Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 14th, 2011 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default #1 (((Media))) Dirty Tricks File

Reporter cunt tries to tell the man who was there what happened. Won't take reality for an answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=oyzbZrUdfEg
 
Old December 1st, 2011 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The idea that women think does not stand up to scrutiny, except in a handful of cases. Women's thinking is purely superficial: 'an education is what you get when you go to college.' Whatever college serves - that's education. 'Authority is right because it's a authority' - to a woman this is a self-evident truth. The idea of questioning it would never occur to her unless a man raised. And this is what we always find with women. Men are weird large creatures with an exciting/scary predilection for...moving about - mentally and physically. That's how men come across to women. For all the bogus claims that men don't understand women, the truth is the opposite: women don't understand men. At best they learn how to work with them. But they don't have the capacity to understand them, whereas men do have the capacity to understand women. The only reason men ever become confused about women is because they're assuming there is some depth to them, as there is in many men. But there is not. Women are fundamentally shallow. The upper-end females follow the modern pattern that exalts men. That's the template the feminists lay down, and it's followed by upper-middle class women. They learn to explain what they are doing with reasons. But women lower on the social-intellectual scale reveal their sex's nature - they shift like weather, and for just as little reason, and with just as little meaning. It's not just women's thinking powers that are shallower than men's, their emotions are shallower too.

I've run off my original topic, but my point was that you can bet your life the stupid cunt calling herself a reporter has never once considered that there might be some essential thing called 'reporting' that just possibly could be different from what she was taught in reporter school. If it says Reporter School on the door, and the man tells her that you become a reporter by going out amid the public to collect quotes that push a certain party line, the woman, being unthinking like 99.9% of her sex, does just that and understands no other.
 
Old December 1st, 2011 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Men can be party-line hacks as easily as women, it's just that the men usually know what they are, whereas the females usually do not.
 
Old April 1st, 2012 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

NBC News Accused of Editing 911 Call in Trayvon Martin Controversy (Video)

12:28 PM PDT 3/30/2012 by Paul Bond

NewscomCritics say the "Today" show attempted to incite racial anger when it cut crucial seconds from audio of a phone call placed by George Zimmerman just before he killed the teenager.

The NBC segment in question featured anchor Ron Allen and ran on the Today show on Tuesday. On Thursday, Sean Hannity and guest Brent Bozell played the NBC version of the 911 call and compared it with the unedited version.

In the NBC segment, Zimmerman says: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

The full version, though, unfolds like this:

Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”

911 operator: “Okay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?”

Zimmerman: “He looks black.”

After playing both versions, Hannity said: “They forgot the dispatcher’s question! How could NBC, in good conscience, do that?”

“This isn’t bias, this isn’t distortion, this is an all-out falsehood by NBC News,” answers Bozell, who runs a conservative watchdog group called the Media Research Center.

“When you hear him say, ‘he looks black,’ anyone watching that believes that there are racial overtones to what this man did,” Bozell says. “How could you not believe that? It goes with the narrative of the profiling. The only problem is, they edited out the dispatcher asking him, ‘what does he look like?’”

NBC News declined to comment.

Zimmerman, a volunteer community-watch participant shot and killed Martin on Feb. 26 in Florida, and some Democratic lawmakers and civil rights activists have called it a hate crime, accusing Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, of racially profiling Martin, who was a 17-year-old African American male.

“This is NBC News, Brent, and this is what they did at a time when emotions are running very high in this country,” Hannity said during his Thursday night TV show.

“Tom Brokaw, Matt Lauer, I wonder if they’re proud tonight?” Hannity asked.

Email: [email protected]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...11-call-306359
 
Old April 10th, 2012 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Media Dishonesty and Race Hustlers

by Walter E. Williams

When NBC's "Today" show played the audio of George Zimmerman's call to a Sanford, Fla., police dispatcher about Trayvon Martin, the editors made him appear to be a racist who says: "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." What Zimmerman actually said was: "This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining, and he's just walking around, looking about." The 911 officer responded by asking, "OK, and this guy – is he black, white or Hispanic?" Zimmerman replied, "He looks black." NBC says it's investigating the doctoring of the audio, but there's nothing to investigate; its objective was to inflame passions.

In his Associated Press article titled "Old photos may be deceptive in Fla. shooting case," Matt Sedensky pointed out that the photos carried by the major media were several years old and showed Zimmerman looking fat and mean and Martin looking like a sweet young kid.

Jesse Jackson told the Los Angeles Times that "blacks are under attack" and that "targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business," adding that Martin is "a martyr." President Barack Obama chimed in by saying, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

Let's look at some non-news cases. On March 14 in Tulsa, Okla., a white couple suffered a home invasion by Tyrone Woodfork, a 20-year-old black man. Ninety-year-old Bob Strait suffered a broken jaw and broken ribs in the attack. His 85-year-old wife, Nancy, was sexually assaulted and battered to death, ending their 65-year marriage.

On March 4, two black Kansas City, Mo., youths doused a 13-year-old boy in gasoline and set him on fire, telling him, "You get what you deserve, white boy." Last summer, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel ordered an emergency shutdown of the beaches in Chicago because mobs of blacks were terrorizing white families.

Several years ago, in Knoxville, Tenn., a young white couple was kidnapped by four blacks. The girl was forced to witness her boyfriend's rape, torture and subsequent murder before she was raped, tortured and murdered. Before disposing of her body, the three men and one woman poured bleach or some other cleaning agent down her throat in an effort to destroy DNA evidence. A jury found the four guilty, and they were sentenced, but because of the judge's drug use, a retrial is being considered.

None of those black-on-white atrocities made anywhere near the news that the Trayvon Martin case made, and it's deliberate. Editors for the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune admitted to deliberately censoring information about black crime for political reasons, in an effort to "guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion."

One doesn't have to be a liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican to see the danger posed by America's race hustlers, who are stacking up piles of combustible racial kindling and ready for a racial arsonist to set it ablaze. Recruiters for white hate groups must love President Obama's demagoguery in saying that a son of his would look like Trayvon but not saying that Melissa Coon's 13-year-old son, who was set on fire, could have looked like a son of his. After all, the president is just as much white as he is black.

Even if the president and his liberal allies in the media and assorted civil rights hustlers don't care much about blacks murdering whites, what about blacks murdering blacks? During a mid-March weekend in Chicago, 49 people were shot, 10 fatally, including a 6-year-old black girl, making for more than 100 murders this year. Philadelphia isn't far behind, with murder clipping along at one a day since the beginning of 2012. Have we heard Obama make a statement about this carnage or that most homicide victims are black and that their murderers are black? No, and we won't, because black-on-black crime, like black-on-white crime, does not fit the liberal narrative of the continuing problem of white racism.

April 10, 2012

Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page.

http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams120.html

[he ought also point out that the macrocosm mirrors the microcosm: what the media do for individual crimes they also do for entire wars, and for the same reasons: excitement and profits. which, come to think of it, is the same reason nigs and jews commit and cause their crimes and wars too.]
 
Old April 10th, 2012 #6
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Media Dishonesty and Race Hustlers

by Walter E. Williams

When NBC's "Today" show played the audio of George Zimmerman's call to a Sanford, Fla., police dispatcher about Trayvon Martin, the editors made him appear to be a racist who says: "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." What Zimmerman actually said was: "This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining, and he's just walking around, looking about." The 911 officer responded by asking, "OK, and this guy – is he black, white or Hispanic?" Zimmerman replied, "He looks black." NBC says it's investigating the doctoring of the audio, but there's nothing to investigate; its objective was to inflame passions.

In his Associated Press article titled "Old photos may be deceptive in Fla. shooting case," Matt Sedensky pointed out that the photos carried by the major media were several years old and showed Zimmerman looking fat and mean and Martin looking like a sweet young kid.

Jesse Jackson told the Los Angeles Times that "blacks are under attack" and that "targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business," adding that Martin is "a martyr." President Barack Obama chimed in by saying, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

Let's look at some non-news cases. On March 14 in Tulsa, Okla., a white couple suffered a home invasion by Tyrone Woodfork, a 20-year-old black man. Ninety-year-old Bob Strait suffered a broken jaw and broken ribs in the attack. His 85-year-old wife, Nancy, was sexually assaulted and battered to death, ending their 65-year marriage.

On March 4, two black Kansas City, Mo., youths doused a 13-year-old boy in gasoline and set him on fire, telling him, "You get what you deserve, white boy." Last summer, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel ordered an emergency shutdown of the beaches in Chicago because mobs of blacks were terrorizing white families.

Several years ago, in Knoxville, Tenn., a young white couple was kidnapped by four blacks. The girl was forced to witness her boyfriend's rape, torture and subsequent murder before she was raped, tortured and murdered. Before disposing of her body, the three men and one woman poured bleach or some other cleaning agent down her throat in an effort to destroy DNA evidence. A jury found the four guilty, and they were sentenced, but because of the judge's drug use, a retrial is being considered.

None of those black-on-white atrocities made anywhere near the news that the Trayvon Martin case made, and it's deliberate. Editors for the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune admitted to deliberately censoring information about black crime for political reasons, in an effort to "guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion."

One doesn't have to be a liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican to see the danger posed by America's race hustlers, who are stacking up piles of combustible racial kindling and ready for a racial arsonist to set it ablaze. Recruiters for white hate groups must love President Obama's demagoguery in saying that a son of his would look like Trayvon but not saying that Melissa Coon's 13-year-old son, who was set on fire, could have looked like a son of his. After all, the president is just as much white as he is black.

Even if the president and his liberal allies in the media and assorted civil rights hustlers don't care much about blacks murdering whites, what about blacks murdering blacks? During a mid-March weekend in Chicago, 49 people were shot, 10 fatally, including a 6-year-old black girl, making for more than 100 murders this year. Philadelphia isn't far behind, with murder clipping along at one a day since the beginning of 2012. Have we heard Obama make a statement about this carnage or that most homicide victims are black and that their murderers are black? No, and we won't, because black-on-black crime, like black-on-white crime, does not fit the liberal narrative of the continuing problem of white racism.

April 10, 2012

Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page.

http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams120.html

[he ought also point out that the macrocosm mirrors the microcosm: what the media do for individual crimes they also do for entire wars, and for the same reasons: excitement and profits. which, come to think of it, is the same reason nigs and jews commit and cause their crimes and wars too.]
 
Old April 15th, 2012 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[from lewrockwell.com blog]

Dear Guardian
Posted by Lew Rockwell on April 14, 2012 08:34 PM

From: Ralph Raico <[email protected]>
Date: April 14, 2012 6:22:30 PM CDT
To: Readers' Editor <[email protected]>
Cc: Lew Rockwell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Trayvon Martin

Dear Helen,
Thank you for your message. It was very thoughtful of you to write, but not surprising coming from the Guardian. There is a more veridical photo of Martin available, posted on Facebook, I believe, by Martin himself. It shows someone much different from that innocent looking young teenager.
With best wishes,
Ralph Raico

On Apr 13, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Readers' Editor wrote:

Ralph - this is not deliberate policy on the part of the Guardian - we have tried to source more recent images, but this is the only photographe that has been issued by the agencies. We try to make it clear in captions that the photo is an archive item taken when Trayvon was 12 years old. I will certainly look at the articles again and amend as necessary.

Thank you for taking the trouble to write

Best wishes
Helen Hodgson
Assistant Readers' editor

Original Message
----------------
Subject: Trayvon Martin
From: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Date: 2012-04-12 01:19:26

Sirs:
Why do you keep publishing the mendacious photo of Martin as an innocent-looking young teenager? There is a photo of him at the time of the fight that suggests the possibility of a very different personality. This lying by implication is unworthy of the Guardian whose website I visit often and which I value highly.
Sincerely,
Ralph Raico
Buffalo, NY
 
Old April 21st, 2012 #8
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Yesterday, we saw the real George Zimmerman for the first time at his bail hearing: he is short (5'8"), slight (even with a bullet-proof vest), smart, well-spoken. He is 60 pounds lighter than he was in the 7-year-old photo we have been shown again and again. But then, the media continue to peddle 7-year-old photos of Trayvon Martin, too.

[from lewrockwell.com blog]
 
Old May 21st, 2012 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

abc pushes hate garbage, almost every single reader comment says exactly what VNN posters would say

http://abcnews.go.com/US/militias-ha...6#.T7r5kjLIqDt
 
Old May 22nd, 2012 #10
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

CDAH

1 Fans

7 hours ago ( 6:27 PM)
Whites can not be allowed to engage in racial politics or competition because we have numbers sufficient to win. If over 90% of Blacks vote for the same presidential candidate, which they consistently do, that doesn't necessarily push the election in one direction, however, if Whites engage in similar levels of block-voting, we would always win. That's why the media ignores Black-on-White Crime. Supporters of multiculturalism are terrified that Whites will start regain racial cohesion before our numbers are reduced to the point where it won't make a difference. The left wants to destroy the majority. They think that multiculturalism will work if they can reduce all racial/ethnic groups to minority status. The idea is that every group will have to come together if no group can stand alone. I wonder if any of these proponents of the new minority nation have ever read anything about the Balkans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ce...b_1521775.html
 
Old May 22nd, 2012 #11
Rounder
Senior Member
 
Rounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,684
Rounder
Default Prediction. . . .

There will be no nigger riotings when Zimmerman is acquitted. We'll be cheated again. Sharpton, Jackson, and all those liberal reporters will step forward after all the evidence is publicized, and admit Zimmerman is innocent. The nigger uprisings will be thusly defused. The big niggers and their jewish advisors know that riots will be counter-productive and bad PR.

Large scale nigger riots, such as the Rodney King riots and the MLK riots, occur only when the jewsmedia fans the flames, meaning the riots are kosher, or good for jews.

At least this has been the case so far. But when Depression II cuts off or reduces welfare checks, the jewsmedia influence on nigger behavior, will be greatly reduced, if not erased altogether.
__________________
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire




 
Old May 22nd, 2012 #12
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounder View Post
There will be no nigger riotings when Zimmerman is acquitted. We'll be cheated again. Sharpton, Jackson, and all those liberal reporters will step forward after all the evidence is publicized, and admit Zimmerman is innocent. The nigger uprisings will be thusly defused. The big niggers and their jewish advisors know that riots will be counter-productive and bad PR.

Large scale nigger riots, such as the Rodney King riots and the MLK riots, occur only when the jewsmedia fans the flames, meaning the riots are kosher, or good for jews.

At least this has been the case so far. But when Depression II cuts off or reduces welfare checks, the jewsmedia influence on nigger behavior, will be greatly reduced, if not erased altogether.
I don't know what will happen. If they went by the facts, Zimmerman wouldn't be charged.

I think what's likeliest is that they drag this out until passions die down, but I don't think they'll burn out totally.

It really is a pleasure to live in a country with insane white leftists and murderous niggers. The white left treats it as a matter of fact that Zimmerman was illegally stalking Martin, hence the legal aggressor. Neither of those is true.

It is interesting at the above link to see a leftist actually feeling pressured enough to spell out the reasons for the double standard in crime coverage.

"We won't report accurately because you would draw the wrong conclusions."

That's what leftist argument amounts to.
 
Old May 22nd, 2012 #13
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Cesca is suggesting that it is ok to stifle news related to black on white crime. As a result, fewer people will have access to true facts. these facts would allow people to make their own conclusions about their safety. Why don't you want people to be able to make informed decisions?
 
Old May 22nd, 2012 #14
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

hroark314
The handle says it all, doesn't it?

69 Fans

09:35 AM on 05/17/2012
He makes a fair point. There's information out there on black on white crime, but it's very difficult to find (DOJ link below). Black on white crime occurs far more often than white on black crime. More than that, accounting for their percent of the population blacks have a higher incidence of commiting crimes against whites than white do against other whites. We hear constant lectures from the President, government officials, professors, teachers, and the media about how horrible white racism is to blacks, but the truth is that racially motivated violence by blacks against whites is a massive problem that is all but ignored. I'm not insane, so I don't buy the argument that I should somehow do penance by accepting black violence against me as retribution for the perceived sins of my ancestors.
 
Old July 8th, 2012 #15
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Workaday misrepresentation, a non-political example (soccer match in Euro 12, crying German fan)

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p...64#post1408364
 
Old July 14th, 2012 #16
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[proof people don't trust the jew-controlled mass media]

September 22, 2011

Majority in U.S. Continues to Distrust the Media, Perceive Bias
More perceive liberal bias than conservative bias


by Lymari Morales

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The majority of Americans still do not have confidence in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 44% of Americans who have a great deal or fair amount of trust and the 55% who have little or no trust remain among the most negative views Gallup has measured.



The majority of Americans (60%) also continue to perceive bias, with 47% saying the media are too liberal and 13% saying they are too conservative, on par with what Gallup found last year. The percentage of Americans who say the media are "just about right" edged up to 36% this year but remains in the range Gallup has found historically.



Perceptions of Bias Still Vary Sharply by Party and Ideology

Partisans continue to perceive the media very differently. Seventy-five percent of Republicans and conservatives say the media are too liberal. Democrats and liberals lean more toward saying the media are "just about right," at 57% and 42%, respectively. Moderates and independents diverge, however, with 50% of independents saying the media are too liberal and 50% of moderates saying they are just about right.



None of these views is statistically different from what Gallup found last year.

Implications

Americans remain largely distrusting of the news media, with 55% saying they have little or no trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly, and 60% perceiving bias one way or the other. These views are largely steady compared with last year, even as the media landscape continues to change rapidly.

In a report released Thursday, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found record-high negativity toward the media on 9 of 12 core measures it tracks. These measures may help explain some of the underlying negativity, though Gallup does not find sharp changes in overall views of the media this year compared with last. The types of media one consumes likely play a role in one's overall perceptions, and Gallup is planning more research in this area.
Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Sept. 8-11, 2011, with a random sample of 1,017 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

View methodology, full question results, and trend data.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149624/Ma...eive-Bias.aspx
 
Old July 31st, 2012 #17
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

because they are l-i-a-r-s
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=144336
 
Old August 11th, 2012 #18
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default


Lying Dan Rather at left. (Yes, he's wrangled a show on an obscure satellite channel.) At right, Pebble Mine (Alaska) CEO John Shively.

The interview took place at a lodge near Bristol Bay.

Note the fish. It's a Chinook salmon. Magnificent, prehistoric looking. A little scary.

The stuffed fish has been intentionally positioned so that it faces (and overlaps) Shively, almost as if it's eating him. One's eye naturally follows its length to the monstrous head, elicits a negative emotional response, and then one's eye continues to the speaker Shively, transferring the negative emotional response to him.

The interview was much longer than this, and the fish had much more camera time than in this clip.

Last edited by Leonard Rouse; August 11th, 2012 at 08:53 AM.
 
Old September 6th, 2012 #19
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Doug Casey on the Fourth Estate

Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator

L: Hola Doug. What's on your mind this week?

Doug: The color yellow. As in "yellow journalism" – which seems almost the only kind we have these days. Of course, to be fair, inflammatory, shamelessly dishonest "man bites dog" journalism has always been the dominant kind, simply because it sells papers. But we'll see more than the usual amount in the next couple of months, simply because elections lend themselves to it; politics seems to stimulate the reptilian part of the brain, the most primitive part. Both politics and the reptilian brain relate well to the yellow press.

Anyway, like many people, I watched snippets of the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Maybe, since I'm engaging in punditry, I should have watched the whole damn thing. But I simply couldn't force myself to watch even all the parts that were broadcast, because it was just too boring and degrading. I can't imagine how the people who were there for the whole four days were able to remain awake for the whole thing. Perhaps this is proof that zombies really do exist. What kind of people could take such a charade seriously? It was all canned speeches and scripted events that were basically dishonest. Politics has always been dishonest, of course, but at least it used to be unscripted and mildly entertaining…

L: Wait a minute – what about the now much-discussed Eastwood incident? By all accounts, that was unscripted and perhaps even unwelcome among the convention organizers.

Doug: I did watch Clint and enjoyed his speech, which appeared to be unscripted. He's a skilled actor and entertainer, so I've got to believe it was really off the cuff. I've read in the papers – which means I don't really know anything except some reporter's guess – but I've read that Clint was only supposed to give a five-minute, canned speech. Romney and the convention organizers were caught off guard when Eastwood asked for a chair to be brought on stage; it was thought he wanted to use it to sit down. But he then proceeded to have a very funny conversation with an invisible Obama. One reason I liked it is that he treated Obama with the respect he deserved. It's about time people stopped treating presidents as if they were Roman emperors.

L: I've watched that segment on YouTube and noticed that he used the word "libertarian," which I doubt the RNC would have approved in advance. So I can believe that "Dirty Harry" was shooting from the hip, as it were.

Doug: I agree – I'm sure they would not have approved of that. I expect the Republicans will do everything they can to discount, denigrate, and destroy the Libertarian Party candidacy of Gary Johnson for president. They know Johnson is likely to draw more votes from them than from the Democrats. And of course, Ron Paul was made a veritable nonperson. The only mention he got at the convention didn't include any acknowledgment of some of his most important propositions, like ending the drug war, ending foreign interventions and wars, and abolishing the Fed. These people are dishonest and manipulative through and through.

The other thing Clint did, as I recall, was only to mention Romney twice, and not in way that was a particularly strong endorsement. It took courage on Clint's part in that forum.

L: I noticed that too; his focus was on the people, not the candidate. The biggest cheer he got was when he spoke of the people and said, "We own this country… politicians are employees of ours."

Doug: Yes. I'm sure that also rankled the suits running the show. But the fact that Clint's sincere, unscripted comments are so exceptional tells us a lot about the rest of the drivel at such events. It's like he came up with the idea shortly before he went on stage and was truly speaking extemporaneously. It wasn't approved by the Politburo, like absolutely everything else emanating from the convention was.

The press coverage of the incident is a good example of the sort of thing that makes me despise reporters. In a way, it's a litmus test of the psychology of the average journalist, how they reacted to that thing… It says more about them than it does about Eastwood, how they reported on it and what they said about it. So many of them focused on how he hesitated, fumbled, repeated himself, and so forth, scoffing at his remarks as being just an old man's rant. The snide comments of Michael Moore, the Evil Party's answer to Jabba the Hutt, are fairly typical.

It was clear to me that Clint spoke from the heart, mistakes and all. I believe that 300 million Americans out there are starving for straight talk from the heart of someone they like – and everyone loves Clint. My guess is that most everybody who isn't an ideologue of either the Stupid Party or the Evil Party really resonated with his sentiments. The only downside is they'll wind up helping the feckless Romney.

It was night-and-day different from the slick speeches by the horrible politicians. They all sounded like they'd rehearsed their speeches dozens of times. Every one of them sounded phony – which they are. I preferred the old days when you never knew what the outcome of the convention would be, and the speeches could actually tell you something about the men giving them – or at least have entertainment value. When did all this change? My guess is in the '50s, with broadcast TV and the invention of the teleprompter. The whole convention was a flavorless, odorless, sanitized bore – except for Clint.

L: I was struck by those criticisms of Eastwood's delivery as well. Clint Eastwood was born in 1930 – give the guy a break! These critics will be lucky to be half as eloquent when they are in their 80s. But even that's beside the point; what should matter most is what he said, not how he said it. These same media hacks would never speak so disrespectfully of a venerable statesman they agreed with.

Doug: I have nothing but contempt for these blow-dried airheads on TV news shows. They pontificate and tell you what you're supposed to think – but they're really not journalists. They just read the establishment press releases, thereby helping to prop it up. Instead of being the Fourth Estate – a private-sector watchdog and counterbalance to state power – they just make themselves lapdogs of politicians.

If you watch something like The Daily Show, Jon Stewart will often show clips of different so-called journalists in juxtaposition to each other – he did this regarding the Republican Convention – and you can see that the reporters all use the same words. It's like they are all reading the same script or keying off each other – it's a herd mentality. This is one reason print journalism has gone downhill, as well. In the era before the TV, a journalist had to witness things in person and draw an independent conclusion. It wasn't technically feasible to know what everybody else was groupthinking in real time. The noble, lone journalist in the mold of H. L. Mencken is completely gone from the scene today.

L: I know what you mean, but a TV news anchor isn't really a reporter. He or she is an attractive actor hired to read the news others research, because their faces increase ratings. Is it fair to criticize such people for not being investigative journalists?

Doug: No, I guess it's not. They are hired to look sincere and look good. I believe it's well established that people in general are prone to like and believe people they find attractive – that's the basis for hiring TV news anchors – that and having completely unremarkable, predictable, "mainstream" views. But it's still not a good thing. To have a system that relies on attractive but ignorant or misinformed people regurgitating reporting written by others is dangerous. The so-called Fourth Estate is dying.

You know, that very term – Fourth Estate – is being used more now, at the very time that the institution itself is changing its essence. The idea of a Fourth Estate arose with the Industrial Revolution and the inception of capitalism – the first three basically being the church, the "nobles," and everyone else – the 99%. The Fourth Estate has historically been a bit outside all that, but certainly outside the church and the state. Their purpose was to tell it like it is, keep things in balance, and be impartial truth-tellers. Major cities each had dozens of papers. But now the Fourth Estate has truly been captured by the ruling classes.

That's the bad news. The good news is that we have the Internet. The stuff people report there may not always be anymore accurate than the mass media, but at least it's independent – it's not a mouthpiece for the Establishment. As far as I'm concerned, the Fourth Estate has betrayed its basic raison d’être, and no longer serves much of a useful purpose.

L: Which brings us back to the people who write the stories or compose the video coverage – the kind of investigators who are supposed to make a show like 60 Minutes deliver hidden truth to a population that needs to know…

Doug: Unfortunately, they seem to be cut from pretty much the same cloth as the reporters who write for outfits like the New York Times or, God forbid, USA Today – something I feel sheepish about reading in public. They all went to the same universities, where they were taught the same ideas and values by the same teachers – who are all statists of one stripe or another. They are all so deeply inculcated in this worldview, they don't even know they are in it…

L: Which is why journalists who don't work for right-wing rags never admit that there is such a thing as "liberal media bias." Their colored glasses have been on for so long, they don't even realize they wear them.

Doug: Exactly. The 60 Minutes guys fell flat on their faces when they didn't call Ben Bernanke out for contradicting himself on their show, first saying the Fed was printing money, then saying it wasn't. If these guys are the toughest watchdogs we have, we're in big trouble. The best sources of news on TV are probably The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. As comedians, they serve the role of the court jester and can say things to the king that nobody else dares to. It's a sad testimony.

L: But there are exceptions, like John Stossel.

Doug: Of course, but again, it's the exception that tests the rule; the fact that Stossel is so extraordinary tells us a lot about what is ordinary. You can see this clearly when you get a bunch of reporters together on an impromptu talk show, like Meet the Press or whatever; what you see is a bunch of opinionated people, some somewhat to the left, some somewhat to the right of center, yelling at each other. It's never an intelligent discussion of ideas and principles at all. For instance, there's never a discussion of whether Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid are correct areas for government involvement – that's completely accepted and a given. Even with Obamacare or Romneycare the discussion is only one of whether it's affordable or efficient, not whether it's ethically defensible. It's just glib one-liners and catch phrases.

L: Whoever has the best sound bite wins.

Doug: Just so. Political talk shows are frustrating and embarrassing to watch. I just want to wash my hands of the whole mess, but I guess I'll have to watch at least a little of the Democrat's Convention, just to see what kind of charade they put on. I expect it will be more enthusiastic than that of the Republicans, because at least the Democrats actually have some principles... even if they're completely bent, destructive, and statist principles. It should be some show, maybe like the Nuremburg rally.

L: Morbid curiosity?

Doug: Yes, and very unappealing. It's literally like watching something die. The capacity of the masses to sit on their sofas and watch endless hours of canned drivel on TV is increasingly convincing me that libertarians and other free-thinkers are actually genetic mutants. We can mate with Boobus americanus intellectually about as well as a human can mate physically with a chimpanzee.

L: Mutants… or at least an uncommon personality type.

Doug: Either way, we are so few – it's hard to have any hope of reason ever winning the day. My friend Jeff Berwick was caught in a spate of optimism the other day, which started with him guessing that maybe 10,000 new people become libertarians every day – a great-sounding number. Then he took out his calculator and realized that even if the population of earth was stable that, even at that rate, it would take something like 2,000 years before everyone stopped thinking like a criminal.

Communication is critical, of course. But while that's become easier, in some ways, like the Internet, it may be increasingly difficult in others. The masses are addled by the mind-numbing rays from their TVs, and there are scores of millions more addled by psychiatric drugs, and hundreds of millions more by generations of government miseducation.

On the bright side – you know I like to always look on the bright side – the Internet could be bigger than all those things. The big media corporations no longer have a stranglehold on the news. These days, anyone with a phone has audio- and video-recording capability and can be a reporter. With the Internet, any of these people can get word of what they see out to the entire world.

L: A new, 21st century version of the Fourth Estate?

Doug: Yes; the truth is out there. But as with everything else, it's subject to Pareto's Law. So, 80% of what's out there is crap, and 80% of what's left is merely okay. But that remaining 4% of quality, uncensored, free information flow is extremely valuable. More good news: because people increasingly realize that 80% of everything is crap, they're becoming evermore discriminating – which is a very good thing. People used to slavishly believe everything in the newspapers just because it was written; now they're necessarily more skeptical, which means they're forced to be more thoughtful.

But as great as this is, it's like Jesus of Nazareth said: "He who has ears, let him hear." For the distributed and free reporting we now have via the Internet to do much good, people need to question what they're told and look for the truth – that's not going to happen if they only use the 'Net for social media and porn. After generations of government schooling, where critical thinking is the last thing they want to teach, people willing to do this are few and far between.

L: You're an atheist quoting the Bible?

Doug: Why not? I can read. Everyone should read the Bible, along with Richard Dawkins, of course.

L: Indeed. Investment implications?

Doug: Nothing I haven't said before, but that doesn't make it any less true. The terminal corruption of the major news corporations and the lack of interest in seeking the truth among the general population augurs very poorly for the prospects of the US and the current world order. This creates speculative opportunities, which we work hard on uncovering in our publications, but prospects for mainstream investments are not good. Western civilization is truly in decline and far down the slippery slope.

L: You wrote an article some years ago on how to profit from the coming collapse of Western civilization…

Doug: Yes – which brings me back to the color yellow, but in a positive context this time: the yellow metal. Now the collapse is beginning, my advice is the same: accumulate gold – not as an investment, but for safety. For profit, speculate on the various bubbles and other trends government interventions in response to the unfolding crisis bring about. Rational investment is not an option in this context (remembering that investment is deploying capital to create more capital). Hopefully, investment will again be a viable option after the ongoing crisis bottoms; it depends in good degree how most people view the role of government. We all have to be speculators now, if we want to make money, and we have to be "gold bugs" if we want to come through the storm with minimal loss of wealth.

L: And for more on that, readers could hardly do better than to come to our conference on "Navigating the Politicized Economy" this week in southern California.

Doug: Or – while we're plugging our own products – they could read your newsletter for our best speculative guidance.

L: Okay, but enough with the crass commercial messages. More soon from California!

Doug: Looking forward to it.

The American economy has never been as centralized as it is today... and Doug's warning that this centralization has made mainstream investing a poor bet has never been more true.

That's why we've teamed up with Sprott, Inc. to host Navigating the Politicized Economy, a critical investors' summit in Carlsbad, California held September 7-9. It will feature 28 financial luminaries – including Doug Casey, Rick Rule, and Eric Sprott – who will reveal how they plan to leverage today's centralized economy to create new wealth.

If you're not attending, you can still profit from every recorded presentation and every piece of actionable investment advice attendees will hear with the Summit Audio Collection. Order before the Summit ends on September 9 and you will save $100.

September 6, 2012

Doug Casey (send him mail) is a best-selling author and chairman of Casey Research, LLC., publishers of Casey’s International Speculator.

http://lewrockwell.com/casey/casey134.html
 
Old September 6th, 2012 #20
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Doug Casey on the Fourth Estate

Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator

L: Hola Doug. What's on your mind this week?

Doug: The color yellow. As in "yellow journalism" – which seems almost the only kind we have these days. Of course, to be fair, inflammatory, shamelessly dishonest "man bites dog" journalism has always been the dominant kind, simply because it sells papers. But we'll see more than the usual amount in the next couple of months, simply because elections lend themselves to it; politics seems to stimulate the reptilian part of the brain, the most primitive part. Both politics and the reptilian brain relate well to the yellow press.

Anyway, like many people, I watched snippets of the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Maybe, since I'm engaging in punditry, I should have watched the whole damn thing. But I simply couldn't force myself to watch even all the parts that were broadcast, because it was just too boring and degrading. I can't imagine how the people who were there for the whole four days were able to remain awake for the whole thing. Perhaps this is proof that zombies really do exist. What kind of people could take such a charade seriously? It was all canned speeches and scripted events that were basically dishonest. Politics has always been dishonest, of course, but at least it used to be unscripted and mildly entertaining…

L: Wait a minute – what about the now much-discussed Eastwood incident? By all accounts, that was unscripted and perhaps even unwelcome among the convention organizers.

Doug: I did watch Clint and enjoyed his speech, which appeared to be unscripted. He's a skilled actor and entertainer, so I've got to believe it was really off the cuff. I've read in the papers – which means I don't really know anything except some reporter's guess – but I've read that Clint was only supposed to give a five-minute, canned speech. Romney and the convention organizers were caught off guard when Eastwood asked for a chair to be brought on stage; it was thought he wanted to use it to sit down. But he then proceeded to have a very funny conversation with an invisible Obama. One reason I liked it is that he treated Obama with the respect he deserved. It's about time people stopped treating presidents as if they were Roman emperors.

L: I've watched that segment on YouTube and noticed that he used the word "libertarian," which I doubt the RNC would have approved in advance. So I can believe that "Dirty Harry" was shooting from the hip, as it were.

Doug: I agree – I'm sure they would not have approved of that. I expect the Republicans will do everything they can to discount, denigrate, and destroy the Libertarian Party candidacy of Gary Johnson for president. They know Johnson is likely to draw more votes from them than from the Democrats. And of course, Ron Paul was made a veritable nonperson. The only mention he got at the convention didn't include any acknowledgment of some of his most important propositions, like ending the drug war, ending foreign interventions and wars, and abolishing the Fed. These people are dishonest and manipulative through and through.

The other thing Clint did, as I recall, was only to mention Romney twice, and not in way that was a particularly strong endorsement. It took courage on Clint's part in that forum.

L: I noticed that too; his focus was on the people, not the candidate. The biggest cheer he got was when he spoke of the people and said, "We own this country… politicians are employees of ours."

Doug: Yes. I'm sure that also rankled the suits running the show. But the fact that Clint's sincere, unscripted comments are so exceptional tells us a lot about the rest of the drivel at such events. It's like he came up with the idea shortly before he went on stage and was truly speaking extemporaneously. It wasn't approved by the Politburo, like absolutely everything else emanating from the convention was.

The press coverage of the incident is a good example of the sort of thing that makes me despise reporters. In a way, it's a litmus test of the psychology of the average journalist, how they reacted to that thing… It says more about them than it does about Eastwood, how they reported on it and what they said about it. So many of them focused on how he hesitated, fumbled, repeated himself, and so forth, scoffing at his remarks as being just an old man's rant. The snide comments of Michael Moore, the Evil Party's answer to Jabba the Hutt, are fairly typical.

It was clear to me that Clint spoke from the heart, mistakes and all. I believe that 300 million Americans out there are starving for straight talk from the heart of someone they like – and everyone loves Clint. My guess is that most everybody who isn't an ideologue of either the Stupid Party or the Evil Party really resonated with his sentiments. The only downside is they'll wind up helping the feckless Romney.

It was night-and-day different from the slick speeches by the horrible politicians. They all sounded like they'd rehearsed their speeches dozens of times. Every one of them sounded phony – which they are. I preferred the old days when you never knew what the outcome of the convention would be, and the speeches could actually tell you something about the men giving them – or at least have entertainment value. When did all this change? My guess is in the '50s, with broadcast TV and the invention of the teleprompter. The whole convention was a flavorless, odorless, sanitized bore – except for Clint.

L: I was struck by those criticisms of Eastwood's delivery as well. Clint Eastwood was born in 1930 – give the guy a break! These critics will be lucky to be half as eloquent when they are in their 80s. But even that's beside the point; what should matter most is what he said, not how he said it. These same media hacks would never speak so disrespectfully of a venerable statesman they agreed with.

Doug: I have nothing but contempt for these blow-dried airheads on TV news shows. They pontificate and tell you what you're supposed to think – but they're really not journalists. They just read the establishment press releases, thereby helping to prop it up. Instead of being the Fourth Estate – a private-sector watchdog and counterbalance to state power – they just make themselves lapdogs of politicians.

If you watch something like The Daily Show, Jon Stewart will often show clips of different so-called journalists in juxtaposition to each other – he did this regarding the Republican Convention – and you can see that the reporters all use the same words. It's like they are all reading the same script or keying off each other – it's a herd mentality. This is one reason print journalism has gone downhill, as well. In the era before the TV, a journalist had to witness things in person and draw an independent conclusion. It wasn't technically feasible to know what everybody else was groupthinking in real time. The noble, lone journalist in the mold of H. L. Mencken is completely gone from the scene today.

L: I know what you mean, but a TV news anchor isn't really a reporter. He or she is an attractive actor hired to read the news others research, because their faces increase ratings. Is it fair to criticize such people for not being investigative journalists?

Doug: No, I guess it's not. They are hired to look sincere and look good. I believe it's well established that people in general are prone to like and believe people they find attractive – that's the basis for hiring TV news anchors – that and having completely unremarkable, predictable, "mainstream" views. But it's still not a good thing. To have a system that relies on attractive but ignorant or misinformed people regurgitating reporting written by others is dangerous. The so-called Fourth Estate is dying.

You know, that very term – Fourth Estate – is being used more now, at the very time that the institution itself is changing its essence. The idea of a Fourth Estate arose with the Industrial Revolution and the inception of capitalism – the first three basically being the church, the "nobles," and everyone else – the 99%. The Fourth Estate has historically been a bit outside all that, but certainly outside the church and the state. Their purpose was to tell it like it is, keep things in balance, and be impartial truth-tellers. Major cities each had dozens of papers. But now the Fourth Estate has truly been captured by the ruling classes.

That's the bad news. The good news is that we have the Internet. The stuff people report there may not always be anymore accurate than the mass media, but at least it's independent – it's not a mouthpiece for the Establishment. As far as I'm concerned, the Fourth Estate has betrayed its basic raison d’être, and no longer serves much of a useful purpose.

L: Which brings us back to the people who write the stories or compose the video coverage – the kind of investigators who are supposed to make a show like 60 Minutes deliver hidden truth to a population that needs to know…

Doug: Unfortunately, they seem to be cut from pretty much the same cloth as the reporters who write for outfits like the New York Times or, God forbid, USA Today – something I feel sheepish about reading in public. They all went to the same universities, where they were taught the same ideas and values by the same teachers – who are all statists of one stripe or another. They are all so deeply inculcated in this worldview, they don't even know they are in it…

L: Which is why journalists who don't work for right-wing rags never admit that there is such a thing as "liberal media bias." Their colored glasses have been on for so long, they don't even realize they wear them.

Doug: Exactly. The 60 Minutes guys fell flat on their faces when they didn't call Ben Bernanke out for contradicting himself on their show, first saying the Fed was printing money, then saying it wasn't. If these guys are the toughest watchdogs we have, we're in big trouble. The best sources of news on TV are probably The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. As comedians, they serve the role of the court jester and can say things to the king that nobody else dares to. It's a sad testimony.

L: But there are exceptions, like John Stossel.

Doug: Of course, but again, it's the exception that tests the rule; the fact that Stossel is so extraordinary tells us a lot about what is ordinary. You can see this clearly when you get a bunch of reporters together on an impromptu talk show, like Meet the Press or whatever; what you see is a bunch of opinionated people, some somewhat to the left, some somewhat to the right of center, yelling at each other. It's never an intelligent discussion of ideas and principles at all. For instance, there's never a discussion of whether Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid are correct areas for government involvement – that's completely accepted and a given. Even with Obamacare or Romneycare the discussion is only one of whether it's affordable or efficient, not whether it's ethically defensible. It's just glib one-liners and catch phrases.

L: Whoever has the best sound bite wins.

Doug: Just so. Political talk shows are frustrating and embarrassing to watch. I just want to wash my hands of the whole mess, but I guess I'll have to watch at least a little of the Democrat's Convention, just to see what kind of charade they put on. I expect it will be more enthusiastic than that of the Republicans, because at least the Democrats actually have some principles... even if they're completely bent, destructive, and statist principles. It should be some show, maybe like the Nuremburg rally.

L: Morbid curiosity?

Doug: Yes, and very unappealing. It's literally like watching something die. The capacity of the masses to sit on their sofas and watch endless hours of canned drivel on TV is increasingly convincing me that libertarians and other free-thinkers are actually genetic mutants. We can mate with Boobus americanus intellectually about as well as a human can mate physically with a chimpanzee.

L: Mutants… or at least an uncommon personality type.

Doug: Either way, we are so few – it's hard to have any hope of reason ever winning the day. My friend Jeff Berwick was caught in a spate of optimism the other day, which started with him guessing that maybe 10,000 new people become libertarians every day – a great-sounding number. Then he took out his calculator and realized that even if the population of earth was stable that, even at that rate, it would take something like 2,000 years before everyone stopped thinking like a criminal.

Communication is critical, of course. But while that's become easier, in some ways, like the Internet, it may be increasingly difficult in others. The masses are addled by the mind-numbing rays from their TVs, and there are scores of millions more addled by psychiatric drugs, and hundreds of millions more by generations of government miseducation.

On the bright side – you know I like to always look on the bright side – the Internet could be bigger than all those things. The big media corporations no longer have a stranglehold on the news. These days, anyone with a phone has audio- and video-recording capability and can be a reporter. With the Internet, any of these people can get word of what they see out to the entire world.

L: A new, 21st century version of the Fourth Estate?

Doug: Yes; the truth is out there. But as with everything else, it's subject to Pareto's Law. So, 80% of what's out there is crap, and 80% of what's left is merely okay. But that remaining 4% of quality, uncensored, free information flow is extremely valuable. More good news: because people increasingly realize that 80% of everything is crap, they're becoming evermore discriminating – which is a very good thing. People used to slavishly believe everything in the newspapers just because it was written; now they're necessarily more skeptical, which means they're forced to be more thoughtful.

But as great as this is, it's like Jesus of Nazareth said: "He who has ears, let him hear." For the distributed and free reporting we now have via the Internet to do much good, people need to question what they're told and look for the truth – that's not going to happen if they only use the 'Net for social media and porn. After generations of government schooling, where critical thinking is the last thing they want to teach, people willing to do this are few and far between.

L: You're an atheist quoting the Bible?

Doug: Why not? I can read. Everyone should read the Bible, along with Richard Dawkins, of course.

L: Indeed. Investment implications?

Doug: Nothing I haven't said before, but that doesn't make it any less true. The terminal corruption of the major news corporations and the lack of interest in seeking the truth among the general population augurs very poorly for the prospects of the US and the current world order. This creates speculative opportunities, which we work hard on uncovering in our publications, but prospects for mainstream investments are not good. Western civilization is truly in decline and far down the slippery slope.

L: You wrote an article some years ago on how to profit from the coming collapse of Western civilization…

Doug: Yes – which brings me back to the color yellow, but in a positive context this time: the yellow metal. Now the collapse is beginning, my advice is the same: accumulate gold – not as an investment, but for safety. For profit, speculate on the various bubbles and other trends government interventions in response to the unfolding crisis bring about. Rational investment is not an option in this context (remembering that investment is deploying capital to create more capital). Hopefully, investment will again be a viable option after the ongoing crisis bottoms; it depends in good degree how most people view the role of government. We all have to be speculators now, if we want to make money, and we have to be "gold bugs" if we want to come through the storm with minimal loss of wealth.

L: And for more on that, readers could hardly do better than to come to our conference on "Navigating the Politicized Economy" this week in southern California.

Doug: Or – while we're plugging our own products – they could read your newsletter for our best speculative guidance.

L: Okay, but enough with the crass commercial messages. More soon from California!

Doug: Looking forward to it.

The American economy has never been as centralized as it is today... and Doug's warning that this centralization has made mainstream investing a poor bet has never been more true.

That's why we've teamed up with Sprott, Inc. to host Navigating the Politicized Economy, a critical investors' summit in Carlsbad, California held September 7-9. It will feature 28 financial luminaries – including Doug Casey, Rick Rule, and Eric Sprott – who will reveal how they plan to leverage today's centralized economy to create new wealth.

If you're not attending, you can still profit from every recorded presentation and every piece of actionable investment advice attendees will hear with the Summit Audio Collection. Order before the Summit ends on September 9 and you will save $100.

September 6, 2012

Doug Casey (send him mail) is a best-selling author and chairman of Casey Research, LLC., publishers of Casey’s International Speculator.

http://lewrockwell.com/casey/casey134.html
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:14 PM.
Page generated in 0.19830 seconds.