Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IC720 who wrote (1571692)	11/13/2025 6:07:51 AM
From: IC720	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Respond to of 1578133

Btw, this is pretty good. If listened to other Armstrong interviews, his usual repeating, but edited and to the point for the documentary. This interview is part of a documentary on WWIII by BIG PICTURE. Check it out!https://t.co/QA9aJ1MqRD — Martin A. Armstrong (@ArmstrongEcon) November 12, 2025

To: IC720 who wrote (1571692)	11/13/2025 7:43:13 AM
From: Maple MAGA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578133

I can appreciate that you’ve followed Tucker, Armstrong, and others for a long time and feel they’ve been proven right in certain areas. But I think it’s important to separate selective accuracy from overall credibility. Every commentator, left, right, or otherwise, will occasionally get things right. But that doesn’t automatically make them reliable, unbiased, or insulated from major errors in judgment. Both Tucker and Armstrong have long public records that include significant misses, distortions, and outright contradictions, just as they have occasional hits. Being fired or criticized isn’t evidence of persecution, it’s just as easily evidence of controversy, conflict, or simply being wrong. Your point about treating research like a business makes sense. But in business, the goal isn’t to find one source you like and follow them forever, it’s to constantly test assumptions, stress-test predictions, and use diverse, independent sources rather than relying on a pair of personalities who often reinforce each other’s narratives. Travelling and interviewing people is valuable, absolutely, but it doesn’t automatically confer accuracy. And profit in markets doesn’t prove correctness about geopolitics, climate, or global motives any more than a lucky trade proves someone understands the entire system. In short: It’s not about preferring the “dark.” It’s about refusing to outsource critical thinking to any single commentator—especially ones with long histories of cherry-picking facts to fit a story-line.