Tag Archives: Rhetoric

How the Chorus of Crypto Criticisms Discredits Itself

The same rationale used to discredit cryptocurrency markets gets used to defend stock markets

crypto

“Bitcoin gets crushed again” has been trending today. The comment threads mostly contain rants about a crypto  bubble that has burst and a technology that has died for the 249th time. The few rational voices pointing out multi-year patterns get drowned out by an army of internet trolls labeling them wishful thinkers, although often with much harsher language. At the current stage of this most recent “crash”, BTC/USD is up 700% year-over-year and 13,900% over the past five years assuming a $50 price in Q1 2013 and a $7000 price today. By comparison, the Dow is up 200% since 2009, assuming a bottom of 9,000 points and a top of 27,000 points today.

“Dow falls 1,500 points” has also been trending. The comment threads seem to mostly contain defenses of stocks and how this is only a blip on the radar. Those who proclaim it to be the start of a bigger selloff or a bubble bursting are written off as hysterical or ignorant. Long-term trends are cited in order to put things in the context of the big picture. Notice how this reflects a total inversion of the same arguments used against crypto.

 A Tale of Two Asset-Classes

Yet when crypto enthusiasts point out long-term trends, they get labeled delusional zealots incapable of coping with reality. Despite the fact that no historical precedent exists for this new technology or its value relative to fiat currency outside of the past nine years, those who do not understand it feel justified in their predictions and analyses based on a few weeks. And their vitriolic assertions mimic the zealous tone they perceive in those who understand otherwise. Many such critics cannot even tell you what a blockchain is, what fiat currency is, or what a central bank does. This paradigm shift has gone so far over the heads of those who do not care to grasp it that they have formed a chorus of incoherent rambling.

Even the most well-respected financial experts and mainstream publications have joined this chorus, as I mentioned in a piece for GoldStockBull.com in December 2017. Hit pieces on blockchain and crypto often have little to no factual underpinnings. Bitcoinobituaries.com shows this quite well. One of the best articles ever written on this subject was published by Business Insider in August 2017. In it, John McAfee compares the invention of blockchain technology to the invention of agriculture:

 It is like the first pueblo cultures being warned by their past sages that they will perish in their stone houses when it is time for the village to move. They understood that the concept of “moving” had no meaning in their new world. Likewise, what people see as a bitcoin “bubble,” from the perspective of the new paradigm, is merely the predictable and systematic devaluation of fiat currencies that will continue, with obvious ups and downs, until all fiat currencies reach the zero point.

The decline of fiat currencies is almost never mentioned as a factor affecting cryptocurrencies, even though it can be seen as the single most significant variable. Likewise, corporate buybacks are often overlooked with regard to the stock market.

An Irrelevant Reference Point

These criticisms operate based on the same fundamental misunderstanding. The value of an asset, whether it be a stock or cryptocurrency, is often perceived in only one dimension – the price as measured in fiat currency. Underlying fundamentals or potential manipulations are often never considered.

The stock market rise has been fueled in large part by corporate buybacks. An excellent piece on this subject was penned by Forbes contributor Bert Dohmen just weeks before the aforementioned Business Insider piece by McAfee:

 Only 20 stocks accounted for 42% of all buybacks last year. It’s easy to see that manipulation of the EPS of 20 stocks can produce bullish sentiment in the market. The media usually just tells you about the rise in EPS, without telling you what the total profits were. In fact, total profits can decline while the EPS rises. It’s all a game of “smoke and mirrors.” It’s “fool’s gold.” I have been writing about this deceptive financial engineering since 2013. In my January 20, 2014 issue of the Wellington Letter I wrote: “In the U.S., the most significant factor for rising stock prices has been the very large corporate buybacks of their own stocks. Companies have been the biggest stock buyers over the past five years, while every other major, traditional buyer has been on the sell side.”

This is almost comical considering critics cite the lack of regulation in crypto markets as a worrisome issue that opens the door for price manipulation. As if regulated markets such as the Dow, S&P 500, and Nasdaq are somehow immune to such financial engineering. To be fair, a large number of people use cryptocurrencies as a speculative tool for fiat gains. This says nothing of the underlying technology. Nor does it make fiat currencies have more value. It’s yet another indication of the broad lack of understanding of the significance of this invention.

A New Perspective

Bitcoin and currencies like it may be the biggest invention since that of the internet. And blockchain may be the most significant technological advancement for human society since agriculture. That’s what inspires me to write about it. The vast sea of disinformation needs more contrarians.

I’m thankful to have the opportunity to work for companies like Blue Chip Crypto Education and GoldStockBull.com. They allow for publication of factual material relating to blockchain and cryptocurrency. I believe in the stated mission of Blue Chip Crypto, and I know many others do as well: We want to give our readers clear, concise information, and an objective view that would help break through the confusion and misunderstanding surrounding digital currencies. In short, those who dismiss the significance of blockchain have begun to look like those who wrote off the internet as insignificant decades ago. “It’s only for criminals, it will never work, it won’t last, it’s useless”, were all real criticisms against the internet years ago. It’s no coincidence that crypto faces similar scrutiny. Quantum leaps in technological advancement have a tendency to create paradigm shifts that only become widely accepted and understood sometime after their implementation. For crypto, that time is close at hand.

[Note: this article was originally published on LinkedIn at LinkedIn.com/in/bdncontent on

Blockchain brainwashing and built-in negative bias

blockchain brainwash

Blockchain brainwashing

In writing for clients about topics relating to blockchain tech and cryptocurrency in general, I’ve learned a great deal. Not just about the technology, but about human nature. The reason lies in the fact that my job involves doing objective research. This research sheds light on a subject that should not be controversial in the slightest.

Yet somehow, a great many people parrot the negativity found in the press. They do so despite a total lack of knowledge regarding the subject matter of which they speak. And they tend to feel justified and superior in this even when their statements or questions demonstrate such ignorance beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Knowledge means nothing. In today’s world, and perhaps throughout history, feelings control our perceptions. Media influences our perceptions. And our perceptions often lead to opinions based on nothing more than a feeling, suggestion, or general sense of something. This wouldn’t be such a big deal if those opinions didn’t affect our choices. Those choices, influenced by such an emotional process, add up to a collective almost incapable of change.

Absentmindedness of epic proportions

The lack of critical thought being demonstrated is as astonishing as it is alarming. It’s no wonder why society as a whole finds itself mired in so many crises and divisions. Not all of the blame can be placed upon incompetent or corrupt leaders. We the people must shoulder much of the responsibility for our unwillingness to investigate for ourselves, develop informed opinions, and make independent choices. With such a susceptibility to subliminal influence by outside forces, there exists little hope for progress.

Human beings are not rational creatures. We are emotional beings. Our instinct is to use our powers of reason to either rationalize inescapable emotions or to create a reality that avoids unwanted ones. It is a rare individual who chooses to investigate matters on their own absent any pre-conceived notions.

Such people are those who were early adopters of different blockchain-based technologies, whether they be cryptographic coins or other features of platforms too extensive to list. These trail-blazers now have to cope with increasing ridicule from those who do not care to educate themselves on a subject that is, in fact, rather simple. Even those with little to no technical background can understand the basics with ease. Yet it appears most would rather not. It’s easier to believe what feels right or what we first hear. Even when we don’t know how we got that feeling in the first place. Even if it has no basis in reality. And even if it is to the detriment of society as a whole.

The dreaded and evil B word

Back to bitcoin (I hesitate to even use the word). Somehow the entire subject of anything related to blockchain technology has become so shrouded in senseless controversy that it’s hard to even speak of it. I’ve learned to avoid mentioning what it is I most often write about, what my main specialty is, whenever possible.

Somehow, those uninformed on the subject seem to despise bitcoin for reasons they can’t explain or understand. It’s a bubble, it’s fake news, a scam, a nothing-burger, it’s dead, it’s like a magical rainbow with no pot of gold at the end.

Is this just a random occurrence? Is it a coincidence that the exact same tone of the average press article about bitcoin gets parroted by the average person who has no idea what they’re talking about?

Bitcoin bashing has become mainstream

Upon examining most press pieces on the subject, it becomes clear early on that the vast majority use nothing more than hollow rhetoric to make their ridiculous points. The same tired arguments have been raised again and again for years. Rather than get into specifics, simply refer to the website BitcoinObituaries.com. Also see my article entitled “Bitcoin has died 235 times over the last nine years” (the number has now risen to over 245, just days after that article was first published).

The ease with which the average person is influenced by fleeting thoughts and momentary suggestions is not my only concern. As I mention in that article, the short attention span demonstrated by these downright delusional criticisms ought to worry all of us. A certain cycle has been repeated dozens of times over the past four to five years. In a society full of independent thinkers, the cycles would be recognized at some point and opinions would alter to better align with reality. Yet the exact opposite has been happening. With each asylum-resembling repetition, the chorus of weird and ludicrous criticisms grows even stronger.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result each time. In a very real and literal sense, this is what critics of cryptocurrency have been demonstrating by repeating the same unfounded points over and over again. This is not an emotionally charged rant (e.g., a bitcoin criticism). This is an observation.

All one needs to do in order to discern this insanity is to comb through online articles and social media posts (both past and present). The FUD forms some kind of a suffocating smog. Fortunately, I spend most of my time reading white papers, lesser-known articles written by developers, and transcriptions of interviews with programmers or experts in the industry. The difference between the two can only be likened to parallel universes – there can be no comparison to speak of. Upon living in the calmer, more rational dimension for some time, one thing becomes clear.

A brighter future in the blockchain

Blockchain technology has the potential to radically transform our whole entire world for the better and has already begun to do so. As John Mcafee has asserted, the invention of the blockchain rivals that of the invention of agriculture in terms of its widespread impact upon human civilization. More individual power and liberty, less fraud and crime, additional financial prosperity and security, and countless other untold benefits lie waiting in the untilled pasture of blockchains galore. Yet ignorance holds back progress as it always has.

Just as blockchain has been exploding toward mass adoption, those with vested interests in the status quo have managed to exercise their influence on the minds of the masses. Banks and large corporations (like those who control corporate Western media) know that they have become obsolete and irrelevant. Their time is done. Their days are numbered and their goose is cooked. This manipulation of public perception represents a last-ditch effort to bide their time. It is little more than the blood-curdled cry and final futile lashings of a dying wild animal.

Everything we have ever known is about to get better. Human beings lie on the cusp of the most dramatic peaceful revolution in the history of our existence. For the first time, we will soon be free of all centralized authorities and their intrinsic corruption, control, and oppression. You can do something to help bring this future closer to the present. Think about what you’re saying about bitcoin and blockchain before you say it. Know the reasons you feel how you do, and ask yourself, am I justified in this, or am I just repeating something I’ve heard somewhere? Investigate. Do your own research. Use your own reason and not someone else’s. Last but not least, buy bitcoin and other cryptos and them it to buy something.

Protest Against Breitbart Editor Heralds the End of Freedom of Speech

“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. – Voltaire

The timeless words of Voltaire have been lost on today’s populace.

It seems people prefer to riot, vandalize, and set things on fire rather than allow someone to express an opposing viewpoint.

Last week, Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a speech at the University of California at Berkeley. His speech wound up being canceled due to widespread rioting and violence.

People were smashing windows, setting fires, and throwing fireworks at police. What a way to fight against violence!

Outside Agitators

It’s important to note that many of these protestors were not students at UC Berkeley.   One can discern that much by the ninja-like apparel they were wearing. Dressed in all black with black bandanas or masks around their faces, these people incited violence on a magnificent scale. Who knows if they were paid provocateurs or just anarchists looking for a good time? Both scenarios seem plausible.

The following comes from ABC: 

“…But officials said it was a smaller group of protesters dressed in black and in hooded sweatshirts that showed up as night fell to break windows with metal barricades, throw smoke bombs and flares and start a large bonfire outside the building with a diesel generator.

“This was a group of agitators who were masked up, throwing rocks, commercial grade fireworks and Molotov cocktails at officers,” said UC Berkeley Police Chief Margo Bennet.

Bennet said police determined at that point they couldn’t guarantee security, canceled the event and evacuated Yiannopoulos from the building.”

All this was done in the name of preventing “hate speech”, on the grounds that it might incite violence. And get this – Yiannopoulos’ speech was supposed to be about the very topic of violent protestors shutting out alternative viewpoints and silencing freedom of speech.

One can almost taste the irony and hypocrisy.

What’s most disgusting about this demonstration of hatred and intolerance is that it was rewarded. The speech had to be cancelled because of the violence. The message was clear: throw a temper tantrum, mix in some provocateurs, and you can silence anyone you want.

President Trump weighed in on the night’s events with the following Tweet:

“If U.C Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

According to Breitbart, UC Berkeley receives almost half of all its funding from the federal government. So Trump’s threat, if more than mere rhetoric (doubtful), would be quite a serious one, having severe ramifications upon the operations of the university.

Although the violence that led to the cancellation of the speech seems to have been induced by outside agitators, at least in part, it still speaks to the sad state of freedom of speech in America that college students would have any part in such a thing.

From free speech areas to safe spaces

When I was in college (not many years ago), there was a “free speech area” on campus. People used this space for all kinds of things ranging from musical performances, promoting political ideas, advertising businesses, playing music and dancing, or ranting on a PA about some topic no one really cared about. Even religious fanatics would come on campus preaching their ideas to a less than receptive audience.

No one threw a fit about it. No violence or protests ever ensued. For the most part, people either listened or walked away. It was that simple.

While some people ridiculed the idea of a so-called “free speech area” on the grounds that all areas ought to be designated as such under the constitution, in retrospect that criticism pales in comparison to what has been happening as of late.

Instead of free speech zones, campuses now have “safe spaces”. These can be seen as the polar opposite of a free speech zone. It seems some students have grown so sensitive to opposing viewpoints that they cannot tolerate even entertaining thoughts that counter their own.

It’s as if, when encountered by someone such as a religious fanatic, instead of walking away, people now either break down and cry or respond with violence.

And when a speaker some people don’t like comes to campus, a violent riot ensues. In the past, people who didn’t want to hear someone just wouldn’t attend the speech. Perhaps they’d encourage others to do the same. Why does that option no longer occur to people in certain instances?

I have inkling as to why.

Indoctrinating Intolerance

If you listen to the enraged screaming of violent rioters, the same theme often comes up regarding why they just cannot let someone speak.

They say that misogynistic, racist, homophobic, etc. speech cannot be allowed. They argue this on the grounds that it might incite violence. The very kind of violence they engage in and promote against those they say will cause such violence.

This kind of behavior has come about as a direct result of the radical feminist brainwashing machine. Indoctrination on college campuses has been happening for years. And it seems to have reached a peak as of late. (See The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say)

This school of thought promotes hatred against so-called “privileged” members of society. For the most part, that includes white heterosexual males.  Hatred must not be tolerated. When it comes to white males, however, hatred is not only tolerated but also justified, righteous, and even necessary.

The hatred stems from beliefs about patriarchal hegemony. Entire books exist on the subject. Yet distilled to its purest essence, it can be seen as the idea that all of society’s injustices stem from imperceptible privilege that allows certain people power, thereby marginalizing others. These people are men, but not gay or minority men.

If inequality and injustice arise from a single group of people, what solution exists?

The answer involves a single word: genocide.

Yes, there are radical feminists out there who advocate for genocide of all white males. And even if they did not, the logical progression of this idea system cannot lead anywhere else.

It’s flawless logic from the perspective of such ideology. Get rid of white males, and society will become equal, harmonious, peaceful, and magical.

This general concept has been repeated throughout history.  It progresses from the scapegoating of one segment of the population.  While details differ, the general process looks like this: 1) All of society’s problems fall upon one specific group. 2) This group gets perceived as having all power. 3) Envy ensues, leading to rage and hatred. 4) Hatred gives way to silencing (the step we are at now). 5) Silencing then increases, either to marginalization or genocide.

Distraction Epidemic

One would think that with labor force participation rates near forty-year lows, national debt including unfunded liabilities exceeding $200 trillion, central banks impoverishing the world, and issues such as geoengineering destroying the entire planet,  we’d be able to stop fighting and focus on issues that affect us all.

Yet as long as education focuses on indoctrination, and mainstream news focuses on division, there will never be solutions to the direst issues that have a detrimental impact upon everyone. Most will never even think about such issues.

In short, hateful rhetoric inspires reprehensible behavior. When freedom of speech becomes silenced, the group doing the silencing become perpetuators of the exact type of hegemony they claim to be rallying against.

What do you think? Is it okay to shut down another’s scheduled speech because you disagree with them? Have we as a society become so obsessed with tolerance that we have become intolerant? And does rhetoric perceived as violent deserve to be silenced with actual violence?

Leave your thoughts regarding the current state of freedom of speech in a comment below.