The price is now ove $1,000 a oz. How much higher will it go? Consider Jim Rogers (based in Singapore). He ran the Quantum Fund with George Soros. Now his Rogers Holdings is doing quite well.

Yet, he’s investing in things other than gold (silver and other commodities). His strategy: when 99% of the crowd goes one way, consider the other.

What’s the best reason for this? From what I’ve heard from various sources, it’s two things: govt. instability (from the global economic meltdown). And climate change.

The oil industry can put out all the great forcasts they want. Yet oil is not an infinite resource. So much is still based on using it that as the supply dries up the price goes up.

It’s a well-known fact that Obama’s Administration is considering climate change as a national security threat. The well-paid corporate “experts” can put out all the Frank Luntz/RNC talking points they want. Despite that, how come Congress isn’t pushing alternate energy development now? Because many key people are making a ton of money in oil and other energy investments.

For more on Rogers, go to: http://www.youtube.com/jimrogerschannel

Yes there is a possibility, and honestly I hope the CIA does have people like that. Positions like that are called NOC’s (non-official cover), they are spies without diplomatic cover (and immunity). There are a lot of secrets that can be learned through the construction world.

Living in a Gulf state as an American you should expect your phone to be tapped. As an ex-pat living abroad it is reasonable that the locals will keep an eye on you from time. And it is even more likely if you or your spouse is in engaged in sensitive or important business.

Your mobile may have been monitored as you suspect. But if you heard static or clicking sounds then it probably wasn’t from the NSA. If you are concerned about your privacy turn the phone off and remove the battery when you are not using it or expecting someone to call.

For me, there’s no need to nitpick anybody’s contribution.

What I wish to see are more people expressing this conclusion: We must force change in our nation’s leadership, and then we can change the widely and deeply corrupt (often criminal) system.

- The current leaders will NOT be persuaded by reading the wisdom here. They only care about their power and wealth. So, please don’t think that I’m saying “we must force change in our leadership” by changing their minds. I’m saying we must force them out.

At present, elections don’t work. Somebody has to restore democracy to that system. The current winners in that system will not reform it.

So, we must do it. If not us, who? For bad people to win, the bad people need only for the good people to stay home and clickety clack on their computers.

I outline 3 steps:
1. We force them out.
2. We get our representatives elected.
3. We reform the system.

(Normally, I avoid redundancy. But here I am again, hoping to stir fellow boiling frogs to action. For some details, see my “Idea 1″ along with some discussion under SibelEdmonds’ post “Site Updates for November 23.”)

I find this blog very interesting. I think the CIA even goes further with their hiring practices. For example, in the Middle East, it is possible that someone who works for a construction company actually is with the CIA. It is another cover too. I am not into conspiracies but it is a distinct possiblity.
I really want to thank everyone here for all the insightful input. I feel my feelings are more validated now. I had quite experience when I lived in UAE–yes, my phone was tapped. Everytime I was on my mobile, all I would hear was clicking sounds, sometimes a lot of static and yes, my moble would light up by itself and it felt warm when it was not in use.
Clearly, the NSA needs to find another hobby—pleeeassz! Why are they so interested about conversations about sand storms and the latest sale at the Emirates Mall? Meanwhile, they are not really getting the bad guys and ones at Gitmo are likely to be not guilty, right? The torture and beatings, it is all crazy and it seems so one really cares except a small minority. Scary, isn’t it.

Kangas (ex-military intelligence):

The Year 2000

The exact year itself is not so important as the decades immediately before and after it, which feature several critically important trends coming to a head. The first is the population explosion. It took from the dawn of humanity until the year 1800 for the earth’s population to reach 1 billion. By 1930 it was 2 billion. By 1960, 3 billion. By 1975, 4 billion. By 1986, 5 billion. By 1997, 6 billion. The year 2000 will mark the point where continuing this explosion becomes risky: we are currently adding the population of China to this planet every decade. This explosion is placing a growing burden on the earth’s finite resources, and threatens environmental disaster. New technology can solve some of the emerging problems of scarcity and pollution, but some resources — like land — are limited in absolute terms. The critical question is which will grow faster: our technology or our population?

The evidence suggests that our technology is not advancing fast enough. After decades of growth, food-per-person is beginning to shrink, despite growing demand:
World production trends per person of basic foodstuffs (1950-1993) (1) Foodstuff Growth
period Percent
growth Decline
period Percent
decline
Grain 1950-84 +40% 1984-93 -12%
Seafood 1950-88 +126 1988-93 -9
Beef & Mutton 1950-72 +36 1972-93 -13

Add to this the fact that the world’s water basins are generally being drained faster than the hydrolic cycle can refill them, and it’s clear that expanding populations and shrinking resources are going to become the world’s number one problem in the very near future.

Just how much of a problem can be seen in a famous 1994 Cornell study. (2) A team led by Dr. David Pimentel found that the world will probably be able to handle no more than 2 billion people by the year 2100. They arrived at this conclusion by considering the future “carrying capacity” of the land — that is, the amount of available resources needed to sustain a level population. These resources primarily consist of fertile land, fresh water, fossil fuel energy and a diversity of helpful natural organisms. Changes to some of these factors are quite predictable — for example, humans are expected to run out of fossil fuel in the next 35 years. (The Cornell team used the most optimistic figures for their calculations.) The team found that the carrying capacity at the turn of the next century would provide only 2 billion with a modest but comfortable standard of living. But, according to U.N. projections, current population trends should reach 11 billion by then.

To avoid massive starvation and deadly competition will require a drastic change in our current habits. Dr. Pimentel notes: “Even if we adopt a zero population growth strategy tomorrow — a little over two children per couple — the world population will nearly double. It wouldn’t stop growing for 60 years.”

The second trend coming to a head in the year 2000 is the Information Age. Both televisions and computers began their modern ascent in the 1940s. By the 1960s, most American households had television, but the spread of computers was much slower. It wasn’t until the 1980s that personal computers became affordable and widely used. And it wasn’t until the 1990s that individual computers began linking up to the Internet in large numbers. The year 2000 stands as a logical milestone, since by then a majority of all Americans and Europeans will be online. And e-commerce (or market transactions conducted over the Internet) is just starting to soar in the final years before 2000, promising to revolutionize our economy.

The third trend is the depletion of the earth’s oil supply. Estimates vary widely as to when we will run out of oil, but generally they fall between the years 2010 and 2050. This will force a drastic social revolution upon us — the end of our gas-powered cars, generators and other machinery. Keep in mind that oil will not run out suddenly, but will gradually become harder to find, meaning that society must begin making the transition to other energy sources even sooner than these projected dates. The transition shall also require enormous research and development, manufacturing and marketing, all of which cost enormous time and money. To avoid complete disaster, the transition must start soon — now, around the year 2000. (3)

There are other trends: the human genome will be completely mapped not long after the year 2000. Not only will a host of diseases and ailments suddenly disappear from the human condition, but we will no longer be able to avoid controversial questions about genetic ethics. Another trend is globalization, with the growing influence of the U.N., economic unions rising in Europe, Asia and North America, and the rise of multinational corporations, all serving to minimize the role of the state.

Excellent quotes and probably is the perfect meta analysis of the mess we’re in why the people are both dumbed down and without recourse to do anything about it but slave away and believe all the silly narratives shoved down on them 24/7 while being distracted by sports, consumer products and keeping up with the Joneses – the driving force behind the American economy before it became all about wall street financial products/instruments and trading said nonsense.

I suppose the good news is that they seem to have overplayed their hands, even the royal flush they held and it’s all crashing now and unless this is part of their scheme to crush democracy and all constitutional rights once and for all, it could turn nasty and those with nothing left to lose have only the guns and ammo left. I think we are getting to that point soon and the second revolution might be interesting. I don’t think corporations are terribly popular, mostly tolerated because there is no alternative in America. There will be lots of blowback soon. The militia will be out in force suppressing an angry citizenry, who have watched ever hope they had for reform turned into another win for corporate America and Wall Street. This is fueling support for nuts like Palin on the right and was for Obama until he turned out to be another corporate tool. He has lost his supporters (base as they call it). He has reneged on every single campaign promise in less than a year. That has not gone unnoticed by anyone especially those who thought he would be another FDR. hahaha He’s more like a W who can read a teleprompter. Like Rice people don’t want to trash the black guy and are giving him the benefit of the doubt or remaining silent. They will not vote for him next go round. So they’ll have to steal the election again.

America is unraveling. Watch for the unraveling to gain momentum.

“Then, do you think that Pakistan and its intelligence service(s) already control the beginning of the heroin supply chain (or did before we invaded)?”

It certainly had some influence, and there is good reason to believe that parts of the ISI have engaged in trafficking. The warlords and/or tribes control the beginning of the chain (growing opium). The Northern Alliance dealt in drugs too, pre-9/11 they were backed by Russia, Iran, India, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkey (sometimes).

“Also, what do you think the real reasons for our invasion of Afghanistan were? To get OBL and shut down the Taliban from harboring such terrorists, as we’ve been fed by the MSM? (It seems that Pakistan and its intelligence service(s) could not accomplish these.)”

There is a good degree of truth to the mainstream line. Could we have cut a deal with the deal for them to turn over bin Laden? I don’t know, maybe. But in the immediate wake of 9/11 no elected politician is going to support making such a deal or not removing the Taliban – it would be career suicide. It is remarkable how much domestic political considerations will drive a nation’s foreign policy.

The goal of denying AQ a sanctuary in Afghanistan is a sticking point in the current debate. Imagine if President Obama removes all forces from A-Stan or significantly draws down forces, and there is a bombing in NYC that traces back to Afghanistan somehow (like the plot broken up this summer) months later. Obama would be finished and there would not be a second term of his presidency. Conversely, the war is unpopular with half the country and that ties Obama’s hand in committing troop numbers to be of much significance.

In the 21st century the US and Western nations are “playing with war”.

“Do you think it was for strategic positioning for natural resources? War profiteering?”

Yes, they are factors; to which degree is debatable.
The strategic positioning influence was motive for some parties of why we rushed into Afghanistan, though we’ve screwed up on achieving strategic benefits. War profiteering will always be a factor, though I see the military industrial congressional complex as more a dynamic then in the literal sense of Mr. Monopoly Man guys in monocles.

KF

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/110409.html

What gets me the most is the attitude of the “pragmatists” in that piece like David Rockefeller, Kissinger and Miles Copeland, former CIA Station Chief in London and father of Police drummer Stuart Copeland. Is it any wonder the reputation of the US has become so sullied in the last 50 years? All these people talk of the CIA-within-the CIA, or what Marchetti called “The Cult Of Intelligence”.

Then, do you think that Pakistan and its intelligence service(s) already control the beginning of the heroin supply chain (or did before we invaded)?

Also, what do you think the real reasons for our invasion of Afghanistan were? To get OBL and shut down the Taliban from harboring such terrorists, as we’ve been fed by the MSM? (It seems that Pakistan and its intelligence service(s) could not accomplish these.)

Do you think it was for strategic positioning for natural resources? War profiteering?

Thanks for the book suggestion.

The CIA:

The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organized, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the richest 1 percent into the stratosphere.
The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA. This is not to say the machine is a formal CIA operation, complete with code name and signed documents. (Although such evidence may yet surface — and previously unthinkable domestic operations such as MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD show this to be a distinct possibility.) But what we do know already indicts the CIA strongly enough. Its principle creators were Irving Kristol, Paul Weyrich, William Simon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Frank Shakespeare, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Rockefeller family, and more. Almost all the machine’s creators had CIA backgrounds.
During the 1970s, these men would take the propaganda and operational techniques they had learned in the Cold War and apply them to the Class War. Therefore it is no surprise that the American version of the machine bears an uncanny resemblance to the foreign versions designed to fight communism. The CIA’s expert and comprehensive organization of the business class would succeed beyond their wildest dreams. In 1975, the richest 1 percent owned 22 percent of America’s wealth. By 1992, they would nearly double that, to 42 percent — the highest level of inequality in the 20th century.
How did this alliance start? The CIA has always recruited the nation’s elite: millionaire businessmen, Wall Street brokers, members of the national news media, and Ivy League scholars. During World War II, General “Wild Bill” Donovan became chief of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA. Donovan recruited so exclusively from the nation’s rich and powerful that members eventually came to joke that “OSS” stood for “Oh, so social!”
Another early elite was Allen Dulles, who served as Director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961. Dulles was a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Rockefeller empire and other mammoth trusts, corporations and cartels. He was also a board member of the J. Henry Schroeder Bank, with offices in Wall Street, London, Zurich and Hamburg. His financial interests across the world would become a conflict of interest when he became head of the CIA. Like Donavan, he would recruit exclusively from society’s elite.

By the 1950s, the CIA had riddled the nation’s businesses, media and universities with tens of thousands of part-time, on-call operatives. Their employment with the agency took a variety of forms, which included:
Leaving one’s profession to work for the CIA in a formal, official capacity. Staying in one’s profession, using the job as cover for CIA activity. This undercover activity could be full-time, part-time, or on-call. Staying in one’s profession, occasionally passing along information useful to the CIA. Passing through the revolving door that has always existed between the agency and the business world.
Historically, the CIA and society’s elite have been one and the same people. This means that their interests and goals are one and the same as well. Perhaps the most frequent description of the intelligence community is the “old boy network,” where members socialize, talk shop, conduct business and tap each other for favors well outside the formal halls of government.
Many common traits made it inevitable that the CIA and Corporate America would become allies. Both share an intense dislike of democracy, and feel they should be liberated from democratic regulations and oversight. Both share a culture of secrecy, either hiding their actions from the American public or lying about them to present the best public image. And both are in a perfect position to help each other.
How? International businesses give CIA agents cover, secret funding, top-quality resources and important contacts in foreign lands. In return, the CIA gives corporations billion-dollar federal contracts (for spy planes, satellites and other hi-tech spycraft). Businessmen also enjoy the romantic thrill of participating in spy operations. The CIA also gives businesses a certain amount of protection and privacy from the media and government watchdogs, under the guise of “national security.” Finally, the CIA helps American corporations remain dominant in foreign markets, by overthrowing governments hostile to unregulated capitalism and installing puppet regimes whose policies favor American corporations at the expense of their people.
The CIA’s alliance with the elite turned out to be an unholy one. Each enabled the other to rise above the law. Indeed, a review of the CIA’s history is one of such crime and atrocity that no one can reasonably defend it, even in the name of anticommunism. Before reviewing this alliance in detail, it is useful to know the CIA’s history of atrocity first.

That was ex-military intelligence Steve Kangas.

This is ex-CIA agent Victor Marchetti on Australian radio in 1986:

What you in Australia must understand is that you are more to blame than the CIA is because you want this to happen, you want a certain administration in control and you don’t want another administration in control. The first question I tell all foreign journalists when they bring out this point is…I ask them, `look, you find out where the loyalties of your intelligence services lies. Do they lie with your country as a whole, for better or worse, or to the establishment in your country?’ and in most instances the answer you find is `to the establishment.’ So in essence is like in the old days in Europe where the nobility of various countries had more in common with each other than they did with their own people. This is true of intelligence services. They tend to have more in common with each other and their establishments which they represent than they do with their own people.

Our Boiling Frogs’ Thanksgiving Note to the president will be up shortly, and will need your backing.

Stay tuned…