Guns Are The Issue Now...But They'll Be Coming For Your Gold Next
What are the best ways for government to usurp more power from its citizens? Wrangle the guns from its citizens and then abscond with all the "sound money" the nation has.
There have perhaps been no greater examples of government hypocrisy than there were during the pandemic lockdowns. The peons (like you, the reader) were given one set of instructions: namely, to lock down, wear a mask, shut down your business and not even so much as breathe without government permission - while government officials played by their own set of rules.
Among scores of examples, there was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who paraded around a shuttered San Francisco hair salon for a wash and blow-out, maskless, despite local ordinances keeping salons closed as part of Covid lockdowns.
There was California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who attended “a fancy dinner party honoring a top political adviser” at The French Laundry, maskless.
And most recently, there was AOC partying maskless in Miami, while at the same time criticizing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and while her home state of New York - which had implemented strict mask and vaccine requirements for businesses - was watching Omicron cases surge.
These finely cooked pieces of complete and total hypocrisy from the elected officials that swear up and down they know what’s best for the peons were, in my opinion, actually helpful in getting the public pissed off enough to finally make their voices heard and revolt against mandatory mask, vaccine and lockdown requirements in the United States.
Even in Philadelphia, where the mayor tried to reinstitute mask mandates just weeks ago, pushback was so noticeable that the effort was quickly canceled and swept under the rug, without providing “the science” as to why:
Philadelphia is ending its indoor mask mandate, city health officials said Thursday night, abruptly reversing course just days after people in the city had to start wearing masks again amid a sharp increase in infections.
The Board of Health voted Thursday to rescind the mandate, according to the Philadelphia health department, which released a statement that cited "decreasing hospitalizations and a leveling of case counts."
The health department did not release data to back up its reversal on masking, saying more information would be provided Friday. Philadelphia had become the first major U.S. city to reinstate its indoor mask mandate, but faced fierce blowback as well as a legal effort to get the mandate thrown out. Few masks were worn at the Philadelphia 76ers' home playoff game on Monday, even though they were required under city rules.
But unfortunately, in my opinion, the tranche of hypocrisy we’re about to see from government going forward is going to make Covid look like a picnic, is an order of magnitude larger and its consequences more far-reaching and far more devastating.
I’m talking about the inevitable direction the country is heading in right now: a direction where guns - and yes, gold - may be wrangled from citizens by our government under the guise of it being for our own well being.
And of course, as government has a tendency to do, they will continue to enjoy the benefits of both guns and gold, in what could wind up being a display of hypocrisy that winds up altering the course of the nation as we know it.
I don’t want to go into detail about the recent mass shootings, because I don’t believe that giving those stories additional attention helps resolve the issue. Putting aside how everybody feels about gun control and the emotions running high about recent shootings (one of which was blocks from where I live and a couple hundred feet from where I was hanging out the night it occurred), former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made her stance well-known on Twitter the other day when she tweeted: “No one actually needs an AR-15.”
Honestly, I always find it humorous when political officials who are constantly protected by an armed security detail laboriously prattle on about why nobody needs guns.
Of course, within four seconds, I was able to find a YouTube video of a 2011 CBS report about Hillary Clinton’s security detail while she was Secretary of State.
The video said that when Clinton travels, her security is carefully coordinated with “dogs, machine guns, armored vehicles and 80 agents”.
And so the notion that “no one actually needs an AR-15” doesn’t seem to be true.
What Clinton actually meant is that none of the peons actually need an AR-15, those types of guns are reserved for protecting people in government, who make the rules and tell you what you can and cannot do. Those people need to be protected by machine guns.
If you’re saying my response lacks nuance, you’re right, it does. Mainly because I don’t hold the security of politicians in any higher regard than I do for everyday American citizens. After all, that’s all politicians in a representative republic, who are tasked with communicating the wishes of the electorate, are: American citizens.
Putting aside the obvious hypocrisy of politicians having armed security details, it’s also important to pay attention to the imbalance that will be created if the country passes a blanket gun ban. The government will have all of the weapons and the people will have none.
And in the real world, you can’t tell me that the balance of weaponry in the nation isn’t at least considered at a time when things like mandatory lockdowns are being planned and discussed. As I stated on a recent podcast, you can’t tell me that Australia’s logic behind their brutal, draconian Covid lockdowns would not have been different if their country’s citizens were armed the way Americans are. The lockdowns may not have changed, but the government damn well would’ve, in some way, considered the fact that the electorate is armed – and that quick thought is enough, because it keeps the government in check to a degree in a way it wouldn’t otherwise be.
When I was in my 20s, I used to wonder how the “assholes” at the NRA and on the right could fight for gun ownership rights. Who could possibly need these weapons - and for what good reason? Who were these crusty, impotent old fucks with their liver-spotted hands desperately clutching their bullet-filled phallic symbols as if their lives depended on it?
When I started living in Philadelphia in my 20s and walking home at 3AM every night from work, the self-defense purpose of handguns - both on my person and in my home - became crystal clear.
When I moved to West New York later in my 20s and lived among factory workers, welders, fabricators and mechanics outside of Buffalo who target shot, hunted and fished for sport on the weekends, it became even clearer.
By the time I was 30 and had come to terms with the civil liberty power grabs that occurred in the wake of 9/11, it started to take shape as to why, exactly, the NRA draws such a bold line about what they are willing to give ground on (almost nothing).
Because once civil liberties are taken from us, they’re never given back.
Today’s article is free, but if you have the means and would like to support my work, I’d be humbled to have you as a subscriber:
And not unlike guns, gold could very well be the next item the government tries to confiscate. If you’re reading this blog, you likely already know that gold is sound money - which is why Central Banks hold it in reserve.
The more I listen to goldbugs on podcasts and in alternative media lately, the more I keep hearing one caveat that I haven’t heard in days past: that peons should be careful with their gold miner investments because, at some point, the government could nationalize miners. It’s a reality now when it wasn’t in years past because of how dramatically the global monetary system is changing, thanks to pornographic amounts of sovereign debt and Russia and China collectively challenging the dollar.
The thought process goes like this: it’s starting to become widely accepted that at some point in the near future, we are going to have a monetary reset globally. The bifurcation of the global economy resulting from countries like China, Russia, and India all working together is going to mount a real challenge for Western economies, their currencies and their debt.
At some point, many people (including myself) believe the entire global monetary system is going to have to be rejiggered to both (1) deal with the insane amounts of debt outstanding and (2) give Russia, China and the likes a bigger seat at the table. Whether Russia and China force our hand on this remains to be seen, but one thing seems certain: it’s going to happen and, when it does, we will likely be returning to some form of gold standard.
When this happens, gold and silver will once again become must-own commodities not only for the U.S., but for governments around the world like Canada, who currently has zero gold reserves.
The importance on the precious metal from this scenario puts miners on an obvious fast track to being nationalized: they will be the new “Fed printers” of the global sound money and, not unlike right now, the government is going to want to have a monopoly on how much we “print” and when.
When you think about it, it all comes down to control. In a system where currency is backed by gold and citizens have the individual right to own firearms, what do those two things give us, the peons? They give us power and control on a par with government - they level the playing field to some degree.
It’s for this reason that I believe the common sense line of thinking results in government trying to take both of these items from its citizens.
And that’s important for people who own gold miner stocks to keep in mind. For the first time ever, I think a potential nationalization of miners needs to be considered when making the investment case for what I believe to be the most undervalued group of stocks you can buy today. I strongly believe gold miners will see significant gains when gold finally rockets higher (read about this here), but I think investors need to be acutely aware of risk related to the government “cashing them out” of these positions just like they did with Russian assets.
When that happens it will be yet another example of hypocrisy – it’s okay for me, but not for thee – except the power with which it will take away from every day citizens in a new economic and civil society going forward will be profound and have effects on our country for decades, if not centuries, to come.