demands the release of his people to offer sacrifices to him.  This time Pharoah throws them out.  Why did Moshe and Aharon think repeating the request a second time would make a difference?  And why was Pharoah’s response so much harsher this second time?

Netziv explains that when Pharoah heard the term “Elokei Yisrael” he assumed Moshe and Aharon were speaking about letting the spiritual elite of the people go out for a celebration, a chag.  Yisrael is the name Yaakov is given only after he manages to overcome Eisav’s angel — it is a mark of accomplishment.  Pharoah at least hears this request but is not willing to give in.  Moshe and Aharon realized the misunderstanding and immediately clarified.  It was “Elokei ha’Ivrim,” that spoke to them — G-d of the entire tribe/family, the G-d of the “Ivrim,” the downtrodden slaves, not just G-d of the elite.  Everyone needs to be let free to worship.  This Pharoah is not even willing to hear.

It’s not “eved yisrael” — the term “yisrael,” as Pharoah understood, is one of chashivus.  Rather, it’s “eved ivri” — a slave has no status.  A slave has forfeited his membership in society, in the nation.

קומי יחידתי ושובי בתשובה, הנה גואלך בא

שיר של הבבא סאלי הקדוש זצוק”ל – אעופה אשכונה .

Published on Jan 25, 2012

מילות השיר:
אעופה אשכונה וארחיקה נדוד
במדבר אלינה ואולי אמצא דוד
נשק אהבתו בליבי בוערה
מיום פרדתו נפשי עלי מרה
ידי מני ברח הלך עזבני
איזו דרך ארח ואלכה גם אני
יצאתי לבקש דודי בין חברים
נלכדתי במוקש הכוני השומרים
קול דודי הנה בא מדלג על ההרים
קומי לך אהובה כי בא קץ דרורים

הזמר יוסי מור .

מאתר יוטיוב, כאן.

US Government OPENLY Meddles In Venezuela

Trump’s Venezuela Fiasco

By 

Ron Paul Institute

January 29, 2019

Last week President Trump announced that the United States would no longer recognize Nicholas Maduro as president of Venezuela and would recognize the head of its national assembly, Jose Guaido, as president instead. US thus openly backs regime change. But what has long been a dream of the neocons may well turn out to be a nightmare for President Trump.

Why did Trump declare that the Venezuelan president was no longer the president? According to the State Department, the Administration was acting to help enforce the Venezuelan constitution. If only they were so eager to enforce our own Constitution!

It’s ironic that a president who has spent the first two years in office fighting charges that a foreign country meddled in the US elections would turn around and not only meddle in foreign elections but actually demand the right to name a foreign country’s president! How would we react if the Chinese and Russians decided that President Trump was not upholding the US Constitution and recognized Speaker Nancy Pelosi as US president instead?

Even those who would like to see a change of government in Venezuela should reject any notion that the change must be “helped” by the United States. According to press reports, Vice President Mike Pence was so involved in internal Venezuelan affairs that he actually urged Guaido to name himself president and promised US support. This is not only foolish, it is very dangerous. A Venezuelan civil war would result in mass death and even more economic misery!

Regime change has long been US policy for Venezuela. The US has been conducting economic warfare practically since Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, was first elected in 1998. The goal of US sanctions and other economic measures against Venezuela (and other countries in Washington’s crosshairs) is to make life so miserable for average citizens that they rise up and overthrow their leaders. But of course, once they do so they must replace those leaders with someone approved by Washington. Remember after the “Arab Spring” in Egypt when the people did rise up and overthrow their leader, but they then elected the “wrong” candidate. The army moved in and deposed the elected president and replaced him with a Washington-approved politician. Then-Secretary of State John Kerry called it “restoring democracy.”

It is tragically comical that President Trump has named convicted criminal Elliot Abrams as his point person to “restore democracy” in Venezuela. Abrams played a key role in the Iran-Contra affair and went on to be one of the chief architects of the disastrous US invasion of Iraq in 2003. His role in helping promote the horrible violence in Latin America in the 1980s should disqualify him from ever holding public office again.

Instead of this ham-fisted coup d’etat, a better policy for Venezuela these past 20 years would have been engagement and trade. If we truly believe in the superiority of a free market system we must also believe that we can only lead by example, not by forcing our system on others.

Just four months ago President Trump said at the UN: “I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.” Sadly it seems that these were merely empty words. We know from Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. that this will not end well for President Trump. Or for the United States. We must leave Venezuela alone!

From Lewrockwell.com, here.