Post your comments and questions for May, 2017.

Click here to see previous comments and questions.

105 Comments

    1. What a coincidence that something is happening that would lead the general population to value tough enforcement. Quelle suprise!

  3. Per the Saker interview and extensive Tillerson (“RT”) speculation, there was a precedent – and I think relevant – 2003 Russian incident known as the Yukos affair. RT was being groomed as the Exxon CEO heir apparent and he was lured into buying a large stake in Yukos by its oligarch backers. The about-to-retire CEO Lee Raymond smelled trouble and phoned Putin, who told him basically that Exxon was backing the wrong team. Exxon quickly cut ties with Yukos, and re-aligned its Russian ambitions.
    Summary: Tillerson/Exxon had been used and Raymond fixed it; consequently, the Yukos affair set back Raymond’s retirement and RT’s ascension by two years, as the Exxon board was mortified by the chain of events. Marin Katusa included a fascinating description of all this in his 2014 book:
    https://www.amazon.com/Colder-War-Global-Slipped-Americas/dp/1118799941
    Postscript: the Russians know RT’s strengths and weaknesses very well. For all the reasons that Saker suggested, it’s highly likely they gave him a tongue-lashing and reminded him clearly how they had already rescued him before from the Yukos catastrophe.
    Other telltale signs that RT is not so much of a powerhouse as a simple-minded West Texan include the way he was unwittingly tapped for his current job by Robert Gates and Condoleezza Rice:
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/12/bob-gates-praises-tillerson-for-secretary-of-state-232555
    and his own dryly hilarious account of his wife pulling the God card to maneuver him from planned ranch retirement with his grandkids:
    http://nypost.com/2017/03/22/tillerson-took-secretary-of-state-job-because-his-wife-told-him-to/ .
    Considering all this, Saker may be right about RT’s trip to Russia being a singular positive event so far in Trump’s presidency. Not so much because Tillerson is a super-talent, but because he’s had the painful, relevant experience of being used and hopefully applied his Texas horse-sense and charm to to contain the calamity.

    1. Fascinating. Thanks for posting, Jim. There is something about Tillerson that I find quite impressive. It is intuitive. He listens and connects with people as a human. Combined with his experience it is a powerful combination. My history with the oil and gas industry in Texas is they stay close to the ground and understand the power of keeping your word. They have lived through enough boom and busts to develop perspective.

  4. There’s no way we can really know, but the historical backdrop suggests Tillerson was used around the Syria attack analogously to how he was used by Yukos/Rothschild/Khodorkovsky. The neocons may have even drafted him for this exhibited trait.
    But, yes, he clearly has other strengths in that he is a listener, collaborative, and not hostage to his ego. Hair-raising lack of guile for this type of position, but hairpin adaptive (with prodding from his Russian friends) when he finds himself being played as a patsy.
    I pray that Saker’s hopeful read is right.

    1. A number of intelligent sources have indicated they figured out they got played. If that is the case, expect Tillerson to learn quickly. It looks like McMaster has been pushing for boots on the ground in Afghanistan and may get sent back to DOD. If that is the case, why the madness. What insanity would have a General think we can financially afford to do something that will not rebuild the nation. I still think we are missing important intel.

  5. Do madness and logic intersect?
    Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove” may still be worth a watch in this regard:
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/almost-everything-in-dr-strangelove-was-true
    Oliver Stone even had Putin watch the movie as part of his upcoming 4-part Showtime interview:
    http://uproxx.com/news/putin-watched-dr-strangelove-oliver-stone/
    Ironically, one outcome of this yearning to understand the madness of our military leaders may be the same for Oliver Stone as it was for Kubrick in that it humanizes the Russians, even Darth Vader Putin.

    1. Given what happened in the Rape of Russia, Putin does not strike me as mad. He strikes me as quite sane.

      1. Simple observance suggests he’s totally sane.
        But the controlled narrative has guided otherwise.
        Which surprises me that now western media may crack open the window to his (and Russia’s) fundamentally human side.
        We shall see.

  6. Also, in the Wiesner interview, I loved your request of Sarah to integrate the bitcoin discussion with what Solari is all about.
    Imo, Solari and bitcoin are intimately intertwined. Why?
    Solari is all about helping its subscribers build wealth in a world where that simple goal is becoming ever more difficult.
    Per this goal, prosperity has historically been facilitated by commercial transparency. Correspondingly, transparency has been achieved with the help of rules-based math. Prominent examples include:
    1. the 15th century invention of double entry bookkeeping (a core CAF expertise):
    http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/10/04/162296423/the-accountant-who-changed-the-world and
    2. the insistence of our Constitution’s framers that silver be the only legal form of money, thereby making money more transparent thru Mother Nature’s geological math (i.e., counterfeit-proof silver). From memory, Franklin Sanders gave a passionate description of the framers’ decision and subsequent prosperity in a 2014 Solari interview.
    Transparency via immutable math (i.e., double-entry book keeping and hard money usage) – while massively beneficial toward general prosperity – is highly inconvenient for those who prefer to be predators and parasites. For this reason, transparency has constantly been under siege by ne’er-do-wells.
    In fact, double-entry book keeping has been fully neutralized by contemporary accounting gimmickry, derivatives, etc. (CAF knows way more about this than I do). Likewise, gold/silver have been de-monetized by the creation of central banks, and de-natured by the explosion of paper derivatives, now traded widely as if they were actual precious metal.
    At immeasurable cost to general prosperity, kleptocrats have purged transparent bookkeeping and dependable math-based currencies from commerce. Correspondingly, as Solari has proceeded toward its mission of enhancing subscribers’ wealth in a world bereft of transparency and hard (i.e., math-based) rules, one of Catherine’s mantras has become:
    “First, fix the money”. We need a new answer.
    Now comes bitcoin, released in semi-exasperation (as it was still in beta-test) during the throes of the 2008-9 monetary crisis. Satoshi sensed the central banks’ debt-based system may have already failed, so he decided to go ahead and release the bitcoin protocol.
    Bitcoin has many extraordinary features, among which are the above referenced qualities of being transparent and math-based.
    Transparency is provided by the public ledger (aka blockchain) via each bitcoin’s public key, which records a kind of third accounting record/time-stamp of each bitcoin transaction. In this regard, many folks refer to bitcoin as a TRIPLE-entry bookkeeping system, which re-invigorates the original, but degraded, power of double-entry bookkeeping. Bitcoin’s public ledger is transparent and immutable, which makes it impossible to manipulate, and therefore fully trustworthy, as double-entry bookkeeping used to be.
    As Sarah explained, bitcoin is also pure, rules-based math; no need to belabor that point.
    So, there you have it … in summary, Solari and bitcoin have largely overlapping goals toward renewed prosperity via the return of transparency and immutable rules as applied to money and commerce. The respective goals are so much in-line that we might even think of bitcoin as Satoshi’s response to Catherine’s mandate that we must “first fix the money” … which would cast Satoshi as a kind of crypto-Catherine.

    1. One good comment that came in this afternoon:

      The most interesting hole in the BitCoin saga is the total lack of any forensic investigations into BitCoin heists. But now, the stories of RansomWare have the capability of bringing cyber crime to a whole new level; has piqued my interest.. Where if you are an OSE, LBT Party, Green Party, WikiLeaks and you have substantial holdings in BC. Guess what? Your harvest awaits…

      I’m going to do some research on software / hardware back doors in Smart Phones, PC’s etc. and try and find an SME that would be worthy of an interview..

    2. Jim:

      Double entry book keeping was deeply compromised as it moved on to digital systems. Ditto bitcoin has the same problem. It is operating on digital systems that lack integrity. As one of my team mates point out – when the technology exists to track your keyboard, how is it safe.

      So that is why we need to figure out how to create systems of integrity in a world where 1 small group can kill with impunity and do so invisibly and continue to enjoy great wealth and social respectability.

      Catherine

  7. Sarah did a pretty good job of fading your contention that the bitcoin protocol has been compromised. In that regard, bitcoin heists have nothing to do with the bitcoin protocol. Separate domains.
    Per back doors, etc., I have two suggestions:
    1. start with legacy digital systems; for instance, banks that have migrated to digital. It’s an open secret that the global banking system – as it has necessarily migrated to digital – is subject to an almost infinite number of attack vectors due to its legacy architecture. “Money” as we know it as an out-loud, unmitigated disaster. Any honest big banker will concede this to you in private. Call Blythe Masters; she’ll fill your ear. My point: if you think bitcoin has issues, consider the state of the money system as it exists today.
    2. review with Sarah how to store bitcoins safely. She talked about it on the interview. Off-line storage using best practices is safe. By comparison, depositing your $$ in a bank is the equivalent of handing it to a thief. You know this … JPMadoff, etc.
    Prudently used, private keys and multi-sig features are powerful security tools. By comparison, the incumbent banking system is woefully behind the times trying to introduce private key mechanisms on top of a depository/regulatory system designed for plunder.

    1. Disagree. Depositing at my bank is not handing money to a thief. An FDIC insured bank deposit is much safer and more secure than any Bitcoin. My bank will using some of that money to make good loans to local businesses and property owners. Good thing.

      The way you compromise a Bitcoin holding is with software that compromises keyboard and keystroke and with laws that control your actions as a citizen – to report, to pay tax, etc. That includes stealing your wallet and putting a gun to your head to ask for your key.

      I have litigated with the US government. That is why my core holding is physical, it is someplace entirely unknown to anyone and will die with me.

Comments are closed.