Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge

Like many here, I've read ZeroHedge for a few years. I loosely agree with the analysis that the tone has become "conspiratorial," but this argument fails to disambiguate between a "conspiratorial" tone and the intentionally provocative rhetoric of the ZeroHedge authors. They KNOW their content falls under all those labels so derisively ascribed to it, because that is their intention.

My reading of the [conspiratorial|far-fetched|proto-facist] content on ZeroHedge is that it's not meant to be literal, but a veneer of SHOCK VALUE that serves two purposes. First, it gets readership due to classic clickbait psychology. Second, its mere existence demonstrably proves ZeroHedge is an "alternative" media site undiluted by editorial filters. This distinguishes it from every mainstream media publication, and that alone makes it worth reading (provided you can find some signal worth your time).

The shock value signals to astute readers that ZeroHedge is not a traditional site, and that yes, you SHOULD take everything they say with a grain of salt. But the logical jump from "you should take it with a grain of salt" to "you should ignore it" misses the simple fact that its writers INTEND for the content to be provocative. They WANT you to take it with a grain of salt.

Taking things "with a grain of salt" is GOOD for you. It means you are THINKING CRITICALLY. People should be taking everything with a grain of salt. What alarms me most about ZeroHedge is not its content, but the attempted ostracizing of that content by other publications, as if the shock value justifies ignoring it all together. Incidentally, this is the same smear tactic that mainstream media sites are applying to Donald Trump: he says we find offensive, therefore he says must be invalid. If we applied this logic to all information, there would be no difference of opinion in the world.

To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, the person yelling "fire" might be the one worth listening to, and we should always question our own beliefs and fear consensus. To quote him directly, they [0] were "the ones shouting fire when there really was a fire in a very crowded theatre indeed... [W]ho’s going to decide?" [1] [2]

[0] "They" were the socialist party of philadelphia, who opposed the draft of WWI, "on the grounds that military conscription constituted involuntary servitude, which is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU (thanks to HN commenter in another thread for linking to this today)

[2] http://documents.ariadacapo.net/borrowed/2006_11_christopher...

I would say "secretly theist" rather than "secretly authoritarian". I can see a strong parallel between conspiracist and theist beliefs, in that the mundane world is an illusion, lie or trap beyond which a metaphysical world exists full of hidden truths and malevolent beings who conspire to control everything behind the scenes, of which most people are completely unaware. Conspiracy theorists merely replace a supernatural demiurge with a political one.

I think one of the compelling aspects of conspiracy theory as an expression of faith, is that it's comforting to realize that even if the world is run by a dark and malevolent agenda, at least it has an agenda, and someone or something is in control.

One can see this expression of conspiracy as religion here on Hacker News. Whenever a skeptical statement is made about some conspiracy theory, someone will inevitably state that because Edward Snowden was proven right, conspiracy X should be considered true. Or, because people considered the things Edward Snowden described were once considered "conspiracy theory", one should accept that conspiracy theorists are enlightened about the true nature of the world.

Rationally, this argument makes little sense as one conspiracy theory being true doesn't validate the truth of another, but such statements are made in the context of religion all the time, as expressions of faith.

I'm with you as far as the level of finance knowledge on these boards. It's not surprising coming from a world where actually making money in your business is an afterthought.

That said, regarding ZH and "gold manipulation": what's exhausting is their claim of the magnitude of the effects, as if precious metals prices would suddenly fly through the roof. For example, when some of the big silver banks were busted for price fixing--a story that ZH covered extensively-- what happened? No visible effect on silver prices. So, the conclusion drawn is that there must a bigger conspiracy.

I'm with some of the other commenters here. ZH is on the bleeding edge of financial news, but you have to untangle it from the hyperventilating. And the comment section is a cesspool.

Rule #1 do not complain about down-votes, if you mind too much about them you will get gun-shy or putting filter. I have enough down votes but it still stings a bit, once past the initial sting, you will realize that people are politically and ideologically vested, irrespective of left or right, they will piss on your parade if you shake their world view and honestly, I may be one of them.

Say what you want to say respectfully and do not worry about votes.