Who Am I? – The Need to Understand 1st Millennium Slavic History

Who Am I? – The Need to Understand 1st Millennium Slavic History

Who Am I? My research strongly suggests that my father, four brothers and I are direct descendants of the Slavic tribes that populated the Original homeland of the Slavs at the time period of the Roman Empire. (See the map East Central Europe, ca. 400 in Paul Robert Magosci’s Historical Atlas of East Central Europe.)

Mr. Magosci references four different researchers each having a different territorial area and central point for the homeland. The most generous shows the Homeland to start just west of the Oder River and continues eastward to the Dnieper River. The southern border is at the Dniester River, and the northern at the Pripet River. The Vandals were to the west, and the Huns, Visigoths, and the Ostrogoths were to the south of the Slavs adjacent to demarcation line between the Roman Empire and the barbarians. These Slavs did not participate in the incursions of the barbarians into the Roman Empire.

Professor Frances Dvornik has extensively written about the Slavic Civilization. In his book, The Slavs: Their History and Civilization, he discusses the meagerness of information relative to the Slavs because of their distance and lack of interaction with the Roman Empire. Archeological investigation suggests that the Slavs lived in the northern part of East Central Europe earlier than 500 BC.

During the period between the 3rd and 6th centuries CE, the map of Europe changed drastically: the Roman Empire had its fall; and, the northern ’’barbarian” tribes left their northern lands and over-ran the Roman Empire. The Scandinavian barbarians – the Angles, Jutes, and Saxon started to occupy Britain between 441 and 443 CE. The formation of Attila’s Hun empire in 443 CE destabilized many parts of Europe. In 443 CE, the Roman Empire allowed the Burgundians to occupy Savoy. In 468 CE, the Visigoths took control of Spain. The Frankish tribe of Clovis moved into Belgium and then into northern Gaul. Clovis then gathered all of the Frankish tribes and then conquered Aquataine for the Visigoths. In 511, the Franks were masters of most of Gaul with the exception of Provence. The Visigoths conquered Italy in 493.

At the start of the sixth century CE: the Anglo-Saxons controlled Britain; the Franks held Gaul; the Burgundians were confined to Savoy; the Visigoths were the masters of Spain; the Vandals were esconced in Mediterranean Africa; and, the Ostrogoths ruled Italy.

Why the mass movement of the ”barbarian” tribes out of northern Europe? Jacques Le Goff in his Medieval Civilization 400-1500 suggests the following:

”The growth of population and the attraction of more fertile territories, which Jordanes mentions as causes, probably only came into play after an initial impulse which might well have been a change of climate, a cold spell which, from Siberia to Scandinavia, reduced the cultivable land and pasture of the barbarian peoples. This would have set in motion, with one tribe pushing the next, towards the south and west as far as the extremities such as Britain (most of which was later to become England), Gaul (which was to become France), Spain ( whose southernmost portion was to take the name of the Vandals, Andalusia), and Italy ( which was to preserve the name of its late-arriving invaders only in the north, in Lombardy).

The mass movement of the northern ”barbarian tribes to western and southern Europe and northern Africa depopulated much of central and eastern Europe and allowed a vast migration of a new batch of Slavic tribes from central Asia to northern Europe.

Julien Paolantoni’s three part series entitled The root of Russia published in January 2015 in the Orient Review.org) includes a map entitled Slavic tribes central – eastern Europe c. 8th century.  (The link is: The roots of Russia: from the early East Slavs to the Grand Duchy of Moscow (I)  ) shows both the extent and names of the Slavic tribes that took over central and eastern Europe in the period circa the 8th century.

This migration extended to the Oder River in the west, Denmark and Scandinavia in the north, to Russia on the east, to the Danube river in the south, and stopped at the Bulgar and Khazar Khanate areas in the south. The Slavic Balts – Lithuanians and Latvians, controlled a vast territory which was adjacent to the Baltic Sea and started just east of the Vistula River. Now the time approached for the fledgling nation-states of central and eastern Europe to form.

The Slavic homeland in the 11th century was transformed into the Kingdom of Poland. As Mr. Magosci states:

“East of the Oborites, Veletians, and the Germanic marks (borderlans) of Lusatia and Meissen, the first historic ruler of the house of Piast, Mieszko, (r. 960-992) brought under control territory that under his successor, Bolesław I (the Brave, r. 992-1025), would become the Kingdom of Poland. Bolesław laid groundwork for an administrative system (comites-castellani, with civil and military powers); he promoted an organizational structure for the Catholic Church; and he expanded the boundaries of his realm, incorporating at various times lands inhabited by the Pomeranians along the Baltic Sea (992-994), Silesia and Cracow (from 999), Slovakia (1001-1018), the Lusatian Mark and part of the Meissen Mark (1002-5), Moravia ((1003-1004), and the Czerwien fortress borderland (1018-31) with Kievan Rus’. Just before his death in 1025, Bolesław became the first king of Poland. Most of his territorial gains were lost during or after his lifetime, so that by the second half of the eleventh century the focal point of the Polish kingdom was north of the Carpathian mountains between the Oder and the Vistula rivers.”

I have had both the Y-DNA and the autosomal DNA tests. My Y-DNA 25 marker test states that I am in the R-CTS11962 haplogroup and that my terminal SNP is CTS- 11962. Spencer Wells in his book Deep Ancestry: Inside The Genographic Project defines a haplogroup: ”… as an ancestral clan – the descendants of one man who had a particular set of genetic markers on his Y-chromasome.” Research suggests that those characterized with an SNP CTS11962 have a common ancestor who lived 3100+/-350 years from the present. Haplogroup R-CTS11962 is a sub-group of Haplogroup R1a, and the highest concentration of R1a men happens to be in Poland and Belarus. ( Wiik_Haplogroup_R1a)

The map of Haplogroup R1a1, Central Europe branch ( Haplogroup R1a1, Central European branch ) has the following foreward:

“This branch belongs to the M458 subclass.

Yellow pins mark relic haplotypes which are tested positive to M458 and negative to known downstream SNP.

Magenta pins correspond to presumably parent branch, which is chara[c]terized by SNP CTS11962, with its common ancestor living 3100±350 years before present.

Deep-blue pins denote the major sub-branch which is characterized by downstream SNP L1029. Its most recent common ancestor lived 2900±310 years before present.

Light-blue pins denote a particular Ashkenazy Jewish sub-bra[n]ch, whose ancestor lived 1300±200 years ago.

Another branch of M458 subclade – West Slavic (L260) is shown in a separate map.”

The magenta pins, as stated in the foreword, are characterized by SNP CTS11962. My terminal SNP per Family Tree DNA is identical – SNP CTS11962. Examining the map carefully, shows that the magenta pins are concentrated in the geographical area associated with the Original homeland of the Slavs. I do not believe that this is a coincidence. I look askance at coincidents. My conclusion: My father, my four brothers, and I are direct descendants of the Slavs who inhabited the Original home land of the Slavs.

The number of deep blue pins, which signifies the downstream SNP L1029 sub- branch is visibly magnitudes greater than the magenta SNP CTS11962, and its most recent common ancestor is 3100 +/- 350 years from the present. This group of Slavs participated in the circa 8th century migration into central and eastern Europe as written above. These are the Slav tribes depicted in the link above. This, in my opinion, is consistent with my Ancestry.com DNA report which states that I am 100% Europe East. The geographical area that SNP L1029 encompasses comprises Germany, the lands south of the Baltic Sea, western Russia, western Ukraine, and the northern border of Hungary. A significant number are also found in Finland, and lesser amounts in southern Sweden, the United Kingdom, Bulgaria and Greece.

Of interest are the light blue pins which signifies the Ashkenazi Jewish sub-branch. They are the fewest in number and are dispersed along a north-south line extending from Estonia to the Ukraine. It appears that the Ashkenazi Jews are a sub-branch of the Slavs – the male founder being a Slav, and the female founder a Jew.

In summary, I believe that the research reasonably suggests that my father, my four brothers, and I are direct descendants of the Slavs who inhabited the Original home land of the Slavs at the time of the Roman Empire. Also, that all of my 1st cousins are either direct descendant’s of the Slavs who inhabited the original homeland, or are part of the much broader Slav grouping of SNP L1029.

Crimea: The End of the Line for the American Empire


Crimea: The End of the Line for the American Empire S.J. Kowalski, March 25, 2014

The recent Crimean fiasco has changed the geo-political landscape. It is now official – the US is no longer the lone superpower. The world is now officially multi-polar and the US is only one global power along with Russia and China. Why does the Crimean fiasco demonstrate that the US is no longer the sole superpower? It is quite simple: the US does not have the “guts” to engage Russia in a war. The US Ukraine plan had the following objectives: kick the Russians out of the Sevastopol naval base; install missiles directed towards Russia; install an anti-missile defense system to support a nuclear first strike against Russia; and to steal whatever wealth that Ukraine has. The US organized coup of February 21, was executed for these reasons. Immediately after the coup, Russia decisively took control of Crimea and, by so doing, nullified all of the US’s military objectives vis-à-vis Ukraine. In response, what did the US do? It sat with its thumb in its mouth and continued gazing at its navel. If the US were indeed the world’s lone superpower, as it ceaselessly trumpets, it would at that point have massively confronted Russia militarily. It did not; its so-called Full Spectrum Dominance is nothing but an empty threat. The United States does not have the “guts” to militarily confront Russia. In 19th and 20th century European history no country has been able to control Europe without, at the same time, being a military powerhouse.

The presidents of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed the Belazvezha Accords on December 8,1991 the effect of which dissolved the Soviet Union. From this point on, the United States stole Russian wealth and extended NATO to its borders. Despite numerous US assurances to Gorbachev, NATO was extended into the Baltic states, and to Lithuania, and Poland. Numerous attempts to extend NATO into the Ukraine and Georgia were pushed back by Russia. The capstone of the US’s theft of Russian wealth was to be the 2003 proposed sale of Yukos, Russia’s leading oil producer to ChevronTexaco, by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, but by this time Vladimir Putin was installed as President and stopped the sale. Later, Yukos assets were sold to oil companies owned by the Russian government. Essentially, Yukos was nationalized. This was the beginning of Russia’s pushback to the US’s imperialistic objectives, and was also the beginning of the West’s hatred of Vladimir Putin. The United States lost its opportunity to control a large portion of Russia’s vast oil wealth.

It is clear, that the minimum objective of the United States and NATO is to encircle Russia with offensive weapons and forces. Its maximum objective likely is to destroy Russia. At the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy, Vladimir Putin remarked as follows:

“I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?”

Nothing has changed. The drive to enfeeble and/or destroy Russia has continued. The present Ukraine crisis is the latest manifestation of the West’s provocation of Russia. But, unfortunately for the West, the Ukraine provocation turned into a massive “cock-up”. The plan for the Ukraine coup was deeply flawed; it was implemented by a motley crew of EU and US incompetents; and, the final result was Vladimir Putin’s successful integration of Crimea into Russia.

Since the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union, the objective of the United States has been to control Russia along with its previous control of the European Union. In the case of Russia, the United States will not succeed. Neither does it have the requisite military machine, nor does it have the requisite “guts”. The last country that came very close to controlling Europe was Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. Adolf Hitler had the necessary “guts” to challenge the Soviet Union, and almost succeeded. Unfortunately for Hitler, he was opposed by Joseph Stalin and Marshall of the Soviet Union Georgy Zhukov each having at least the “guts” of Hitler. Stalin and Zhukov liberated Europe by defeating Hitler and his Third Reich. Since Vladimir Putin has the “guts” of Stalin and Zhukov, and since neither the United States nor the European Union have the same “guts” as Adolf Hitler, the US and the EU will never have the capability to control Europe, and never will. Prior to the Crimean vote, Russia placed troops along Ukraine’s borders in preparation for any NATO military action aimed at Russia. Also, on the Friday prior to the Crimean vote, Russia sent four strategic bombers on 24-hour Arctic patrol. Putin, in effect, told the West that Russia is prepared to respond to any type of military provocation. Shortly thereafter, the West announced that no military action will be taken vis-à-vis the Ukraine.

Quo vadis? Whither goest thou? In an interview on March 30, 2014, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated what Russia’s bottom-line is:

“I confirmed the validity of the proposal we made a while ago, pertaining to the necessity to implement all of the issues registered in the Agreement of the 21 February and signed by Yanukovich, Yatsenyuk, Tyagnibok, Klitchko and Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Poland. First and foremost, order has to be restored in all cities, all illegal weapons must be surrendered, all buildings that have been taken over illegally must be released, all barriers from streets and squares must be removed, and there must be no more “Maidans” or “mini-Maidans.”

Once these obvious steps aimed at restoring normal law and order are undertaken, the constitutional reform process should be started immediately, which is something that has also been captured in the Agreement of the February 21. We are convinced that the success of this reform can only be ensured by participation of all political forces and movements representing all areas and regions without exception, and each of them must have an equal decision-making opportunity within the framework of these negotiations.

We are convinced that it would be impossible to work out solutions to all of Ukraine’s problems without a unanimous agreement on the introduction of the federal form of government in Ukraine. Each region needs to have the opportunity to elect directly its local authorities, the executive branch and the governors, and to have all the rights and needs of its citizens satisfied across all spheres, including economy, finances, culture, language, social activities or the right for friendly relations and travel to neighboring states, be it Poland, Lithuania or Russia.

We know from experience that the unitary state does not work in Ukraine. After every presidential election they change the Constitution: first they give more power to the president, then to the parliament, after that to the government. This merry-go-round cannot last for long. Federalization is a way to make all the regions feel comfortable, so that every region will know that its rights are being respected. And at the national level, they will have certain things in common, like defense, foreign policy, judiciary. We would be willing to do that – I mean guarantees that external players would offer to Ukraine after it implements these reforms.”

For Russia, the only acceptable solution for the Ukraine is federalism and with foreign policy unattached to either the West or Russia – a Finlandization of the Ukraine. The United States is slowly and reluctantly moving to accept Russia’s Ukraine position. In the meantime, the United States and the EU “own” the Ukraine that they shattered, and Russia is prepared to out-wait the West. Pepe Escobar stated all of this succinctly in his March 20, 2014 post in the Asia Times entitled How Crimea plays in Beijing: “Meanwhile, the Western dogs bark, and the Sino- Russian caravan passes.”


The US’s Ukraine Fiasco: End Of Empire?


The US’s Ukraine Fiasco: End Of Empire?

S.J. Kowalski, March 11, 2014

The current Ukraine crisis can be best understood, in my opinion, by understanding the geo-strategy of the United States. In my opinion, the script can be found in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. We must remember that Brzezinski is the foreign policy eminence grise for the Obama administration.

The developing New Cold (Hot?) War between the United States and Russia over the US-engineered Ukraine regime change can best be understood if one understands that Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives provides the fabric and context for the America’s Eurasian geopolitical strategy. The following quotes from the Introduction clearly demonstrates what Zbigniew wishes to accomplish:

  • “Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power,”
  • “The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power [the United States] has emerged not only as the key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world’s paramount power.”
  • “Eurasia [after the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union – Zbigniew’s words], however, retains its geopolitical importance. Not only is its western periphery – Europe – still the location of much of the world’s political and economic power, but also its eastern region – Asia – has lately become a vital center of economic growth and rising political influence. Hence the issue of how a globally engaged America copes with the complex Eurasian power relationships – and particularly whether it prevents the emergence of a dominant and antagonistic Eurasian power – remains central to America’s capacity to exercise global primacy.”
  • “Eurasia is thus the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played, and that struggle involves geostrategy – the strategic management of geopolitical interests.” “A half century later, the issue has been redefined: will America’s primacy in Eurasia endure, and to what ends might it be applies?”
  • “The ultimate objective of America’s policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community, in keeping with the fundamental interests in humankind. But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging
  • America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.

Brzezinski’s geo-strategy has the following key points:

  • The over-arching objective of his strategy is the control of the world by the United States. [Tausendjähriges Reich]
  • Brzezinski is a follower of Harold Mackinder who in 1904 in his The Geographical Pivot of History propounded: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the world.
  • “The key players are located on the chessboard’s west [Western, Central, and Eastern Europe], east [China. Japan, South Korea], center [Russia], and south [India, Iran, and Turkey].” [Does the list have any surprises?]

A reasonable question to ask: Why does the US need such a geo-political strategy? Here are some additional quotes from The Grand Chessboard:

  • “Eurasia is also the location of most of the world’s politically assertive and dynamic states. After the United States, the next six largest economies and the next six biggest spenders on military weaponry are located in Eurasia.”
  • “Cumulatively, Eurasia’s power vastly overshadows America’s. Fortunately for America, Eurasia is too big to be politically one.” [This was true in 1997, but is not true in 2014.]
  • “Compounding the dilemmas facing the American leadership are the changes in character of the global situation itself: the direct use of power now tends to be more constrained than was the case in the past. Nuclear weapons have dramatically reduced the utility of war as a tool of policy or even as a threat. The growing economic interdependence among nations is making the political exploitation of economic blackmail less compelling. Thus maneuver, diplomacy, coalition building, co-optation, and the very deliberate deployment of one’s political assets have become the key ingredients of the successful exercise of geostrategic power on the Eurasian chessboard.
  • “A geostrategic issue of crucial importance is posed by China’s emergence as a major power.”
  • “Potentially, the most dangerous scenario [working against US hegemony] would be a grand coalition of China, Russia and perhaps Iran, an “antihegemonic” coalition united not by ideology but complementary grievances.” [While in 1997, an alliance of Russia, China, and Iran was not even a glitter in one’s eye, today, there is some such alliance of the three probably through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).”
  • “However, a coalition allying Russia with both China and Iran can develop only if the United States is shortsigthed enough to antagonize China and Iran simultaneously.” [Guess what Mr. Brzezinski. The collective group of succesive American president’s have smilingly did just that.]
  • “But the long-range task remains: how to encourage Russia’s democratic transformation and economic recovery while avoiding the reemergence of a Eurasian empire that could obstruct the American geostrategic goal of shaping alarger Euro-Atlantic system to which Russia can then be stably and safely related.” [Russia was an American “poodle” during the Yeltsin years, and, somewhat, during the Medvedev presidency. Under Putin, and especcially after his re-election to the presidency, Brzezinki’s fanciful fantasy has been dashed. Currently, we can see Brzezinski’s hysterical responses relative to the Ukraine fiasco in various news media.]
  • “For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia.”

Emmanuel Todd’s AFTER THE EMPIRE: The Breakdown of the American Order is a must read for a superb analysis of all of America’s strategy of hegemony and why it will fail. Regarding Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard, Mr. Todd comments as follows:

“Brzezinski’s plan is clear and concise even if he suggests that wiping out Russia is for its own good. He proposes bringing Ukraine into the occidental fold and using Uzbekistan to pry Central Asia out of Russia’s control. He does not say that encircling Russia need necessarily lead to a breakup of the heart of the country. His high strategy does not forego a minimum of diplomatic caution. But there are things even more unspeakable. Brzezinski does not broach the subject of America’s economic inefficiency and the necessity for the United States to insure control over the world’s wealth through political and military means. However, his geopolitical experience does lead him to formulate this vital matter indirectly, first by underlining the fact that the bulk of the world’s population is in Eurasia, and second by pointing out that the United States is a long way from Eurasia. Read: Eurasia supplies the influx of goods and capital that are indispensable for maintaining the standard of living of all Americans, from the overclass to the plebeians.”

Mr. Brzezinski provided the United States with a strategy that would, if successful, insure the country’s long-term economic viability. But, only a fool would not recognize that, at best, his strategy was a desperate gamble with questionable odds. Mr. Brzezinski’s intricate strategy has been followed since the break-up of the Soviet Union. What Mr. Brzezinski has not articulated was the need for a competent leader who would execute this complex strategy from the time of Soviet Union break-up until the US has complete hegemony over Eurasia. In my opinion, the only world leader who could accomplish the above was the 19th century Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck was an exceptionally outstanding leader and a very astute practitioner of realpolitik. I have a feeling that Henry Kissinger would agree with me. Alas, the US does not have an Otto von Bismarck.

The above summary must be recognized as an abbreviated look at Brzezinski’s geo- strategy. A reading of his well-written The Grand Chessboard will be both illuminating and educational.

The recent coup of the Ukrainian government by the US and its shady accomplices looks to me as being incompetently developed, and, certainly, must have assumed that Russia would sit by as an American “poodle”. Obviously, the US was mistaken. It crossed Putin’s “red-line”, and now Russia is strongly ensconced in the Crimea. Vladimir Putin

is an outstanding leader, arguably, the best in the contemporary world. If the US masterminds had a fraction of his leadership ability, they would have easily recognized that Putin would not gratuitously give up the Crimea to the United States. Now, the United States is backed into a corner. If the US is not successful with its Ukrainian gambit, the world will see it as a decaying superpower. The US has no means, even conventional war, which will give it success in the Ukrainian fiasco. Will it, as a “cornered-rat”, do something as irrational as start a nuclear war? In my opinion, this risk is not zero.

Why the 2013 Gold Swoon?

Why the 2013 Gold Swoon?
Since late in 2011, gold has been in a “swoon”. First, it went down from the $1900s to about $1750 in early 2012. The possible reasons were: deflation; government manipulation to keep the dollar strong; or, a combination of deflation and manipulation. Since late in 2012, and still continuing, gold has been hammered. The possible reasons could still be the previously stated reasons. I have had a feeling for some time that these explanations in 2013 are inadequate. I had the strong feeling that powerful insiders had access to information that the dollar’s valuation would, for some unknown reason, collapse, and were powerful enough to drive the price of gold down so that they and their powerful backers could purchase the maximum amount of gold at the lowest possible price. But, as I stated, this was just a hunch.
Along came three blogs posted in 2013 by www.zerohedge.com regarding QBAMCO:

  •  “QBAMCY On The Fed’s Exit” 03/13/2013
  •  “QBAMCO On Unreserved Credit Growth And Imperial Constraints” 04-21-2013 (the article has a link for one to read the full article)
  •  “QBAMCO On Precious Metals And The Coming ‘Great Reset’” 04/29/2013

My attempt to summarize the three papers is as follows:
1. The FED is controlled by the big banks, and functions in a way that maximizes big bank profits.
2. Up to 2007, the U.S. was in an inflationary leveraging mode. Hence, the enormous debt build-up by consumers, and federal, state, and local governments. Banks took on a lot of risk, but were very profitable to key people via bonuses.
3. In 2008, the U.S. entered a deflationary deleveraging mode. This is a disastrous mode , and can be the death-knell for an economy. This is what the 1930s was all about.
4. Sometime since 2008 and after all kinds of “stimulus” or reflation, such as, QE 1, QE 2, etc., the U.S. entered an inflationary deleveraging mode. Armageddon was avoided, but the deleveraging did not bring prosperity.
5. Late in 2012, the big banks decided that a new course of action was needed to get the banks profitable. Always, one needs to consider that the FED is a tool for the bank’s goals. The need was to get back to the pre-2007 inflationary leveraging mode, and the prevailing course of action was not successful. What is needed is a shedding of debt by consumers, government, and business. A good way is to default on most of the debt via currency devaluation, and when the debt burden is sufficiently reduced, initiate a new monetary system based on gold in the Bretton Woods principle. This was a G-7 decision, and this is what QAMCO calls the ‘Great Reset’.
6. Thanks to the so called “stimulus”, the U.S. banks balance sheets are in good shape.
Europe through first austerity in the periphery and, now, by seizure of bank deposits
(the Cyprus fiasco) is getting the core country bank balance sheets in good shape. Next,
Japan under Abe is now acting as if it wants to significantly destroy the yen. Then, it
would be Europe’s turn. The last would be the U.S. QBAMCO thesis is that in the
second half of 2013, the U.S. banks will have engineered a dollar collapse. To insure
that the proper person then becomes the FED head and becomes the hero, Bernanke is
out. The likely hero will be Tim Geithner who will engineer the “Great Reset”. The
dollar will be significantly devalued, and the “new” dollar will be based on gold. (There
is a lot of speculation that China, in the same time frame, is planning to do the same
with the yuan.) With the dollar significantly devalued, debt issues in the U.S. will be so
minor, that a new inflationary leveraging period can take place, and, hence, bank
profitability sky-rockets.
If the QAMCO thesis is correct, it goes a long way in explaining the recent, sharp drop in the
price of gold. The entities that would have decided on the “Great Reset” are smart enough
to buy all the gold that they can, and also significantly drive down the gold price in order to
enhance the future profitability of their gold holdings. This would suggest that sometime in
2013, the banks will want the price to rise as high as humanly possible.
QAMCO’s thesis is coherent, and can be the explanation for what has happened and what
will happen in 2013. Several months ago, Marc Faber in an interview predicted major
financial problems in the latter part of 2013. Within the last two weeks, Faber stated that
he buys gold every month, and has purchased gold at the current low price. Financial
observers are starting to comment that something unknown but very important happened
in the latter part of 2012.
While I have absolutely no knowledge of when and how the dollar will collapse, the
continuous “printing” of money by the FED will eventually destroy the dollar, and the value
of gold will sky-rocket. It looks as if the smart money thinks the shit will hit the fan during
the latter part of 2013.
S.J. Kowalski, May 20, 2013