Gold has been considered hard money for 5000 years. 20% of all the gold ever mined is owned by central banks of the world. Why do central banks buy gold?
A cube (22m x 22m x 22m) is all the gold ever mined.
- 201,296 tons of gold (above ground, extracted)
- 53,000 tons of gold (below ground, unextracted)
If you want to understand how quickly money changes hands, what M2 money supply is and how debts are cleared… go watch this 2 min clip 👍
#BankingCrisis hit so hard and markets have such low confidence on #CreditSuisse, they offered $0.5 per share totaling $2 billion wiping out $68 billion it was valued at just a couple of years ago… fire-sale
Banks are broke everywhere. They’re begging central banks for liquidity👇
#FederalReserve hasn’t ever been independently audited for its gold quantity or quality. What if they’re faking the reserves at 8,200 metric tons without audits just like the JPMorgan Nickel stash which turned out to be stones 🤷♂️
NOTHING SPREADS LIKE A BANK RUN
#CreditSuisse paid $11.5 billion in misdemeanor slap on the wrist fines alone. UBS acquired it for 1/4th that.
A senator asks tough questions to Janet Yellen and she stumbles to answer those #JanetYellen
When they say they’re bailing out the banks without any sort of impact to the taxpayers… don’t trust them
Funny it resembles our banking system
Fiat central banking with money printing without any backing of value is plunder. Plunder is the way of life for all #CentralBanks including the #FED
CPI is garbage when they can cook the books on what factors go in & out. If the reported inflation is 6%, the real inflation is at least 2x-3x that number.
#FederalReserve and #CentralBanks are not based on sound economic policies. All that Fiat economists do is stealth wealth stealing and hope no one notices it until it dies off. They extend the charade with a new Fiat.
Chancellor on the brink of a third bailout for banks. The flood is upon us all. Are you on the #Bitcoin ark yet?
Crime statistics stand as irrefutable pillars of truth, drawn from meticulously documented police reports, arrests, and victim surveys compiled by agencies like the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics, offering a clear lens into societal realities without bias or agenda. For instance, data reveals that Black males aged 14-49, comprising just 3% of the U.S. population, are responsible for 43% of all murders, a stark disparity rooted in verifiable trends from 1980-2008 and echoed in more recent FBI Uniform Crime Reports showing Black offenders accounting for over 50% of homicides despite being 13% of the population. These numbers aren't fabricated; they're cross-verified through methods like the Supplementary Homicide Reports and National Crime Victimization Survey, exposing patterns that demand attention rather than denial, such as the overrepresentation in violent crimes that persists across decades and guides effective policy when embraced honestly.
Yet, governments and officials often undermine this objectivity by manipulating data or reshaping narratives to fit political ideologies, eroding public trust and hindering real solutions. Examples abound, from the Biden administration's claims of historic crime lows based on selective FBI stats later criticized as misleading, to investigations into D.C. police allegedly altering felony classifications to downplay crime rates, and New York PD's documented pressure on officers to underreport incidents for favorable optics. Such efforts, often driven by a reluctance to address uncomfortable racial disparities, only perpetuate cycles of violence by diverting focus from root causes like socioeconomic factors and urban decay, proving that twisting the truth serves no one and stalls progress toward safer communities.
A thread on three letter agencies and their subordination to political narratives👇
Lip reading, often portrayed in media as a foolproof method for deciphering spoken words from visual cues alone, falls far short of reliability when used as primary evidence in criminal cases. The human mouth produces visually similar movements for numerous words and sounds—consider how "pat," "bat," and "mat" appear nearly identical on the lips—leading to error rates that can exceed 50% even among trained professionals. Factors such as poor lighting, camera angles, facial obstructions like beards or masks, accents, or rapid speech further exacerbate inaccuracies, turning what might seem like clear footage into a guessing game. Studies from organizations like the National Deaf Children's Society highlight that lip reading is context-dependent and subjective, with interpreters potentially injecting unconscious bias or misinterpreting non-verbal cues, rendering it unsuitable as standalone proof of guilt in high-stakes legal proceedings.
In courtrooms, where evidence must meet rigorous standards of admissibility and scientific validity, relying on lip reading as the main pillar of a prosecution risks miscarriages of justice. Legal precedents, such as those in U.S. cases invoking the Daubert standard, emphasize that expert testimony must be based on testable, peer-reviewed methods with known error rates—criteria lip reading often fails to satisfy due to its interpretive nature and lack of standardization. Courts in the UK and elsewhere have similarly dismissed or heavily scrutinized lip reading evidence, noting its vulnerability to challenge and the potential for alternative explanations. Ultimately, elevating such a flawed technique to primary status undermines the principle of "beyond a reasonable doubt," inviting appeals, wrongful convictions, and eroded public trust in the justice system; it should instead serve, at best, as corroborative support alongside more robust forensic or auditory evidence.
In the shadowed annals of empire, the invasion of Iraq revealed the blueprint: invent an existential threat, amplify it through every megaphone of power, then unleash hell under the banner of salvation. Weapons of mass destruction—those ghostly specters that never materialized—served as the perfect phantom, terrifying enough to silence dissent yet vague enough to evade accountability when the lie collapsed. The true prize was never aluminum tubes or yellowcake; it was the second-largest proven oil reserves on Earth, waiting to be liberated from a dictator and delivered into the hands of Western corporations. The war was sold as a moral crusade, but the receipts came later in the form of no-bid contracts and decades of guaranteed crude flowing through friendly pipelines.
Venezuela now stands in the crosshairs of the same script, only the boogeyman has been rebranded for a new century. Where once we feared mushroom clouds, we are now instructed to tremble before weapons of mass intoxication—tons of cocaine allegedly funneled through Caracas by a regime painted as the kingpin of global narco-terrorism. The opioid crisis ravaging American towns becomes the emotional battering ram, the humanitarian catastrophe of Venezuelan migrants the moral veneer, while the real objective glitters beneath the Orinoco Belt: the largest oil reserves on the planet, currently outside the grip of ExxonMobil and Chevron. The pattern is identical—demonize, destabilize, invade or install a compliant regime—only this time the pretext is not yellowcake but white powder, and the war will be waged not with tanks rolling across the desert but with sanctions, proxy forces, and perhaps, when the moment is ripe, a "limited intervention" to stop the drugs and secure the wells. History does not repeat; it simply changes costumes.
MOST OF EUROPE HAS DEVOLVED INTO AN ORWELLIAN DYSTOPIA PRIORITIZING IMMIGRANTS OVER CITIZENS, PRIORITIZING CENSORSHIP AND TYRANNY OVER FREE SPEECH
Britain's justice system has become a grotesque betrayal of its own people, prioritizing the leniency of foreign criminals over the safety and dignity of native citizens. In cases where migrants commit heinous acts like assaulting vulnerable young girls, courts hand down sentences that are laughably mild, often mere slaps on the wrist that allow perpetrators to roam free far too soon. Meanwhile, ordinary Brits who dare to protest against this influx of danger—standing up for their communities and demanding accountability—are slammed with harsher punishments, locked away for longer periods as if their righteous anger is the real crime. This inverted priority exposes a government more concerned with appeasing international optics and virtue-signaling tolerance than protecting the innocent, leaving families shattered and streets unsafe while rewarding those who prey on the weak.
By shielding immigrant offenders with soft sentencing and aggressive policing of dissent, Britain has effectively sided with the predators, eroding the social contract that once promised security and justice for all. Citizens watch in horror as resources pour into housing and supporting migrants, even those with criminal records, while victims of their violence receive scant support or closure. This systemic failure fosters a culture of fear and resentment, where the rule of law bends to multicultural mandates rather than upholding the rights of the law-abiding majority. In doing so, the nation not only fails its people but actively undermines their trust, paving the way for deeper divisions and a society where native lives seem expendable in the name of misguided compassion.