Topic: [2018-01-15] [Guardian] - So You're Thinking of Investing in Bitcoin? Don't. (Read 155 times)

Yes, we know that. But they succeed in nurturing an anti-establishment image to their readers by positioning themselves against privatised authoritarianism (and labelling anyone against socialist authoritarianism as a fascist).



This is what the (true) establishment cronies like The Guardian (and equally Fox News or the Daily Mail) want to achieve: heavily promoting just 2 ideologies, and making sure that it appears as if only 2 options exist.

We, as Bitcoiners, terrify the real establishment. We dare to take a 3rd option, not spoonfed by the media.



I mostly agree, but must take a hard line in describing The Guardian's socialist politics as "liberal".


This is the most highly Orwellian language distortion of the modern age (in addition to the blurred meaning of the word "fascism", or the laughable nonsense of the neologism "neo-liberal").

Liberal does not, and can not, mean any form of authoritarianism or aggression. We may as well tear up the dictionary and start again with an altogether different language if we allow this double-speak to pass unchallenged. It should be perfectly obvious what liberalism means (little different to what libertarian means), no matter how often the US media mis-labels authoritarian socialism as liberalism, or how often the European media mis-labels corporate fascism as neo-liberalism.

Liberalism (and it's ultimate conclusion, voluntary society with no state at all*) is what governments fear, as there is nothing for them corrupt if they have no power. And that's why the corrupt media is so desperate to corrupt the meaning of liberalism into either privatised (neo-liberal) or nationalised (socialist) authoritarianism, there would be no need to work so hard at changing the meaning of the word otherwise.


And they love it when people that want to be independent of government fight each other. So please, think more carefully about what I'm saying if anyone feels the need to shout "leftist!", or "nazi!". They want that.


* I hesitate to use the word "anarchist" these days, the media are working super-hard to corrupt what that word means too

I'd say they're only anti-the-current-establishment.  They recognise the shortcomings when neoliberalism, crony-capitalism and corporatism fall down and shout that from the rooftops, which isn't necessarily wrong.  The whole "privatising profit and socialising risk" thing isn't working, except for a few lucky people in positions of influence.  It's pretty obvious the UK is falling apart because private firms, which are basically subsidised by the taxpayer, are still somehow either collapsing or generally being grossly mismanaged despite all the free money being thrown at them and the conflicts of interest in government that provide legislation in their favour, but that's probably something for another thread.  The Guardian have never held a "less government" libertarian type of stance, they'd simply prefer a more progressive government.  Not anti-establishment in the slightest.  They're also capable of less biased pieces towards Bitcoin, but clearly some of their contributors aren't that broad-minded.  

The guardian is not "anti-stablishment" newspaper.They are leftist liberals ,who are suppoting the idea of "more state-less free market economy",sometimes they are very anti-capitalistic.The mainstream is dominated by "pro-establishment" liberals.Cryptocurrencies are more like an libertarian invention,they are anti-state and support the free market economy.That`s why the socialists from "The Guardian" hate them.

The Guardian sells itself as a progressive, anti-establishment news outlet.

But their coverage of Bitcoin over the years demonstrates a consistent and concerning pro-establishment bias. Even a basic education in monetary history and theory will leave the average person wondering how Guardian writers (who are alleged professionals) can get something so incredibly simple so incredibly wrong.

It's impossible that their writers (or the editors) are this dumb. One can only conclude that this piece has been written to order, to satisfy the financial industry in some way or another.


These attacks are getting to sound really shrill and desperate, as if independent currencies scare the living crap out of the establishment (something that is borne out in the history of money, incidentally). Why say anything at all, if there's nothing to fear except a rollercoaster ponzi scheme? (a good description of government-backed currency at it's worst) Conclusion: The Guardian are about as anti-establishment as Trump or Obama.

This is from the Guardian which all about overbearing statehood and certainly wouldn't encourage people to be striking out on their own.

And it's consistent with the author's ethos. He's all about balance, steady returns and protecting your capital. I'd say it's a valid point of view from his angle. The beanie baby thing really should be shot in the head by now though.

It's no different from a Bitcoiner squealing about being banned from r/investing. That's not what they're about at all.

Yep, it's been at least 5-10 minutes since the last article about how "collective insanity" has caused people to invest in "tulips and Beanie Babies", so here's another poorly researched hack job that largely misses the point:  

---

So you're thinking about investing in bitcoin? Don't.


Continue reading...

---

If you can't be bothered to read the rest of the article because you think you know how it ends, you're probably right.  Yep, it's still that same old story.  No "intrinsic value", but blockchain all by itself is still somehow great.  One would have thought they'd have got bored of printing the same thing over and over again by now.  I suppose they do make a few valid points.  Some people are having this idea sold to them as a get-rich-quick scheme and there are a few too many speculators who are solely in it for the profit, which is unfortunate.  But the way the guy basically just creams himself over placing blind faith in governments, regulatory bodies and people in general in this day and age, with all the crap going on in the world is just sad.  This is the bit that really got me:


I mean, has he even looked at a headline in the last decade?  The people that run this world are either incompetent, corrupt or both.  I don't have a great deal of trust left in me to give to these "people" (in the loosest possible sense of the word, because most of them are barely even human).  On top of that, he doesn't even bat an eyelid at the $1.2 Quadrillion Bankster Derivatives Market, but what we're doing is "mania"?

To this author, I say "You trust whoever you like, mate, but I certainly don't trust you".