Martin Armstrong - why promote a scammer?

[Lui Bunting]

Armstrong's claim to fame, his economic confidence model, is wrong, whether or not he is a scammer or well intentioned. His model is based on pi, 3141 days, or 8.6 years, and that's wrong because timing in our realm is never definite.

The entire financial industry that is based on technical indicators such as cycles, support and resistance and so on, the courses that teach this stuff and software that is based on these idea, is worth $3 billion to $5 billion yearly. That industry, is wrong, a fraud. Because it rests on an assumption that price movement or in fact the mechanism that moves the price can be predicted, based on just looking at the history of it. And the people who sell this stuff, they know it. Otherwise they would just keep it to themselves and make a profit. Armstrong's pi cycle is a pipe dream.

 

[axj]

The cycles theory may not be all wrong since astrological influences are cyclical. But it is certainly more complex than claiming that there must be downturns every x number of years.

 

[Lui Bunting]

Just saw another fresh Armstrong piece republished on sott.net today:

https://www.sott.net/article/505304-Von-Der-Leyen-laughs-at-idea-of-sending-HER-children-to-war

Same pattern — elites laughing while sending everyone else’s kids to war, while he himself has written that he’ll calmly watch the mushroom cloud from his beach house because “nuclear war is survivable”.

Do Not Fear Nuclear War – You Can Survive!

This is exactly what this thread warned about years ago.
Why are we still giving him free promotion and credibility there?

The contradictions are glaring, and the business model is the same old subscription funnel.
Anyone still think this is harmless “alternative perspective”?

 

[Aeneas]

Why are we still giving him free promotion and credibility there?

You commented on the article and someone (Codis) pointed out that the article points out something about von der Leyen and he doesn't promote himself. Codis says it looks like it is a personal feud you have with Armstrong.

I agree. The article is perfectly fine to be on Sott and it might be good for you to let go of your obsession about the writer of the article. Obsessing can cloud our ability to see.

 

[Lui Bunting]

You commented on the article and someone (Codis) pointed out that the article points out something about von der Leyen and he doesn't promote himself. Codis says it looks like it is a personal feud you have with Armstrong.

I agree. The article is perfectly fine to be on Sott and it might be good for you to let go of your obsession about the writer of the article. Obsessing can cloud our ability to see.

I appreciate the feedback — I really do.

But let’s be precise.The issue isn’t that the article points out von der Leyen’s hypocrisy (that part is fine and worth discussing).

The problem is who is writing it and what they are selling underneath.

Martin Armstrong has repeatedly said he would calmly sit on his beach with his dog and watch the mushroom cloud rise because “nuclear war is survivable.”

Yet here he is writing about elites laughing while sending everyone else’s children to war.

That contradiction is not a “personal feud.” It’s a glaring inconsistency from someone who wants us to trust his “cycles” and pay for Socrates subscriptions so we can supposedly beat the rigged system.

I’m not obsessed with the man. I’m obsessed with consistency.

If we’re supposed to question everything — including the alternative voices we read here on sott — then we should apply the same standard to Armstrong that we apply to mainstream sources.

This thread already laid out the fraud conviction, hidden assets, and track record years ago.

Now we have yet another fresh repost in 2026. That’s why I commented.

Letting go of critical thinking just because the piece sounds good on the surface is exactly how we stay trapped in the illusion that “we’re not allowed to win”.

What do others think? Should we keep giving free promotion to someone with this level of contradiction, or is it time to apply the same skepticism we use on everything else?

 

[axj]

Martin Armstrong has repeatedly said he would calmly sit on his beach with his dog and watch the mushroom cloud rise because “nuclear war is survivable.”

Yet here he is writing about elites laughing while sending everyone else’s children to war.

Where is the inconsistency? He thinks nuclear war is inevitable but that it is possible to survive outside the immediate strike zones. What does this have to do with pointing out Von der Leyen's hypocrisy?

You do seem to be obsesssed with Armstrong, since all your messages on this forum are about him.

 

[Lui Bunting]

Where is the inconsistency? He thinks nuclear war is inevitable but that it is possible to survive outside the immediate strike zones. What does this have to do with pointing out Von der Leyen's hypocrisy?

You do seem to be obsesssed with Armstrong, since all your messages on this forum are about him.

The inconsistency is crystal clear. Armstrong mocks von der Leyen and the elites for laughing at the idea of sending their own children to war, while they happily send everyone else’s.

At the same time, he has written an entire article titled “Do Not Fear Nuclear War – You Can Survive!” in which he says he will calmly sit on his beach with his dog and watch the mushroom cloud rise, because only a few major cities will be hit… and, by the way, “We have Socrates to show us the timing.”

So on one hand he warns us how evil and hypocritical the elites are for sacrificing our kids.

On the other hand he sells the idea that nuclear war is basically a spectator sport you can safely watch from your beach house — as long as you subscribe to his timing service.

That is the contradiction. Not “personal obsession” — just basic consistency. If we’re supposed to question everything, including the alternative voices we read on sott.net, then this level of hypocrisy deserves to be called out. Especially when the end goal is still to sell more Socrates subscriptions.

I’m not obsessed with Armstrong. I’m obsessed with not being fooled twice by the same grift. What do you think — is “Socrates will tell us when the nukes fly” really the kind of insight we should keep promoting here?

 

[Aeneas]

Nowhere in the article does he promote his products or paid services or his idea about cycles. It is only thanks to you that people who read such an article will know about his paid services as you mention it in the comment. I am sure he is happy that you in inadvertently is promoting him and his services. Bad publicity is better than being ignored and you are making sure he is not ignored.

 

[Lui Bunting]

Nowhere in the article does he promote his products or paid services or his idea about cycles. It is only thanks to you that people who read such an article will know about his paid services as you mention it in the comment. I am sure he is happy that you in inadvertently is promoting him and his services. Bad publicity is better than being ignored and you are making sure he is not ignored.

Actually, that’s not quite accurate.

The article on sott.net contains a direct link to Armstrong’s blog at the top.

Anyone who clicks it lands on his site, where the very first thing they see is the big “Subscribe to Socrates” banner and the pitch for his paid services.

So no — I’m not the one introducing people to his products. The link in the article does that all by itself.

And let’s be honest about the real dynamic here: Armstrong writes these pieces precisely because they generate fear, anger, and a sense of “I need to know what’s coming.” That emotional hook is what drives people to click through and eventually subscribe to Socrates.

The irony is thick: he mocks the elites for sacrificing other people’s children, while in another article he tells his readers not to worry about nuclear war because he’ll be safely watching the mushroom cloud from his beach house… and, by the way, “We have Socrates to show us the timing.”

If the goal is truly to wake people up to the fact that “we’re not allowed to win,” then feeding them to a convicted fraudster who sells fake timing for the apocalypse is not helping.

I’m not giving him “bad publicity.” I’m giving readers the missing context they won’t get from the article alone.

If pointing out that contradiction makes him “happy,” then the problem runs even deeper than I thought.

What do you think is more important — protecting the click-bait, or protecting people from handing over their money (and trust) to someone whose own words make him look ridiculous?