from Silver Doctors:

How many “anonymous sources” were used in this circle jerk? At least five. Here are the details…

Last week we reported that it was reported by Reuters using anonymous sources that China was restricting its gold imports (bold added for emphasis):

China has severely restricted imports of gold since May, bullion industry sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters, in a move that could be aimed at curbing outflows of dollars and bolstering its yuan currency as economic growth slows.

The world’s second largest economy has cut shipments by some 300-500 tonnes compared with last year — worth $15-25 billion at current prices, the sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the media.

It is now being reported that China is easing the restrictions.

Only, there’s a catch.

From Reuters (bold and bold added for emphasis):

The central bank began to issue quotas again last week, but for lower amounts of gold than considered normal, three people with direct knowledge of the matter in London and Asia said – without specifying exact amounts.

“Some (quotas) have been given,” said one of the sources, adding that these were “less than usual.”

It’s a “partial lift” of the restrictions, another source said.

Wait a second!

Reuters just reported last week that China was restricting gold imports, but now they’re reporting that last week China began easing restrictions?

In other words, China began easing restrictions on gold imports the very same week it was reported that imports were being restricted?

Confused?

You’re supposed to be, perhaps subconsciously, or subliminally, but only if you’re not paying attention.

Let’s get a better understanding of what’s going on here by consulting the Deep State Globalists’ Operators Manual, otherwise known as George Orwell’s 1984:

The messages he had received referred to articles or news items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify. For example, it appeared from The Times of the seventeenth of March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day, had predicted that the South Indian front would remain quiet but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in North Africa. As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command had launched its offensive in South India and left North Africa alone. It was therefore necessary to rewrite a paragraph of Big Brother’s speech, in such a way as to make him predict the thing that had actually happened. Or again, The Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones. As for the third message, it referred to a very simple error which could be set right in a couple of minutes. As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a “categorical pledge” were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grams to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April. (1.4.6)

What does all of this mean?

It means that just like in the fictional work of George Orwell, life imitates art, and so real life MSM propagandists are in a constant scramble to update, re-write, write new, revise, delete, and/or alter previous reporting on gold & silver.

This latest example from Reuters highlights this very scramble.

The better question is, why is this done?

It is done because the MSM serves the interests of the Deep State Globalists, and it is in their interest to never, ever report fairly on gold & silver.

Therefore, it could be that in an attempt to offset and negate what on the surface would be “good for gold” (China easing restrictions on gold imports), the article from last week was published to bring to the surface what would be “bad for gold”, with full knowledge of what was coming this week.

At least five “anonymous sources” were used between the two reports.

The number could be higher as “sources” is assumed to be “two”.

Of course, they could have made the whole thing up, too.

But hey, it’s Reuters, so this must be totally legit!

Read More @ SilverDoctors.com