Pathological Liar and Fraudster Martin Armstrong Exposed Again (part 1)

If you believe anything Martin Armstrong says, you’re either intellectually compromised or hopelessly gullible.

Let’s get the record straight.

First, Armstrong is a convicted felon. He ran a $3 billion Ponzi scheme—one of the largest of its time.

Second, the reason he ran that scheme is simple: he couldn’t generate real profits trading currencies, metals, or commodities, despite promising otherwise.

Third, he falsified performance data in his marketing for years.

Fourth, he flat-out lied to his clients—touting fake profits while their money was being incinerated through bad trades.

Fifth, he lied to regulators and federal authorities about the entire operation.

Sixth, he lied in court, claiming he handed out millions in gold bars and rare coins to who-knows-who.

Seventh, after serving prison time, Armstrong tried to launder his reputation by funding a low-budget documentary filled with falsehoods, portraying himself as some kind of innocent visionary. He claimed he didn’t run a Ponzi scheme, didn’t steal any gold, and was the victim of a government vendetta. Complete fiction.

Unsurprisingly, that PR stunt was amplified by the same ecosystem of gold-pumpers, scammers, and conspiracy pushers who’ve made a career exploiting the paranoid and uninformed. That’s why to this day, many “gold bugs” continue to parrot Armstrong’s delusions.

What’s even more disturbing? The man clearly doesn’t understand even the basics of macroeconomics. I’ve highlighted this before. It’s like watching a Bernie Madoff reboot—minus the brains.

Eighth, Armstrong is flat-out uneducated. He claims he graduated high school, but I’d need to see a diploma before I even consider believing that. Listening to him ramble makes it clear he’s out of his depth.

Worse still, he’s not even good at lying—despite having decades of practice.

If you’re smart, you’ll assume everything Armstrong says is false unless proven otherwise. That’s your default setting. Trust nothing without hard evidence.

Now, Armstrong does have one real skill: he knows how to construct a façade. He fabricates credentials, drops impressive-sounding but vague claims, and builds a persona designed to impress the uninformed. It’s classic con artistry—tailored for suckers.

His entire brand is built on deception, and it’s been propped up by other bad actors who benefit from his nonsense.

Take his most laughable claim: that he’s advised heads of state, central bankers, and top government officials. There’s zero proof. No records. No documentation. Just empty boasts.

Other frauds like Robert Kiyosaki use the same playbook—pretend to be connected, pretend to be an authority, then sell nonsense to desperate people.

And no, Martin, sending a letter to a politician doesn’t mean you “advised” them. Anyone can write a letter. That’s not policy consultation. That’s spam.

You want credibility? Show us real evidence. Show us who you met with, when, and what role you played. Until then, your stories are garbage.

Take the letter Armstrong references to back his claim of having dinner with Donald Trump. It does nothing of the sort. There’s no mention of a meeting, dinner, or any interaction whatsoever. What it does show is Armstrong’s talent for manipulation and deceit.

This is a man whose credibility was vaporized long ago. But thanks to an army of grifters and a gullible audience, he continues to peddle fiction to the same tired crowd that made his scam possible in the first place.

Reference: see here. 

Martin Armstrong has even claimed he advised the U.S. government on how to fix Social Security.

That’s right—he wants you to believe he was tapped as a key expert on one of the most complex and politically sensitive policy challenges in the nation. It’s pure fiction.

Like so many of Armstrong’s claims, this one is designed to con low-information audiences into thinking he’s some elite economic strategist. But as usual, there's zero evidence. Just more smoke and mirrors.

Let’s be clear: real experts show results. They post their track records. They let the facts do the talking.

Martin, where’s yours?

In contrast, I outlined a viable Social Security fix as far back as 2006 in my book—America’s Financial Apocalypse—where I also warned about U.S.-China trade risks and predicted the 2008 financial crisis. That’s what real foresight looks like.

Armstrong, on the other hand, has built a career out of tossing out unprovable claims to gullible listeners desperate to believe in something. If his resume were legitimate, he wouldn’t have to spend so much time trying to convince people how “important” he is.

Ask yourself: if Armstrong is the economic genius he pretends to be, why is he always bragging about who he’s supposedly advised?

Why the endless name-dropping?

It’s the same cheap tactic used by Donald Trump—someone else notorious for inflating his worth to gain credibility and secure loans. The playbook is the same: tell people how great you are, over and over, until someone believes it.

But truly successful professionals don’t need to promote themselves like this. They don’t sell corny, overpriced products or try to lure people into garbage events by riding a fake celebrity persona. They back up their expertise with results.

Armstrong won’t post his track record—because it’s trash.

Instead, he relies on a different kind of fraud: manufactured popularity.

He floods the internet with fake accounts to make it look like he’s admired. He posts fabricated praise, phony reviews, and suspiciously glowing YouTube comments to bolster the illusion that he’s respected. It’s astroturfing 101.

And because he parrots the fear-based, gold-pumping script, he gets invited onto sketchy shows run by other disinformation peddlers—people who get paid to sell precious metals or push conspiracies.

I exposed these charlatans years ago—the whole rotten network of gold dealers, apocalypse salesmen, and "economic forecasters" who profit from misleading the public. Armstrong fits perfectly into that ecosystem.

He even manufactures fake “reader questions” on his site—loaded setups that conveniently let him push the same nonsense he and his allies circulate. It's obvious these aren’t real questions from readers—they’re PR talking points disguised as audience interaction.

So who are his allies?

It’s the usual gang: gold shills, clickbait con artists, fear-porn influencers, and grifters who depend on a panicked audience to keep the scam rolling.

Armstrong isn't just lying about his past. He’s still lying—every day—because the lies are profitable.

And until he posts a verified, transparent track record, no one should take a word he says seriously.

The following is an example of Armstrong's fake reader submission farce.

Keep in mind that Armstrong has hundreds of these fake comments he claims were submitted by readers. And I selected the first one I came across. 

COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong, At first, I questioned why you were more pro-Putin than the media. But given your reliable forecasting and being renowned for your sources, I kept an open mind. Whilst it is becoming clear that Putin has been going after the people who wanted to nuke and totally invade Ukraine, the media seems to overlook that agenda of invading all of Ukraine. Yevgeny Prigozhin disagreed with Putin on only protecting the Donbas. Igor Girkin, who advocated the invasion of Ukraine, was also arrested. The press even tried to pretend that China’s Xi warned Putin not to use nuclear arms in Ukraine when he was against it. Putin did tell the leader of Chentna that a nuclear on Kyiv was off the table. I can see what you have been pointing out. Putin has been the moderate.

Now the British press is admitting that Ukraine is a disaster. The WSJ also just came out and said the United States knew Ukraine was not up to this offensive. I must say, you and your sources are better than anyone out there. Your comments that you had dinner at Trump’s place when he was president and wanted to exit Afghanistan because he was anti-war were very interesting. You actually have the contacts, not conspiracy theories.

I just wanted to say that now I value your comments more than anyone else.

Keep up the good fight. I hope Scotty does not beam you up just yet.

Paul

REPLY: Thank you. My sources are renowned because they all share the same passion for truth. We all work together, sharing information that is off the grid so-to-speak. We all understand how we are being manipulated by the media, which I am so disappointed in for not being independent. The mainstream media was supposed to protect our liberty – not sell it to the highest bidder. News to them has become opinion – not fact. 

Reference: see here.

Tell me this isn't a bogus phantom review posing as a reader comment.

Focus on the words I have underlined. 

I'll summarize the psychology of this farce created by Armstrong.

First, the fake comment posted above which was created by Armstrong or one of his accomplices relays the message that Armstrong is a "renowned" forecaster and his forecasts are reliable. 

"...your reliable forecasting and being renowned for your sources..."

VERICT: WRONG. Martin Armstrong has proven himself to be a terrible forecaster. To convince people otherwise, he claims he predicted things that he didn't.

Moreover, he frequently makes predictions about things that are already happening so he can later claim he predicted these things.

This is the exact same tactic used by paranoia porn, paid gold-pumper, liar and futurist fraud, Gerald Celente.

Second, the fake comment above relays the notion that Armstrong and his "sources" are superior to the media. 

"...you and your sources are better than anyone out there."

"...now I value your comments more than anyone else."

VERDICT: WRONG. Although the media is not reliable, it's one million times more reliable than Armstrong.

Third, the fake comment above relays the notion that Armstrong knows important people and even attended dinner with President Trump. This  reinforces Armstrong's long-standing claims of knowing, meeting and advising top governments.

"...you had dinner at Trump’s place when he was president..." 

"You actually have the contacts, not conspiracy theories."

VERDICT: ANOTHER LIE BY ARMSTRONG. Ask yourself if Trump would have dinner with a Ponzi scheme felon who wasn't wealthy enough to benefit him. 

I can claim I dined with Trump as well.

After all, if Armstrong doesn't need to show proof neither do I, right? 

But the difference is that if I had dinner with Trump I probably wouldn't mention it because it has nothing to do with my credibility or what I have to offer in terms of research.

Instead of constantly telling people who I know, the people I've advised, and the things I've done, I focus on showing people my investment research and forecasting track record because that's the only thing that matters.    

Fourth, the fake above comment relays the message that Armstrong is some kind of saint who is fighting for the people. 

"Keep up the good fight."

"My sources are renowned because they all share the same passion for truth."

VERDICT: Armstrong is not fighting for the people. He's actually the enemy of the people. He's a money worshipper, so all he cares about is doing whatever it takes to extract money from people. Aside from having passion for money, the only other thing I see Armstrong having passion for sure as heck isn't the truth. It's quite the opposite.

Remember, this is a man who lied to investors for years, sending out fake account statements showing profits when in reality he was losing money, $700 million because he had no idea what he was doing.  Apparently, his "computer forecasting model" went into hibernation for a few years. 

 

Fifth, Armstrong's reply to the fake comment reinforces the false claim that Armstrong and his sources are superior to the media. 

Here, he implies that has some special, secret information.

"information that is off the grid..."

VERDICT: ANOTHER FALSE CLAIM.  This tactic used by Armstrong is similar to that used by scam artist and liar Jim Rickards, when he claimed he advised the CIA. Although the media is not reliable, it's one million times more reliable than Armstrong.

Sixth, the fake comment relays the notion that Armstrong and his sources are superior to the mainstream media. This also promotes the false narrative that the alternative media is legit. 

"The mainstream media was supposed to protect our liberty..."

VERDICT: ANOTHER FALSE STATEMENT.

Armstrong promotes this nonsense for two reasons.

First. he's part of the alternative media so it positions him on the "right side." It also helps him land for interviews from the alternative media scammers. 

Second, his audience follows the alternative media so he's telling them what they want to hear.  This makes them trust him more and more likely to pay for his worthless forecasting. 

I covered the reality about the media many years ago. In short, although the mainstream media isn't completely accurate, I'd say it's around 80 percent reliable. In contrast, the alternative media is close to 100 percent lies and exaggerations.  But at the end of the day, the same mafia who runs the mainstream media also runs the alternative media. 

"The mainstream media was supposed to protect our liberty..."

The phrase above also promotes the "liberty (and freedom) pitch which I exposed a decade ago as a hook used by con artists.  

Notice how the individual who allegedly submitted the question claims Armstrong's forecasting is "renowned." Armstrong included this false claim in the comment knowing that most people (and especially the low-level suckers who fall for his rubbish) validate someone exclusively by reading reviews and comments, even though they have no idea who the people leaving the reviews and comments are, whether they're credible, sane, intelligent, accurate, or whether the review is fake. 

You can see that Armstrong's fake reader submissions provide him with numerous opportunities to make it  appear as if the public considers him to be "renowned" and "incredible."

Hence, this gimmick serves as a way for Armstrong to post fake reviews and endorsements disguised as reader submissions. 

Also, take note of the depth of the comment.

People don't submit comments like this. They just don't.

If you examine numerous reader comments/questions on Armstrong's site, you'll find that these submissions are almost invariably similar in that they always provide him with a segway to promote himself and all of the false claims he uses to elevate his status. These comments and questions will always praise him and/or reinforce the positive narratives about him that he and other scammers he works with have created. 

Please check more of these bogus reader questions from his website, and you will see for yourself they are fake.  

You should also take note that most of the fake online comments you'll see regarding Armstrong always make exaggerated claims about him.

And most of these comments have no justification. For instance, a slew of fake comments usually appear after Armstrong has given an interview to some gold pumper on YouTube. 

Despite the fact that these interviews are almost always unintelligent ramblings filled with wild conspiracies and open-ended claims, the fake comments will post that he's "incredible," or this was  the "best" interview on this topic, despite the fact that he fails to reveal anything relevant to investors. 

In fact, many of the fake comments appear to be generic and/or preplanned, similar to what you see from paid commenters/reviewers out of the Philippines and India. 

But Armstrong knows his audience, so he tells them what they want to hear. He caters to the Alex Jones, Zero Hedge, gold pumping, paranoia porn crowd which is always looking for reasons to buy gold and silver. 

This explains most of the topics and conspiracies he discusses.

He's telling his audience of crack pots what they want to hear. 

Let me be crystal clear: in my view, Martin Armstrong has no real ability to forecast anything with any consistent accuracy.

What he does have is a talent for playing psychological games, flip-flopping on positions, and flooding the internet with fake accounts to manipulate public perception.

Instead of focusing on actual analysis, Armstrong devotes most of his time to shady—if not outright illegal—marketing tactics aimed at suckering people into paying for his bogus “Socrates” platform and attending his laughable events.

If he were truly the elite forecaster he claims to be, he’d publish a verified track record of his investment calls for everyone to see—just as I’ve done.

But he won’t. And you already know why.

So, is Martin Armstrong a fraud, a liar, and a scam artist?

Let me ask you this: is the Sun hot?

As for credibility, consider this—he once gave a talk at a Rotary Club in Bangkok.

A Rotary Club?

That alone speaks volumes.