Now Was That, Then Is This

Or something like that.

A while back, in the commentary to a previous blog post, a particularly curmudgeonly and belligerent screen name, PailiP, advised me to update my memes in regard to something I wrote with which he/she/it disagreed. It was an ironic admonition since this arrogantly rigid commentator obviously hadn’t updated his/her/its memeware in quite some time, if ever. It did make me reflect for a moment if I had upgraded my own recently, and after thoughtful reflection I determined that I’m updating my memes regularly. But how can you prove that to anyone but yourself without some outward manifestation like an essay from a former time period? Well, you can’t really. Any interested parties, if there are any, will just have to take your word for it absent a physical manifestation outside the confines of your brain. Thankfully, I happen to have that outward proof in the form of an essay I penned over ten years prior just subsequent to the invasion of Iraq. See, I was dead-set against the imminent invasion regardless of the official justifications. And at the time, even though I didn’t believe the bullshit about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction, I did believe one of the ulterior motives was to bring Western-style mass consumption in the form of Democracy to Iraq. A couple of years subsequent to writing the essay, I gladly discarded that wayward notion. In fact, I no longer believe at least fifty percent or more of what I wrote in that essay, but much of it still does ring true, most importantly the sentiment.

I will post the essay shortly, but I want to clarify a few things before I do. First, as you’ll see from the essay, I opposed the invasion of Iraq, so when provocateurs who pretend to be legitimate critics of the American and Western establishment use the word “we” to decry all said establishment does, I take umbrage. There is no “we,” but if there was one, I’m certainly not included in that group, and don’t hand me that crap that if you’re a taxpaying citizen of the West, you’re part of the “we.” That’s horseshit. As a taxpayer, you’re coerced by the full force of law to hand over a portion of your salary to the government. You have no say in this except through so-called political representatives who represent everything and anything but you even up to and including foreign powers. I was not consulted in the decision-making process leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Had I been, perhaps there wouldn’t have been an invasion and oil would now be priced at $25/barrel with the notion of tar sands someone’s idea of a bad joke. You also were not consulted. My opinion wasn’t considered. In fact, no one’s organic, independently-derived opinion was considered, outside a relatively small circle of people, in the decision to invade Iraq. Opinions aren’t solicited in these matters, they’re manufactured for the majority as tacit consent. There is no organic “we.” It’s a fabrication — manufactured by the PR firms that create our realities at an ever-increasing pace. Now that I’ve mentioned it, keep a sharp eye out for the use of “we” by these dirtbag provocateurs disguised as “activists.” They’re at Moon of Alabama, Ian Welsh’s blog — you name it, they’re all over the place, but they’re especially prominent in the alternative media where they can take advantage of naive, young rebellious types trying to figure it all out but just wading into the abyss of so-called enlightenment for the first time. The provocateurs’ goal is to lay the hegemonic guilt of imperialism at the feet of those who had no part or say. And these naive dolts lap it up because they’re looking for guilt in all the wrong places. They are guilty, just not of that. They’re guilty of seeking guilt. It’s true, some people like to be guilty and search it out. Once a few do, it becomes trendy and it catches on, and before you know it it’s cool and hip to feel collective guilt for something you had no part in. I mean, why not? If everything else goes these days, so too should collective guilt trips. Fine, if that’s your thing, but I’m not part of your delusional and fetishistic “we” you freaks. If you want to be flogged so badly, take your guilt caravan to Iran and protest for LGBT rights and you’ll get that flogging you think you deserve. Or take your guilt caravan to Russia and protest for gay rights and the Cossacks will deservedly (by your insane standards) beat you black and blue, and maybe, if you’re lucky, they’ll leave welt marks. Wouldn’t that be swell (haha)?

This “we” issue was brought up recently by a commentator over at Moon of Alabama blog, so it’s been fresh on my mind, although I’ve run across it before, and have observed it repeatedly over the years, and commented on it in the past, in my internet travels which have been both far and wide. Here’s what I said at MOA about “we” (or is it Oui — or maybe both?):

It’s genocidal set-up when these provocateurs use the “we.” Believe me, I’ve brought this up numerous times and they just ignore you and continue to say “we” regardless of how cogent your argument is. When a commentator refuses to acknowledge it and continues on with the same spiel, you know their purpose. They are propagandists engaging in subterfuge.

You are correct, there is no “we.” In fact, if you think about it, by using the “we,” they are taking the spotlight away from those who are responsible for this strategy of carnage across the globe, and instead disseminating that True Guilt to a collective of the unwitting and irresponsible. They are providing cover and amnesty for the True Perps by transferring the sentence to those who were never consulted but whose name was used involuntarily.

Second, as you read the essay, you will note, if you’ve been following along, I’ve changed my views, or more appropriately I’ve updated my memeware, substantially since 2003 when I typed the essay. For example, I no longer believe nuclear conflagration is a distinct possibility, but rather an extremely remote possibility. I do still believe there is a Clash of Civilizations but that’s not what’s going on in Iraq. They knew all that when making the decision to invade, so imo, there never was any intent to impose Western Civilization on the Middle East, and more specifically Iraq. In fact, we know they knew. Cheney as Vice President was The Decider when it came to foreign policy matters, not George W. Bush despite Dubya’s braggadocio he was. For proof, we need look no further than the horse’s mouth. Here’s Cheney in a 1994 interview discussing the decision not to go to Baghdad and take out Saddam during the first Gulf War.

This is so incredibly damning to any official reasoning for Gulf War II, and yet so very few allude to it or use this as an exhibit in their arguments, instead opting for the convenient “incompetent hubris” reasoning — if you can call it reasoning — and you can’t, in my opinion.

I want to clarify that just because I’ve changed my views since the essay (it’s coming, I promise), it doesn’t mean the history and entirety of my views are likened to a pendulum that now has swung to the far “Right” and become Fascist and Imperialist. Hardly. I’m not a clock and my perspective isn’t a pendulum. Just because I’ve become a full-time, equal opportunity critic of any and all things, but most especially a critic of critics and a critic of avant-garde  criticism, that doesn’t make me a Fascist, it just means I’m not a team player. When it comes to pure objective criticism, or as pure as is possible, team play is a hindrance, hence I seek no alliance and eschew the notion of followers and fans. I will dance to no man’s fiddle, not even my own, although I do play my fiddle on occasion with increasingly less frequency as I age. I bring this up because a slime ball far “Left” creepy provocateur over at Moon of Alabama called me an imperialist and a Fascist in the commentary to b’s most recent blog post here. Here’s the freak’s comment:

Cold, don’t slime on me. Reading most of your posts I see that you are very close to fascist and us-imperialist thinking, not independent like the “War against War” text requires from you

Posted by: thomas | Jun 18, 2014 6:37:56 PM | 94

This dirtbag’s retort was in reply to a positive comment I made about the following quoted copy & paste provided by this smarmy interlocutor:

All said what’s need to be said, be it in Ukraine, Iraq, Syria or anywhere else:

War against war!
Statement of leftists and anarchists on the confrontation in Ukraine

In the ongoing conflict, we support neither Ukrainian government nor pro-Russian factions that established their authority on the portion of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts. The working class (i.e. everyone who has neither power nor capital) is equally alien both to the concept of ​​unitary Ukraine and to the ideas of ​​”federalization” or creation of new states — these are merely the games of politicians, drawing blood from ordinary people. We, the left and the anarchists, should primarily adhere to the needs of the working class in the war-torn regions of Ukraine, protect their rights and freedoms.

Against LPR and DPR!

Donetsk and Luhansk “people’s republics” are a collection of warring right-wing juntas. Rights and freedoms, which are granted to the rest of Ukraine, are not available in the territories under their control. Public manifestation of political dissent is not possible there; worker rights activists who criticized DPR were kidnapped and tortured. Upon preservation of these regimes the working class will be completely deprived of any opportunity to defend their legal rights. The only possible form of the “left” activity in DPR and LPR is the ritual worship of Soviet symbols, which has nothing to do with the workers’ interests.

The reactionary regimes of DPR and LPR are not interested in peaceful solution, they aim at escalating the conflict even further, which is confirmed by the promises of their leaders to “get to Kharkov”, “to Kiev” and “to Lviv”.

Against the Ukrainian government!

Ukrainian authorities profit from war contracts, send war reservists and untrained conscripts to to the frontline of the civil war, and attempt to use the protracted military conflict to strengthen their positions. Contrary to the forced rhetorics of the unity between the government and people, we must resist all attempts to curtail social guarantees, political rights and freedoms, all manifestations of police and military violence, all the incitement of nationalist and religious prejudice among soldiers and common people. For the ruling class, war is the opportunity of a crackdown in political and social spheres. In struggle against the aggression of Putin’s regime and his satellites, Ukrainians should not neglect the danger of a “Putin” who can emerge in their own country.

After their victory over the “separatists”, whose position is doomed without the external military support, the strengthened Kiev regime will once again become a major threat to the working class. If the oppressed unite with the ruling class under the patriotic banners, the crackdown on human rights and freedoms, which was to be avoided by the Maidan, is inevitable under the new government. Parliament is comprised of the representatives of conservative and far-right parties (“Batkivshyna”, “Svoboda”), which had repeatedly sponsored obscurantist bills – in particular, the restitution of death penalty, restriction of reproductive rights, preventive arrests on political motives; the charters of these parties contain appeals to ban political strikes. In many of the initiatives they mimic such of the Putin’s regime, of the Party of Regions or of the Communist Party. Despite their plummeting ratings, such rhetorics are perceived as a legitimate part of the political field.

Against fascists on both sides of the frontline!

We unhesitatingly oppose the legitimization of ultra-nationalist and criminal groups as members of the “anti-terrorist operation”. However, we should note that among those fighting on the other side are the volunteers from European fascist organizations and the ultra-reactionaries from Russia, and pro-Kremlin propaganda only portrays them as “anti-fascist warriors”.

Against war incitement under the guise of pacifism!

We are equally disgusted by saber rattling and cheering the killing of enemies, on the one side, and by pseudo-pacifist speculations of the people directly responsible for the escalation of violence, on the other. Pacifism is neither compatible with the backing of the “New Russia” regimes or expressing any kind of sympathy towards them, nor with the support of Ukrainian militarism.

Against lies and propaganda from all sides!

Information space and the media have become a genuine battlefield, the people of Ukraine and Russia are being fed opposite in content but equally spurious propaganda that strengthens militancy on both sides of the conflict and sets workers on against other; this allows governments to channel social discontent into a safe direction. Therefore, it is important not to follow the crowd, which is pleased to receive the news it wants to hear, but to keep a sober mind and stay true to our principles. Only time will help to reconstruct the events truthfully.

For the development of the labor movement!

The working class in Ukraine is still in its infancy and is does not take part in the conflict as a subject. We need to formulate and defend the social agenda and help the development of organizations that express the interests of workers. Only a strong labor movement that realizes its interests will be able to establish peace in Ukraine.

We oppose involuntary military service, and demand to end the conscription and release all soldiers who do not want to fight.

We support the campaign of aiding internally displaced persons from the war-torn regions, and we are ready to support deserters and conscripts who evade service on ethical and political grounds. AWU-Kharkiv already runs a campaign to support the internally displaced people in its area – we urge all libertarians and left to join in or do the same in their areas.

We express our support and solidarity with the workers’ and trade union initiatives that fight for their labor rights; we are ready to actively support those who are struggling against DPR and LPR from the class standpoint. They are in a much more serious danger today than activists from Central and Western Ukraine.

No war but the class war!
You may sign this statement by sending us an email to, or by leaving a comment right here.

Posted by: thomas | Jun 18, 2014 5:36:54 PM | 84

Of course, those who know me fully expect I wouldn’t let that pass me by without some sort of comeback. I slept on the smear before replying this morning to this Ira Einhorn wannabe as follows:

The working class in Ukraine is still in its infancy

thomas the train & company pretending they’re championing friends of those who actually produce so they can grift their productivity like capitalists in cut-off jean shorts and sandals. We all know these types — troublemakers who manipulate others to do their bidding for power and control. They’re in it for the adrenaline rush from perpetual conflict regardless of the degree of said conflict. They live for “activism.” Their goal is the means. To them, there is no end, and in fact they eschew any notion of an end. The struggle must go on in perpetuity, for the struggle is what defines them and feeds their crooked, exploitative souls. Just another species of vampire is all they are. There are so many these days sucking at the trough of human potential. It’s enough to make you cry if you’re a sentimental type like me.

thomas’ copy & paste had one thing right with which I agree, but the authors deviously chose to insert themselves in lieu of pro-Western Kiev and pro-Russian Separatists under the not-so-clever cover of workers’ anarchy. Rule number one — if someone or something refers to you as a “worker,” you know they don’t have your best interests at heart no matter how many sweet nothings they whisper in your ear. To them “worker” = “beast of burden” — something to be driven or ridden.

No more “workers” and no more “work.” Any true Anarchist (there aren’t any, by the way) would never describe themselves or others as “workers.” Huge Red Flag thomas has presented with his copy & paste, but that’s to be expected from a slime ball who’s motivation is to further exploit the gravely exploited.

And if you don’t like what I’ve said here, thomas, sue me as is your wont and like the good Anarchist you are. Anarchists using the establishment to thwart other marks of the establishment. If that’s not an indication that reality is now satire, nothing is. By the way, thomas, how’s your lawsuit against b coming? Did your lawyer reach out and set b straight after your threats? Lawyered-up Anarchists — what’s not to love? Too funny.

People are crazy. Civilization is insane. Reality is satire and any attempts at satire are redundant at best. But I have nothing better to do, so I’ll be redundant when I’m not playing my fiddle.

Alright, I know you’ve all been waiting anxiously for this essay, so without further adieu, here it is. As you read it, tell me you don’t love the smell of Imperialism/Fascism in the morning.

The Last Crusade

The concept of Materialism is an extremely appropriate, and I would say urgent topic, considering the serious issues currently confronting Man and the Globe. I believe the topic lends itself to a multi-faceted analysis, however, I will limit my discussion to the facets that appear to me to be the most crucial and pertinent.

Materialism, the word itself, in my opinion is somewhat of a misnomer in that Material refers to something concrete, physically identifiable, tangible and measurable. As such, the term precludes something less tangible such as services. Therefore, I feel it more appropriate to refer to the issue as Consumerism; the purchase or acquisition of wants versus needs.

It has been my observation that the discussion of this topic centers around the assumption that Consumerism has been adopted wholesale by the inhabitants of the Globe, or in the least will be, and as such the analysis of the issue proceeds according to this precept. I do not agree with this assumption/precept as a given, however, for the sake of the point I am about to make I will allow the assumption in the hypothetical. My second point will address the validity of this assumption, so hang in there.

Assuming that Consumerism is fully accepted and adopted as the way of life under the New Global Order, then I fear the implications of such will be destructively far-reaching and ultimately catastrophic. I will attempt to illustrate my point through the use of an analogy, given the disclaimer that analogies are not foolproof; nonetheless, I will do my best to come close.

Try, if you will, to envision mankind collectively as a fetus in its mother’s womb. Ideally, the mother and fetus coexist in a state of equilibrium for the entirety of the gestation period; the fetus requires exactly what the mother can provide. Suppose the fetus has a genetic defect though, a defect that alters the nourishment equilibrium and leaves the fetus yearning for more than the mother can provide; an unquenchable yearning that must be satisfied regardless of the implications.

The mother, in an attempt to quench the fetus’ insatiable nourishment requirements, diverts life- sustaining nutrients from herself to her developing offspring, thus depriving herself of vitality. The fetus’ requirements increase exponentially to the point where it is defecating in the womb. Alas, the mother can no longer provide any additional nourishment, in fact, her yield to the fetus declines precipitously, and she is on the verge of death, while the fetus wallows in a cesspool of its own excrement with an unquenchable and voracious hunger.

It is no longer receiving satisfaction from the mother so it proceeds to devour its host. It begins with the umbilical cord and proceeds to the uterine lining, consuming layer upon layer.

The mother is in physical arrest at this point, she is writhing in pain; the internal bleeding is massive and irreversible. She succumbs and in a final act of rebellious recognition, violently vomits the monstrously parasitic fetus from her ravaged and now lifeless womb.

Such is Man’s destiny if it continues to globalize the concept of Consumerism; the production and/or the delivery of wants.

As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe that Consumerism will be adopted globally despite the intentions and aspirations of the New Global Order. In fact, the resistance to such will ultimately lead to a global clash and human self-annihilation. An analogy of such could be likened to two diabolically opposed fraternal twins (two mutually exclusive Civilizations) in the mother’s womb fighting for position in the birth canal and ultimately destroying each other in the process.

I believe the current clash between many of the Arab nations and the West (exemplified by the U.S.) is a clash over ideology; that ideology being Materialism, or more appropriately Consumerism.

There is no doubt in my mind that Western Civilization is marked by, among other things, Consumerism. It is “the” way of life in The West. There is no need for me to elaborate on what is obvious, one need only turn their head about and observe to prove this point.

However, since I do not have the luxury of observation related to the Arab world, I have to rely on the observations of others; for example, T. E Lawrence.

Lawrence gives a profound (given that he was speaking to the issue in the early part of the 20th century) insight into the Arab, Semitic, Bedouin disposition, specifically as it relates to Western Materialism/Consumerism.

In his book, Seven Pillars OF Wisdom-A Triumph, Lawrence expounds as follows:

The common base of all the Semitic creeds, winners or losers, was the ever present idea of world-worthlessness. Their profound reaction from matter led them to preach bareness, renunciation, poverty; and the atmosphere of this invention stifled the minds of the desert pitilessly. A first knowledge of their sense of the purity of rarefaction was given me in early years, when we had ridden far out over the rolling plains of North Syria to a ruin of the Roman period which the Arabs believed was made by a prince of the border as a desert-palace for his queen. The clay of its building was said to have been kneaded for greater richness, not with water, but with the precious essential oils of flowers. My guides, sniffing the air like dogs, led me from crumbling room to room, saying, “This is jessamine, this violet, this rose.”

But at last Dahoum drew me: “Come and smell the very sweetest scent of all”, and we went into the main lodging, to the gaping window sockets of its eastern face, and there drank with open mouths of the effortless, empty, eddyless wind of the desert, throbbing past. That slow breath had been born somewhere beyond the distant Euphrates and had dragged its way across many days and nights of dead grass, to its first obstacle, the man-made walls of our broken palace. About them it appeared to fret and linger, murmuring in baby-speech. “This,” they told me, “is the best; it has no taste.” My Arabs were turning their backs on perfumes and luxuries to choose the things in which mankind had had no share or part.

Western civilization cannot buy the Arab world. We may think we can, witnessed by the various puppet governments placed in power and kept in power by the Western Multinational Corporations, however, that device is only temporary, and we are beginning to see the dismantling of it before our very eyes. The Royal families and the Puppet dictatorships of the Arab world are not a true representation of the Arab people. The renunciation of Materialism/Consumerism is woven into the life-breathing fabric of Arabs. Conversion, considering this pretext, is impossible.

One might well say, “nonsense, look at the Royal families of Saudi Arabia and Jordan.” I would say, “yes, let us look at them. They appear to me to be irresponsible and contradictory individuals according to Western logic. Their life of opulence is a conflict for them and their erratic behavior exemplifies this.”

T.E Lawrence writes:

To live, the villager or townsman must fill himself each day with the pleasures of acquisition and accumulation, and by rebound off circumstances become the grossest and most material of men. The shining contempt of life, which led others into the barest asceticism, drove him to despair. He squandered himself heedlessly, as a spendthrift: ran through his inheritance of flesh in a hasty longing for the end — the Semite hovered between lust and self-denial.

So you see, the Arabs are not at peace, at home, amongst Materialism/Consumerism, and as such, will ultimately squander their fortune due to an un-conscience longing to return to worthlessness.

What we are seeing now, in the resurgence of fundamentalist Islam, is not so much a religious revival, as much as a Cultural revival. According to Lawrence, these revivals have come in waves as follows:

Since the dawn of life, in successive waves they had been dashing themselves against the coasts of flesh. Each wave was broken, but, like the sea wore away ever so little of the granite on which it failed, and some day, ages yet, might roll unchecked over the place where the material world had been, and god would move upon the face of those waters. On such wave (and not the least) I raised and rolled before the breath of an idea, till it reached its crest, and toppled over and fell in Damascus. The wash of that wave, thrown back by the resistance of vested things, will provide the matter of the following wave, when in fullness time the sea shall be raised once more.

Lawrence experienced a wave that predicated his novel. There have been waves since, and, I believe, we are in the midst of a wave right now; a tidal wave of astronomical proportions. One that may perhaps strip the granite clean in one fell swoop and clear the Earth of Materialism/Consumerism once and for all. Of course, Mankind would be a casualty, leaving only Purity (God).

T. E. Lawrence, when he mentioned, “ages yet,” obviously had no knowledge of nuclear weaponry. With the advent of such, and his knowledge thereof, I’m certain he would have asserted “years yet.”


38 thoughts on “Now Was That, Then Is This

  1. “That’s horse shit.” – Catcher

    Seeing as how these Catcher in the Lie essays are sooo long I’ve decided on a new method of commenting. Instead of trying to read the whole thing and then go back and try to find the comment-worthy items I had mentally checked off I will simply stop in mid-stream and make my comment. Then, as another item presents itself I’ll stop and comment on that.

    So, first thing up is “horse shit.” My huge (4″ thick, 12 lb) Random House Dictionary says horse shit, in the sense that you used it, is one word, “horseshit,” not two. I’m sure there are instances in which two words are appropriate, for example, Question: What kind of shit is that I see on the road? Response: I believe it is horse shit.

    • Ironically, or not, I had it as horseshit (all one word) at first, but the WordPress spell-check, which I hardly ever rely on, underlined it in red connoting it was in error, so without checking I changed it to two words. I usually use bullshit, but since this is a post about changing your views and ways, I thought horseshit would be in the spirit of it. Thanks for catching the error. I’ll wait for all your corrections before making any so I can efficiently accomplish the task in one fell swoop.

  2. “Or take your guilt caravan to Russia and protest gay rights…” – Catcher

    Perhaps, protest [against] gay rights would be more accurate.

    • Another good catch. Yes, it should be qualified whether the protest is for or against gay rights. Yes, I know, the word protest naturally implies you’re against something but its use these days is for any form of activism.

      In this case, it would be “protest for gay rights…” since the target of my criticism is “Left” and far “Left” groupies jumping on any bandwagon that comes along just so they can belong. If membership requires they wear a guilt hair shirt, all the better.

  3. “This “we” issue was brought up recently by a commentator over at Moon of Alabama blog…” – Catcher

    I have a problem as to when the term commentator is appropriate vs the word commenter. I’m sure there is no settled custom in the blog world. In my own mind the word commentator should apply to the blog owner/essayist and those commenting on the essay should be known as commenters. Thus you and Kunstler are commentators and I am a commenter.

    • It’s certainly debatable. For now, I’m going to keep it as commentator. A commentator, at least according to the following link, is someone who comments exhaustively — commenting is what they do. Commenting about grammar is what you do. You, therefore, are a grammar commentator. Just because you don’t operate your own blog, at least to my knowledge you don’t, doesn’t mean you’re not worthy of the title of commentator. Same goes for the “thomas” pestilence at Moon of Alabama blog — he/she/it provides ongoing commentary about suing people for anti-Semitism, thus he/she/it is a commentator.

      Commentator vs. Commenter

      A commenter is someone who makes isolated comments. These days, the word most often refers to people who post comments on blogs and news websites. A commentator is someone who provides commentary. The term usually applies to professionals in sports broadcasting or television news. Commentators don’t just make one comment; commenting is what they do.

      The difference between these words corresponds to the difference between a comment and commentary. A comment is an isolated remark, while a commentary is a series of remarks, explanations, and interpretations.

  4. If for no other reason than consistency you need to settle on whether it’s “dirt bag” or “dirtbag.” You have used both. Random House has neither in it (my edition is quite old). For what it’s worth, I favor dirtbag.

    • I agree. I hereby commit to “dirtbag” versus “dirt bag” from here on out until further notice. Did I use it two different ways in this blog post? I’ve read it (this blog post) over so many times now, I don’t have the motivation to go through it again.

      Tell me when you’ve completed your review so I can go all “fell swoop” on this latest.

      And thank you once again for helping me, even though there is no me or you, be all I can be. You’re like a brother to me, or in the least an Ed McMahon (I just recently realized he died not too long ago in 2009 — I thought he died back in the late 1980’s) to my Johnny Carson — another Philly Boy (McMahon), or at least he spent time developing his career in Philadelphia. I wonder if Rizzo considered McMahon and Carson lushes? I bet he overlooked their drinking because they made him unwittingly laugh at himself.

      • “I’ve read it (this blog post) over so many times now, I don’t have the motivation to go through it again.” – Catch

        Here is a trick I learned from somebody (Prog, I think) over at CFN. It works in Internet Explorer; I don’t know about other browsers (if “browser” is even the correct term):

        In the upper left portion of the screen, displayed horizontally, are the words File Edit View Favorites…etc. Click on Edit and go to the last item in the drop down box, “Find on this page…” Click on it and a box will appear for you to type into. Type in “Dirt” and it will automatically find and highlight every instance of “Dirt” appearing in your entire blog post and all the comments. You can zero in even more by typing “dirt bag” or “dirtbag.” I have found this Find tool to be invaluable.

  5. “… with an unquenchable and veracious hunger.” – Catch


    Note: There is a word “veracious” but its meaning doesn’t fit here at all.

  6. “…violently vomits the monstrously parasitic fetus from the now her decimated and now lifeless womb.” – Catch

    …parasitic fetus from her decimated and now lifeless womb.

  7. “Such is Man’s destiny if it continue to globalize the concept” – Catch


  8. “The renunciation of Materialism/Consumerism is woven into the life-breathing fabric of Arabs. Conversion, considering this pretext, is impossible.” – Catch

    I disagree.

    Perhaps it was true when Lawrence wrote but no longer. The Arab world has been inundated by the West via TV if not in the products of materialism themselves. They see and want what is out there and what is possible. They are thwarted only by poverty. In any photo of Arab street people there is a young man wearing a NY Yankees ball cap, holding an iPhone to his ear. Visit Dubai.

    **I** am more of an ascetic than your typical Arab youth.

    • Dubai is an abomination and will resemble that abandoned castle Lawrence mentioned, the walls of which were constructed with bricks kneaded with the oily essence of jasmine and rose. Read the entire essay. I address your objection. Lawrence addresses it and his assertion based on his observations is as applicable today as it was nearly a hundred years prior. Semites may be enticed and drawn to Western materialism, and even engage in it and embrace it, but they are not at home in and with it. They can’t handle it, and so they “squander themselves heedlessly, as spendthrifts: running through their inheritance of flesh in a hasty longing for the end — hovering between lust and self-denial” like the Semites they are.

      You say visit Dubai. Have you visited? If so, how odd. It’s not the first place on my list. In fact, it’s not on my list of places to visit, although I have seen it on video. I’m not impressed. A place that forbids booze and drugs is a place I have no interest in.

      I have another travel suggestion. Visit Mosul. Visit Tikrit. Visit Fallujah. They’re more representative of the Semitic disposition to which Lawrence speaks just updated to Version 2014 but essentially the same program with a few more bells and whistles.

      • “You say visit Dubai. Have you visited? If so, how odd.” – Catch

        Yes, I have visited. I have relatives thru marriage who have lived there more than 30 years. Among the small population of Arabs (~10%) who run the show (vs 90% brought in from around the world to work) you will find nary a monkish ascetic. Many wear Arab garb but are otherwise thoroughly westernized. A woman on the train, veiled and all in black, shifted her crossed legs and I saw beneath she had on blue jeans.

        I would never choose to live in Dubai if for no other reason than the heat. I checked the temp 9 days ago and after converting from C the temp was 111.8F. Street corner bus shelters are enclosed and air conditioned. They are ahead of the US in many ways….their train system is a marvel. Best of all though, every toilet has something called a “hand-held bidet.” After you poop you squirt/wash your ass, you don’t wipe. You use a small amount of toilet paper to gently dry your ass. Say goodbye to ‘roids. The first thing I did when I returned home was to buy one of these wonderful but simple devices on-line. Incredibly they are almost non-existent in stores like WalMart or Costco.

        Secondly, everything is too garish for my taste. The most beautiful architecture is their Mosques and there are hundreds of them. Figuratively speaking, one on every street corner.

        Alcohol can be had quite easily (like at the airport) it’s just not something (i.e. drinking) done publically.

      • I don’t know if you know this or not, but you were caught on camera using one of these awkward devices.

        I'll Stick With The Wipes, Thank You.

        I’ll stick with the wipes, thank you. That looks crazy. Who wants shitty water running down their hand, arm and thighs?

        I take it you wouldn’t consider Phoenix or Tucson either? The heat was the only thing? Like I said, I’ve no compulsion to visit Dubai. So, if I were invited, I’d politely refuse. I’ve never been to Vegas either, and never will go. It doesn’t interest me in the least.

      • What a shitty picture……..pun intended.

        I’ve been to both Phoenix and Vegas a couple of times, each on business. The temps were much like Dubai, between 110 – 115. Over a hundred even at night. No, I would never consider living in either. Building cities in the middle of hot deserts is insane. Dubai is somewhat different. It’s a port on the Persian Gulf. Somehow the Arabs who rule this emirate have managed to turn it into an amazing mercantile center in that part of the world. They don’t have any oil worth mentioning so if and when they crumble it won’t be because they pumped their last drop.

  9. This asshole deleted an innocuous post I left at his blog. A mistake on his part. I now feel compelled to set my sights on him. He looks like he’s got an ego a mile wide like most academicians. Little tyrants without a kingdom — the classroom and the blog serve in lieu of it with students and readers as their subjects, respectively.

    Here’s Russell Johnson’s bio from his highly censoring website:

    “Streetwise Professor” is the web persona of me, who happens to be Craig Pirrong.* My day job (to the extent that I have a real job) is as Professor of Finance and Energy Markets Director of the Global Energy Management Institute at the Bauer College of Business, University of Houston. I have been in academia since 1989–shortly before the Ferruzzi soybean squeeze on the Chicago Board of Trade in July of that year, which was quite propitious and which had a big impact on the trajectory of my career. I have a PhD in Business Economics from the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago.

    Looking at my cv one might have a hard time identifying a common thread, but it is there. My formal training is as an industrial organization economist, but I took the PhD finance sequence at Chicago. My thesis was on an application of core theory, completed under the tutelage of a great economist, Lester Telser. I think core theory is an extremely valuable tool, but the profession is not quite so enthusiastic. During my first academic job in the Business Economics Group at the Michigan Business School, recognizing that core theory was not my road to academic success, I was casting around for a new research direction, and Ferruzzi provided it. Through a series of serendipitous events, I had the opportunity to work on a project evaluating how to re-design the Chicago Board of Trade Markets to reduce the likelihood of a repeat of the events of July, 1989. This led to many academic spinoffs.

    Specifically, the Ferruzzi episode and my work on the CBT project made me aware of many interesting points of contact between finance and IO, and much of my research has explored that nexus. I’ve written a good deal on manipulation in financial markets–manipulation is a manifestation of market power, which is a core concept in IO. Since exchanges have some legal responsibility to prevent and deter manipulation in financial markets, I became interested in the incentives that exchanges face in carrying out such tasks. This in turn required an analysis of the organization of governance of exchanges–another IO-related subject. Moreover, it soon became clear that the incentives of exchanges to adopt efficiency enhancing measures also depends on the nature of competition between them, the analysis of which resulted in several articles on the “macrostructure”–the industrial organization– of financial markets.

    Along the way, the study of commodity markets like soybeans or oil which have been manipulated from time to time sparked an interest in commodity price formation and commodity price dynamics, and their implications for derivatives pricing. My most active research in this area focuses on electricity prices and electricity derivatives, but I am also working on models applicable to storable commodities.

    My academic work has also allowed me to serve as an expert in legal cases involving commodities and derivatives.

    Outside of academia and litigation consulting my time is spent primarily with my family–my wife Terry, and my daughters Renee and Genevieve. I have a deep interest in history–particularly the history of the US Civil War–that dates back to my childhood, and that I continue to pursue through reading and travel; I would have become a historian if I had been independently wealthy. I am also a big Chicago sports fan, although I have to say that the Cubs’ persistent ineptitude is slowly draining me of my interest in baseball, and the Bulls–oy. The Blackhawks–double oy. The Bears, you say? Well, we’ll see if they’re for real or not soon.

    * The original version of this page didn’t include my name. Never really thought about it. I wrote it in haste late one night in January, 2006, and didn’t really look at it after it was originally posted. I didn’t intend for this to be an anonymous blog, and I certainly gave enough biographical and photographic evidence to let anyone interested figure out who I am. Indeed, many people figured it out, and I also gave out the blog name to a lot of folks. I’ve edited this bio page to include my name because a reporter who has interviewed me from time to time in the past came across it, and thought that the blogger sounded familiar, but wasn’t sure it was me. So, now there’s no possibility for confusion.

    He’s even got a picture of himself. Isn’t that special? He’s not too vain. The least he could have done was include the rest of the castaways from the three hour tour in the photo, but no, it’s all about him, isn’t it?

    I found this guy through PailiP. Perhaps one of the reasons I was deleted is my stance on oil prices. Notice the right side of this guy’s blog and all the commodity exchanges. They don’t like it when you rain on their Happy Happy boondoggle parade.

    I’ll tell you what, Craig Perogi. You’re front and center as the Poster Boy for the commodity price scams that are being perpetrated. It’s time to blow this thing out a little further. Thanks for the invitation. All I needed was a little motivation, and you’ve not-so-graciously accommodated that need.

    • “This [asshole] deleted an innocuous post” – Catch

      Correct. Random House agrees this slur is one word. I think we can generalize that when it comes to slurs they’re all single word: horseshit, bullshit, asshole, dirtbag, dipshit, etc. Although, come to think of it, I’m not sure about douche bag.

      • I agree. Most of these compound slurs should be one word, so let’s just one word all of them from here on out. So, douche bag is douchebag henceforth. Same goes for assfuck and slimeball. I saw shitbird used over at Moon of Alabama recently — it made me smile and it was appropriately all one word — as if the commentator was following along here and posted something similar in the spirit of our conversation.

        Perogi needs to trim that beard up — it looks a bit too unkempt, but it is in keeping with the castaway theme.

  10. Well Hell’s Bells! Apparently I just stumbled into this treasure trove of potential material that relates to some of the themes I’ve been developing at this blog. It makes more sense now why The Professor (or Russell if you prefer) deleted my post and won’t let me hyperlink to his blog. Methinks The Professor has foreknowledge about Cold N. Holefield and Catcher In The Lie. Has he been trolling? See my first blog post to help you make a speculative determination — and Perogi shouldn’t mind you speculating since he’s a well-paid advocate of speculation as the following NYT article reveals.

    Academics Who Defend Wall St. Reap Reward

    As energy companies and traders have reaped fortunes by buying and selling oil and other commodities during the recent boom in the commodity markets, Mr. Pirrong has positioned himself as the hard-nosed defender of financial speculators — the combative, occasionally acerbic academic authority to call upon when difficult questions arise in Congress and elsewhere about the multitrillion-dollar global commodities trade.

    Do financial speculators and commodity index funds drive up prices of oil and other essentials, ultimately costing consumers? Since 2006, Mr. Pirrong has written a flurry of influential letters to federal agencies arguing that the answer to that question is an emphatic no. He has testified before Congress to that effect, hosted seminars with traders and government regulators, and given countless interviews for financial publications absolving Wall Street speculation of any appreciable role in the price spikes.

    What Mr. Pirrong has routinely left out of most of his public pronouncements in favor of speculation is that he has reaped financial benefits from speculators and some of the largest players in the commodities business, The New York Times has found.

    While his university’s financial ties to speculators have been the subject of scrutiny by the news media and others, it was not until last month, after repeated requests by The Times under the Freedom of Information Act, that the University of Houston, a public institution, insisted that Mr. Pirrong submit disclosure forms that shed some light on those financial ties.

    Governments and regulatory agencies in the United States and Europe have been gradually moving to restrict speculation by major banks. The Federal Reserve, concerned about the risks, is reviewing whether it should tighten regulations and limit the activities of banks in the commodities world.

    But interviews with dozens of academics and traders, and a review of hundreds of emails and other documents involving two highly visible professors in the commodities field — Mr. Pirrong and Professor Scott H. Irwin at the University of Illinois — show how major players on Wall Street and elsewhere have been aggressive in underwriting and promoting academic work.

    The efforts by the financial players, the interviews show, are part of a sweeping campaign to beat back regulation and shape policies that affect the prices that people around the world pay for essentials like food, fuel and cotton.

    Professors Pirrong and Irwin say that industry backing did not color their opinions.

    Mr. Pirrong’s research was cited extensively by the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by Wall Street interests in 2011 that for two years has blocked the limits on speculation that had been approved by Congress as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. During that same time period, Mr. Pirrong has worked as a paid research consultant for one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, according to his disclosure form.

    While he customarily identifies himself solely as an academic, Mr. Pirrong has been compensated in the last several years by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the commodities trading house Trafigura, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and a handful of companies that speculate in energy, according to the disclosure forms.

    The disclosure forms do not require Mr. Pirrong to reveal how much money he made from his consulting work, and a university spokesman said that the university believed it was strengthened by the financial support it received from the business community. When asked about the financial benefits of his outside activities, Mr. Pirrong replied, “That’s between me and the I.R.S.”

    More at link…

  11. I am issuing a partial retraction in regard to my comments about Street Professor. As it turns out, my comments eventually did appear and he, Craig Pirrong — the blog author, left a comment telling me to chill — that the comment was in moderation. So, he didn’t delete my comment afterall, but I will say his blog software is funky and misleading. When I left the comment it showed as posted before I exited the page. When I went back in later, it wasn’t there, so it led me to believe he deleted it. Also, why turn on auto-moderation for comments? WordPress, for example, does an excellent job of weeding out spam, so if you’re hell-bent on preventing unwanted comments other than spam, delete those you find over-the-top offensive rather than throwing everyone into moderation. To do the latter is likened to an abusive parent beating all the children because one of them may act up. Come on. This isn’t Russia, so let’s not act like Russia. Shut off auto-moderation and let the comments post. You will avoid “this” if you do, and your criticism of Putin and Russia will hold greater weight. You can’t decry his methods and then engage in similar methods yourself. Free speech means uncensored commentary.

    So, Pirrong is not an asshole for deleting my comment because he apparently didn’t (even though it’s odd I couldn’t hyperlink to his blog since I’ve never encountered a refusal for hyper-linking to any other blog I’ve hyper-linked to — and I’ve hyper-linked to a multitude of them) delete my comment, but he could be an asshole for other reasons like the one I’ve provided that claims he benefits economically from defending the commodity price scam that’s being perpetrated.

    I share Pirrong’s criticism of Russia, so we may overlap on some things, but we are obviously very far apart when it comes to commodity pricing, especially oil. How anyone can defend the cretins rigging commodity prices, including and especially oil, is beyond me. It’s like defending the mafia — in fact, worse, because at least the mafia is somewhat localized and contained, at least traditionally it was, but this scam affects everyone, especially those living on the margins who are being pushed into poverty by this gouging.

    Not to mention, artificially high oil prices leverages and emboldens Putin’s Russia. Pricing oil at cost plus a reasonable profit will quickly neuter Putin’s criminal enterprise. Pirrong is engaging in a contradiction by defending price scammers and decrying Putin’s Russia. One leads to the other. Putin’s Russia is the result of oil price gouging.

    • “Also, why turn on auto-moderation for comments.

      in fact, worse, because at least the mafia is somewhat localized and contained, at least traditionally it was, but this scam effects everyone, ” – Catch

      When I got my email advising there was a new comment to your latest essay I read it and found two errors (a period instead of a question mark and “effect” which should have been “affect”). I clicked on REPLY and a revised version of your comment appeared in which you had corrected both errors.

      Whuts up wit dat?

    • “…we are obviously very far apart when it comes to commodity pricing, especially oil.

      …those living on the margins who are being pushed into poverty by this gouging.” – Catch

      Why is it your assumption (and the assumption of everyone) that commodity prices are manipulated and always toward higher prices? The only exception seems to be in PMs (precious metals), namely gold and silver. There, as any reading of Kunstler will confirm, the opposite is true….. prices, which any damn fool can see should be going up, are being held/pushed down… or so the complaint goes. Nothing is ever legit.

      This reminds me of the barflies at the Bottle and Cork that I wrote about the other day. Any sports event that they had a bet on that did not turn out as they foresaw it had to have been fixed.

      You and others in the markets-are-rigged crowd should keep in mind that in commodity trading (99% of which is being done by professionals) for every buy transaction there is someone on the other side selling.

      • Why is it your assumption that what you have said is my assumption let alone everyone’s assumption?

        I have asserted that it goes beyond speculation. Speculation involves risk. Those trading, because of deregulation back at the turn of the millenium, don’t have to take delivery of the commodity, although many do. But it’s the ones who don’t who are driving the price points and those price points are higher than supply and demand dictate. That’s gouging. They drive it, or try to at least, to the edge of the elasticity envelope and beyond. It’s essentially price setting, not speculation. Setting it unnecessarily high is great for the seller and a backdoor tax to consumers in the form of higher product prices. The corporations that turn the commodities into products certainly aren’t absorbing the higher commodity prices and netting the additional cost against profit. They’re passing it along to the consumer. Once the price is set high, there can be vacillation up and down, but even when the price dips from previous highs, it’s still too high and invariably it jumps back up and reaches a new price plateau before too long. Shorting by these gamers can account for fluctuating dips, but notice the price doesn’t dip too low. Everyone else follows along swept up by those creating the wave.

        Also, hardly anyone believes the oil price is being manipulated. The propaganda about Peak Oil has worked marvelously in this regard as has the perpetual conflict in the Middle East. It’s cover for manipulative gouging.

        Explain this chart, Q. Shtik. Tell us the slope of commodity prices since the turn of the millenium. It’s pretty damn steep and it coincides perfectly with deregulation. It’s not a coincidence.

      • “Why is it your assumption that what you have said is my assumption let alone everyone’s assumption?” – Catch

        I can’t think of anyone, yourself included, who doesn’t think every facet of life is fixed….except me. Nothing is legit.

      • At least provide a chart as support for your “fixed” view like I did. I see you’re not budging as is your wont. You’re “fixed” in your views.

        I take it you think Pro Wrestling is legit and on the up and up. Whatever floats your boat. Your mentality is the key to longevity, so if you want to live to eighty-five or ninety, stay “fixed.” I have no doubt you will. You haven’t disappointed yet.

  12. To make my position clear, once again, commodity futures should only be traded by parties who have a vested interest, meaning the supplier of the commodity and the purchaser of the commodity who will then transform it via manufacturing. It should never have been deregulated, and in fact should have been more heavily regulated. Commodities, because they are necessities of life, are too risky to leave in the hands of financial barracudas. My beef with Kunstler is that he implies all other commodities are manipulated/rigged except oil. I make no exception for oil. The following article outlines clearly how it’s done. If you can’t see that this is price rigging/fixing, Q. Shtik, you’re blind. It’s clearer than a clear day.

    Market Dominance

    Quite apart from the potential risk that taxpayers may have to bail out a big bank on the wrong end of a speculative bet, there is clear proof of a greater actual damage that is occurring today. We are all suffering presently and mightily because of how JPMorgan and others conduct their proprietary trading in commodities. These big banks are not interested in trading commodities like any other market participant; instead their modus operandi is not just to trade in, but to dominate markets. This is my key point – JPMorgan’s intent and culture is to be the leader, to be number one, in any business activity in which it is involved. Being number one and dominating a particular business space may be fine in activities like investment banking and issuing credit cards, but the problem with this intent in commodity markets is that market dominance equals price control and manipulation.

    There is no justification for there to be market dominance in any commodity market. In fact, this is the whole point in having commodity law and a commodity regulator, namely, to prevent dominance by any one entity. I’ve used the word “concentration” endlessly and that’s just another word for dominance. If you allow concentrated holdings and little real competition, you invite price-fixing. This is the problem with the concentrated ownership of metal warehouses, but it is even a bigger problem in our regulated futures markets, where concentration and market dominance are verifiable.

    The enactment of legitimate speculative position limits would eliminate and prevent concentration and market dominance (as I’ve advocated for decades) and it should be no secret that those who hold concentrated and market dominant positions, like JPMorgan, have killed any prospect of legitimate position limits ever coming into existence. If you held a dominant market position that enabled you to control prices and your own profits, wouldn’t you fight to keep that control?

    Let’s face it – if I’m going to accuse JPMorgan of concentration and market dominance (and, therefore, of manipulation), I’d better be specific and accurate. In the past, I’ve pointed out JPMorgan’s concentrated short position in COMEX silver futures which had reached over 40% of the total net open interest a few years back. Back then, CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton verified my findings publicly, but has since retreated from his past statements. So let me update my COMEX silver concentration findings and include specific data on COMEX gold.

    In the CFTC’s Commitments of Traders (COT) and Bank Participation Reports of February 5, my analysis indicates that JPMorgan held a net short position of 35,000 contracts in COMEX silver futures. Once 50,000 spread positions are removed from the total open interest of 151,512 contracts (to arrive at true net open interest), JPMorgan held 34.5% of the short side of COMEX silver on Feb 5, little real reduction from the 40% that Commissioner Chilton confirmed years before.

    Please allow me to state the obvious – JPMorgan held a manipulative share of the silver market on Feb 5 and that controlling and dominant market share was primarily responsible for the fall in silver prices from $32 on that date to a recent low of $18 and change. For those keeping score, JPMorgan’s historic rigging of the silver price lower enabled the bank to reduce its share on the short side to less than 15% of total current COMEX net open interest. Certainly if I am misstating anything, I call on the CFTC or JPMorgan (or anyone else) to correct the record.

    I’ve been writing a lot about JPMorgan’s COMEX gold position recently and I thought it might be instructive to talk about the bank’s concentrated and dominant market share of that market. On February 5, JPMorgan was net short around 50,000 COMEX gold contracts, with the price of gold at $1670. After removing approximately 70,000 spread positions from total gold open interest of 423,982 contracts on that date, there was a true net open interest on Feb 5 of 354,000 contracts. Therefore, JPMorgan short position of 50,000 contracts (or more) made up 14% of the entire short side of COMEX gold futures on a true net basis on Feb 5.

    A 14% share of a market may not sound like much after I just stated that JPMorgan had held a 34.5% share of the silver market on Feb 5, but silver is very special when it comes to being manipulated in both level of degree and longevity. It would be a mistake to underemphasize the significance of a 14% net market share in any regulated futures market, especially one as large as COMEX gold futures with a total notional value of more than $50 billion. Let me return to the significance of such large percentages of concentration and market share dominance in a moment. First, let’s look at JPMorgan’s current long COMEX gold position.

    Based upon the most recent COT report, as of July 16, I estimate JPMorgan’s net long position in COMEX gold futures to be 75,000 contracts. After subtracting 77,000 spread positions from total open interest of 440,283 contracts, true net open interest in COMEX gold futures is just over 363,000 contracts. Therefore, JPMorgan’s 75,000 contract net long position represents more than 20% of the entire COMEX gold futures market on the long side. First, JPMorgan had a 14% market share on the short side and now they flipped that into a 20% share of the long side, as a result of JPMorgan manipulating the price of gold nearly $500 lower. These are extraordinary and dominant market shares and unprecedented price rigs to the downside. To not see them as cause and effect is to miss the obvious.

    To get a perspective of market shares of 34.5%, 14% and 20%, you must measure them against some objective barometer. I would suggest using the CFTC’s own formula for position limits as the barometer. The formula (10% of the first 25,000 of open interest, plus 2.5% of the remaining open interest) would call for a position limit in silver of around 5200 contracts in silver, and not the 35,000 contracts held by JPM on Feb 5 or the 14,000 contracts that JPMorgan holds net short now in silver. In gold, the CFTC’s formula would call for a position limit of 12,875 contracts and not the 75,000 that JPMorgan holds long now. Expressed in percentage terms, the CFTC’s formula in gold would call for any one trader to hold not more than 2.9% of the COMEX gold futures market, yet JPMorgan currently holds 20% on the long side.

    If you can remember back three years ago, I was bitterly disappointed when the CFTC devised their formula for position limits. Many thousands of public comments were sent to the Commission at my urging asking that 1500 contracts or 1% (of the entire COMEX market or of total world production) be the proper formula in silver. Not only was the base rate of the formula two and a half times greater than the proper 1%, adding the much larger 10% provision on the first 25,000 contracts of open interest, artificially raised the effective rate to 5% for smaller open interest markets like silver. By the way, this provision was provided by the CME Group and was readily accepted by the CFTC.

    As it turned out, I should have saved my disappointment for the eventuality that even the much larger 5% position limit in silver was too restrictive for the CME and JPMorgan. In the end, the enactment of position limits approved by the CFTC in conjunction with the Dodd-Frank Act was disallowed after legal action sponsored by JPMorgan. Now you know why we don’t have position limits – because it would limit JPMorgan’s manipulative hold on the market.

    But by being specific and clear, I am hopeful that the current scrutiny being placed upon the big banks for their dealings in commodities might focus on the real issue – market dominance. This is the key issue and it has gone unstated until now. According to the CFTC’s own proposed formula, no one trader should hold more than 3% in COMEX gold futures, yet JPMorgan holds 20% currently. Why is that allowed? Years ago, the CFTC was successful in alleging manipulation in the copper market by a trader from Sumitomo called “Mr. 5%” for his share of the market. What should we call JPMorgan – “Sir 20%” or “Your Highness 34.5%”?

    The important point is that my analysis is based upon publicly available data from the CFTC. That data indicate that JPMorgan holds an unnaturally large and dominant share of the gold and silver markets based upon any objective measure. Of course, a 20% or larger market share is not unnatural from JPMorgan’s perspective or culture and, quite frankly, that is the problem. JPMorgan is only doing in the commodities market what it does in its other lines of business. But what it does elsewhere is manipulation in the commodities market.

    Some may question whether I should even raise the issue of JPMorgan holding such a large concentrated and dominant long position in COMEX gold for fear its forced disposal might pressure gold prices. I understand those concerns, but as an analyst it would be dishonest for me to remain silent in the face of such compelling evidence of wrongdoing by this crooked bank. Besides, the chances of any immediate action by the CFTC are remote. Still, it would be far better to remove JPMorgan as the dominant participant in the commodities market and eliminate their incentive for continued commodity manipulation. Certainly, I shouldn’t have to be the one to urge the CFTC to do the job they swore to do, particularly when the proof of market dominance and control is contained in their own publications.

    More at link

  13. “I take it you think Pro Wrestling is legit…” – Catch

    Uh, what?!, you mean it’s NOT??

    • You’ve chosen well, Hidalgo. Q. Shtik is a worthy hero for you. He possesses all the requisite qualities of the archetypal hero — and he has a clean ass to boot as is witnessed by his fond affinity for bidets. Have you bought your hand-held bidet yet, Hidalgo? If not, maybe your hero Q. Shtik can suggest one you can purchase online. This one looks fairly decent and not too outrageously priced.

      It also has an enema setting in case you want to clean the entire colon, polyps and all. An acquaintance of mine uses this model to clean elephant asses at the zoo. He swears by it. There’s no better testimony than that. Also, if you purchase the 100 ft. hose attachment, it has a setting so you can pressure wash the house and driveway. Considering everything this device does, it’s well worth the price tag. Enjoy.

      • You might want to be careful with the ball splashing. Research has shown that those who regularly splash their balls with handheld bidets are 50% more likely to develop testicular cancer. This is what happened to the infamous John Kruk of the Philadelphia Phillies. He now has only one ball. Still, like an obstinate jackass, he continues to throw caution to the wind and splashes his remaining ball daily with his prized handheld bidet. Apparently, these devices are highly addictive. It’s why I avoid them and stick to the wipes. Q. Shtik’s getting on in age — he probably has about ten years left give or take a standard deviation of five years so it doesn’t matter in his case. I’m not sure how old you are, Afredo Garcia, but if you’re Q. Shtik’s age, enjoy, but please, clean the blowback mess up after you’ve soaked the entire toilet and floor before you leave the bathroom. People are sick and tired of cleaning up after you.

Comments are closed.