L: So, Doug, North Korea shelled South Korea – do
you think that's the sound of an approaching black swan we hear?
Doug: It could be, but I doubt North Korea wants a real
war, and South Korea absolutely wants to avoid one. Of course, North Korea's
government is a hereditary monarchy, run by the thoroughly degraded Kim
family – which is a bit confusing, in that everybody in Korea is either a Kim, a Park, or a Lee. Who knows what's going on
in the abnormal psychology of Kim Jong-Il, or whoever is really running the
place? It's perverse. North Korea is already a wasteland, so a war would do
them relatively less harm; in a way they have nothing to lose. South Korea is
a G20 economy, however, so even if they win a shooting match in short order,
they still lose, in terms of the damage they would suffer in the process.
From a realpolitik point of view, it makes
sense for the North to occasionally kill a few South Koreans, make
threatening noises, and keep the "us vs. them" rhetoric hot. It
provides an excuse for their extraordinarily low standard of living, and a
reason for having a police state. They use nationalism and patriotism very
effectively to prop up their pathetic regime. In that regard, they are like
most governments, just more extreme. But I consider the chances of an actual
war to be slim.
It was interesting to see gold shoot up the day the Koreas traded
artillery shells. Coincidentally, it was just after the EU's announcement
that all is well and everyone can go back to spending as usual. I don't think
it's likely that the Koreas will go for all-out war and push the teetering
global economy over the edge. But it's possible, because we're dealing with
certifiable lunatics. It's more likely the EU itself will provide a black
swan event. The bankruptcy of the euro, and then the EU, was always inevitable.
It may now be imminent as well.
Regarding North Korea, though, what's really interesting is the
information leaked through WikiLeaks that China – basically their only supporter – may be pulling
back its support. The Chinese can see that maintaining a lunatic regime in
North Korea no longer serves any useful purpose. They don't need a loose cannon on their border. I expect it will collapse
in the near term. The Chinese, likely with the collusion of some North Korean
generals, will oust the Kims, and set up something
that's less of a liability.
L: I saw that news. It's quite striking that after
the wikileak, some Chinese officials have apparently come out and said
that they do, in fact, favor
reunification of the Koreas.
Doug: The whole idea of WikiLeaks is terrific. They've become one of the most important watchdog
organizations on the planet, helping to expose a lot of government action for
what it really is.
This latest leak of a quarter of a million classified U.S. embassy
cables is quite a coup, not just for revealing China's changing attitudes
about North Korea, but for exposing discussions the U.S. had with other
countries about bombing Iran, espionage conducted by U.S.
diplomats in Paraguay, Chinese government attacks on
Google, and more mundane things like the lavish lifestyles of Kazakhstan's political
elite.
Shining a light on the sociopaths who hide in the dark places under
the rocks of government is always a good thing. Just as they recently did in
their exposé of what is going on with the counterproductive U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's great to have a whistleblower organization like them. Julian Assange, who runs it, is a hero, and deserves the Nobel
Peace Prize – although it's a shame that prize has become so meaningless
and degraded.
L: The more skeptical people become of the Right and
Honorable So-And-So, the better.
Doug: Exactly. And on a more fundamental philosophical
level, this is in keeping with my sense of justice. Crooks should not get
away with their crimes just because they hold lofty titles, wear spiffy
uniforms, and call their crimes great deeds necessitated by "national
security," "economic stimulus," or whatever other nonsensical
lies they come up with.
I'm fond of saying, "Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the
law – but be prepared to accept the consequences." Well, exposing
secrets is an important part of enabling the natural consequences for
dastardly deeds to follow.
The whole idea of "national security" has gotten completely
out of control. It has about zero to do with protecting what little is left
of America; it's all about protecting, and building, the U.S. government, and
the people who participate in it and profit from it. People fail to
understand that the USG doesn't represent them, or care about them – or
at least not any more than a farmer cares about his milk cows. It's an entity
unto itself at this point. It has its own interests, which have only an
accidental or coincidental overlap with those of America. Government is by
its very nature duplicitous and predatory; it always puts itself first. By
cynically paying lip service to traditional values, and whipping up a
nationalistic, patriotic fervor, they can get Boobus
americanus to go along with almost anything
they propose. Just like Boobus north koreansis.
L: Hm. Sarah Palin apparently does not agree with you about WikiLeaks. She's reported as
going on record saying that WikiLeaks personnel
should be treated like terrorists.
Doug: And people thought I was being too hard on the Tea Party
movement. This is exactly the sort of knee-jerk conservative reaction that
shows that such people really don't care about freedom at all. I suspect
Palin is cut from the same cloth as Baby Bush – ignorant, unintelligent,
thoughtless, reactionary, and pig-headed. She belongs on reality TV, not in a
position where she could damage the lives of billions of people.
L: The report says she wants to know why governments
didn't hack the WikiLeaks website. Well, apparently
somebody did last Sunday when these secret diplomatic cables were leaked
– and who is a more likely culprit than the U.S. government? On the
bright side, the attack failed. A handful of nonviolent individuals took on
the world's greatest superpower, as a matter of principle, and won. That just
goes to show yet again how technological advances tend to flatten the power
pyramid of society.
Doug: Yes; we talked about that in our conversation on technology. Every advance in technology puts the little guy on a more even
footing with those at the top of the intra-human food chain. This is why the
Colt revolver became known as "the great equalizer." For the first
time, the little guy was not only the equal of the big guy but, because he
presented a smaller target, was his superior.
The Internet is the best thing that's happened for freedom since the
invention of the printing press. Technology is the biggest force for
individual liberty, and politics the main enemy of it. But people idiotically
idolize politicians and generals much more than scientists and inventors.
Despite that, with the development of very powerful, homemade laser weapons,
and 3D printers that will soon allow anyone to make almost anything, at
trivial cost in their garage, the cat will soon be out of the bag. We should
discuss those in the future. These things are very opportune at the very time
that the bloated states of the world are going into collapse, much like the Roman Empire in the 5th century.
L: In an interesting counterpoint, Reuters reports
that Hillary Clinton defended WikiLeaks, even as she arrived in Kazakhstan at the same time as the
embarrassing assessment of Kazakh leadership was leaked. Sometimes liberals
do defend liberal ideas, like freedom of the press.
Doug: Sometimes. But not if it's politically incorrect press. You can rely on them only to make government larger and more
expensive at every turn – that you can rely
upon like a Swiss train. Hillary – like any Secretary of State –
is a skilled and enthusiastic liar. Her stock in trade is deception.
Everything she says is intended to forward her drive to be the President. I
wonder if she'd be worse than Palin? But that's like
asking if Nero would be worse than Caligula.
L: No argument from me on that. And you know I agree
with you on the watchdog principle, but what if they go after private-sector
entities? CNN reports that WikiLeaks is a major U.S. bank.
Doug: It's a mistake to think of banks in the U.S. as
being private sector entities. U.S. banks got into bed with the state decades
ago, and got even more closely entwined via the latest set of regulations,
and bailouts. At this point they're really parastatal
entities. Plus, I'd guess that whatever whistle-blowing WikiLeaks
is planning, it probably has to do with the bailouts or other government
interactions with the banks anyway – exactly the type of thing that
needs to be exposed.
L: Fine, but their mission is not to fight the state,
but simply to publish "important" news and information. What if
someone uses their secure drop-box technology to reveal salacious material on
private individuals… say, a complete list of all of Doug Casey's
mistresses?
Doug: Unfortunately, that list would be rather small at
the moment. Not that WikiLeaks would deem that sort
of thing important enough to bother with. But, look, it doesn't matter; there
are tabloids that cover that ground already, and they get the respect they deserve.
If you aren't prepared to accept the consequences of something, don't do it.
The only sure way to avoid having your mistresses exposed, if you really
don't want that to happen, is not to have mistresses.
L: So… do you believe in a human right to privacy?
Doug: In the sense of having a right to remain silent,
yes. No one should ever be forced to reveal anything they don't want to
reveal. But in the sense of stopping other people from saying, publishing, or
broadcasting information about you, no. The information in their heads is
theirs, and they have a right to do whatever they want with it. If it happens
to be about you and you don't like it, tough. Develop better security
measures. Or better, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
L: What about libel?
Doug: If information put out by others about you is
wrong, defend yourself with the truth. If you have a solid reputation
accumulated over years of interactions with many people, your side of the
story should get a good hearing. If you've been a jerk to many people, or not
always honest, you'll have a tougher time – which is as it should be.
The potential harm that lies might do does not justify giving power to
the state to control what other people say – that's a far greater harm.
A complete free market in information will necessarily make people much more
discriminating, and less gullible. They'll become much less likely to believe
things without solid evidence.
L: Sounds a bit like an intellectual Wild West.
Doug: Yes, but that's a good thing. We have laws against
libel and slander now, and people violate them constantly. It's not just ineffective, it's counterproductive, because the existence
of libel laws makes people more likely to believe what they hear. In a
society without laws against libel, people would be much more skeptical, and
the potential harm from lies would be diminished.
L: I can see that… and why you favor the WikiLeaks technology. You remain an optimist; things have
to get worse before they can get better, but the longest term trend of them
all is "the ascent of man."
Doug: Yes. The trend is towards rapidly accelerating
advances in technology. So, certainly in this case, the trend is your friend.
Don't fear technology – it's what brought us out of the caves and
primeval slime – it's everybody's best friend.
L: After the dog?
Doug: Poodles in particular. I suspect this isn't the
time for a sidebar on standard poodles. But I will mention it's one of the
many subjects on which I'm in total agreement with my friend Richard Russell.
L: Poodles. I'm not going to go there now. Perhaps we
can discuss animals and their rights, or lack thereof, in some future
edition. How about investment implications?
Doug: Unfortunately WikiLeaks
is not itself an investment opportunity, being a non-profit organization.
L: If it was for profit, would you invest?
Doug: I'd have to look at the actual business model and
projections, but there's reason to be skeptical. By its nature, WikiLeaks is always going to be outside the mainstream of
the economy, with rabid governments trying to shut it down, maybe even imprison its people, as they get more desperate. This
thing has "scapegoat" written all over it. I hear Interpol has
suddenly decided to bring Assange in on charges of
sexual assault – transparency and accepting the consequences of his
actions should apply to him, like anyone else, but I'm very suspicious of the
timing of these accusations. WikiLeaks is an encrypted, moving target,
but a target nonetheless.
L: Do you contribute to WikiLeaks?
You like the service, but don't believe in charity.
Doug: I wouldn't consider it charity; I value their
service. If I sent them money it would be because I want to show support, and
reward their efforts. Sending them money, and giving
them other support, amounts to a fair exchange, in my view. Not because of
charity, which very often just assuages the guilt of the
donor, while subtly encouraging bad habits in the recipient.
L: Okay. So, other than as yet another straw in the
wind – evidence of the approach of the end game for the current global
economic order (the latest implications of which we'll cover in The Casey Report in two days) – are there any other investment implications?
Doug: Well, this is also a technology story. WikiLeaks itself is not an investment opportunity, but
there are new technologies that are fantastic opportunities. Not to be overly
promotional here, but Alex Daley does an excellent job of covering this beat
in our Casey's Extraordinary Technology newsletter.
L: Roger that.
Do you mind if I take this opportunity to thank all our readers who responded last week and voted for our Belarusian musical protégé? She won
the vote for "best new band" last week, even though we readers had
less than a day to respond after our last conversation went live. This week
there's a vote for "best band," and we have until December 3 to
vote.
Reminder: to listen to PRANA in English, go to www.musicbyprana.com,
click on "eng" for English, then click on the angel holding a
musical symbol, then click on the "play" triangle. There are more
songs in Russian on the Russian side of the site.
To vote: go to http://www.trkbrest.by/projects
and click on Prana's picture (the caption is in
Russian, but you can see the word "PRANA" in caps and she's the
only girl). When the popup box appears, click on the blue "Голосовать" button on the left. Thanks from Prana and our Belarusian
friends.
Doug: In for a penny…
L: Thanks, and for your insight on the WikiLeaks phenomenon.
Doug: You're welcome. Talk to you next week…
Doug Casey
|