You're just antiseptic. Little hat people are peaceful and are just blamed for everything they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
Printable View
You're just antiseptic. Little hat people are peaceful and are just blamed for everything they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
Random year Eagles are over $90/oz on APMEX.
I have to admit, silver price rising just isnt as fun without ponce and silver sammy around.
trumpstein at it again. As Asian buyers of silver were driving up the price of silver and taking silver from Latin America to cause silver shortages in the LBMA and dwindling supplies at the comex. The cia run Mexican drug cartels took over mines to have a reason for trump to perhaps steal the Mexican silver mines and send it to the US for stockpiling.
Once I read the Mexican drug cartel (cia run) move into silver mine areas weeks ago, I knew trump would use this as a possible pretext to steal silver in Mexico and it is reported in the news:
Trump’s Mexico War Talk Is a Disaster Warning for Investors in Mexican Silver Miners
The new U.S. land‑strike doctrine and Mexico’s pending resource nationalism make silver miners operating in Mexico a jurisdictional time bomb
The Silver Academy
Jan 09, 2026
by Jon Little intern Mr. Niko Moretti
Foreword:
Trump’s new policy of attacking Mexico is bad news for anyone invested in silver miners operating there. Between his talk of “land strikes” and Mexico’s tightening resource nationalism, silver operations face rising risks of disruption, taxes, and even de facto expropriation
A U.S. “land‑strike” doctrine turns Mexico from a high‑beta mining story into a live jurisdictional hazard for oil, gold, silver, and copper investors. Once Washington normalizes cross‑border strikes on “cartel‑linked” assets, any operation in contested states can be reclassified as security‑exposed infrastructure, with sanctions, insurance cancellations, and forced shutdowns to match. Combine that with Morena’s hard resource nationalism and “no new concessions” stance, and investors face a double bind: a tightening host state from within and arbitrary U.S. force projection from without. Under that pincer, institutional capital treats Mexico as a war‑zone, not a portfolio core
Washington is about to do to Mexican mining what it already did to Middle East oil: turn a lucrative sector into a live‑fire geopolitical experiment, just as institutional money finally starts sniffing around the space. At the exact moment pension funds and sovereign wealth desks are preparing to rotate into hard assets and mining, the Trump regime is dangling “land strikes” in Mexico and importing a Venezuela‑style metals war template across the Rio Grande. This is not risk; this is sabotage disguised as policy.
Turning Silver into a War Asset
The trajectory is brutally clear: first, Maduro is snatched off the board and Venezuela’s resources are shoved under U.S. “stewardship”; then, within 24 hours, Washington backs an $8 billion, defense‑linked smelter complex to refine Latin American silver under the watchful eye of the Department of War and its banking partners.
The message to capital is not subtle—silver is no longer just a commodity, it is a strategic feedstock to be captured, concentrated, and securitized in the service of U.S. foreign policy. Nobody running institutional money into mining wants to wake up and realize their exposure now sits downstream of a Pentagon‑adjacent smelter complex whose output can be redirected at the stroke of a pen.
When Cartel Rhetoric Becomes Mining Risk
Trump’s latest pivot—“we’re going to start now hitting land” in Mexico to go after cartels allegedly “running” the country—is not law‑enforcement tough talk, it is jurisdictional demolition. Once the U.S. normalizes land strikes on Mexican soil, every industrial asset inside cartel‑adjacent states becomes conceptually fair game, no matter how clean the ownership register looks. Tie that to foreign‑terrorist designations and “material support” statutes, and a mine operator’s routine dealings—security contractors, trucking routes, local gatekeepers—can be retrofitted into a legal pretext to freeze assets, void contracts, or choke off financing under the banner of anti‑cartel warfare.
Mexico Slams the Door While Trump Lights a Match
On the other side of the border, Mexico itself is not exactly rolling out the red carpet. President Claudia Sheinbaum has already declared, with no ambiguity, “no new mining concessions will be granted,” fully embracing Morena’s resource‑nationalist doctrine. New exploration is halted, existing concessions are dragged through environmental and social reviews, and silver is being repositioned rhetorically in the same category as oil, lithium, and strategic energy infrastructure. Mexico is telling investors that subsoil wealth belongs to the state first and the people second; foreign capital, at best, is a temporary instrument of convenience.
Now add Trump’s land‑strike fetish to that framework. You have a host government intent on tightening control over mining and a U.S. president telegraphing the right to project force into the very states where many silver operations sit. That is not diversification; that is a cross‑border pincer where your asset is squeezed by nationalist regulators indoors and erratic U.S. militarism outdoors.
The Worst Possible Timing for Institutional Flows
This is happening at precisely the wrong time in the cycle. Institutions that ignored miners for a decade are finally waking up to structural deficits in silver, copper, and critical minerals, quietly drafting mandates to increase exposure to real assets. They need stability: jurisdictional clarity, predictable permitting, and the assurance that their ESG narratives will not be blown up by drone strikes or paramilitary “advisors” showing up on the perimeter fence. Instead, they are being offered:
A zealous, scandal‑soaked U.S. president dragging around Epstein‑file baggage, desperate to change the channel from domestic rot—ugly job prints, 39 trillion in public debt, and a militarized deportation machine whose enforcers have already been caught killing innocent “soccer moms” on U.S. soil.
A White House eager to rebrand its failures by launching proxy crusades abroad: bomb Venezuela, threaten Colombia, and now talk openly about sending troops or “hit teams” into Mexico in the name of a perpetual war on cartels.
A security apparatus that increasingly sees metals as munitions—inputs to be controlled, not markets to be respected—while regulators and prosecutors sharpen enforcement tools that can turn ordinary operating risk into terrorism‑adjacency overnight.
This is exactly the environment in which institutional committees pull the plug. They do not brave “headline risk” around soccer moms shot by ICE and presidential sex‑blackmail files just to pile into a jurisdiction now flagged by the commander‑in‑chief as a legitimate theater for land strikes.
A Regime Unfit to Steward Capital
At root, this is a regime problem. You have a U.S. president with collapsing moral authority, haunted by sealed lists and corruption scandals, flanked by agencies whose domestic conduct already looks like a low‑grade internal war against their own population. You have 39 trillion in debt, rotting infrastructure, and labor markets that cannot deliver dignified jobs—conditions that usually call for domestic reform, not foreign adventurism. The Trump solution is to externalize the crisis: blame Mexico, blame Venezuela, blame cartels, and in the process transform critical mining jurisdictions into unstable extensions of America’s internal neurosis.
For mining investors, the conclusion is not philosophical; it is practical. A U.S. foreign policy that treats Mexico as a bombing range and Venezuela as a metals farm is fundamentally incompatible with the long‑term capital, deep technical expertise, and stable planning horizon mining actually requires. Call it what it is: a horrendous, unserious foreign policy, weaponizing the very jurisdictions global capital needs to remain boring, predictable, and investable.
If this is the political backdrop to Mexico’s already‑hardening mining nationalism, then institutional flows into Mexican silver are not just mispriced—they are misdiagnosed. Under a Trump regime addicted to theatrics, repression, and distraction, mining operations in Mexico are not being “supported” by American power; they are being marched, step by cynical step, into the blast zone.
Holy smokes! I did call it.
two days ago I called it:
For example: "We need to invade Mexico, steal the silver and send it to the COMEX to crash the price of silver".
http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthre...l=1#post996958
Kiddos, for those that were not on the legendary GIM and did not get taught the cia is heavily linked to drug cartels, watch here:
https://odysee.com/@TheAgeofAquarius...(19.05.2019):e
You don't get taught from cia Faux News that the cia runs the drug industry.
charlie get the fvk off my thread your spamming is pissing us off.
If only Silver Sammy, and Ponce were still around to see the beat down dog have its day in the sun.
remember silver sammy would post, and immediately silver would tank? lol
Link to the story
https://substack.com/home/post/p-184030959