Casey on the Nanny State
by Louis James, Editor, International
by Doug Casey:
Doug, you're going to love this; there's a new study out, purporting
to show that eating
any amount of any kind of red meat is bad for you making
you 13% more likely to die, in fact. So, with your growing herd
of cattle in Argentina, you're close to becoming a mass murderer.
I saw that. I wonder what you have to do to make it 26% more likely
to die? If I go back to skydiving, does that mean I'm 1,000% more
likely to die? It's rather strange, in that I always thought we're
all basically 100% likely to die.
It's yet another
sign of how degraded US society has become, that something so ridiculous
can be passed off as news. According to the LA
article I read, the "study" was just a survey of people's
reported eating habits. So, at best assuming people responded
accurately and honestly the survey might show us a correlation.
But even a high-school student should be able to tell you that correlation
does not establish causality. The typical science journalist may
be even more ignorant and misinformed than the typical financial
journalist, which is saying something. It's why I read the papers
mostly for entertainment.
study failed to consider, for example, if those who reported eating
more meat happen to include more people who ride motorcycles, party
hardy, or engage in other higher-risk behaviors which could
easily be true of steak lovers. This survey wouldn't catch such
patterns. And yet I read one of the authors claiming:
study provides clear evidence that regular consumption of red
meat, especially processed meat, contributes substantially to
On the other hand, choosing more healthful
sources of protein in place of red meat can confer significant
health benefits by reducing chronic disease morbidity and mortality."
It sounds as if the authors might have a political agenda. But what
do you expect from government "science?" Much of it is
politically driven, and if you don't arrive at politically correct
answers, funding might dry up.
this was a Harvard study
Sure it was but paid for by two branches of the US
government health bureaucracy, the NIH. These so-called scientists
may well be hacks who got paid a lot of money because they were
deemed likely to deliver a result that meshes with the agendas of
various politically correct groups. One of those is the anti-meat
fanatics, including the animal rights activists at PETA; they're
relatively few in number but very strident. Another is the environmentalists
who fear the methane cows and sheep produce; because methane
CH4 is a "greenhouse gas." They believe it will
turn this rock with its thin skin of an atmosphere floating
in the cosmos where the average temperature is a couple degrees
above absolute zero into an inferno. Actually, termites and
decomposing vegetable matter emit hundreds of times more methane
than domestic animals not to mention volcanoes. I'm of the
opinion that these greens don't really love animals; what's really
going on is that they hate people in particular and life in general.
Anyway, these types have taken to using science as a cover. There
should be a separation of science and state, for the very same reasons
there should be a separation between church and state.
would you say to people who say you're biased, because you're in
the cattle business?
Yes, the busybodies have convinced Boobus americanus that anyone
who actually makes his living dealing with nature shouldn't say
anything about it. People who mine minerals, drill for oil, farm,
grow animals people who actually know something about these
things, and make them available for use have largely been
intimidated into silence. They're commercial, and to be commercial
is bad, QED. Of course that's a completely insane attitude. But
the self-righteous busybodies have managed to claim the moral high
ground and discredit the producers. They've done this by capturing
the government, academia, and the media.
say the average "consumer" which is itself a perverse
and degrading way to describe a person should start using
what's left of his own brain instead of relying on experts, whether
those be government-stooge scientists or
me. Just think about
it: humans evolved over millions of years eating meat and
as much of it as they could get, whenever and wherever it was available.
The conclusion of the anti-meat study, at least as broadly stated
in the press, has serious credibility problems on its face.
study does make a point of saying that processed meats, like hot
dogs, are supposed to be much worse for us. That would seem to have
some face validity.
Yes, I can see that. When you're providing mass quantities of stuff
for the masses through industrial processes, it seems inevitable
that all kinds of additives, chemicals, and preservatives will get
into the mix. Indeed, how much pure beef remains in a typical modern
hot dog? I think they're mostly cereal and artificial flavoring
these days, plus a good measure of the "pink slime" the
USDA puts into lunchmeat for school kids' government-mandated meals.
Equally important in my view is that almost all meat these days
is from cows raised on unnatural diets, pumped full of steroids
and antibiotics, eating cardboard and unnatural food, living miserable
lives, shoulder to shoulder in feedlots. How many survey respondents
would know or care what kind of chemicals and pharmaceuticals went
into the meat they are eating? I doubt they could give accurate
answers to such questions, if they were even asked I'd guess
the researchers didn't even bother.
Here in Argentina
all my beef cows eat grass on wide open and quite pleasant pampas.
No antibiotics, steroids, or cardboard are necessary. I understand
that if you're going to provide meat for the masses that quality
may suffer. But that's all the more reason to elevate yourself out
of the masses. Entirely apart from the fact "the masses"
is a term Marx originated
Trends in demonized
foods are like trends in fashion. For some time, salt was the greatest
bogeyman until some people, particularly an Iranian doctor
I once knew named Batmanghelidj, pointed out the obvious, namely
that salt is essential to life, and that problems attributed to
too much salt are usually problems with not enough water. You need
a lot of water washing through your cells. But anything in excess
can be a problem, including water. If it's not salt, then it's sugar.
If it's not sugar, then it's fat. Red meat has had its turn as demon
du jour before, and it looks like it coming back into fashion again.
see Dr. Batmanghelidj's book on Amazon: You're Not Sick, You're
Thirsty. I remember the salt scare that was a big thing back
in the '70s, as I recall. The odd thing is that post-scare, salt
still seems to have a bad name, but consumption has moved toward
gourmet salts. Plain old iodized Morton's salt is not to be found
in certain politically correct cupboards, but sea salt or rock salt
you grind yourself is acceptable.
Yes, rich people can't be denied their gourmet designer salts, even
though what we generally call "salt" is made of sodium
and chlorine two of the deadliest elements on the periodic
table. It's all part of the War On the Periodic Table of the Elements.
Plutonium was perhaps the original enemy element, then uranium,
then sodium. Gold is considered an evil element by many. Now the
most evil element of them all is carbon, which is the essential
component of all organic matter, and hence all life on this planet.
Now that you mention it, sodium ends in ium, like thorium,
so it must be bad.
Yes, and if it weren't for government policy, we'd likely be generating
power from thorium instead of uranium; it's a much better fuel.
But that's another story. I'm sure that once the Greens discover
that it's atomic number 90, it too will join the enemies list.
me of all the government-funded crash programs to find the cause
of AIDS. Lo and behold, they found one and called it the Human Immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV). But as I understand it, there are people who have AIDS
but no HIV, and there are people who have HIV and never show any
symptoms of AIDS. And yet, to question the HIV orthodoxy is to invite
accusations of being a "denialist," homophobe, and maybe
even a remover of those tags you're not supposed to take off of
mattresses under penalty of law. Fortunately, the AIDS hysteria,
which was supposed to destroy the human race, has pretty much burned
And then there's
the "overwhelming evidence" of anthropogenic
global warming that fear-mongers proclaim. Again, with a lot
of government "science" involved. It's turned into an
industry that destroys capital.
If we could
get the state and its corrupting influence completely out of the
science business, I'd be much more inclined to accept what the majority
of scientists believe on "soft" sciences like climate
studies and epidemiology. Those things aren't quite the same as
physics and chemistry. Certainly, as long as there's government
money with a political agenda involved, I'm inclined to take so-called
consensus views with at least a grain of gourmet sea salt, or even
as possible contrary indicators for the truth.
a pretty strong statement, Doug.
It pays to be skeptical about everything. Most of the reading
that I do is either science or history, so I consider myself fairly
knowledgeable in those areas, although I'm not a professional in
either. But I didn't say I would refuse to believe anything supported
by solid evidence just because I didn't like its source. I just
said that if the data come from what I regard as a corrupt source,
I proceed with greater-than-usual caution.
corruption of science is very bad, what's even worse is the continuing
and accelerating encroachment of the "nanny state." This
meat study and others like it can easily be used to
manufacture a scare. The scare will then be used to implement more
laws and restrictions on people's freedom to live their lives as
they see fit
and to destroy another industry. One example
of that is the FDA's campaign against farmers who sell unpasteurized
milk to those who prefer it.
whether or not red meat is good for us, we all have a natural, or
God-given right to eat what we want and go to hell in our own way?
Big Brother, step aside, Big Momma is gonna make us eat our veggies.
Exactly. I'm of the opinion that quality of life trumps quantity
of life. That's the exact opposite view from what rulers and would-be
rulers hold; they view the rest of our species as milk cows, to
be kept alive and milked for as long as possible, no matter how
much joy is taken from them. The purpose of life, however, is to
enjoy yourself. It's not to be treated like part of a herd and be
fed what your master wants for his own purposes.
that why politicians bother meddling with whether people eat hot
dogs or salads?
That, among many other reasons. They can win brownie points with
very vocal activists if they beat up on an unpopular personal choice,
like smoking. That's very valuable to them come election time. Politicians,
with the possible exceptions of the likes of Ron Paul, always want
to increase the state's and thereby their own power.
Any scare is a great tool for manipulating people into handing over
more of their freedom, which is to say, increasing their power over
Right. That's an important book everyone should read. The whole
trend is very ominous. It's as Martin
Niemoller said during WW II: "First they came for the communists,
but I didn't speak out, because I was not a communist."
then they came for the Jews .... And then they came for me, and
there was no one left to speak out for me."
Right. I believe in speaking out, even though it probably doesn't
do any good. I do it because I have to live with myself. I do it
because I believe in karma.
agree. If we end up in a totalitarian police state or nanny state,
I dont want my children to lift their manacled wrists before
my eyes and ask me why I didn't resist while resistance was possible.
Indeed. In spite of the blatantly obvious and disastrous results
politicians declared open season on drug users, then smokers, then
gun owners All
Things Fun. How far can it be from regulating politically incorrect
eaters to regulating just about everyone's choices on every subject?
And it gets worse. Now that we have socialized medical services
in the US (which is not the same as health
care), genuine bad health choices that used to be individuals'
problems have become everyone's problems, because we all have to
pay for them. Socialized medicine is terrible it's entrusting
medical services to the same bankrupt organization that can't even
deliver the mail reliably. It's also a powerful excuse for the nanny
state to monitor, inspect, interfere with, and control all aspects
of our lives, from what we eat and drink all the way down to what
we do in the privacy of our bedrooms because everything can
impact our health, which is now society's obligation.
it's all for our own good. "If it saves one child
If it saves one child, how many children does it kill? If you ban
Freon over an unproven fear that it contributes to ozone depletion,
for example, and require use of a more expensive, less efficient,
and incidentally more toxic and corrosive substitute, all because
it might save one child, how many babies did you kill with spoiled
milk and meat? What other consequences to your intervention are
me of the time Madeleine Halfbright was told that the sanctions
she saw imposed on Iraq had killed about half a million children,
and she answered: "Yes, it was costly, but we think it was
worth it." These people are hypocrites and extremely
dangerous. They don't care about saving human lives they
are more than willing to expend any number of them, like pawns on
a chessboard, to advance their quest for power.
broken window all over again: "the
seen and the unseen." But you've gotta have a good cover
story, like saving children's lives.
Of course. If you say you're doing it for the children, you can
get away with almost anything.
you don't subscribe to the precautionary principle the idea
that no new technology or innovation should be implemented until
it can be show to be safe.
It's a load of horse manure and you can quote me on that.
[Laughs] Good! If our ancestors had even been stupid enough to adopt
such an absolutely paralyzing idea, we'd still be shivering in caves,
ravaged by dread diseases and hunted by animals larger and more
powerful than we. No, I misspeak; most likely, we'd have gone extinct.
If the car
were invented today, it would never be approved for use. The idea
of millions of people racing towards each other at high speeds in
vehicles they control themselves, with tanks full of explosive gasoline
it would never make it through OSHA, EPA, or a dozen other agencies.
The idea of air travel forget about it. We're just lucky
these things were in common use before the nanny state came into
another strong statement. That's what you think would happen now
if the precautionary principle were adopted and enforced by law?
'Fraid so. Life without risk is a patent impossibility. Almost a
contradiction in terms. And life without risk, innovation, new horizons,
would hardly be worth living. But that's the way the world is headed.
You know, most
people hardly pay any attention to such matters these days. Important
news hardly gets discussed, while Rush Limbaugh insulting some law
student is headline news for a week. Whether or not the student
in question is a slut, as Limbaugh said, is her business, not mine
or Limbaugh's and the whole issue is a matter of manners,
not even deserving of a mention in the back of the society section
of the papers.
The issue of
the student's call for expanding the US's socialized medical system
to include free birth control, however, is a suitable issue for
conversation, as the costs affect us all and it's another
tightening of the grip of the nanny state on people's lives. And
all this squabbling over what should be paid for by the state would
be eliminated if nothing were covered at "public" expense
(i.e., using other people's money). But most people don't even think
about that possibility.
beat up on Limbaugh, so we don't really have to go there, but while
it's on my mind, I have to point out that he really showed what
an ignoramus he is when Rush
defended Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army last year.
He apparently thought they were Christians fighting Muslim tyrants,
not the kidnappers and murderers the preponderance of evidence says
they are. There's a video
about Kony that's gone truly viral on YouTube, with over 75
million views in just one week.
The fact that
an ignorant hypocrite like Limbaugh, who wanted to have drug users
executed even as he was getting phony prescriptions for his Oxycontin
habit, has such a large following is another sad sign of our times.
It's not just the socialists advocating the nanny state who are
the problem. So-called right-wingers are just as dangerous to personal
freedom as left-wingers.
way to stop this train wreck?
None. It's like I said to begin with: this is a sign of advanced
decay in a society that has lost its élan. It's not something
you can fix independently of fixing the whole rotten mess; nanny-state
thinking goes hand in hand with the entitlement mentality, which
goes with irresponsible and self-destructive behavior. That accelerates
the other, "male" side of ever-expanding state power that
people like Limbaugh favor: the warfare state, the paternalistic,
line is that, with more than half the US population on one form
of government dole or another, we've crossed the point of no return.
We're going to have to go through the wringer before things can
improve. The current situation is unsustainable. It's going to collapse.
as unpleasant and inconvenient as it will be, a collapse and reboot
is necessary and will be a good thing. Hopefully it will destroy
the nanny state, if only because the nanny state is a dead hand
on the development of technology. The most positive thing going
on in the world today is the advance of technology. But, just as
the car and the airplane likely couldn't be developed today because
of the safety-first nanny state, there are lots of other technologies
that won't ever come into existence and we might never know
it. Our conversation
on technology is an example of what I mean by that. Anyway,
we've got to pay the piper first
and the bill is rapidly coming
Okay, before we go all poetic, are there investment implications
to the rise of the nanny state?
Yes, but it's nothing new to longtime readers. On the wealth-preservation
and health-preservation side, it's vital to understand
that today's wealthy Western countries are increasingly hazardous
to the well-being of the people who live there. They have the power
and the motive to do harm to any citizen as suits the short-term
goals of those in office. That's long been the case financially
and is increasingly becoming the case physically, both in terms
of health and safety from police brutality. Just as we said last
week in our conversation on cashless societies, the time is approaching
if not here already when the wisest course of action
is to get out of Dodge
or at least out of countries with powerful
On the investment
side, the West's increasingly irrational attitudes about meat may
create more buying opportunities in the cattle business. Even if
every single person in the US stopped eating meat, those eating
more in China and the rest of the developing world would make up
the difference before long. At the same time, herds continue to
go into liquidation in the West. Cattle have been in a bear market
for many, many years, making it one of the best contrarian plays
in decades. That's why I'm building my own herd: I'm buying low
so I can later sell high. But we've talked
about that before. Like any good speculator, I plan on making
a lot of money while performing a public service.
are as we've discussed many times: buy gold and silver, speculate
on gold and silver mining stocks, own long-term energy plays and
technology plays that will do well in hard economic times, harden
your assets, and diversify yourself internationally.
then, I think our readers know what to do. Thanks for another interesting
been more important to diversify your assets internationally. Our
free report reveals the five best ways to do it.
Casey (send him mail)
a best-selling author and chairman of Casey
Research, LLC., publishers of Casey’s
© 2012 Casey
Best of Doug Casey