Time Dilation Due to Gravity

According to general relativity, clocks slow down in the presence of massive bodies. This is known as time dilation due to gravity. The effect of gravity is in other words similar to the effect of high speeds. Both cause physical processes to slow down.

This is tested and confirmed with experiments, so we can't readily dismiss it. However, there's a puzzling aspect that needs an explanation. Mercury orbits the Sun faster than predicted by Newton.

Orbits are physical processes. Hence, a straight forward solution to the Mercury anomaly would be to have clocks go faster on Mercury than farther away from the Sun. This would make everything look correct for an observer on Mercury. But general relativity tells us that clocks on Mercury are moving slower than clocks on Earth due to Mercury's speed and proximity to the Sun. That's opposite of what a more straight forward explanation would suggest.

Time dilation isn't solving the Mercury anomaly. It's making things worse.

What solves the Mercury anomaly in general relativity is a gravity well that curves space and time around the Sun into a shape sufficiently steep to keep Mercury in place.

General relativity solves the Mercury anomaly and a range of other problems. But the price for this is a model where time is treated as a fourth dimension, and space is a thing that can be curved.

It seems to me that there must be a better solution. My physics predicts that particles of inertial matter become smaller in the presence of gravitational bodies. Physical processes on Mercury are therefore faster than on Earth.

Electron as clock on Earth and on Mercury

This solves the anomaly. But it goes contrary to measurements that confirm time dilation due to gravity.

Time Dilation Due to Velocity

All physical processes, including radioactive decay, slow down for bodies at high speeds. This phenomenon is known as time dilation, or to be exact, time dilation due to velocity.

The phenomenon has been confirmed in laboratories, so a theory of physics cannot be considered complete without an explanation for this.

Einstein explains the phenomenon in his theory of relativity. His explanation relies solely on geometry and the assumption that the speed of light is constant everywhere. It's an elegant solution, and his formula is simple:

observed time = local time/(1-v^2/c^2)^½

where observed time is what a stationary observer measures as he observes a physical process local to the moving body.

Measurements made in laboratories confirm Einstein's formula, so a competing theory will have to produce a formula that's either identical or sufficiently close to avoid being dismissed outright. However, this is no reason to shy away from such a task. It's merely a criteria to strive for in our search for alternatives.

There are plenty of smart people that have issues with Einstein's solutions. Miles Mathis is one such person. He has written extensively about this in his work. However, my project is not so much to disprove other people's work as it is an attempt to break the notion that there is no alternative to currently accepted dogma. I'll leave it to people like Miles Mathis to do the criticism. My focus remains on my theory as an example of an alternative.

When it comes to time dilation due to velocity, I boil it down to relative speeds of particles in the aether. Physical processes slow down when things speed up because the aether within speeding objects slows down in proportion to their velocity.

This yields the following equation for time dilation:

observed time = local time/(1-v/c)

This is close enough to Einstein's equation to allow it to stand for now. However, the discrepancy indicate that some detail is missing in the way I arrive at my equation. The issue may be that energy is distributed along the curved surface of particles, while velocity acts in a straight line. My derivation ignores this distinction. I treat both velocity and energy distribution as linear.

Photon traversing an electron

The curvature of particles may have to be incorporated into my derivation in order to get a better fit with measured results. However, that's a complicated procedure that I'll leave for later. I'll let my function stand for now.

Here's how I arrived at it from the premises of my theory:

---

Observed time = To
Local time = Tl
Speed of aether for the observer = c
Speed of moving body = v
Speed of local aether in moving body = c - v

Observed time and local time are related to the aether as follows:

To/Tl = c/(c-v)

From this, we get:

To = Tl c/(c-v)

To = Tl/(1-v/c)

Images of War

Putin's strategy in Ukraine seems to be working. Images on TV show Russian aircrafts and artillery in full swing, followed by images of destruction wrought on the Ukrainian side.

Western propaganda tries to spin this into a story of senseless destruction. However, the images indicate a high degree of accuracy. A train station was hit. But the station building is intact. Neighboring houses are largely spared as well. It's the rail tracks that have been destroyed.

Another image is of an office building with three floors burned out. That could be senseless destruction. It could also be a sign of precision: A government agency is wiped out, leaving the rest largely spared.

My wife tells me that Ukrainian refugees are going back to Ukraine. My stepdaughter tells me that her father's Ukrainian wife claims that things are back to near normal in Kiev. The impression I get is that the Russians are fighting with precision, and that the front line is sufficiently predictable for people to get out of the way in time.

Meanwhile in Moscow, Putin is back to his old form. Whatever worries that had him look frail during the start of the war seem to have vanished.

In Davos, Kissinger comes out suggesting a compromise with the Russians, and US generals try to broker a deal with the Russians where grain and fertilizers can be shipped out of Ukraine.

None of this suggests Russian weakness. Time isn't working against the Russians, as western propaganda wants us to believe. It's working against the rest of the world, which will see food shortages if nothing is done by the end of the year.

Europe isn't going to do well this coming winter without Russian oil and gas. The world will be a mess without Russian and Ukrainian grain.

Putin knows this. That's why he is in no rush to end the war. He can continue the current low pace, high accuracy operation with a minimum of loss in blood and treasure, and when winter comes, the world will be ready to throw in the towel.

Vladimir Putin

By Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0, Link

This Year's Bio-Weapon

One year ago, I wrote this post, suggesting that the purpose of the vaccine was to weaken the immune system of people sufficiently to allow for a more dangerous virus to spread.

We don't yet know if Monkeypox spreads more easily among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated, so this remains a conspiracy theory for now. But one element of the hypothesis has come true. Monkeypox, which was first identified and isolated in a bio-lab, is now spreading more easily than it did last summer.

Monkeypox

By not listed - http://phil.cdc.gov (CDC's Public Health Image Library) Media ID #2329, Public Domain, Link

How Matter Dies

Empty space will produce electrons and positrons if subjected to a sufficiently strong electrical force. This manifests itself as gamma-ray radiation which we find naturally occurring in lightning on Earth as well as various places in the universe. Centers of galaxies produce gamma-rays. Supernovas produce gamma-rays.

Gamma-rays come about when electrons and positrons meet. The gamma rays that we are observing can in other words be explained as a byproduct of space under electrical strain. Electric forces break apart photons in the aether. We get electron-positron pairs. When these pairs recombine we get gamma-rays.

Electron and positron combine to produce gamma-ray photon

However, not all positrons end up recombining with electrons. Some find their way into the production of protons.

I haven't explored the exact mechanism for this is in much detail. However, Paul Leader writes extensively on this. His work is well worth a read for anyone wanting to go deeper into the mechanisms that may be at play in this production process.

The proton is of enormous importance to the existence of all things material. As Paul Leader points out, no atoms and no chemistry would be possible without the proton. If electrons and positrons always reverted to gamma-rays, the universe would be nothing but empty space and radiation. Only the existence of protons allow for structures such as stars, planets and organisms of all kinds, including ourselves and nature as we know it.

Paul Leader and I have different views on many things. But there's much overlap too. Among the things we agree on is the idea that matter is condensed space. This is an idea that he expands on with many insightful observations.

One takeaway is that condensation of space into matter happens wherever we observe a lot of gamma-ray radiation. I'm incorrect in suggesting that gamma-rays are associated with the destruction of matter. Paul Leader suggests instead that matter eventually evaporates into background radiation.

Galaxies have active cores that emit a lot of gamma-rays. This is where matter is produced. It's at the far reaches of galaxies that matter evaporates, and it does so slowly and with little associated radiation.

This can be tied up to what we know about cosmic radiation, which is associated with the destruction of protons. When a proton is smashed to bits, it breaks into pions, Pions are short lived, with several different avenues of decay. Muons are often produced. They exist for longer than pions, but they too decay in less than a second. The end products are nothing but electrons, positrons, neutinos and photon radiation of various intensities.

This is how matter dies. Protons grow trough mass condensation to the point where they become unstable. They break into pions and muons which evaporate into space. What was created under intense electrical stress, and with much observable bravado, dies quietly in the remote and dark outer regions of galaxies.

ESO Centaurus

By ESO/WFI (Optical); MPIfR/ESO/APEX/A.Weiss et al. (Submillimetre); NASA/CXC/CfA/R.Kraft et al. (X-ray) - http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso0903a/, CC BY 4.0, Link

More Monkey Business

We're having another round of scaremongering related to Monkey Pox. This time, it looks more widespread than last time. There are five cases in Portugal, with fifteen more possible cases.

This news prompted me to read through my post from July 2021 when I last wrote about Monkey Pox. I made some predictions back then, some of which have come true, and others that missed the mark. I also made some observations related to the disease and how it came about.

The thing to note this time around is that the disease does look more transmittable. It's also worth noting that it spreads like AIDS. Gay sex is the only way anyone has caught it this time around.

Monkeypox

By not listed - http://phil.cdc.gov (CDC's Public Health Image Library) Media ID #2329, Public Domain, Link

Mortality Among White Collar Workers

Mortality among white collar workers increased by 24 percent between 2020 and 2021, according to life insurance companies.

This corresponds well with my calculations based on data from Wikipedia.

Notable deaths according to Wikipedia

Deaths among relatively young people remain elevated compared to pre-2020 data.

Preliminary numbers for this month has young deaths at above 27% of the total. That's substantially higher than 22% which was the norm before 2021. The 5 percentage points increase means that there is at the moment a 23% increase in the mortality rate of young people since 2020.

We can conclude from this that the data available at Wikipedia is a reliable indicator of the general health of the population.

The Size of Muons and Protons

Morton Spears' calculations on the relative sizes of neutrons, protons and electrons leave us with two separate ways to describe the size of particles. We have inertial mass, and we have particle quanta. Particle quanta can in turn be assembled into electrons and positrons which are real world particles that our theory sees as fundamental to matter.

It should be noted that Morton Spears' calculations are less exact than he made them seem. He ignores binding energy. His numbers are based on a best fit. There's substantial room for error. However, we can nevertheless rely on his calculations. We can use them as our starting point, and refine them as we look more closely into the structure of protons.

From previous calculations, we can start off with the following values, rounded off purposely to fit our theory:

• A proton is 1833 times more massive than an electron
• A proton consists of 305 electrons and 306 positrons; a total of 611

Our theory doesn't operate with the 16+ different types of fundamental particles that the standard model uses. Instead, we have 2. They are the electron and the proton.  All other particles, with the exception of the neutrino, are assembles of electrons and positrons.

Particle fragments produced in collisions are subassemblies that can tell us something about the structures they came from, but they are not fundamental. From this, we can conclude that muons, created by smashing protons together, aren't fundamental particles. They are subassemblies.

High energy particles that enters Earth's atmosphere in the form of cosmic radiation are smashed to bits by atoms that they crash into. This produces a great number of muons that constantly bombard us. These particles are naturally occurring and easy to detect. A cloud chamber will reveal their existence.

However, these particles are no more fundamental to protons than fragments of a smashed brick wall are fundamental to brick walls. Fragments of wall contain bricks and mortar, which are fundamental, but the fragments are not fundamental themselves. Likewise, muons are made up of electrons and positrons that are fundamental to matter, but this doesn't make muons fundamental.

With this in mind, we can make some calculations related to the size of muons relative to protons. Wikipedia tells us that muons are roughly 207 times more massive than an electron. If we relate this number directly to the mass of the proton, we get 1833/207 = 8.86. However, muons are proton fragments. There's binding energy in the proton, which isn't in the fragments. It's therefore reasonable to round this number down to 8.

From this, we can conclude that 1 smashed proton should produce no more than 8 muons. If binding energy plays a big role in this, the number of muons produced from a proton may be lower. All we can say with confidence is that we should never see more than 8 muons produced from a single proton.

When we look closer at how muons are formed, we learn that they are not directly produced from protons. There's an intermediate stage. Protons are first broken into pions, and pions subsequently decay into muons.

Pions are 1.32 times as massive as a muon. With a muon roughly 207 times as massive as an electron, we get that the pion is about 273 times as massive as an electron. We can now repeat the above calculation to find how many pions we can get from a proton: 1833/273 = 6.71.

Given that 1 pion decays into 1 muon and 1 neutrino, we now know that protons cannot produce 8 muons. They can at most produce 6.

Pions and muons are fragments, originating from a proton. They are therefore unstable. They fall apart. However, they don't explode into a myriad of electrons and positrons, as we might suspect from our model. They fall apart in stages, with each stage producing a few fragments.

In the case of muons, they break into an electron or a positron, an electron neutrino and a muon neutrino. The neutrinos carry away a small part of the muon's mass while the electron or positron, as the case may be, carries away the majority of the muon's mass.

This doesn't add up with our theory because a proton consists of 305 electrons and 306 positrons. Distributed over 6 muons, we end up with about 51 electrons and 51 positrons for each muon. We must therefore propose some alternative explanation for what has been observed and measured trough experiments.

The alternative explanation is that we are in fact observing a myriad of electrons and positrons in the form of photon. Pion and muon decay is associated with a phenomenon know as bremsstrahlung. This is photon radiation that's taken out of the overall equation when considering how these particles decay. However, if we include this radiation as part of our equations, we'll likely end up with the 50 to 51 photons that we're missing in our calculations.

With this alternative interpretation of the phenomenon of bremsstrahlung, we're still able to defend our theory.

Electron-positron pair combining to form a photon

Nuclear Binding Energy

Energy is size at the subatomic. Specifically, it's the surface area of subatomic particles.

When a particle is stretched or otherwise deformed, its surface increases. This translates into an increase in energy. It also translates into an increase in inertia, because inertia is related to how much time it takes to traverse a particle's surface. Hence, there's a direct relationship between energy and inertial mass.

This explains why the inertial mass of a proton is about 3 times the inertial mass of its constituent parts. Every electron and positron that makes up a proton is stretched out in such a way that their surface areas become 3 times what they are in their un-stretched state. The inertial mass of a proton is therefore about 1800 times that of an electron even though it's constructed from about 600 electrons and positrons.

We also have an explanation for why the difference in inertial mass between a neutron and a proton is more than twice that of an electron, even though a neutron is made up of exactly one proton and one electron.

The electron is stretched out across the surface of its associated proton to such an extent that it attains more than double the surface area of its free state. Neutrinos trapped inside this configuration keeps the electron from laying flat across the proton. It protrudes like a small hill.

The inertial mass of a neutron is in this way greater than that of a free electron and a free proton. The binding energy locked up in the stretching of the electron accounts for the additional inertial mass.

When a sufficiently high energy particle disturbs this arrangement, the electron is released, and it escapes from the proton at high speed together with an anti-neutrino. The binding energy is thus converted into kinetic energy.

Free neutron decay

This mechanism also applies to other unstable nuclear structures, such as uranium and plutonium. Kinetic energy is released when binding energies are broken.

Relative Sizes of the Neutron, Proton and Electron

Onar Åm, who prompted me to embark on my journey into physics some seven years ago, has repeatedly criticized me for a lack of formulas and calculations in my work. I'm of the opinion that a model should be well hammered out before there's much need for detailed analysis, so I have largely ignored him.

However, I did make an analysis of my model to see if it conforms to Coulomb's law, and I had multiple situations in which my model yielded real world predictions. I was for instance delighted to learn about the Faraday Effect, which confirmed my conclusion that magnetism is a form of polarized light.

But there are other things that I haven't looked much into, which I probably should at this point, with my model now pinned down. My work is to a great extent based on Morton Spears’ particle quanta, and his calculations related to the relative sizes of the proton and neutron, to which I've added calculations for the size of the electron, positron and neutrino.

However, I never checked the validity of Morton Spears' numbers. I found this detail irrelevant for my overall thesis. My thinking was that my logic would apply to any set of numbers. The only difference in outcome would be the specific sizes of particles. But now that my model is pinned down, the time has come to look closer at Morton Spears' numbers to get the exact relative size of the four stable particles derived from my model.

In doing this, it should be noted that the proton has recently been measured to be smaller than what was thought in Morton Spears' time. The man must therefore be excused for any deviation between currently accepted numbers and numbers presented by him in his second book on gravity.

Searching the web for fresh numbers we find that the exact relative mass of the neutron, proton and electron are:

• Neutron = 1
• Proton = 0.99862349
• Electron = 0.00054386734

If we add the electron to the proton, we get 0.99916735734. That's less than a neutron by 0.00083264266. We're missing mass, equivalent to more than an electron. This is binding energy converted to kinetic energy when a free neutron decays into a proton, electron and anti-neutrino. We cannot therefore expect our relative numbers to be precise down to the last digit.

Free neutron decay

With this in mind, we can make our calculations:

• We get that the neutron is 1838.68 times more massive than an electron.
• We get that the proton is 1836.15 times more massive than an electron.
• We get that the difference between a neutron and proton is 2.54 units.

From this, we see that the electron comes out a little lighter than we would have liked, and the proton comes out a little on the heavy side. But the difference is negligible, especially in light of the uncertainties related to the exact mass of these things. We can therefore say that the electron consists of 3 units, the neutron consists of 1839 units and the proton consists of 1836 units.

This compares to Morton Spears' numbers as follows:

• MS' neutron = 2180 units; modern neutron = 1839 units; a difference of 341 units.
• MS' proton = 2177 units; modern proton = 1836 units; a difference of 341 units.
• MS' electron = 3 units; modern electron = 3 units; a difference of 0 units.

When we compare these particles in terms of elementary building blocks of 3 (the size of an electron), we get that:

• MS' neutron = 726 blocks and a rest of 2 units; modern neutron = 613 blocks and 0 rest.
• MS' proton = 725 blocks and a rest of 2 units; modern proton = 612 blocks and 0 rest.

Note that the size of an electron in terms of particle quanta does not translate directly into size in terms of mass. Current numbers suggest that a neutron is 1839 times more massive than an electron. Yet it's only made up of 613 times as many blocks. The reason for this discrepancy can be ascribed to binding energy which we have already seen to be a substantial part of the neutron's mass.

The discrepancy between Morton Spears' numbers and modern numbers are due to the fact that the proton is less massive than what was accepted as fact in Morton Spears' time.

However, there's a more serious problem at hand. The proton should consist of an odd number of building blocks, so as to account for its net charge of 1. We cannot have a proton made up of an even number of blocks. Hence, its size must be either more or less than 612 blocks. The same goes for the neutron which must consist of an even number of blocks in order to produce a net charge of 0.

Propaganda in the Hands of Libertarian Anarchists

The shadow government that Edward Bernays describe in his book is not a democracy. Nor is it a dictatorship. So, what exactly is it?

The answer to this can be found in Fernando Pessoa's observation that an aristocrat is an anarchist and visa versa. By extension, we can say that the shadow government is an anarchy. The real rulers of the world are not a coordinated club of conspirators. Rather, it's a loosely held together club of individuals who's interests sometimes align and sometimes don't.

The oligarchy is constantly fighting for position and influence. Families and individuals who fail, drop out of the oligarchy. Shrewd individuals gain access. There are high walls protecting the oligarchy, but its not a fixed club. Its members shift with time. Their only common goal is to defend the Status Quo so as to secure their families' continued influence and status.

Propaganda is used by the various factions of the oligarchy for their own purpose, which is to secure and strengthen the position of their own faction. This goal will largely overlap with the interests of other oligarchs. But there's also competition.

My family in Norway has influence over the department of culture and the department of education. But there are other families with similar influences. There are also individuals with their own special interests fighting for attention from the ministers. There's no guarantee that all of these influencers will succeed into the future. Some will fall out of favor and disappear completely. Others will gain influence, and others still will fade, only to attain renewed influence in the future.

Key to success, as Edward Bernays points out in his book, lies in finding mutually benefitting solutions to problems. Those who can construct a wide network of loosely affiliated organizations and individuals will prosper due to the many avenues of propaganda that such a network provides.

All that's required is that people recognize the opportunities inherent in their networks, and utilize these for the dissemination of propaganda. Edward Bernays advices his readers to do so shamelessly, and with as much style and finesse as possible. The only caveat is that the propaganda must be honest and sincere.

Dishonest and deceitful propaganda is counterproductive, because it hurts the integrity of the propagandists. However, there's nothing dishonest in promoting ideas we believe in, and to lay bare the shoddy and dishonest propaganda put together by our adversaries.

This means that we are now entering a time with great opportunities for those who seek to diminish the power of the Status Quo. Libertarians can form their own shadow government by doing what libertarians do best; namely by promoting their personal views without any other guiding principle than their honest desire for liberty.

My impression is that this is already happening. Cleverly thought out memes have showed up on my Facebook wall, many of them attacking and ridiculing the idiotic and down right evil ways that the Status Quo used the virus scare to gain power and money for themselves.

There's no need for careful coordination of this because libertarians adhere to a coherent idea that requires no further explanation. Individuals can produce their own propaganda without having to check with authority figures for approval.

Social media is ideal for this kind of uncoordinated propaganda because everyone can make their own propaganda. This is in turn very effective, because the many voices, all different, but reflecting a common theme, hold enormous power of persuasion.

It seems to me that now is an excellent time to push forward with our message because the Status Quo has thoroughly discredited itself through sloppy and deceitful propaganda. A whole cadre of experts are so tainted by the virus scare that they will be replaced. The ones who stood firmly against the tide are therefore well positioned to become the new influencers of the world.

All that's required is for libertarians to take full advantage of the power vacuum that has emerged. Everyone with a desire to spread the message of liberty should do whatever they feel is most effective in this respect. This is not the time to hold back or remain silent.

My only advice as to form and style is that we must be careful not to let ego take too much control of the message. Don't make it about you. Don't tell people that you were right. Wrap the message elegantly and cleverly in whatever style suits you best, be it humor, logic or art. 

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

Edward Bernays' Shadow Government

Edward Bernays worked for some time as an advisor to the president of the united states, and had thereby the opportunity to see the workings of government from the inside. What he discovered was that government works pretty much like any other corporation. But instead of products, government produces policies.

Furthermore, the figureheads of government are rarely the ones pulling the strings. Politicians are swayed by their advisors and are mostly made to promote whatever these advisors suggest. The real powers that move the world are people that hardly anyone know. Edward Bernays knew this for a fact because he was one of these shadowy figures himself, and he described this in detail in his book.

I have myself been close enough to the heart of the system in Norway to know that he's right. My family owns a publishing company, and we always keep close ties to the minister of culture and the minister of education. A major part of our business is focused on shadow governance.

An interesting aspect of this is the constancy of policy that this arrangement brings. There was a radical change in the structure of the Norwegian government some fifteen years ago, and everyone expected this to lead to radical changes. However, much to our family's surprise and relief, not a single thing changed as far as our business was concerned. The new set of politicians were as easy to control as the old set.

Another thing to note, which Edward Bernays highlights in his book, is the looseness of association that the shadow government has. One branch doesn't necessarily know the other branches. My family doesn't constantly interact with other families. We are focused on our business, and other families are focused on their businesses. However, there is nevertheless interaction.

There's an awareness within the shadow government of what's good for the oligarchy and what isn't, and the various branches of the shadow government will act in unison if provoked. Not because it's so well connected, but because everyone recognizes a threat when they see one.

There is in this sense a conspiracy of convenience that keeps the structure together. There's something to be had for everyone by doing things a certain way. Politicians get various perks and kickbacks by promoting what the oligarchs suggest they promote. The dynamics of this is kept within a relatively small circle of individuals and families.

The ones footing the bills for all of this are regular people. They have nothing to offer except their votes, and those votes don't make any difference regardless of who they vote for. Their only function is to pick among a pre-selected group of corruptible individuals. Voters can change the specific layout of government, but they cannot change the way it's organized.

The social contract

Gold Testing Support

I wrote back in February that gold would trade in the $1900 to $2000 for some time before braking out to the up side. But the gold price went as high as $2070 shortly afterwards, and it's now down at $1830, testing support. That's a miss of $70 to either side of the range. However, the trading range has in fact been relative steady in the core range. It was only briefly above it, and the drop below it is recent.

Looking at the monthly chart captured in February, we find that there should be strong resistance in the low $1800s, and that's where we are at the moment.

Monthly chart captured in February

My guess is that the support line will hold, and that we're about to see a new push towards $2100. The reason for this is that we've reached a point where the Fed cannot get much more hawkish. Combined with technical support in the $1830 range, gold is unlikely to go much lower.

Virus Comeback

The White House holds a media dinner with all attendees fully vaccinated, yet the event turns out to cause an increase in virus cases.

Meanwhile in Porto, my wife has to make changes to her work schedule due to an outbreak of the virus among her vaccinated colleagues.

This is happening in May, when viruses are the least dangerous due to sunny weather, fresh air and the comforts that come with pleasant temperatures. It makes me wonder what things will look like next winter.

My prediction from a year ago looks likely to come true: The vaccinated will catch the coming variants while the unvaccinated will be spared.

Once the virus adapts to its new environment, there will be no need for it to target anyone but the vaccinated in order to spread. New variants will increasingly target the super-highway that is available to them; namely the compromised and streamlined immune systems of the vaccinated.

But this is not how my wife's colleagues see things. They are puzzled by the fact that they get ill, and that some get terribly ill. However, they don't make the connection that I do.

The answer that they agree on is that it is the lifting of the mask mandate that is to blame, and I suspect that many more will come to this conclusion as we progress into this new wave of infections.

Come this winter, there may well be sufficient popular demand for politicians to start another round of their tyranny.

The mask of the beast

Edward Bernays' Propaganda

I've finally come round to read Edward Bernays' book on Propaganda. It's a short and well written book that can be read in about six hours, and I can highly recommend it. The author was a PR expert in his time, and his methods are still very much in use both in marketing and in politics. Reading his book, we get a good insight into the mechanisms used against us over the past two years.

This doesn't mean that the man was a sinister character himself. On the contrary, he points out that the methods used to persuade us in our beliefs and preferences can be used for good or evil. They are powerful weapons that exist independent of whether they are used or not. To ignore their existence, or to expect that these methods will only be used for good, is pointless and naïve.

He also cautions people from using his methods deliberately against people's best interests. Not least because the propagandist himself will be revealed to be untrustworthy, and will from then on be impotent in his work. Whenever propaganda is used, it should be used deliberately and candidly to favor a particular view or product. There's nothing dishonest in persuading someone to buy a piano instead of a car, or to persuade someone to vote Democrat rather than Republican.

However, there's most definitely something dishonest in persuading people to act against their best interests through fear-mongering. If Edward Bernays was alive today, he would have taken the job as propagandist for the establishment only if he himself had been duped into believing the stories told.

The methods that have been used against us are definitely those described by Edward Bernays in his book, but it is far from certain that he would have applied these himself if given the chance to do so. In fact, he points out that the methods can be used in reverse. There's nothing stopping us from turning the weapons against our adversaries.

With the establishment's credibility wearing thin after two years of constant misinformation, we're in a good position to launch some counter-propaganda, and we can get some insights into how this is done by reading Edward Bernays' book.

One thing to note is the importance of planting ideas into people's heads. Professional propagandists would contact influencers of various kinds. The more sway they hold the more important they are. But anyone is in fact an influencer to some degree, so we can get much of the same effect by simply letting people under our influence know what we think. Our ideas will in this way be absorbed and communicated further.

Our own personal success and integrity is important in this. If we weather the coming financial storm without too much loss, people will pay more attention to what we say. Similarly when it comes to other things, we get credit from being right. We also get credit from behaving like adults when faced with miscalculations and errors. Any kind of childish or immature response to victory or loss will weigh on our credibility, so we must be neither proud nor timid. We have to find that perfect balance associated with adult behavior.

As for the ongoing fight for our freedoms, I'm currently pointing out in modest language that nothing of note has come from all the measures hoisted upon us by our rulers. I intend to continue this going forward. My aim is to make everyone within my sphere of influence at least somewhat skeptical to what's going on. I want them to resist boosters, mask mandates and lockdowns. The idea I want to plant in their heads is that none of this works.

I think Edward Bernays would approve of this plan, given my situation. I have some influential people among my Facebook friends. I know that some of them read my posts. I also know that they are heavily influenced by professional propagandists. My job is therefore in part to subvert the efforts of the professionals, hopefully to the point that some of my most influential friends start talking openly about their skepticism.

My hope for my other friends is that they too express their thoughts in such a way that others pay attention. Once a thought arrives at people from more than one direction, things tend to happen. A person that sees an opinion expressed in multiple ways from multiple people will soon start to think that the idea has merit, and once this happens at a large enough scale, official narratives quickly unravel.

Guantanamo Bay detention camp

By Shane T. McCoy, U.S. Navy - (copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Camp_x-ray_detainees.jpg so that the image can be used on Wikinews.), Public Domain, Link

The Quirks of History

History is full of twists and turns that make for unexpected outcomes. This is especially true when there's a conspiracy going on. The people scheming behind the scenes are taken by surprise by something unforeseen, and the outcomes of their plans turn out to be different from what they aimed for.

In an effort to correct these unforeseen consequences, new plans are drawn up, but these too have a tendency to miss the mark. There's always something that the conspirators haven't thought properly through, or that they were unable to foresee simply because of its random nature.

These mishaps turn up as odd quirks in history. Things evolve along what looks like a well thought out storyline, but the story deteriorates over time. Things don't add up. After a while, the story is full of inconsistencies and weird things start to happen.

The latest oddity of our currently unfolding drama is the sudden and unexpected focus on abortion laws. The supreme court in the US is considering making abortions less easy to get. This has come to the public's attention through a leak.

Suddenly everyone is up in arms about the leak and the content of the leak. But few people are wondering why this issue is suddenly given any attention by the supreme court. The odd thing going on is not the leak or the law, but the fact that the issue has gotten the attention of the court in the first place. What prompted such a club of entitled busybodies to bring this up now?

The answer to this may be that something unusual is happening to the abortion statistics. I'm not the only one keeping an eye on mortality rates and the like. Statisticians everywhere are doing this all the time, and they will scratch their heads and wonder if there's a sudden change in what they see.

A friend of mine on Facebook has suggested that the real reason for this sudden urge to make abortions less readily available is that abortion numbers are down. This drop can plausibly be attributed to the virus and lockdowns for 2021, but there's no way to explain such a drop for subsequent years. Something permanent has to be introduced into the official narrative, and a change in abortion laws would fit this mark.

I've looked for abortion numbers online, and I couldn't find anything more recent than 2020, so I don't know for sure that these numbers drop off a cliff in 2021, or if this drop will extend into the years beyond. However, I'll make a point of analyzing these numbers when I find them to see if my Facebook friend's assumptions are right.

If my friend is right about the supreme court's motives, it's all the more amusing that there was a leak. The rioting and protests by the conspirator's unthinking minions may make it impossible for the court to stick to their plan. The people who have been useful in pushing snake oil through peer pressure and intimidation, are now throwing a spanner into the works by blocking the conspirator's plan to cover up the destruction wrought by their scheme.

But even if they manage to push through with their desired changes to abortion laws, there's still the issue of rising mortality rates among the young. Anyone can go to Wikipedia's notable deaths and count for themselves how many young people are currently dying relative to older ones. That relationship used to be around 22%. The figures for May this far puts that figure above 28%.

The official narrative is crumbling, and we are seeing the conspirators desperately trying to cover their tracks.

Notable deaths according to Wikipedia

The Intruder Argument

A free society has no need for elaborate jury systems because the arbitrators acting as judges are bound by free market forces. Arbitrators have to hand out judgments that are seen as reasonable by a majority of people or they will run out of business. An arbitrator that sides too heavily with plaintiffs will be shunned by future defendants, and arbitrators that side too heavily on the side with defendants will be shunned by future plaintiffs. For a plaintiff and a defendant to agree on an arbitrator, the arbitrator must be seen as reasonable.

Another aspect of a free society is that it will have few laws. There's no need to agree on anything beyond the golden rule when there are good arbitrators to choose from. Nobody has to lay things out in detailed texts for such professionals to come to reasonable conclusions.

Finally, only societies that values privacy will ever be free. If everyone feels entitled to an opinion on everything, and there's general acceptance for this, we quickly get mob rule.

A free society doesn't allow third party opinions to interfere in other people's business. If we're not directly involved in a conflict, we have no business interfering in it. If we nevertheless insist on interfering, we become legally responsible for that interference. We cannot point to majority opinion, or a written text to defend ourselves. We are always wholly responsible for our actions.

With this in mind, we can look at hypothetical cases to see what would be their likely outcome in a free society.

Let's consider the case of a home intruder. Someone enters our house uninvited, and we end up killing him. The intruder's family decides to sue us for his death.

This may seem like a simple open and shut case where the reasonable arbitrator clears us of our action. However, that would only be the case if we can demonstrate that our action was reasonable. For example, if we were talking about a burglary. However, a kid coming into our house by mistake would be an example of the opposite. It would be very hard to defend our action if that was the case.

Let's say we invite someone into our house. But that person refuses to leave, and we're forced to feed him. Are we allowed to escalate our aggression towards him to the point of murder? The reasonable arbitrator will probably say yes. If all other alternatives are exhausted, murder becomes the ultimate response.

But how would this work if the person invited into our house was a child in need of care? Can we first invite that child, and then subsequently kill him for refusing to leave? Morally speaking, this would be a grave sin. However, a free society makes a distinction between a sin and a prosecutable crime. If the child has no guardians to sue the murderer, there's no way to bring the case to trial, and hence no way to prosecute the murderer.

As reprehensible as the sin may be, there will be no legal action against the murderer because the child has no-one to do this for him. The murderer may be shunned from society, and punished indirectly in this way, but if there's no family with sufficiently close ties to reasonably claim personal damage, there's no-one with any rights to sue for damages. However, if there's as much as one person that can demonstrate sufficient closeness to the child to demand compensation, there's room for a court case.

This brings us to abortion and infanticide in which case the child in question is murdered by its own guardians. A free society will have no way to legally prevent such sins. If the mother and father are in agreement on the matter, no-one can claim damages. However, if either of the child's guardians are in disagreement, a court case can be made. But a free society has many other options to prevent abortions and infanticide. We don't need strict abortion laws in order to prevent abortions.

A free society will have no way to prevent guardians from selling their guardianship to someone else, and since there's a constant demand for adoption, we can assume that most unwilling parents will be able to find alternative guardians. Some of these sales may be exploitative and nasty, but a free market will quickly establish reliable ways to check on the fate of the child after adoption. No-one will sell their guardianship to a sketchy character if there's a well established adoption center available.

But let us for argument sake imagine a case where two mentally disturbed parents insist on torturing their child to death rather than sell their guardianship through an adoption center. How would a free society deal with such a horror?

The answer is easy to imagine. Concerned neighbors will get together and agree to kidnap the child. They will break into the house of the disturbed parents and take the child away from them. This will be a risky venture. They will have to plan it carefully, and they will likely be sued for damages after the fact. However, a successful kidnapping of this kind will not be ruined in court, because no arbitrator will feel obliged to hand the child back to the mentally disturbed parents.

The disturbed parents can argue all they want about property rights and the like. But none of this matters in this type of extremes. All that matters is the golden rule and the cultural norms of society. Held up against this, the concerned neighbors are in their full right to take the child away from its parents, and a reasonable arbitrator will acknowledge this fact.

Porto neighborhood

Notable Deaths in April

With April behind us, we have another month of notable deaths to analyze.

Notable deaths according to Wikipedia

Here are the data points plotted in for the month of April:

---

Deaths among those younger than 70 years of age:

• 19.48% in April 2018
• 21.23% in April 2019
• 17.76% in April 2020
• 22.62% in April 2021
• 22.44% in April 2022

Total deaths:

• 575 in April 2018
• 617 in April 2019
• 1132 in April 2020
• 964 in April 2021
• 655 in April 2022

Deaths weighted for age using a formula that divides old deaths by 10 and multiply young deaths by 4:

• 494 in April 2018
• 573 in April 2019
• 897 in April 2020
• 947 in April 2021
• 654 in April 2022

Here are the raw numbers extracted from Wikipedia's list of notable deaths:

---

April 2022:

• 20s = 5 = 0.77%
• 30s = 9 = 1.38%
• 40s = 31 = 4.75%
• 50s = 37 = 5.67%
• 60s = 75 = 11.66%
• 70s = 169 = 24.69%
• 80s = 201 = 29.91%
• 90s = 126 = 19.33%
• 100+ = 12 = 1.84%

Total = 655; Younger than 70 = 22.44%

April 2021:

• 20s = 6 = 0.62%
• 30s = 15 = 1.56%
• 40s = 27 = 2.80%
• 50s = 56 = 5.81%
• 60s = 114 = 11.83%
• 70s = 238 = 24.69%
• 80s = 314 = 32.57%
• 90s = 179 = 18.57%
• 100+ = 15 = 1.56%

Total = 964; Younger than 70 = 22.62%

April 2020:

• 20s = 8 = 0.71%
• 30s = 14 = 1.24%
• 40s = 20 = 1.77%
• 50s = 47 = 4.15%
• 60s = 112 = 9.89%
• 70s = 273 = 24.12%
• 80s = 409 = 36,13%
• 90s = 238 = 21.02%
• 100+ = 21 = 1.86%

Total = 1132; Younger than 70 = 17.76%

April 2019:

• 20s = 9 = 1.46%
• 30s = 12 = 1.94%
• 40s = 11 = 1.78%
• 50s = 28 = 4.54%
• 60s = 71 = 11.51%
• 70s = 134 = 21.72%
• 80s = 203 = 32.90%
• 90s = 138 = 22.37%
• 100+ = 11 = 1.78%

Total = 617; Younger than 70 = 21.23%

April 2018:

• 20s = 9 = 1.57%
• 30s = 11 = 1.91%
• 40s = 12 = 2.09%
• 50s = 21 = 3.65%
• 60s = 59 = 10.26%
• 70s = 124 = 21.57%
• 80s = 189 = 32.87%
• 90s = 134 = 23.30%
• 100+ = 16 = 2.78%

Total = 575; Younger than 70 = 19.48%

Wikipedia

CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

A Severity Index

Going through Wikipedia's notable deaths, I focus on two numbers. One is the total number of deaths each month, and the other is the percentage of deaths registered by people under 70 year of age.

Deaths among young people are more regrettable than those among older people. Young people have still a lot left to accomplish in life. People in their 50s have on average 30 more years to live, while people in their 80s have on average 5 more years to live. The quality of those last years are are also less. People in their 80s rarely produce much of importance, while those younger than 70 often have much left in them to share with their loved ones and the world at large.

This is the reason I've decided to keep an eye on the percentage distribution of deaths as well as the total. However, when I plot these two numbers into a single graph, I have only subjective measures to use when I compare one month with another. What I need is an objective calculation to denote severity.

The severity index should ideally be calculated in such a way that it fits with the axis denoting total deaths, because that would make for a sensible comparison. We can for instance say that April 2020 have a lot of deaths, but that it wasn't as severe as April 2021, because 2020 had relatively fewer deaths among the young than 2021.

A good severity index should blend in with the totals. It should work as a weighting that adds weight to the young and removes weight from the old.

Having noticed that the average percentage distribution between old and young is around 22% for the young, we see that we can achieve the desired weighting by dividing deaths among the old by 10 and multiplying deaths among the young by 4.

Such a formula will return values in line with the total, and can therefore be plotted against the same axis as the total. However, it values young people 40 times higher than old people, and the question that springs to mind is whether this is a reasonable factor. To answer this, we have to consider the typical situation of the 80 year old as compared to that of a 50 year old.

The typical young person dying is in his mid to late 50s, and the typical old person dying is in his mid 80s. From this alone, we can see that the death of a typical young person can be considered a tragedy, while that of the typical old person is merely life coming to its inevitable end. The life of the old may possibly have been extended by a year or two with additional care. The life of the young was cut short by an average of 30 years, most of them of a high quality.

We can from this conclude that my proposed weighting is in line with our subjective notion of relative value when it comes to years lived.

When we apply this to data collected for April we get the following:

Deaths among those younger than 70 years of age compares to previous years as follows:

• 19.48% in April 2018
• 21.23% in April 2019
• 17.76% in April 2020
• 22.62% in April 2021
• 24.65% in April 2022

When we look at absolute numbers for April we get the following:

• 575 in April 2018
• 617 in April 2019
• 1132 in April 2020
• 964 in April 2021
• 597 in April 2022

Using a severity formula that divides old deaths by 10 and multiplies young deaths by 4 we get the following:

• 494 in April 2018
• 573 in April 2019
• 897 in April 2020
• 947 in April 2021
• 633 in April 2022

When we now compare the absolute numbers with their severity, we get some interesting information:

• April 2020 saw the highest number of deaths. However, April 2021 was more severe.
• April 2022 saw fewer deaths than April 2019. However, April 2022 was more severe.

We are emerging from the pandemic with total deaths back to normal, but with higher severity. If this persists, life expectancy will go down as compared to what it was before the pandemic.

Here are the numbers extracted from Wikipedia:

---

April 2022:

• 20s = 5 = x%
• 30s = 8 = x%
• 40s = 32 = x%
• 50s = 37 = x%
• 60s = 76 = x%
• 70s = 162 = x%
• 80s = 188 = x%
• 90s = 121 = x%
• 100+ = 12 = x%

Total = 641; Younger than 70 = 24.65%

April 2021:

• 20s = 6 = 0.62%
• 30s = 15 = 1.56%
• 40s = 27 = 2.80%
• 50s = 56 = 5.81%
• 60s = 114 = 11.83%
• 70s = 238 = 24.69%
• 80s = 314 = 32.57%
• 90s = 179 = 18.57%
• 100+ = 15 = 1.56%

Total = 964; Younger than 70 = 22.62%

April 2020:

• 20s = 8 = 0.71%
• 30s = 14 = 1.24%
• 40s = 20 = 1.77%
• 50s = 47 = 4.15%
• 60s = 112 = 9.89%
• 70s = 273 = 24.12%
• 80s = 409 = 36,13%
• 90s = 238 = 21.02%
• 100+ = 21 = 1.86%

Total = 1132; Younger than 70 = 17.76%

April 2019:

• 20s = 9 = 1.46%
• 30s = 12 = 1.94%
• 40s = 11 = 1.78%
• 50s = 28 = 4.54%
• 60s = 71 = 11.51%
• 70s = 134 = 21.72%
• 80s = 203 = 32.90%
• 90s = 138 = 22.37%
• 100+ = 11 = 1.78%

Total = 617; Younger than 70 = 21.23%

April 2018:

• 20s = 9 = 1.57%
• 30s = 11 = 1.91%
• 40s = 12 = 2.09%
• 50s = 21 = 3.65%
• 60s = 59 = 10.26%
• 70s = 124 = 21.57%
• 80s = 189 = 32.87%
• 90s = 134 = 23.30%
• 100+ = 16 = 2.78%

Total = 575; Younger than 70 = 19.48%

Wikipedia

CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Notable Deaths in December

I've decided to make a thorough analysis of Wikipedia's notable deaths.

If something out of the ordinary is going on, it should show up in these numbers. Not so much in the absolute numbers of deaths as in the relative numbers of deaths. If there's a spike in the death rate among the relatively young, we can assume that something is not quite right.

This led me to take another look at December 2021, which came out with a relative mortality rate among those under 70 years of age at 26.37% last time I looked at the data. That's a great deal higher than the average of about 22%. It's such an outlier that it indicates that something really bad was going on.

I decided to double-check the numbers, and found that all the numbers had been changed by quite a lot since my last analysis. However, the grand total of deaths ended up exactly the same as last time. Any person looking solely at the total number of deaths will find no change in the data. It's the distribution that has changed.

Old people have been added, and young people removed, so that the relative number of deaths comes out to 21.96%. December is no longer an outlier. It's a typical December month when compared to other years. The only difference is in the totals, which remain elevated when compared to pre-pandemic years:

Deaths among those younger than 70 years of age now compares to previous years as follows:

• 21.16% in December 2018
• 18.89% in December 2019
• 22.14% in December 2020
• 21.96% in December 2021 (26.37%)

December 2020 is worst, with December 2021 a close second.

When we look at absolute numbers we get the following:

• 567 in December 2018
• 646 in December 2019
• 953 in December 2020
• 838 in December 2021

Using a severity formula that divides old deaths by 10 and multiplies young deaths by 4 we get the following:

• 525 in December 2018
• 540 in December 2019
• 918 in December 2020
• 801 in December 2021

December 2020 is worst, with December 2021 second, both in total deaths and in severity.

Here are the numbers extracted from Wikipedia:

---

December 2021:

• 20s = 5 = 1.19%
• 30s = 18 = 2.63%
• 40s = 15 = 2.74%
• 50s = 48 = 6.68%
• 60s = 98 = 13.13%
• 70s = 197 = 21.96%
• 80s = 262 = 29.24%
• 90s = 171 = 19.21%
• 100+ = 24 = 3.22%

Total = 838; Younger than 70 = 21.96%

December 2020:

• 20s = 11 = 1.15%
• 30s = 16 = 1.68%
• 40s = 21 = 2.20%
• 50s = 51 = 5.35%
• 60s = 112 = 11.75%
• 70s = 215 = 22.56%
• 80s = 319 = 33.47%
• 90s = 195 = 20.46%
• 100+ = 13 = 1.36%

Total = 953; Younger than 70 = 22.14%

December 2019:

• 20s = 9 = 1.39%
• 30s = 8 = 1.24%
• 40s = 15 = 2.32%
• 50s = 32 = 4.95%
• 60s = 58 = 8.98%
• 70s = 152 = 23.53%
• 80s = 201 = 31.11%
• 90s = 153 = 23.68%
• 100+ = 18 = 2.79%

Total = 646; Younger than 70 = 18.89%

December 2018:

• 20s = 5 = 0.88%
• 30s = 10 = 1.76%
• 40s = 15 = 2.65%
• 50s = 25 = 4.41%
• 60s = 65 = 11.46%
• 70s = 115 = 20.28%
• 80s = 174 = 30.69%
• 90s = 140 = 24.69%
• 100+ = 18 = 3.17%

Total = 567; Younger than 70 = 21.16%

Wikipedia

CC BY-SA 3.0, Link