Asset Protection Strategies, STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Is Your Investment Portfolio Exposed to Crumbling Elite Narratives?
By Staff News & Analysis - September 22, 2014

Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United … The United States has conducted an escalating campaign of deadly airstrikes against the extremists of the Islamic State for more than a month. But that appears to have done little to tamp down the conspiracy theories still circulating from the streets of Baghdad to the highest levels of Iraqi government that the C.I.A. is secretly behind the same extremists that it is now attacking. – The New York Times

Dominant Social Theme: The Islamic State is a threat to everybody.

Free-Market Analysis: The New York Times is scrambling to keep up with 21st century realities. It's very doubtful that the Times would have run similar stories to this one, excerpted above, in the 20th century. But that was then and this is now. The Times's readership is doubtless demanding more truth and less spin.

Not that the Times's reaction, such as it is, is helping much. In fact, the paper of record is about to undergo yet another round of layoffs, according to recent reports. The Times has ripped through numerous editors and subeditors and laid off a slew of writers in the past few years; it has even solicited outside funding to stay afloat.

Management is obviously struggling to find an editorial path that allows the Times, like other prestigious mainstream media, to continue to serve the interests of elite insiders that use the major media to create dominant social themes while offering just enough real news and information to retain credibility.

That's a tough mission in this day and age and this article shows why. Here's more:

"We know about who made Daesh," said Bahaa al-Araji, a deputy prime minister, using an Arabic shorthand for the Islamic State on Saturday at a demonstration called by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to warn against the possible deployment of American ground troops.

Mr. Sadr publicly blamed the C.I.A. for creating the Islamic State in a speech last week, and interviews suggested that most of the few thousand people at the demonstration, including dozens of members of Parliament, subscribed to the same theory. (Mr. Sadr is considered close to Iran, and the theory is popular there as well.)

When an American journalist asked Mr. Araji to clarify if he blamed the C.I.A. for the Islamic State, he retreated: "I don't know. I am one of the poor people," he said, speaking fluent English and quickly stepping back toward the open door of a chauffeur-driven SUV. "But we fear very much. Thank you!"

… The Islamic State, also known by the acronym ISIS, has conquered many of the predominantly Sunni Muslim provinces in Iraq's northeast, aided by the alienation of many residents to the Shiite-dominated government of the former prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

President Obama has insisted repeatedly that American military action against the Islamic State depended on the installation of a more inclusive government in Baghdad, but he moved ahead before it was complete. The Parliament has not yet confirmed nominees for the crucial posts of interior or defense minister, in part because of discord between Sunni and Shiite factions, and the Iraqi news media has reported that it may be more than a month before the posts are filled.

The demonstration on Saturday was the latest in a series of signals from Shiite leaders or militias, especially those considered close to Iran, warning the United States not to put its soldiers back on the ground. Mr. Obama has pledged not to send combat troops, but he seems to have convinced few Iraqis. "We don't trust him," said Raad Hatem, 40.

Haidar al-Assadi, 40, agreed. "The Islamic State is a clear creation of the United States, and the United States is trying to intervene again using the excuse of the Islamic State," he said. Shiite militias and volunteers, he said, were already answering the call from religious leaders to defend Iraq from the Islamic State without American help. "This is how we do it," he said, adding that the same forces would keep American troops out.

This is pretty incredible stuff and as one gets about halfway through the article anticipation builds. Surely now intrepid Times reporters, armed with tales of this sort of destabilizing skepticism, would solicit a reply from the CIA – or the administration … anyone!

Yes, folks, the whole article is about how the population of a critical nation-state riven by factionalism and terrorist violence has apparently come to the conclusion that their problems are being caused by their protector and benefactor … the US. But no comment is forthcoming!

You would think if the Times published an article such as this, the supervising editor would at least demand of the reporter that he or she provide some sort of follow-up regarding these suspicions. Are they true? False? Impossible to determine?

But we get none of that. The article reports on this dangerous and important surge of skepticism and then trails off into an analysis of the current Iraqi government and how the political situation in Iraq may eventually unfold.

This is a real problem! It's not even second-rate journalism. It's something out of, well … grade school. How the heck do you raise a point as important as this and then not follow up with commentary as to whether or not such suspicions are valid? At least address it …

But no … There is so much at this point that can't be said and can't be analyzed that what does issue forth is often obviously factually inaccurate or wildly promotional. The fiction is to be presented constantly that the world is such a dangerous place that only American exceptionalism in the form of military deterrence can ameliorate the dangers.

But what if this broad-based meme has begun to fail drastically in the 21st century? What if people, domestically and abroad, are ceasing to believe in the Mockingbird-style fictions they've been raised on?

Traditionally, the populations of developing countries have been easily manipulated. Not so much anymore. This has broad ramifications not just for the Anglosphere's international security posture but also for a wide gamut of financial instruments including stocks and precious metals.

Gold and silver, in fact, may be the most affected by this burgeoning trend. If the unrealities of Anglosphere diplomacy cannot be credibly enforced then other narratives will surge to the fore, presumably more truthful ones.

And if the truth were ever to be known about the REAL economic, military and sociopolitical posture of the West – and the US especially – then precious metals might undergo a drastic revaluation.

The revaluation might not necessarily stem from a revised perception of the US's status as a mono-power so much as a gradual yet implacable realization that much of what has been portrayed as "common knowledge" is laughably wanting.

This is indeed why David Cameron is so quick to announce that the question of Scottish secession has been resolved "for our lifetime" – and why the other night's rioting in major Scottish cities received scant coverage, at least to begin with. None of it fit the narrative.

In any event, the matter of Scottish secession is no more settled today than yesterday – or the day before. That's because such an intended secession – and there is more than one in the West – will not be resolved by a political process, no matter how broad.

Elite narratives that served political and banking leaders so well for so long are crumbling. They're crumbling in the Middle East, in the West and surely in Asia, too. Eventually, all this is bound to have an economic impact. That's why we often suggest that one ought to hold precious metals among other alternative investments – along with a judicious securities portfolio of one's choosing.

After Thoughts

None of what we're describing is anomalous. Over time, these trends will advance.

Posted in Asset Protection Strategies, STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
loading