06/16/14 – Eric Margolis – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, I'm Scott Horton here.
It's always safe to say that one should keep at least some of your savings in precious metals as a hedge against inflation.
And if this economy ever does heat back up and the banks start expanding credit, rising prices could make metals a very profitable bet.
Since 1977, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. has been helping people buy and sell gold, silver, platinum, and palladium.
And they do it well.
They're fast, reliable, and trusted for more than 35 years.
And they take Bitcoin.
Call Roberts and Roberts at 1-800-874-9760 or stop by rrbi.co.
All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show, The Scott Horton Show.
First is Eric Margulies, ericmargulies.com is his website.
Spell it like Margolis.
That's how I said it wrong for the first five years I knew this guy.
Eric Margulies at ericmargulies.com.
His books are American Raj, Liberation or Domination, and War at the Top of the World.
He writes at ericmargulies.com, at unz.com, and at lourockwell.com, of course.
Welcome back to the show.
How are you doing, Eric?
I'm fine.
I'm watching all this boiling news coming out of the Middle East with fascination.
Yeah, it's a hell of a thing, isn't it?
You know, not that you predicted it or anything like that.
Well, in fact, let's go back to that.
For people who aren't familiar, Eric Margulies, he's a war reporter going way, way back.
He knows all about this stuff and has for generations, really.
And so back in 2003, a lot of people like to claim, oh, gee, well, nobody knew better or something like that.
Eric Margulies certainly did know better.
You wrote about it in the newspaper, wherever they would actually let you write in the newspaper.
You wrote about it, talked about it on the radio, wrote about it in the American Conservative Magazine and Antiwar.com and other places, trying to warn against the invasion of Iraq.
And so without padding your resume now with hindsight and all of that, tell us honestly, and I know you can and it's good enough.
What exactly were you warning against?
What would be so wrong with attacking Iraq?
After all, Saddam Hussein, bad guy, that kind of thing.
Well, I had seen, I'd covered Iraq before 2003, actually from the mid-70s.
I knew that Saddam Hussein is a close ally of the U.S., particularly in the war against Iran and that he had, I believe, either grown too big for his britches or been lured into attacking Kuwait to be brought down a couple of pegs by the first Bush administration.
In any event, what I foresaw was that, nasty as Saddam was, that whatever his overthrow would lead to worse, that Iraq would disintegrate into at least three parts.
It would cause great instability in the Middle East.
It would create major headaches for the United States, and that I insisted that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no links to the 9-11 attacks or other terrorist groups, and that, as I wrote in The American Conservative, an article called A March to Folly, attacking Iraq would be one of the great political miscalculations in modern American history, and so it was.
Yeah.
Alright, now, it occurred to me way back then, and it still occurs to me now, that even just for argument's sake, if you take for granted the invasion and the regime change, that boy, they could have done it better.
In fact, I interviewed a guy just a few months ago who talked about how America really, they didn't just let Saddam put down the Shiite-Kurdish uprising in 1991.
They actually helped.
They landed American helicopters on the highway and prevented an army division that was marching on Baghdad from getting there, and that kind of thing.
And his argument, I'm sorry I forget the guy's name, but his argument was, if America had just let them, just let things take their course then, they probably, you know, Saddam Hussein would have been overthrown, but then they would have come to a much more amicable type of agreement, and it occurs to me the same thing is true, you know, immorally speaking, but just, you know, facts on the ground-wise, counterfactual sort of thing.
If they had overthrown Saddam Hussein and then cut and ran and just left, then it seems like there would have been much more incentive for all sides to try to work something out.
Maybe not.
Maybe there would have been a civil war anyway, but as long as they had the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps to help the Bata Brigade kick all the Sunni Arabs out of Baghdad, then, hey, why not?
Why settle for compromise when you can take everything from Baghdad to Basra and then screw Fallujah and Mosul, who even cares about that?
They got, and this was the Iranian thing all along, what the Supreme Islamic Council wanted all along, what they called strong federalism, which is just, hey, America, give us the capital city and then get the hell out.
So it seems like, or I don't know, what do you think?
If the Americans had just got rid of Saddam and left, do you think it would have been a massive civil war like this, or maybe they could have held the Iraqi state together and worked things out?
No, I think there would probably have been a civil war.
You know, what went down in Iraq is very similar to what is going to happen in Kabul, Afghanistan soon.
A puppet army is going to run.
The Americans, we have the old divide and conquer.
We have allied ourselves with minorities in Afghanistan, the Tajiks and the Uzbeks, against a majority Pashtuns.
Well, in Iraq it's a little bit different, because we've allied ourselves with the majority Shiites against the minority Sunnis.
But you have the same puppet army and the same situation.
And Scott, you know, but really haunting American policymakers was the fact that Saddam was the genie, was the plug, the cork that kept the Iranian genie in its bottle.
And they were afraid that if Saddam were overthrown, that the Iranians would just run riot over Iraq, which has already begun happening.
Right.
One of the quotes that was from the WikiLeaks, the heroic Chelsea Manning WikiLeaks there is the king of Saudi Arabia saying to the American ambassador, hey, it was always you, me and Saddam containing Iran.
And now you're going to give them Iraq on a golden platter, not even a silver one, a golden platter.
And that is what's happened.
Only we didn't give them the whole country.
We just gave them Baghdad and all the land of Basra.
They don't they still don't have the wherewithal to to take the predominantly Sunni areas of the country.
It doesn't look like that's why the Iraqi army all turned and fled was I don't even think they imagined that they could hold on to the Sunni areas even as long as they had.
Right.
Oh, that's right.
They've had a collapse of morale, but they're now being stiffened, I think, by Iranian volunteers who are coming in.
The U.S. will shortly launch drone and heavy airstrikes as soon as they can figure out who to bomb and attack.
It won't be that easy for the for the Sunni forces who are, I believe, backed by Saudi Arabia secretly or at least funded by Saudi Arabia.
You know, I've seen the Saudis and the Iranians in a proxy war that first began in Afghanistan and has now spread west ever since 1980.
This is going on behind the scenes.
Well, and this is the this is really the horrible treachery of the Iraq war that George Bush's best friends, the Saudis, were financing the Sunni based insurgency in the Al Qaeda insurgency against the American slash Iranian occupation and installation of the Shiite parties in power in Baghdad that whole time.
That's right.
Well, everybody there in this incredible mess is playing their own game.
My last column I just wrote up this weekend at my website is, you know, the the enemy of my enemy is no longer my friend.
It used to be that way.
But now so there's so many players that contra positions going on here that it's it's very hard to follow.
One thing I do emphasize, though, you know, Dick Cheney back in 2003 or 2004, when asked what was the purpose of the war for Iraq, said it was for Israel and oil.
And that that terse statement tells us an awful lot.
The the objective of Cheney and the neocons was not to build a democratic or a Shia led Iraq or anything else like that.
Their objective was to destroy Iraq as a as a modern functioning state, because it posed a military challenge to Israel and had the capability it would have to make nuclear weapons.
Eventually, it was the most advanced Arab state technologically.
So it was decided to destroy Iraq and remove this threat to Israel and then to grab Iraq's oil, too.
Yeah.
Well, as David Wimser put it, in coping with crumbling states, we want to expedite the chaotic collapse.
He was talking about Syria, but it's the same faster, please, boiling cauldron type of a theory of of the neocons.
I'm sorry.
We've got to take this break.
We'll be right back with Eric Margulies in just a sec.
You hate government.
One of them libertarian types.
Maybe you just can't stand the president, gun grabbers or warmongers.
Me, too.
That's why I invented Liberty Stickers dot com.
Well, Rick owns it now and I didn't make up all of them, but still, if you're driving around and want to tell everyone else how wrong their politics are, there's only one place to go.
Liberty Stickers dot com has got your bumper covered.
Left right.
Libertarian empire.
Police state founders quote central banking.
Yes.
Bumper stickers about central banking.
Lots of them.
And well, everything that matters.
Liberty Stickers dot com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
All right, you guys, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show.
Scott Horton Show.
I'm talking with Eric Margulies, author of American Raj.
Here at Lew Rockwell dot com, owns dot com, Eric Margulies dot com.
And now.
Well, now.
So here's the thing, boy.
And I don't know if we got enough time to talk about all this stuff.
But now that we're talking about the history of the Iraq war and what's behind it all and that kind of thing, it does kind of seem like the neocons and and, you know, the right wing nationalists, for that matter, Dick Cheney and them were basically fooled by Chalabi, the Iranian spy who.
There's a great article in Salon dot com by I forget the guy's name called how Chalabi con the neocons.
Oh, this is going to be great for Israel, he said.
Yeah, we're going to get you a Hashemite king like in Jordan.
We're going to build you oil and a water pipeline to Haifa.
And hey, Richard Pearl.
Yeah.
Whatever you imagine.
That's what's going to come true.
It's going to be great.
You stupid idiot.
But meanwhile, they were all he was working for the Ayatollah.
Hey, INC headquarters was in Tehran.
And the plan all along was to empower the Shia, to empower the Iranians.
And so maybe Iraq isn't the the most powerful Arab state anymore, but now Iran is twice as powerful as it ever was before.
So I don't think that's what Ariel Sharon's rotting corpse was actually going for in the first place.
But in the beginning of 2004, the Ayatollah Sistani said, let my people vote.
And then that was it.
No more caucus system.
No more sock puppet dictatorship.
Next mustache in line.
Didn't matter whether they had debauchified and abolished the army or not.
Ayatollah Sistani said, we're the majority and you said democracy.
So let's see it.
What were they going to do?
Start the war all over again against the South?
So I just wonder.
I mean, I know they're up to no good.
I just wonder if this is the no good they were really up to.
The U.S. derived a lot of its information about Iraq from Israeli intelligence.
It couldn't admit it.
And the U.S. was misled into the war, but misled because it wanted to believe, according to orders from on top, from the Bush White House and from the Pentagon and from Cheney, who sandbagged the CIA into producing erroneous information.
These are all people who, you know, give feed us the information we want to justify a war.
You've mentioned many times how this was planned out in neocon circles, and then they was egged on by the Israelis, so tremendous benefit.
In fact, Israel is the only country to really benefit from the 2003 war.
Well, what about Iran?
It seems like they did way well, and Osama bin Laden's guys, but...
Well, you're right.
Yes, Iran got some minor benefit from it.
They got rid of Saddam Hussein, who was a primary enemy, and they've got their men in power now in Baghdad.
But they have not moved into Iraq, as everyone feared at the time.
Right.
Well, they haven't really needed to.
I mean, they got the Dawa Party and the Supreme Islamic Council guys in there.
The U.K. Guardian newspapers reporting today that 2,000 Iranian troops, but Fiji, who are their sort of militia, have moved into Iraq already.
Yeah, the Wall Street Journal was saying that, I guess, last Friday, but it seemed...
I don't know if that was really right or not.
The way they said it was they had already taken back part of Tikrit, and that didn't sound right.
No, it's not.
That deep into now enemy territory there.
All right, so anyway, we got to fast forward to the Obama years here, because it seems like if the Iranians got all the land from Baghdad to Basra, Bush turned all the west and northwestern Iraq into lawless, wild west jihadistan, at least for quite a time there, until the so-called awakening and the tribal councils kind of putting down their rebellion.
But then Obama came into power and supported these guys outright, where Bush's folly was the best thing that ever happened to them.
Obama doubled it by taking their side in Libya and in Syria.
And you're one of the first people who was reporting back in 2011, Eric, that you had sources saying the Saudis are bankrolling this, that the French are in on it, that they've got spies and special forces in Syria.
And this is back to the 1980s again, only now 3,000 miles to the west of Reagan's adventure in Afghanistan.
That's right.
I've written we've entered into a new era of neo-colonialism, with the European powers in the U.S. now moving very rapidly into the Middle East and into Africa, not to mention parts of Asia, too.
So I mean, American troops are all over Central Africa now in a race against the Chinese and the French.
This all has echoes of the 19th century.
The French are very, very involved in the mess in Syria.
And look, all these jihadi groups that sprang up and have been financed by the West and armed by the West, and the Saudis and the Gulf Sheikhdoms, now they're whizzing blowback from this jihadi uprising into Iraq.
So the situation is terribly confusing.
Well, and now, I guess the way I've understood it is that, and information has been pretty limited out there, but it sort of seems like the scam is, oh yeah, we're backing the moderates, but they're giving way more money, way more weapons than there are, than there is demand by any moderate faction.
And of course, their definition of moderate are the Al-Faruq Brigade cannibals, because hey, at least they're for elections.
And the Northern Storm Brigade, Iraq War veterans, because hey, at least they get along well with John McCain.
And these are supposedly the moderates.
But then the US, the CIA, the Saudis, the Qataris, they send them all the money and weapons, but all that stuff ends up in the hands almost immediately of the Al-Nusra Front and the ISIS guys, because they're the ones who are the dedicated fighters in Syria.
In fact, in comparison to the Iraq War, it seems like in the Iraq War, the al-Qaeda were the fringe of the insurgency, maybe still are.
Whereas in Syria, this is really their war, and it's not very plausible deniability.
That's what I keep calling it.
Oh yeah, well, the Saudis are backing the moderates, and we're standing back watching.
In other words, Barack Obama is working with the Saudis to arm the ISIS suicide bombers by way of, you know, what, one week's delay?
They give a tow missile to a moderate in the Islamic Front, who then gives it to al-Nusra?
And if, you know, a couple of days later, what the hell is that?
Well, it's a joke, and it's a bad one.
And here we're told that the Saudis are funneling aid to the, quote, moderate, unquote.
These are the moderate Saudis who cut off people's heads and hands and won't let women drive and deny any civil rights to anybody, one of the most repressive regimes on earth, and they're dealing with moderates?
I don't think so.
The Saudis have a long history that goes back to 1980, or even earlier, of financing all kinds of wild men and extremist groups, as long as they stay out of Saudi Arabia.
And that's been their policy, and it's worked well for them.
Well, now, how much control can the Americans or the Saudis or anyone else pretend to have over these guys that they're letting loose here?
Oh, very little.
We, our intelligence agencies have been awful at figuring out who's who.
Did a better job in Afghanistan, but here, and it is very difficult.
It's hard to figure out which group is which, and they're changing, and they keep changing names, and new groups keep jumping up.
We really don't know we're at the mercy of Saudi intelligence for a lot of it.
I don't think we can really make a coherent policy.
I want to make another point, too, Scott, that all the fighting that's going on in Iraq right now is not being done by the ISIS, the jihadis.
What we're seeing is an uprising by Saddam Hussein's old Ba'ath Party, which the U.S. disbanded, you remember, under Bush's orders.
But these groups now, they're veterans of the Iraqi army, of the war against Iran.
They are at the forefront of the fighting now against the Shia forces, and they are pretty capable.
So it's all, they're also nationalists as well as jihadis.
I think that must be right, and I was just reading an article to the people earlier, these Iraqi Sunni scholars saying, no, this is the same old Sunni-based insurgency.
Al-Qaeda's just the fringe, and I guess they're the ones out front doing most of the dying and the fighting and whatever.
But that really, like you're saying, this is just the Sunni religious leaders, Ba'athists, and tribal leaders and whatever.
But I wonder how you compare that to Syria.
Am I right that where the jihadists are really a small percentage of the insurgency in Iraq, they're really a much greater percentage of, it's really their war in Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis seem to be sitting it out or siding with Assad, no?
Yeah, the professional centerists, if you want to call it, in Syria are siding with the Assad government.
So there are non-professionals who are fighting, as opposed to Iraq, where you have a lot of the old guard, which has now risen up, but the West won't admit it.
We keep calling them terrorists.
Hey, is there any chance you feel like doing one more segment with me after the break here?
For you, yes.
Thank you so much, Eric.
And we'll be back at six after, so go ahead and take a break, and I'll be right back, everybody, with Eric Margulies.
Really appreciate it.
But we got so much more to talk about here.
Scott Horton dot org.
Hey, y'all.
Scott here.
First, I want to take a second to thank all the show's listeners, sponsors, and supporters for helping make this show what it is.
I literally couldn't do it without you.
And now I want to tell you about the newest way to help support the show.
Whenever you shop at Amazon dot com, stop by Scott Horton dot org first, and just click the Amazon logo on the right side of the page.
That way, the show will get a kickback from Amazon's end of the sale.
It won't cost you an extra cent.
And it's not just books.
Amazon dot com sells just about everything in the world, except cars, I think.
So whatever you need, they've got it.
Just click the Amazon logo on the right side of the page at Scott Horton dot org, or go to Scott Horton dot org slash Amazon.
All right.
All right.
Welcome back.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show, The Scott Horton Show.
Coming up, Dan McAdams on Ukraine.
Right now we're talking with Eric Margulies, also at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
I don't usually remember to mention that in your bio there at the top of these segments, Eric.
But glad I just thought so.
Thank you, Scott.
Thank you.
I'm proud to be there.
Yeah.
Well, I should be.
What a great organization to be a part of.
All right.
So we're talking about, you know, the U.S. on all sides of all conflicts over there in the Middle East, as always.
And but now I wonder what you think is going to happen next.
Is this well, let's go back to one thing that you said earlier was that this is not really ISIS taking over western and northwestern Iraq.
This is the Sunni leaders, the former Baathists, the other Sunni leaders, the same old Sunni insurgency.
I wonder if this is their final declaration of independence since the Iraqi army of the Shiite parties clearly had no ability to put down their insurrection, even with Iranian help.
How are they going to retake Mosul?
They can't.
It's not their city.
Well, they're hoping for American help.
Certainly, I think that we'll see U.S. drones very actively operating there within hours, if not days.
We'll see significant American airstrikes.
And we'll see the U.S. giving a green light to Iran to send more troops in there to buttress up the Shiite forces, which will just consolidate the ethnic religious division of Iraq into three parts, Kurds in the north, Shiites in the east, and Sunnis in the west.
Yeah, well, it seems like it's already pretty much a done deal.
I mean, when the ISIS guys say they're going to march on Najaf, that sounds just as ridiculous as the Baader Brigade being able to take back Mosul.
I mean, at this point, the lines are drawn, and I'm surprised it lasted this long before the final break.
But then again, you know, like we're talking about the relative power of this group, ISIS, to declare this Islamic State, they seem to be going pretty far in establishing a state in Syria.
But like you're saying, again, the Baathists and others are still in the driver's seat in Iraq.
So I wonder how you think that's going to play out.
After all, you know, the Sykes-Picot line may be fake, but it's also 100 years old.
So there are still some differences, right, between the Syrian and the Iraqis and their goals here?
Well, yes, of course.
Sykes-Picot, for listeners who don't remember this point, was a secret agreement drawn up in 1916 by the British and French, who had promised the Arabs freedom and independent states after World War I, and actually was a secret agreement to divide up the whole area between the British and French, which resulted in today's artificial borders in the Middle East.
There are those in the jihadist groups who are not all Islamic wild men or crazies who want to erase, start reversing Sykes-Picot and take the Arab world back to its more unified state that it was under the Ottoman Empire.
Now when it comes to the American intervention there, that I agree with you, it has to just be inevitable here, because what are they going to do, not intervene if there's a place to intervene?
But then again, you know, if occupying Iraq only created more and more of these, you know, would-be enemies at least, these wild men as you call them, and if the drone wars, even in Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia, only make more and more of these guys, what's going to happen when you have fleets of American drones and maybe F-16s too flying air cover for Iranian troops on the ground?
And I mean, it seems like no matter what we're doing, if George Bush is trying to fight and oppose these guys, he makes more of them.
Barack Obama helps them out and makes even more than that.
And so now we're going to revert back to bombing them again, at least on the Iraqi side of the former line here.
How much is that going to benefit ISIS and al-Nusra and their allies?
Oh, it will definitely help them, because just as we've seen in Afghanistan, for every bomb that we Americans drop on them or attack, missile, hellfire missile, it would generate 10 members of people to go and fight us.
So it's very counterproductive, and it's considered cowardly in that part of the world to fight from the air and not mano a mano on the ground.
Well, now, I mean, it would be problematic to try to find some kind of consistency here other than just Michael Ledeen's boiling cauldron, although that sort of seems like too easy of an answer.
But there's no consistency at all in this policy, though it would make sense, would it not, for America to go ahead and say, like John Kerry is saying today, well, yeah, we're going to talk with the Iranians about working together on this thing.
We're open to talking with them.
At least it would make sense to work with Iran, with the Shiite-based Ba'athists in Syria against the al-Qaeda guys, since they're actually the Americans' enemies and Iran's really not.
Iran's only real offense, attack against America was declaring independence from us back in 1979.
I mean, I guess Beirut 83, but that ain't much in 2013.
Well, Scott, according to the great United States Congress, Iran is a terrorist state and there's a law in the book so we can't talk to terrorist states.
I don't know if it's going to be observed, but we've been so busy painting people with this stupid branding of terrorism that now we've precluded intelligent discussion with them.
There's going to be a lot of resistance in Congress to doing anything with Iran because Israel's not going to like it.
The jihadists in the West, we can't even talk to moderate elements there because we can't find them.
It's a crazy situation.
Our logical ally in this whole mess is President Bashar Assad in Damascus.
Well, you know, it's funny.
It seems like at this point, actually, treachery on the part of the American Congress and the American War Party on behalf of Israel is helping to confuse the narrative in picking Assad as the bad guys and the rebels as the good guys in Syria.
At least it's precluding a more simple narrative that, look, Al-Qaeda state, let's attack it, which would be a much simpler and more accurate actual representation of the situation.
But because they put Israel first and they're still so hell-bent on Iran and Assad, they can't get their narrative simple and straight that here is a new war we have to have.
Well, Scott, this is a tough marketing job peddling a new war in this area to the American public and Al-Qaeda state is the obvious choice for people who really don't understand the situation.
In fact, Al-Qaeda is a teeny player in this whole situation, even with the with the jihadis in Syria, Al-Qaeda is down to a handful of members.
It's a boogeyman, but it's used to scare Westerners into doing something.
Well, do you know some good relative numbers of members of ISIS and members of the Al-Nusra front in Syria?
I'm not sure about the Al-Nusra front, but I've seen estimates of ISIS of around 8,000 people in Syria.
They're not going to win any major wars.
They can create a lot of nuisance value.
And as far as the ISIS in Iraq goes, I would say probably around 5,000 to 6,000 fighters.
Well, you know, this for some reason hasn't gotten that much attention.
Again, I think it's because of this Israel first Assad is the bad guy, not the suicide bomber, you know, victim crucifiers in Syria that they haven't taken off and run with the fact that a veteran, a French veteran of ISIS killed two Jews at a museum in Brussels a few weeks ago.
That to me is why I'm so convinced that this is going to blow up into a major war, that Israel first Assad is the bad guy narrative is going to end up falling to the side here because you've got hundreds and hundreds of Western Europeans who have gone to fight in Syria and who have Western passports, and some of whom at least are going to be able to make it back into Western Europe without being stopped by whatever international police or intelligence agencies, and probably some of them are going to come here.
And then how are they going to, even if Obama doesn't want to, it's going to mean at least carpet bombing, if not Marines, right?
Scott, we've created, we have created the mother of all messes.
It sure sounds like it.
Yep.
That's the name of the piece here at ericmargulise.com.
The almighty mess in Iraq.
Thank you, Eric.
Appreciate it.
Cheers, Scott.
Hey, all.
Scott here for Liberty.me, the brand new social network and community based publishing platform for the liberty minded.
Liberty.me combines the best of social media technology all in one place and features nightly classes, guides, events, publishing, and so much more.
Sign up now and you get the first 30 days free.
And if you click through the link in the right margin at scotthorton.org or use the promo code Scott, when you sign up, you'll save $5 per month for life.
That's more than a third off the regular price.
And hey, once you sign up, add me as a friend on there at scotthorton.liberty.me.
Be free.
Liberty.me.
Oh, John Kerry's Mideast peace talks have gone nowhere.
Hey, all.
Scott Horton here for the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org.
U.S. military and financial support for Israel's permanent occupations of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is immoral.
And it threatens national security by helping generate terrorist attacks against our country.
And face it.
It's bad for Israel, too.
Without our unlimited support, they would have much more incentive to reach a lasting peace with their neighbors.
It's past time for us to make our government stop making matters worse.
Help support CNI at councilforthenationalinterest.org.
Hey, all.
Scott Horton here.
And I'm so excited about commodity discs from commoditydiscs.com.
They're one-ounce silver pieces with a QR code engraved on the backside.
Scan the code with your phone and get the instant spot price.
Commodity discs are paving the way forward for the alternative currency community in America and around the world.
The QR code commoditydisc.
Technology has now finally made a real free market silver currency viable.
And anyone who donates $100 or more to The Scott Horton Show at scotthorton.org slash donate gets one free.
That's commoditydiscs.com.