It would appear that your analysis at first seems incredibly biased and poorly thought out, but I don't know all the particular facts so I might be wrong.
Firstly I occasionally read the articles from Zero Hedge and co and find some of the articles interesting and accurate and others unrealistic or scare mongering as you call it. So essentially your saying these organisations were formed by retail sellers of gold as a front to attack ETF's. Or are they just paid to do their bidding. What concrete evidence do you have that these malicious attacks have occurred? I assume lawsuits would be pending. If so how many?
Next on to the assumption that EFT's were going to destroy retail sellers of gold. I would have assumed that during a massive extended bull market in gold that the market for gold expanded rapidly leading to an expanded product range and offerings for consumers. Thus all participants in the market would have benefited without having to resort to conspiracies. What were retail sales of gold coins from 2000 to 2012? If they grew rapidly then your argument just died.
I would also assume that gold coins are different than shares in an ETF. Both are gold, but a Ferrari and a Toyota are both cars - are they the same thing? I'm not sure that your comparing apples with apples.
Why is coining the term "paper gold" a lie? It's a well known fact that not all gold purchased is backed by physical gold. It's common sense isn't it?
