Not Very Effective

A prominent politician in the US has just died shortly after being fully vaccinated. His illness progressed at a remarkable speed, killing him within weeks. However, no-one lays the connection between his vaccine and his illness. We're told that his illness was due to the virus, and that it would have been worse if he hadn't been vaccinated.

Family and friends are urging people to take the vaccine. They claim that the man's death is proof positive that vaccines are important. The level of denial and doublethink is amazing. They live in a bizarre world where all illnesses are due to the virus and where every outcome, including death, is assumed to be worse in unvaccinated patient.

These people cannot be argued with. No amount of evidence will persuade them. However, there's an undeniable fact that even the most brainwashed will accept. The vaccines aren't very effective.

This statement leaves the ones in denial with the option to stay with the official narrative, and is therefore allowed past their mental barrier. They can claim that the vaccine is better than nothing, even if it isn't perfect.

This is how we chip away the false confidence expressed by those in denial. Present them first with something benign that can be accepted. After a while, the next bit of trivia will also pass their mental shield.

Our personal observation that we know more people ill from the vaccine than ill from the virus will pass, because this too can be countered. The ones in denial can scoff at the assertion. But the assertion will stick, especially if we're known to be honest and upright.

A similar observation will soon pass their mental barrier as well. Hospitals appear to be fuller of sick people now than a year ago. It's almost as if the vaccine is making people ill. This statement can be made once most people know and accept that hospitals really are filling up with sick people.

Then, there's the factual observation that Delta isn't very dangerous. There are studies that prove this to be so. However, people in denial will not accept this, because it contradicts the official narrative about the hospitals being full of people ill from the virus.

Those in denial cannot accept the fact that the virus is relatively harmless without giving up on the idea that the ill in hospitals are all suffering from the virus. This is therefore a statement that will have to wait until denial is sufficiently chipped away to let it pass.

For now, not very effective is the go to phrase that we should use. Everything else can wait for later, when denial is starting to lose its grip on the population.

Out with family

Converting the Vaccinated

I had a conversation with my parents the other day, and it made me realize that it isn't my mother who fell for the vaccine hoax. It was my father. My mother has been skeptical to the vaccine all along.

This is the opposite of what I'd been thinking, because my mother is the gullible one. She falls for practical joke while my father sees straight through them. However, my father is the hypochondriac, and this, rather than my mother's gullibility, is the reason they went along with the vaccination program.

This realization put a lot of pieces into place. It explained my mother's humorous take on much of what's going on. It explains why she detailed her vaccination ordeal to me in an e-mail. It also explains my father's aggressive reaction to my contrary views.

Our conversation was not about the virus, but the subject was brought up briefly by my father, and it was the way my mother struck it down that gave me the clue to what's been going on. My mother didn't want to talk about the virus. It's not very dangerous, she said. We should accept its existence, and learn to live with it.

My mother seems intent on not taking the booster shot. Armed with some of my arguments, she'll put her trust in God, aka Nature, instead of Pfizer. However, my father will probably take the booster. He's still convinced that the flu is a major crisis.

The dynamics between my father and mother is not unique. I've seen it play out in other setting as well. A doctor friend of mine has pressured his entire family into taking the vaccine, and I've noticed that many of his family members have been reluctant to comply. He's not an expert on mRNA technology, so he has no more understanding of the vaccine than anyone else. But he uses his authority to exert pressure. His motivation appears to be his hypochondria rather than insight.

Then there're couples like my older brother and wife who've taken the vaccine for practical reasons. They don't trust the vaccine. On the contrary, they expect their health to suffer in the future. But they want to travel, and with this liberty taken away from them unless they vaccinate, they went along with the program.

It appears that conviction is concentrated among hypochondriacs, and that most people are either skeptical or indifferent. The vaccination rate in a country or region does not reflect sentiment. Most vaccinated individuals are not pro-vaccination. They are pressured or lured into it, and many are resentful of this.

This means that the unvaccinated have more sympathy in the population than it may appear, and this should be taken advantage of. The recipe for success in this respect is to promote the sort of messages I've used on my parents. Point out that the virus isn't very dangerous. Tone down anything that may concern the unhappy vaccinated. Don't tell them that it cannot be undone. Tell them that the vaccine fades over time. Nature heals all. We have to put our trust in God and learn to live with the virus.

It's the age old message of love, faith and hope. Keep in mind that love is the opposite of fear. By encouraging people to stop fearing the virus, we make them open up for the good things in life. It brings immediate relief and joy. Point out the power of nature to regenerate and heal. I have a balcony of flowers. I have micro-composts. There are insects and plants everywhere. Nature is amazing, even when confined to an area as small as a balcony.

Finally, we should present a vision of a future worth striving for. A vision of children playing freely and carelessly, people traveling wherever they please, and where every store is open to all people regardless of their vaccine status.

These are messages that we should share directly with friends and family. We can do this in combination with our strategy of dread towards minions. There's no conflict in doing both, because dread is a stepping stone to doubt, and doubt opens up for alternatives.

Liberty

The Long Battle Ahead

Lopsided decisions where an action cannot be undone lead to strong emotional biases. That's clear to see in the case of vaccines. The decision to take it is final. Hence, any subsequent information that suggests a flaw in the decision logic is dismissed as irrelevant, even when the evidence is tied directly to the person in question.

This behavior is on full display these days, with celebrities refusing to lay a connection between their recent vaccination and their subsequent illness. Even when the doctor tells them that their illness is linked to the vaccine, they keep telling everybody to take it. Their logic is that it's for the greater good, so even if they themselves are ill, everybody else is better off. But that argument is false. The greater good does not benefit from the vaccine. Natural immunity trumps vaccines by a factor of 13 to 1. However, all the evidence in the world will not alter their stance any time soon. They will dismiss it for the simple reason that the truth is too much to handle.

Similarly, the elite will not change their stance in the face of evidence contrary to their early decision to cut back on basic human rights and to deceive everyone into thinking that the vaccine is safe when in fact it isn't. They are neck deep in their own mess. They have crossed the line, and they know that an honest Nuremberg trial will have them convicted of crimes against humanity.

The evidence is in and the debate has been settled. Vaccines, mask mandates and lockdowns do more harm than good. However, anyone thinking that the hardships will soon be over is deluding themselves. The elite and their minions are in control, and are likely to stay in control for a long time yet. Not least because they are in the majority. People will vote the criminals back into power in coming elections because they themselves are suffering from decision bias.

Come this September, there will be elections both in Norway and in Portugal, and my wife is predicting that things are likely to become nasty as soon as the elections are over. I agree with her. But that's not a reason to give up. It's all the more reason to hold onto the strategy of attrition warfare. The minions must be demoralized. Wherever they set up their little checkpoints, we must put up a fight. We must actively seek alternatives, and/or install dread into their hearts. Their will to act must be curtailed.

My son and I went to the local park today. There was a guard at the entrance to ensure that everyone entering wear their mask. However, there was no zeal. He stood at a distance from the entrance. He seemed embarrassed about his job. His resolve was but a shadow of what we saw at the start of the pandemic. When I put on my mask of the beast, he looked at me twice. He noticed the message on my don't do drugs T-shirt, and I could see him cringe.

My son told me that he doesn't want to grow up in a world where we'll have to display vaccine passes in order to enter places. He wants to live free of these arbitrary restrictions, and he doesn't want to be stabbed by a needle every so many months. I told him that this battle will be won by his mother and I, and everyone else that sees through the insanity of it all. I hope it's all over in a couple of months, he told me. I had to disappoint him. Wars last longer than that. But things will be good for sure when this blows over. However, that may be as much as two years into the future.

The mask of the beast

Another Victory

The hits against the official narrative keep on coming. The latest good news is found in a fresh study out of Israel. Natural immunity acquired through contact with the virus is 13 times more effective than artificial immunity acquired through vaccination. The logical conclusion from this is that the best strategy to fight the virus is to let healthy people with little to no chance of serious illness interact freely in society so that they can acquire natural immunity. Only the frail need protection.

Masks, lockdowns and vaccines have no benefit, and are only causing harm. However, this doesn't mean that the push for tyranny will stop, because facts only matter to tyrants when they can be used against liberty. This is not the end of the line. It's merely a spanner tossed into the works. It's a skirmish in the ongoing war of attrition. But the balance of power is shifting. It's getting increasingly difficult to argue for vaccine passports, the coveted holy grail of tyranny.

Not only is the virus largely harmless, and leaky vaccines dangerous, most unvaccinated people have natural immunity. We're 13 times less likely to infect granny than vaccinated people. Furthermore, we're less likely to get seriously ill ourselves. It's a win for granny and a win for us. The collectivist argument that we should all give up a portion of our health in order to save granny is destroyed.

Vaccine passports never made much sense. But they make even less sense now. Why give passports to people who are the most likely to infect granny? Vaccine mandates make no sense either. Why force people to take something that's potentially lethal in order to attain sub-par immunity? Their narrative is falling apart. The study indicates that our prediction will come true; the vaccinated will be the most frequently and severely ill in the years to come.

However, this won't deter spin doctors. Propaganda is likely to be turned up another few notches. The politicians are neck deep in their own mess. They have no other alternative but to continue their all out war against liberty. But the end is now visible on the horizon. Everybody will soon seen with their own eyes that the vaccine is a failed experiment. Victory within two flu seasons seems increasingly likely. 

Wax plant

A Perfect Arrangement

There's a common complaint among men that women are irrational. They act on impulse without a proper strategy or plan, and this strange behavior occur in all women from time to time. There's no pattern to it, and it's unrelated to intelligence or level of education. There may be exceptions to this, but I've never known a woman that hasn't at times behaved this way.

Literature is full of musings related to this phenomenon. Religious texts discuss it at length. It's such a bewildering and destructive force that it seems to defy all logic. However, on closer scrutiny, this irrational trait has a function. There's a reason for it.

The ideal arrangement between man and woman has the man as the head of the household. There may be exceptions to this, but I've never seen an alternative that came across as happy. Women and men thrive best in households where the woman is the lady and queen, and the man is the king. This is intuitively understood even by kids, where girls want to be princesses and boys want to be protectors.

However, this arrangement comes with a danger to women. If she marries a man who's not in fact a king, or at least a prince, there's a chance that the entire household is put in danger by an error of judgment. Hence, she has to test her husband from time to time, especially when there's a major change in the household, such as a first born child.

The easiest and most direct way to test the king's resolve is by doing something irrational, and this appears to be hardwired into women. The lady of the house announces the intent to do something stupid, like having all her children vaccinated, or buying a new car on credit. She may suddenly tell her husband that she's leaving him. The list of possibilities are endless. But there's only one proper response that a man can make. He has to stand firm. He has to make it clear that whatever she has declared goes against his judgment. But he must allow her room to make her mistake if she keeps insisting. There's no point in saying no if her declared intent is to leave the household or to put herself in debt.

The worst possible responses to a woman's irrational instincts are grumpiness, self pity or pleading. Such responses are intuitively seen as weaknesses, and leads to more doubt and more tests. A firm stance is the only stance, and it must come with no sign of weakness. The man must respond rationally, and tell his wife that if she goes against his judgment, she'll regret it, not because he'll punish her but because her decision is the wrong one. Similarly, moodiness on her side must be met with stoic calm. If her grumpiness draws out in time, ask her what's the matter. But don't respond in kind. A lady can be moody from time to time, but it doesn't befit a king to behave that same way.

A firm stance by the king is invariably rewarded, so there's no reason to fear this kind of conflicts. Having tested her husband and found him to be robust, the lady becomes all the more happy and content. Firm in the knowledge that her husband will stand up to a storm, she can live her life without worry. She can leave the final decisions on various matters to him. She can talk things through with him in the knowledge that he's wise and strong. He is her king and master, and she can love him without fear.

Cinderella

By Sarah Noble Ives - https://www.americanantiquarian.org/AabMcL53.htm, Public Domain, Link

Signs of Hope Everywhere

Little by little, the enemy and their minions are losing their will to fight. The fruits of attrition warfare are starting to appear. Three weeks ago, I saw two police officers breaking strict mask-wearing rules in a restaurant. Today, I saw an officer with his nose poking out well above his mask. These are the same people who diligently apprehended people for walking in a straight line a few months back.

Journalists are breaking ranks too. There was a bit of a stir in Norway a month ago. Now, we have news stories skeptical to the vaccine in major international news networks. Sentiments are changing. We're still a long way from winning the war, but Stalingrad appears to be behind us. The enemy is retreating. To keep up the momentum, we only need to stay cool in the face of their massive propaganda efforts while we chip away on the resolve of their minions.

The very fact that our enemies are doubling down on their propaganda, is in itself a welcomed sign. They are struggling to keep their minions in line. But minions are fickle beings. Even if reasonably convinced, they scurry away at the least sign of resistance. I've noticed that the mere display of a skull or other image related to death makes them uneasy. My local campaign of dread appears to be working, so I plan to embroider such symbols onto more of my shirts. Everyone should have a reference to death displayed discretely or otherwise on their person or clothing. It installs dread in the ranks of the minions. It makes them ineffective tools in the hands of our enemies. 

All of this should be celebrated. We need to celebrate every sign of weakness in our enemies, and we need to make the war itself a fun project to take part in. Never give up an opportunity for fun. Look at the bright side of every news article. Think logically through the consequences of what the enemy is doing. For instance, I live in Portugal where no law is ever enforced with much vigor. Vaccine passports will therefore be a failure, especially if close to 90% are stupid enough to take the vaccine. What's the pint in enforcing something with vigor when just about everybody is on board? After a few weeks of strict enforcement, no-one will give a damn.

Portugal has a long tradition of not enforcing laws through coercion. Laws are followed through obedience, and can be ignored without consequence, provided the will to enforce the law is sufficiently eroded. With erosion already on full display, I don't think there is much to worry about. Even if the enemy manages to secure victory in battle, they will be forced to retreat, and their defeat will be as total as Napoleon's defeat at the hands of the Russians.

Minard's map of French casualties,
lost in attrition warfare with Russia

By Charles Minard (1781-1870) - see upload log, Public Domain, Link

Attrition Warfare

My wife keeps reminding me that we're under attack by people who aim to subjugate us. What we are experiencing is war. That's as obvious to me as it is to her. However, we land on two completely different conclusions. She's convinced that they will win due to their superior strength. She's willing to surrender to the needle in the vain hope that this will somehow stop them from taking everything we have, including our boy. I'm convinced that we will win due to our superior moral standing, as well as nature's inevitable erosion of the enemy's will and ability to fight. I refuse to give up even the slightest bit of freedom without a fight.

This difference in opinion has been largely academic until the whole thing blew up over an apparent triviality today. We were in a nearby fishing village, looking for a seafood restaurant, when my wife had the idea that we should go into the local fish market. With no special preference one way or another I went along with her suggestion. However, in order to enter the market, we had to submit to a temperature reading; the one where they put a gun-like temperature reader to our forehead. That changed my mind immediately. I refused to enter.

My wife told me off for being difficult, and I told her off for bending over to every little minion that crosses her way. If she's willing to submit to a temperature reading, what's to stop them from demanding a passport? As long as she keeps submitting to the enemy, they will obviously win.

To win a war, we must at the very least be able to identify the enemy. The lady with the temperature reader is not merely someone trying to make a living. She's a minion of the oppressors. She may not know it herself, but she's a useful idiot. To submit to her would be aid to the enemy, because it opens the door to their next step towards dominion.

Making the situation worse was the fact that there were no shortage of seafood restaurants in the village. It wasn't like we had no choice but to sponsor the oppressors with our money. We could just as well have gone to another restaurant with no temperature reading minion guarding the entrance. Why sponsor the enemy when there are allies willing to serve us?

Having made myself difficult, the whole excursion was cancelled, and we went home without visiting any restaurant. The mood was nasty. But I'm glad this happened. I've been looking for ways to explain the flawed logic of my wife's defeatist attitude, and this gave me an opportunity to do that.

We are at war with the state, and the way such wars are won are through attrition. Every stronghold has to be held for as long as possible before retreat, and any room for expansion has to be taken advantage of. Hence, we must never submit to humiliation unless strictly necessary, and we must never let a chance to claw back freedoms go to waste.

When the state promises to relax mask mandates some time into the future, we must immediately drop the mask, because their signal indicates a lack of will to enforce the mandate. When the state calls us in for vaccination, we must ignore it. Whenever possible, we must weaken the resolve of minions. Peer pressure from friends and relatives must be struck down with truth related to the harmlessness of the virus and the number of people sick from the vaccine. We must drag our feet when pushed and rush forward when opportunity allows us to do so.

Time is on our side. Conviction is fading. People are getting sick from the vaccine, and they are tired of the propaganda. Our mere act of living freely and without concern about the virus engenders inspiration and/or envy. While the mere thought of a booster shot induces depression and fatigue into minions, we can joke about it and let everybody know how happy we are about our vaccine status. We can tell them how easy it is to be free. Simply say no to the vaccine, and ignore the scare mongering. That's all it takes to regain sovereignty of our lives.

Open window

A Friend in Need of a Doctor

My friend and name-brother, the notorious opinion machine, and promoter of the vaccine, is in need of a doctor. He's just back from Norway where he got his second Pfizer shot only hours before taking a plane back to Portugal.

Going on a flight shortly after a vaccine shot is not a good idea, at least not from what I've gathered. There's something about spike proteins and low air pressure that just doesn't mix well. Still, I hadn't expected my friend to get ill right away, because the odds are low, even if elevated. However, now that he's asking around for a doctor, we can conclude that something unpleasant is at hand.

I'm sure he'll never admit to a link between the vaccine and his illness. But the thought must have struck him, and I'm sure the thought must have struck everybody else he's been talking to. That's the flip side of promoting the vaccine. People remember the selfies and make a connection when illness strikes.

While this is terrible news for my friend, it adds to my repertoire of real life stories. It provides a backdrop of dread in any future confrontation with mutual friends. Mentioning my mother was not enough to shut up a pushy vaccine zealot back in May. But a mutual friend in need of a doctor may do the trick. Either way, my position is strengthened, and there's added dread in the ranks of the vaccinated minions.

Friends

FDA Approval

The Pfizer vaccine has been FDA approved, and the political push to mandate it has grown markedly stronger. The door is now open for universal mandates, similar to those we've been having for smallpox and polio. This is all terrible news. But there's a silver lining. The short term gain for tyranny is likely to come at a great cost to those in power.

First thing to note is that FDA cannot possibly have a comprehensive list of long term side-effects because the vaccine has only been around for about nine months. Another thing to note is that the vaccine is ineffective. It leaks, and is therefore causing mutations. The vaccine is a failure, so the approval of it will serve to taint the FDA's reputation.

With government at the helm of disasters in medicine, economy and military, trust in government is eroding. The more they meddle, the worse it gets. But the short to medium term pain will eventually be made up for in a dramatic rollback of government itself, and this inevitable outcome is what we have to keep an eye on. This has always been the case. Even the Bible describes this with various examples, and the advice to us is to stay alert and nimble, because it's the meek that will inherit the earth.

From a tactical viewpoint, there's a lesson to be learned from this. Never use government statements as a base of any argument. Government institutions makes things up as they go, so the official status of things change as well. To refuse the vaccine on grounds that it's not FDA approved, is now exposed as a poor argument. However, the vaccine is still experimental. We still don't know the long term effect of it, so that argument is still valid.

Strong arguments are based on undeniable facts, including subjective observations. People get sick despite being vaccinated, and we see more people ill from the vaccine than ill from the virus. No-one can argue against this because it's widely known to be true through direct observation.

The social contract

Records, Databases and Networks

Afghans are finding out the hard way that records and databases are dangerous when in the wrong hands. Taliban is using bank data, and payment records found in the US embassy, to pinpoint opponents and their whereabouts. Armed with such data, they round up people for punishment and execution.

The same goes for assets recorded in central databases. Such assets can be seized with a single data entry. That's why I transferred all my registered wealth to my children the moment I realized that I would come in conflict with the Norwegian tax code back in 2017. I also sold my house, closed my bank accounts and moved my remaining wealth into physical assets under my direct control.

The state tells us that their record keeping and databases are for our safety and convenience. However, that's not their main concern. The real motivation behind their record keeping is control. Hence, the moment we feel that the state is likely to turn against us, we must extract ourselves from these databases as best we can. I did this with success back in 2017, and my experiences can be found in my book on the subject.

Further evidence that the state is not interested in our safety can be found in the way they deliberately mismanage data that could be of use to us, such as the true number of people ill from the mRNA vaccine. Databases designed to store this data are only accepting filtered inputs that exclude adverse effects that happen weeks or months after the injection, and adverse reaction considered minor. My mother's allergic reaction was never recorded by anybody. An acquaintance of mine who's now dying from a combination of dementia and lung disease is similarly not recorded.

The state appears to have total control, and can therefore proceed with impunity in its campaign to tax, confiscate and mismanage. However, this misses an important point. There's an alternative to centralized databases available to us. There's the natural network of friends and relatives, and there's the high tech version of this, namely social media.

The network is a vague but powerful alternative to centralized databases. It's a flexible and fluid thing that can transmit data at astonishing speeds if properly used. Memes can go viral. Suddenly, some piece of information goes from unknown to widely accepted.

My feeling is that now is a good time to launch a counterattack on the centrally pushed narrative, and I suggest that my readers try this out themselves, if only as an experiment. When done correctly, no harm or blowback will come from this.

There's little conviction among our adversaries, despite a high level of compliance, so a well formulated comment will have power to propagate through the network. I've tested this on Facebook, and the results are as hoped for. People like my comments and reply to them in a friendly manner.

My strategy is to avoid putting anything on my Facebook wall. Rather, I comment on other people's posts, and I make my comments as reasonable and to the point as possible. I'm staying away from the temptation to lie or exaggerate. The comments are a mix of widely known facts and personal observations. They are all custom made to fit each individual post. I'm not spamming anyone. I only comment when it makes sense to do so.

The facts I refer to include one or more of the following points:

• The mRNA vaccine is not of the same kind as the Polio and Smallpox vaccines
• The virus isn't very dangerous
• The vaccine is ineffective against Delta and Lambda

The personal observations I make include one or more of the following points:

• I know more people ill from the vaccine than ill from the virus
• My guess is that each shot takes away a percent or two of our lives
• My vaccinated friends are more scared than my unvaccinated friends

Then I conclude rhetorically, when appropriate, that I don't think I'm the only one to see things this way.

I make a point of keeping my comments short. That's more effective than long stories with multiple points and observations. I also make a point of spreading my comments out as widely as possible. I want to spread the message thin, and avoid having it appear like a dense cluster among a tiny fraction of my Facebook friends.

If everyone opposed to the current vaccine rollout does something similar with their own style and personal angle, the message will soon appear everywhere and from sources widely removed from each other. The average Facebook reader will register this as confirmation of the narrative, and our assertions will be perceived as facts. They will in turn raise the alarm, spreading the message further.

The network effect is powerful, and time has come to make the most of it. If everyone does whatever they are comfortable with, there's a real chance of success with this low key approach. It will take some time for the network effect to kick in with full force, but don't be discouraged by this. Keep the message warm. Mention it from time to time, and without any urgency. Enjoy life and carry on! Remember that each of us are but one node in the total network. We don't have to pull the whole load ourselves. There are millions of people as fed up and frustrated as we are, and they're either ready to do their part or already working on it.

By Facebook, Inc. - http://en.facebookbrand.com, Public Domain, Link

Follow the Money

The Afghanistan debacle is proving itself revealing as to how the state has been corrupted by greed. It's clear that the war was not meant to be won. It was meant to be a money generating enterprise for weapons and security industries. When this proved itself so costly that it had to be stopped, the emperor was revealed to be naked. After 20 years of war, the security complex was unable to orchestrate an orderly retreat and evacuation.

Similarly, we have the pharmaceutical industry that has no interest in curing people. There's more money to be made in making sure that a certain percentage of the population is sick and in need of treatment. Hence, the vaccine is not meant to cure anyone. It's meant to keep people dependent on medication of various kinds.

Wind turbines and electric cars follow the same logic. They are not meant to save the planet. They're meant to generate profits for green industries. There is no real concern about the environment among the green profiteers.

This illustrates how the political establishment has been captured by greed. The state is firmly on the side of big capital, and has little to no concern for their subjects. This is the sort of moral decline that makes it all the more easy for hostile powers to do harm. The elite sees nothing wrong in inflicting harm on their subjects.

Unsustainable sustainability 

By © Hans Hillewaert, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

The Problem with Purism

Taliban has been in charge of Afghanistan for about a week now, and it's clear that the new Taliban is only marginally more tolerant than the old Taliban of 2001. There are public executions. There are door to door searches for opponents, and at least one woman has been executed on the spot for not wearing a head scarf. Foreigners are also prevented form leaving the country. However, these are early days for the new regime. Much of this is typical maneuvering at the start of any radical regime change, especially one as disliked by the West as this one.

Preventing foreigners from leaving the country is a rather obvious move, and should not have come as a surprise to anyone. Washington DC blocked all Afghan assets under US control, so the Taliban resorts to hostage taking. This will lead to negotiations. The US will have to release assets in order to free hostages from the Taliban, which is terrible optics for the US and good for the Taliban who can use this to show strength both locally and abroad.

Door to door searches, and public executions of what is perceived as traitors is also to be expected. Taliban wants a comprehensive purge of its opposition. That's understandable after 20 years of bloody conflict. However, random executions of women for not wearing head covering is not likely to be something the Taliban leaders want to see too much of. Such extreme actions serves no purpose, neither at home nor abroad. Potential allies and business partners are repelled. Funding projects in Afghanistan becomes all the more difficult if the new regime comes across as too unhinged.

The Taliban leadership must find ways to reign in extreme elements in their own ranks. However, this is not as easy as one might think, because Islam is a purist religion. There's very little room for interpretation, open mindedness and forgiveness. Islam has rules for every aspect of life. Instead of one golden rule that applies to all people regardless of belief, gender and sexual orientation, Islam reserves this rule only for the pure. Make one mistake, and the rule no longer applies.

This makes it difficult to keep peace in Muslim countries, because the leadership must either be totally pure, in which case it must be totally ruthless towards anyone impure, or it must be totally ruthless to all opposition. For practical reasons, most Muslim countries end up with despots who are impure and hence totally intolerant of any opposition. The alternative is purism, which confines all laws to Sharia, which in turn is so burdensome that nothing gets done.

This is the challenge that the Taliban leadership is going to face going forward. How are they to combine international ambitions with their stated adherence to a strict interpretation of Sharia law? Any deviation from this law will be interpreted by some as impure, and hence sufficient reason to depose the leaders.

One way to deal with this would be to divide the various factions inside Taliban over the various regions, and then to control it all from Kabul. Hardliners get regions where strict Sharia is expected. More liberal leaning members get towns and cities. However, this will be a difficult balancing act. The leadership in Kabul will be under pressure to lean towards policies acceptable to foreigners and city dwellers. But this will provoke anger by purists in the provinces. The leadership becomes pressured from both sides, with the threat of assassination either way.

This problem exists wherever purism is widespread. We see it in political parties and movements with quasi-religious leanings. Religious zeal, unconstrained by a golden rule and the doctrine of sin and forgiveness, is a destructive and destabilizing force. This is the insight that Jesus brought to religion, and the reason liberty only exist in places where the golden rule is universally accepted.

Jesus

By Carl Bloch - https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVdd6dZPU3nrHUoYjTuN9VNudnSwm6_ckL4my_jNr9y0jQXOkTeF5lzEN7RsSyiIlatLoriO91OkOEHrVvJ3bToCcmcjVcgQ76Ios4s0OCGS2ivlOP2i3K8L1rG1Svqv2EdEDnGRpLzOC-/s1600/Sermon_on_the_Mount_Carl_Bloch.jpg and Carl Bloch, p. 313, ISBN 9788798746591, Public Domain, Link

Not Exactly Free

Of all the selling point's I've come across with regards to the vaccine, the stupidest one is the claim that the vaccine is free. As if that makes it a great deal. And it isn't free. Tax funded services are paid for by taxpayers. All that's added in way of services is the removal of choice. Had the vaccine been something we would've had to pay for directly, we would've had the choice to decline, and few would have taken it.

Who would willingly fork over good money for a jab that does nothing for our health? But this isn't the biggest error in the free stuff argument, because we're paying for the vaccine in more ways than one. Even if it's free of charge, we have to pay the piper. Our lives are shortened by the jab. That's the true cost of getting vaccinated. It's also the more effective argument against the free stuff story, because socialists don't absorb basic economic facts. However, they do relate to economy when their own life is at stake.

Next time anyone tells me that the jab is free, I'll ask them if they consider a reduction in life expectancy a fair price to pay for it. Then I'll throw out a small percentage like 1 or 3 as my best guestimate of what the jab costs. It's like inflation, only it's drawn from our life expectancy rather than our savings account. It's also like tobacco in that it hits unevenly. Some people are hit harder than others. Some have no reduction in their life expectancy, while others see their lives dramatically shortened. This will have health nuts stomped, because the analogy fits. Tell them that a vaccine shot is like smoking ten cigarettes a day. It's not very dangerous, but some meet an untimely death. If an argument ensues, reduce the number to five cigarettes. Be generous. Maybe as little as one cigarette. But to deny that there's a price to be paid for the vaccine is pure nonsense.

Wilting plant

The Greatest Medical Disaster Ever

We're almost certainly in the middle of the greatest medical disaster ever. The reason being the sheer scale of the experiment. Even a tiny negative overall effect will add up to a large number.

We're currently at more than 2 billion vaccinated people. It's reasonable to expect that more than 3 billion will be vaccinated by the end of this. That means that we only need a negative effect of around 3% to end up with 100 million lost lives.

With everybody by now knowing someone that's fallen ill from the vaccine, it's possible to argue that everybody taking the shot is on average losing 3% of their lives. Some die soon. Others go later. Some are obviously related to the vaccine. Others less so. But hardly anyone will truthfully argue that the vaccine has no ill effect. The 3% remains a plausible estimate even if a little high.

Furthermore, no-one has to die of the vaccine in order for this argument to hold. All that's required is a 3% reduction in lifespan. Once that has been accepted, we can point out that if everybody looses 3% of their lives on average, that's equivalent to 3% dead with the rest unaffected. Either way, we end up with loss of life corresponding to 100 million on a total population of 3.3 billion.

But we don't need 100 million lost lives in order for this to be a formidable disaster. 10 million lives is also a big number, and we get that with a negative impact of a mere 0.3%.

To get the overall negative effect we must offset the positive effect with negative effects of the vaccine itself as well as the diseases that the vaccine opens up for. Considering that the disease we are vaccinating against has a mortality rate of less than one percent, there's not much room for error before the vaccine become a net negative. The fact that the vaccine is less than 100% effective gives us even less wiggle-room.

The only reason we're still officially on the positive side of the equation is that many vaccine related illnesses are recorded as unrelated. This can be confirmed by noting cases of strange illnesses ourselves, and infer whether they are likely to be vaccine related without being officially registered as such. I know of several such cases, and I'm sure others do too. More cases will no doubt come with time.

I'd be surprised if we're not in fact at negative 0.3% by now, and at 3% or more by the end of this. Hence, by my reckoning, we're currently in the middle of the greatest medical disaster ever.

Delta

By Dcoetzee, F l a n k e r - Own work, Public Domain, Link

A Bioweapon from Hell

Whether released for a Wuhan bioweapon lab or not, the plague turned out to be a dud. As noted back in April 2020, the plague quickly morphed from something scary into something benign. Within months, we went from people dropping dead in the streets of Wuhan, to doctors dying in large numbers in Italy, after which the plague morphed into something close to harmless. If the plague was a bioweapon, it was very inefficient at killing anybody.

However, just as it was becoming evident that the flu was nothing to worry about, propaganda machines everywhere moved into overdrive. We had the miracle of Boris Johnson going from oxygen dependent patient to orator in the timespan of a week. We had grandma dying on TV every hour. It was insane, and it still is. The narrative has changed. The agenda has been revealed. The goal from the start was to get everyone vaccinated, no matter how useless the vaccine may be in actually protecting anybody.

This has led some people to conclude that the real bioweapon wasn't the flu, but the vaccine, and that the urgency with which the vaccine is administered is due to the fact that it is set to blow up within a given time. The enemy wants as many as possible vaccinated before people start falling ill in large numbers. But who would this enemy be, and how are they able to operate without anyone telling on them?

The answer to this can be found in the way corruption and lies combine into mega-lies that generally go by the name of evil. Every person involved is only doing a small bit of evil, usually for personal gains, but sometimes for the greater good. The corrupt find each other. They find ways to mutually benefit form their respective lies. They kick out the upright and install puppets that they can control. The entire system becomes one big corrupt cesspool of lies and mutual benefits. No one person has an overall picture of what's going on, with the exception perhaps of a small group of people intent on using the corruption in the system to their advantage.

If this small group of people are top agents of a foreign entity, the plot to deploy a bioweapon can be kept secret. All that's required is to use the corruption inherent in the system to first control key figures, and then make them act out their part of the greater plan in the belief that whatever they are doing is of little harm to the public and of great benefit to themselves. Top figures in the pharmaceutical industry are encouraged to develop an experimental drug based on patents held by the foreign agents. Politicians are encouraged to give the all clear for an early roll out. Tech giants and journalists are encouraged to push vaccine passports while keeping the population scared and ignorant of alternatives.

Once kicked into action, the corruption keeps everything rolling more or less on its own. Everybody in the corrupt cesspool have something to gain from everybody else. The fuel that drives this is easy money collected as taxes or printed out of thin air by central banks. The enemy makes sure that this money is accepted by them in return for goods during the timespan required for the bioweapon to be deployed. The financial plug is to be pulled once the bioweapon blows up in a big way.

A small group of foreign agents can in this way control and direct both the narrative and the deployment of the bioweapon without anyone figuring out what's going on until it's too late.

It remains to be seen if the bioweapon has a moment when it goes from mostly harmless to dangerous, or if it's designed to lurk around and do random damage. But it appears that something kicks in after about nine months. That's evident from google trends. There's a burst of interest in ways to un-take the shots, and it is happening now, nine months after the initial rollout.

The big wave of illnesses will come sometime this winter, possibly around Christmas, when the dollar may collapse in the face of shortages due to port congestions and supply line disruptions coming from China.

If this is indeed the case, getting vaccinated now will prove to be horrible timing, because the stories of illnesses related to the vaccine will only grow louder from now on. The freshly vaccinated will see people falling ill, and they will know that they will be next, and there's nothing that can be done to stop it. Additionally, money will lose purchasing power. Savings will be eroded at the very moment that they would be of most value. Unable to work due to illness and with no savings, a lot of people will find themselves in deep trouble.

Oxygen treatment

By James Heilman, MD - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

A Baby from Hell

It's still early to say for sure, but it appears that something unpleasant happens nine months after vaccination. That's what I read into the search trend for "vaccine detox". Starting this month, there's been a marked increase in these searches, which makes me think that people who took the vaccine at the start of the vaccination program are now looking for ways to un-take it. After nine months of no consequences, something ugly has appeared.

The mask of the beast

A new Art Director

The national theatre in Lisbon has a new art director. I learned this from my stepdaughter who's an actress with ambitions to one day stand on that stage herself. Having gotten off to a good start, her dream may well come true, so it was with more than a passing interest that she read the news. Making it all the more relevant, she happened to have discussed the candidates with her colleagues back when the opening was first announced.

All of her colleagues at the time were well established actors, and they all agreed that one of the candidates would be an absolute disaster. As it happens, that candidate is the one now announced as the winner.

This came as a shock to my stepdaughter, and I'm sure her colleagues are as dismayed as she is. However, I would have predicted this outcome based on what I wrote on this blog almost two years ago.

The worst candidate for any public position is by far the most likely to win because every aspect of public life has become thoroughly corrupted by a desire to control and humiliate. It's all about power, and nothing says power quite like humiliation. That's why the new art director for the national theatre is the least liked candidate. He is sure to degrade and humiliate the actors with repugnant pieces of avant-garde nonsense, dressed up as somehow edgy and progressive. This will be equally distasteful to the audience, who will be shamed into liking it, or otherwise risk being labelled homophobic and intolerant.

But this has nothing to do with tolerance or open mindedness. Portraying gay people as clowns, and pretending that infantilism is somehow intelligent, is not about breaking down barriers. None of this serves any morally upright purpose. There's no sensitivity or subtlety about clownish vulgarities. On the contrary. Such portrayals do more harm than good towards the people being portrayed.

The only real purpose of this is humiliation. Those in power get the pleasure of humiliating both the artists and the paying public, as well as the tax payers who are forced to pay for this even if they don't intend to go and see any staged performances. On top of this, the performances are likely to sow seeds of resentment and hate. It's a win win in all respects as far as power and control is concerned. However, it's a great loss to the rest of us who would rather go and see something beautiful, sensitive and thought provoking.

My stepdaughter

Dread and the Magic 3%

Here's an interesting article with some reflections on how to fight the tyranny currently being pushed upon us. I don't agree with the author's proposed strategy, though. It's too confrontational for my taste. There's no point in provoking anger. A sense of dread can be installed with much less conflict, and with just as much impact. That being said, I'm not telling anyone not to do as the author proposes if they so wish. It's just not my style to be overly confrontational. I prefer more defensive strategies. However, in one respect, I do prefer an offensive strategy, and that is how I dress when out among random people in the streets. The dandy style I adopted this spring was effective in shutting down hobby fascists, and I believe my don't do drugs campaign is working as intended as well.

My don't do drugs T-shirt has an embroidered emblem of a skull and a syringe. The message is clear. Experimental use of drugs may lead to death. To underscore this message, I use the mask of the beast whenever I feel compelled to mask up.

The embroidery is subtle. One has to look in order to see it, and I've noticed that this has worked as intended. Most people pass me by without seeing it. Only a few see it, and they react by looking extra hard to see if the message really is what it appears to be. Once this is confirmed, they quickly look away. A sense of dread has been installed. They're tossed out of balance, as it were.

This is the big difference between dread and fear. Fear provokes an immediate reaction; often a violent one. Dread, on the other hand, lingers without provoking anger. It installs a lasting unease that's hard to get rid of. Dread spreads through the unconscious. It appears in dreams. It paralyzes. Once dread is installed, the victim will go a long way to avoid the subject altogether, and that's precisely what we want at this stage of our confrontation.

Dread can also be dished out through defensive rhetoric. The defensive nature of it is all the more impactful because the message is actively drawn out of us by our opponents. Having pushed us to the point that we must make a stand, we can bring in dread by the use of the magic 3%. We can tell people that the vaccine shortens people's lives by about 3% on average. Some will not be adversely affected, but a few people will die way sooner than they would have if not vaccinated.

This is a provocative statement that will have people react in horror and anger. But because of the stated 3% we can quickly retreat. It's not like we said 10% or 50%, or something outrageous like 90%. We said 3%. That's borderline insignificant, and we can calm everybody down by saying this.

We can also say that this is our own best guestimate based on what we've read and observed. It's not like there's any science backing our claim. We're simply explaining our position to remain unvaccinated. Surely, every vaccinated person out there must have thought about this and concluded differently. Ours is merely a difference in opinion.

However, most people have not thought very deeply about their decision. The 3% figure sticks. It lingers, and every time these people feel a discomfort of some kind, they cannot help thinking that they may be the unfortunate 3%. They too will want to avoid the whole vaccine debate. With a bit of luck, people will stop watching the pro-vaccine propaganda, and the whole vaccine status thing becomes a non-issue.

The 3% number is not simply pulled out of a hat. Anyone who've paid attention must have noticed that it is a recurring number in propaganda. Together with it's twin, the 97%, 3% appears whenever near certainty is being alluded to. There's no coincidence that climate propaganda talks of 97% consensus. Nor is it a coincidence that 3% of all elderly people hit by the plague end up dead, and that the vaccines were said to be 97% effective when they were rolled out.

3% occupies a place between harmless and dangerous. 3% is the moderate number, just like 97% is the moderate number for certainty. These numbers can be tossed around with a high degree of subjectivity, because the numbers themselves are so moderate. We don't have to have any backing for any of our claims. We're merely defending whatever position we've taken personally, and it happens to be based on a strong but modest gut feel.

Keeping hobby fascists at bay

A Convenient Excuse

The plague has provided cover for a lot of nefarious maneuvering by power hungry politicians and their corporate backers. Many things that used to be self evident liberties are now only allowed by permission. Totalitarian measures have been put in place where freedom once was a matter of course. A cup of coffee at any café in Paris is now only permitted on display of a valid vaccine passport.

All it took was a virus marginally more dangerous than a common cold, mixed with a generous portion of propaganda, and everyone gave up their freedoms without a fight. All sorts of damage has been wrought by those in power, and the consequences have just started to show. There's more to come, and unlike the flu itself, this will be felt directly by everyone. There will be no need for propaganda to prop up this narrative.

China is using the plague as an excuse to shutter ports, thus disrupting supply chains. The real reason for these actions is not the flu, but deliberate sabotage of trade. China is at war with the US and the world at large, and its main weapon is economic destruction. It hands this out through propaganda and direct interference in supply lines. Propaganda related to the flu is dished out to the rest of the world where corrupt leaders distribute it to its population for personal gains.

Once the propaganda is accepted as truth, supply lines can be disrupted with the flu as an excuse, and the result of this will be shortages and higher prices. This phase of the war has just started, so the shortages and price rises are yet to come. The timing appears to be tuned towards deliveries in November and December when disruption will have the greatest impact, making Christmas hard on everybody.

The next step in the war is likely to be actual shooting. That will happen when the vaccines taken by US troops this fall kicks in with maximum damage. Demoralized and broken, the fighting spirit will be low. There will be an awareness that Paris is less free than Kabul, and that everyone is corrupt and a liar. Why bother to fight when the enemy is no worse than the people in charge?

However, things may not go as planned. There's a weakness in this that can be taken advantage of by those set on liberty. Shortages and price rises will distract from the flu and render the propaganda so much less effective. All we need to do is to keep our narrative low key and consistent.

Focus on a few facts, and stay firm. State the obvious whenever pressed: The plague is not very dangerous. The reactions are overblown and destructive. We suffer while gaining nothing.

This will fall on deaf ears now, but will nevertheless be registered in people's minds, and we'll be vindicated this fall. Our decision to stay unvaccinated will no longer seem so crazy. Our prediction of a hot war in the near future may even be listened to, as well as our reasons for staying out of any such conflict.

Liberty is found in our community more than in the nation state. It's the local culture that defines what's allowed and what's not, and this is on full display in Kabul right now. There are a few curious things to note about the Taliban takeover in Kabul. The first one being that the Taliban leader is of a very different kind than the Taliban leader of 20 years ago. Back then, the leader was a primitive cave man with no real vision of anything. Now, the leader appears to be very much a man of the world, with diplomatic skills and ties to both China and Russia.

Secondly, Afghan TV is still employing women. The crackdown on women, entertainment and music is not as fierce as we might have feared. Taliban itself appears to have moderated itself, and that can only be attributed to a shift in culture. For all its faults, 20 years of US presence in Afghanistan appears to have made an impact.

My guess is that the Taliban will see itself forced to moderate itself in cities such as Kabul. They will not do so willingly. But the alternative will be more intense opposition, which in turn leads to the sort of chaos that ruins a leader's international reputation. The Taliban leader is captured by his own ambitions. He must make sure that Afghanistan, and above all Kabul, remains relatively peaceful. To score extra points, the Taliban leader may push to make Kabul look more civilized than Paris. That would serve both the Taliban leader and his Chinese and Russian allies well in any upcoming war.

The lesson here is that we don't have to worry about external enemies, because such enemies will have to moderate themselves in the face of local culture. There's no point in going to a foreign land to fight for liberty. A far better strategy is to stay at home and make sure that the local community is well equipped to take care of its own. It doesn't matter who wins or loses a war in a distant land. All that matters is that we keep our community as strong and free as possible.

The real enemy in any war is not the foreign entity but our own nation state, which always seizes on the opportunity to restrict freedoms at home. Hence, a war of no direct danger to our community should be avoided. Not even a spectacular terrorist attack should convince us otherwise. It's not like the bombing of some building somewhere is of any great danger to a local community. However, we know that the inevitable over-reaction by the power hungry is a danger, and hence the real threat to our community.

Military victory or defeat only shines in the moment. There's no lasting legacy from such events. The culture remains as long as communities remain. The culture can even remain beyond the existence of the original carriers of the culture in question. This can be observed in countries like Hungary and Finland, where the local gene pool is German and Swedish respectively. However, the language and culture of these places remain different.

What happened in both Hungary and Finland was an initial clean sweep to power of an invading force from the east, followed by a gradual influx from the west. Hungary and Finland have seen no total victories on its soil since the initial onslaught some two thousand years ago, and remained thus culturally intact through the subsequent influx. The gene pool from the original invaders became in this way diluted to the point of being virtually nonexistent. But at no point were the original invaders slaughtered or driven to extinction. They married into the influx. The invaders still exist. They are merely diluted to the point of not being visible. However, the language and culture of these places remains strangely eastern. There's a fierceness to the Hungarians and the Finns that isn't mirrored in the Germans and the Swedes who act differently in the face of aggression.

As individuals, we'll all be diluted through our descendants. We will exist as long as there are descendants. There will also be legacy. Even those with no children will live on in the local culture. Hence, we should focus on this rather than battles and wars that only shine bright in the moment. Far better to do as the Hungarians and Finns have done up through the ages. Defend staunchly the local community and culture, and everything else falls into place on its own.

Liberty

Truth and Consistency

What separates a lie from the truth is that a lie breaks with reality while truth doesn't, and one of the defining characteristics of reality is consistency. That's why we pay attention to consistency in stories we are told. If there's an inconsistency, we know that there's something not quite right about the story.

Unfortunately, the idea that consistency is part of reality has been challenged over the last century. When a paradox was discovered in quantum physics at the start of the 20th century, the ensuing debate led to the astonishing conclusion that reality is in fact paradoxical. Instead of the common sense conclusion that the paradox was a sign of error, the wise men decided to declare themselves right nevertheless. Instead of admitting that something was wrong with their theory, they declared the world paradoxical to the point of being unknowable.

This decision has had a profound impact on theoretical physics, as well as politics and economy. Once the idea was accepted that reality is paradoxical, and hence unknowable, the world of academia started to allow for inconsistencies. This opened for wild ideas like the possibility of shaping reality through narrative, which in turn was welcomed by politicians and financial charlatans. A century later, we live in a world where nothing is certain, not even our gender or race. It's all whatever we choose it to be.

However, there never were any good reasons to declare the world paradoxical. There were scientists at the time who pointed out alternatives, and I've written two books on this myself. Every aspect of quantum physics can be explained in non-paradoxical ways. My conclusion is that the world is most definitely not a paradox. Reality is consistent. A paradox, when found, is proof of an error.

Our common sense intuition is right, and it will be increasingly important to us as we progress into what's becoming an increasingly mad world. We must pay close attention to the consistency of stories, and treat anything inconsistent with great prejudice, because an inconsistency indicates a lie, and hence a conflict with reality. If we go along with it, we might find ourselves in trouble.

Conversely, we have to be consistent ourselves. We too have an agenda, and the way to build credibility around it is to keep it consistent. We cannot on the one hand claim that the Delta variant is harmless, and then go ahead an lament the fact that Obama's birthday bash seems to have spread the virus. At most, we can point out the hypocrisy of the event. But to lament what we would otherwise tone down serves nothing for our credibility.

Party politics is rife with this sort of inconsistencies. The blue team will point out all sorts of things in the red team while allowing blue team members a free pass, and visa versa. The best way to avoid this trap, is to stay away from party politics. The anarchist position is in this respect useful. It makes it easier to see the errors in thinking in both teams. We avoid making the mistake of touting inconsistencies. We also avoid the error of doing something simply because all our team members are doing it.

Consistency in itself is not truth, but an inconsistency is proof of an error. There's no way to prove anything simply by telling a consistent story. My theory on physics is consistent, so it's not dead on arrival. It also conforms to reality as observed. Yet, this too doesn't prove it right. All we can say about it is that it isn't an obvious lie. It's a plausible alternative to what we know to be wrong due to its inherent paradox, namely currently accepted quantum physics.

This holds for any story that we want to convey. For it to be believable under scrutiny, it must be consistent. It must also reflect reality. We must refrain from the temptation to throw in a lie or two in order to make the narrative more compelling. Such tricks may work for short term gains, but they erode our credibility. It's better to be the honest guy that's vindicated with time than the clever one with passionate followers, but no staying power.

Dawn

Dawn - By Jessie Eastland - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

The Problem with Lies

Sudden panic is a curious thing to see, especially in cases where the situation at hand was as easy to predict as it has been in Kabul. How was it that so many people lulled themselves into believing that things would continue as normal without direct support from the US military?

Deep down, everyone now in panic mode must have understood the consequences of what was happening. Otherwise, there would be no panic. But why was there such a delay between the announced retreat of US forces and the response in the general public? Why didn't people take more immediate action? Why this wait for reality to stare them in the eye before action is taken?

The answer to this can be found in the way lies fester in a society. The mechanism is simple and universal. It's also very dangerous, so it's worth a closer look. Taking Afghanistan as an example, we can imagine the events leading up to the current chaos.

The US decided to set up a loyal Afghan army, consisting of pro-western soldiers. A typical recruit would be someone with an interest in keeping the Status Quo. There would also be people volunteering simply for the pay. However, even the ones with the least conviction would tell everyone else that they are dedicated and ready to fight. When the major is asked to judge the morale of his troops, he gets the plain answer from his troops that they are highly motivated.

The major may know that there's a degree of deception in his troops' answer, but the official answer reflects well on him, so he reports that his troops are well motivated. He might add that some could do with a little more training and encouragement, but the overall morale of his troops are good.

The generals and intelligence officers get this feedback from every unit. They may find it all overly optimistic. But again, the feedback is so positive that even with a caveat, the overall picture looks robust. There's no way the Afghan army will be defeated for at least a year or two. The US can pull out all its troops, and the debacle, if it's ever to materialize, will happen long after the troops are gone. There will be no political blowback. The time delay between the US withdrawal and the eventual fall of Afghanistan to Taliban forces will be too long to be noticed by US voters.

This is all great news to the president of the US, who confidently proclaims that the withdrawal of US troops will be without adverse consequences. Why shouldn't he? This is a truth received from highest authority. Surely, his own intelligence services aren't lying.

The president is right. His intelligence services are telling him what they know from carefully collected data. The problem isn't that the intelligence services are lying. The problem is that their data is incorrect. The original respondents were all lying, and nobody caught this crucial point. Not even the Afghan soldiers themselves.

Each soldier in the Afghan army knows that they themselves are showing off, and pretending to be more motivated than they are. But they are comforted by the fact that everybody else seems at least as motivated as themselves. They might suspect that there's a bad apple here and there, but the overall morale is high, and this is what they tell their family and friends. There's also a lot of shiny new military equipment, and no lesser authority than the US president himself has told the world that the Afghan army is a major force, way stronger than Taliban.

But when push comes to shove, and fighting breaks out, there's disarray. Everyone was relying on everyone else to do the dangerous jobs. But no-one is leading the way. Everyone hunkers down, and they realize that everyone else is as poorly motivated as they are themselves, so they surrender.

There's disbelief in Kabul. Surely, this was a one off. There must have been unusually intense fighting. Let's wait and see what happens next.

But nothing improves, and there's all of a sudden a mad rush to get out. What could not happen is happening nevertheless. Reality was not what was presented on TV. Reality was the rumors that everyone ignored, and this realization strikes everybody more or less at the same time. All of a sudden, there's panic.

However, the Afghan army is not the only organization currently in the grip of delusion and self deception. There are clear signs of madness in Washington DC, and the financial markets are no less insane. This in turn, explains the level of delusion in the population at large. Everyone is lying to everyone else, so no-one knows for sure what's going on.

Those tuned into official channels are the most delusional, because many in these channels are themselves largely oblivious to their own delusion. News readers are vaccinated. They are also scared by what they learn from official sources. So they lean heavily towards pro-vaccine stories.

As for the financial markets, the most delusional are the ones taking the words of central bankers and politicians as truth. The ones tuned into official channels are again the dupes.

There will be a day of reckoning when all of these lies will be exposed, and the exit will be no more orderly than the one we're witnessing in Kabul. Panic will set in when it's too late.

To protect ourselves from this kind of delusion, we must listen to rumors, and look around for evidence contrary to the official narrative. How many people died in the pandemic? How much money has been printed since last year? How many do we know to have become seriously ill, despite being relatively young and fit? Where is the Dow/Gold ratio? Do we know anyone that got ill after taking the vaccine?

Never trust official sources over what we see and hear ourselves. Never trust anything that isn't honest and upright because truth is always compromised where ethics are lacking. Trust in Nature, aka God.

The unraveling of the Afghan army is an omen of things to come. We're about to meet God, and the only way to protect ourselves from what's coming is to be firmly on the side of reality. No amount of delusion and fakery can keep reality at bay. In fact, times of total delusion are signs of imminent collapse. Something spectacular is about to happen, and it won't be pretty. But those who have properly protected themselves will be able to watch in awe without too much fear.

Sovereign

By Heritage Auctions for image, Mary Gillick for coin - Newman Numismatic Portal, Public Domain, Link

Backed by the Mighty American Military

So it appears that Kabul has already fallen to the Taliban. The US backed Afghan army didn't last more than a few days when left to stand on its own two feet. The will to fight was simply not there, and without a will to fight, no amount of money and military equipment will save anyone from defeat.

The debacle in Afghanistan is terrible news for all things backed by US military force, not least the dollar which derives its strength from the military.

The US dollar serves as the world's premier reserve currency largely due to the might of the US military. The US dollar is a faith based fiat currency. Its value is dependent on the idea that the US can collect taxes from its citizens and demand tribute from vassal countries. However, with its military now humiliated by a ragtag army of goat herders, that faith is worn thin. The sheer speed of the collapse is further reason to worry.

Kabul looks to become at least as bad for the US as was Saigon back in 1972. The knock on effect for the dollar is likely to be correspondingly bad. From 1972 to 1980, gold went up by ten times from $63 to $630 per ounce. Are we going to see $17,500 gold by 2030? Time will tell, but history suggests that it will be so.

Federal reserve note

By National Museum of American History - Image by Godot13, Public Domain, Link

Defensive Rhetoric

So, it's come to this: Almost any skepticism towards totalitarian overreach by government is now considered potential terrorism. Any form of organized objection to such measures will get us on the potential terrorist list. However, this is not going to work very well for the totalitarians. Especially the meek will dodge this bullet, because they do not engage in large scale protests. Instead, they influence people in their own network so as to render the enemy impotent.

It should be noted that it is the enemy that is currently engaging in hyperbole, and as such, they are hurting their own credibility. All that's needed to counter this hyperbole is to tone things down. That way, we become the measured and reasonable adults in the room, exposing the frantic fear mongers as scared children.

Our strategy is defensive. We start by ignoring their childish rants. Then we ask them to tone things down a notch. Are they seriously accusing us adults of being potential terrorists?

The more we turn the plague into a non-issue, the stronger our position gets, so it's important not to start any arguments. Nobody listens to arguments, so it's better to avoid the subject as much as possible. When this becomes impossible, focus on practical matters. Make it clear to everyone that our only concerns about the plague are the restrictions put upon us by overreacting policy makers.

If the conversation nevertheless turns personal, explain to our opponents that the vaccine is neither effective nor safe. The Delta variant is more dangerous to the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. Leaky vaccines cause viruses to mutate.

Having stood our ground firmly, we've finally hit back with hard facts, to which they will recoil in disbelief. That's when we can offer to send them links. Having taken the offensive position, our opponents cannot very well decline our offer, and we can therefore send them the following:

1. NHS document proving that Delta is most dangerous to the vaccinated.
2. Research paper concluding that leaky vaccines produce variants.

It may be tempting to gloat at this point, and tell our opponents off. However, we should keep ego under wraps and instead focus on toning things down. We should once again point out that the whole thing is overblown. The plague isn't very dangerous, and the only problem is the constant meddling by scared politicians. Things would improve a lot in the world if people simply grew up and stopped being so childish.

Enjoying a cup of coffee