An Unappealing Proposition

My youngest son in Norway lives in Drammen where he works as a chef in a restaurant. I called him yesterday to congratulate him on his 25th birthday.

The plague and its associated vaccine came up as a topic in our conversation, so we had the opportunity to compared notes. His impression is that people are starting to lose faith in the narrative. Most of his vaccinated colleagues have suffered some discomfort related to the vaccine, and one got so ill that she had to retire. She lost all strength in her vaccinated arm, and after several months without her strength returning, she was declared permanently disabled by a doctor.

My son's mother has stopped nagging him about getting the vaccine. The pattern is the same as it has been here. The newly vaccinated call on their family members to do the same, but the zeal fades. A few weeks on, and the zeal is completely gone.

Conviction appears to have peaked. A resent poll in Norway came out massively against a proposed vaccination campaign targeting children. However, politicians will likely push their agenda further despite of this.

My son is convinced that all politicians are bought and owned by pharmaceutical corporations, and are therefore continuing their push for control. I think there's more to the story than that, but I like the fact that my son has his own theories, independent of mine. It's the exact thing I hope to see more of.

My son is also following a strategy of not discussing the topic unless called for, and then respond with his honest view on what's going on. This too is in line with what I would recommend. It's great to hear him figure these things out on his own. My hope is that this is happening all over the place, and that it will eventually overwhelm the political elite. Once rumors and stories contrary to the official narrative start appearing everywhere, the game is up, because there's no way to implement an authoritarian agenda without widespread popular support.

The flaw in the current plan to subjugate humanity under totalitarian control is its lack of anything remotely appealing. There's no vision of a communist utopia, or a fascist super race. The sales pitch is a new normal, far inferior to the old normal. Their vision is a dystopian nightmare where everyone will have to take a shot every few months just to retain some basic human rights, and where everybody has to wear masks and do as told by a cold and faceless technocracy.

Furthermore, there are no charismatic leaders. All they got are creeps like Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci and Klaus Schwab. There are no visions of utopia, nor any orators able to stir romantics into action. The entire plan relies on fear and a compliant bureaucracy, and that's not enough to make it succeed. Without passion, totalitarian dreams wither into nothing.

This means that there's little danger of this debacle ever getting to the point where unvaccinated get rounded up and sent to concentration camps. Such actions require widespread popular support, and that's not materializing. The entire scheme relies on spineless wimps, riddled with fear. It's therefore doomed to failure. Especially in light of the alternative, which is a return to liberty.

Klaus Schwab

By Copyright World Economic Forum (www.weforum.org) swiss-image.ch/Photo by Remy Steinegger - https://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/2296517249/, CC BY-SA 2.0, Link

A Cold Summer in Porto

Summer is drawing to an end, and it's clear that this has been the coldest summer in Porto in a long time. I've lived in Porto for 15 years, and I've never experienced a summer this cool. Nor can any locals remember such a cool summer.

This doesn't mean that we've been shivering through the summer. The weather has been great. Neither too hot nor too cold. But that's unusual. We normally see temperatures above 30C for prolonged periods, with no clouds to be seen from mid June until late September. This year, we've had a handful of such days with temperatures otherwise hovering between 20C and 25C, and with plenty of clouds and showers.

I first noticed a tendency towards more clouds and lower temperatures some four years ago. The change was too subtle to warrant much of a mention, but it happened in line with a decline in sun activity. We reached a solar minimum last year, and this year has been particularly cool. If this is the beginning of a grand solar minimum, as is generally expected, this weather pattern may well persist. Summers will be like the ones we've had over the last four years, with clouds, showers, and only a handful of really hot days.

If this is indeed due to a change in solar activity, the same logic should apply to other places. Whatever changes in weather patters that have occurred over the last four years will stick. Places that have been hit by persistent drought will see more of this. The same goes for places that have been hit repeatedly by unusual cold, floods and storms. Whatever the last four years have brought will persist.

Should this pan out globally, we can assume that we have entered a new era that will last a few hundred years, corresponding to the normal duration of a grand solar minimum.

Sun

By DracoLumina17 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Managing a Grey Rhino

Beijing finally stepped in to save Evergrande from immediate default on $300 billion. It did this by removing a regulatory hurdle that has prevented it from renegotiating its debt. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that Beijing blinked, as suggested in this Zerohedge article. It may just as well be a tactical move designed to incur maximum damage on adversaries while ensuring minimum blowback from foreign states.

If Beijing sees Evergrande as a financial weapon, as I believe they do, then it must be carefully managed so that Beijing can claim to be without blame when the ultimate default happens. The default must be linked to factors entirely outside Beijing's control. It mustn't default due to some regulatory hurdle. Rather, it must default due to the normal operations of a free market. In such a case, Beijing's only blame will be in the past, when it allowed Evergrande to load up on more debt than it could handle, and that is too long ago for foreign states to blame Beijing for any knock on effects of Evergrande's eventual default.

This is the sort of maneuvering that Sun Tzu recommends in his Art of War. It draws heavily on the philosophy of Tao that teaches us to take advantage of the forces available to us in the universe. Instead of pushing directly for a desired outcome, we're told to direct the forces of the universe in such a way that this outcome becomes inevitable without us ever pushing very hard for it to happen.

Beijing has not stepped in with direct financial help. It has removed a regulatory hurdle. The Tao is being managed. The default is still going to happen. But it will happen later, and this may cause some westerners and other adversaries of China to step in with more exposure to Evergrande based on a mistaken belief that Beijing has decided to save it from default.

There's no telling what Beijing's actions will be in the future. But it has yet to blink. China's grey rhino is still on the loose. Disaster has not been averted. It has been delayed.

The Tao is in charge of Evergrande's fate. That means that we may see a sudden devastating default, or a series of smaller defaults. There may be endless negotiations and re-negotiations on debt. But as long as Beijing keeps its hands off, the financial fallout will be felt globally, and that is likely to be precisely what Beijing wants. They wants to see devastation without blowback, and their latest move looks like a strep in that direction.

Xi Jinping

By Palácio do Planalto - https://www.flickr.com/photos/palaciodoplanalto/47945730807/, CC BY 2.0, Link

A Culture of Violence

My wife is watching a multi-episode PBS documentary on Afghanistan. It covers Afghan history from the 1960s until today. I'm not very fond of the format, which I find overly sentimental and focused on individual experiences. However, it's not a bad documentary. It covers the most significant episodes, even if it misses the point I would've stressed; namely the importance of culture when it comes to understanding historic events. Instead, there's an implied message of victimhood, as if the history of Afghanistan is nothing but a series of unfortunate circumstances, with freedom being denied them whenever it comes into reach.

Another thing I find difficult to endure is the selection of interviewees. They are all either secular nationalists, or political hacks with ties to the CIA and similar organizations. There's little willingness to see things from the Taliban perspective, or the perspective of die hard Marxists. However, my main thesis when it comes to history can nevertheless be seen on full display. It's there for all to see even if it's not mentioned.

A striking feature of Afghan history is the sheer brutality of it. Whenever some faction gains the upper hand, it suppresses all opposition. It doesn't matter who's in power. They all do this. The king did this (1960s). The Marxists that followed did this (1970s). The secularist did this (1980s). The Taliban did this (1990s). The US supported government did this (2000s). Any attempt at forming some kind of unified government fails. Civil war is therefore permanent.

The root cause of this is a culture heavily influenced by the Muslim idea that no two things of different kinds can have equal value. A man is different from a woman. Hence, man is more worth than a woman. The man in power is different from the man without power. Hence, the man in power is more worth. Muslims are different from Buddhists. Hence, Muslims are more worth. The list is never-ending, and can be applied to all things.

Law and justice is infested with this kind of thinking. There is no equality before the law. The law is either arbitrary, or cast in stone. Monarchs and secular leaders rule by decree. The Taliban rule by Sharia, which is the very definition of law based on the notion that differences in kind equal differences in value.

This leads to confusion related to the idea of freedom. Everybody is out fighting the enemy for the sake of freedom. But when the enemy is defeated, there is immediate squabbling and hustle for power, because freedom is only afforded to those in power. Everybody else have to obey.

This explains in turn the strange mix of self pity and glorification of war that is so common in Muslim countries, and on full display in the PBS documentary about Afghanistan. We can also make the prediction that Afghanistan will never see peace unless it manages to root out the rot in its culture. Without a comprehensive golden rule that has everyone equal before the law, there will never be peace.

Wherever the golden rule is modified, or put aside, there will always be war.

Snipers

By davric - collection personnelle, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Inherent Uncertainties

The world is inherently uncertain. Nobody knows what tomorrow might bring. However, there are a number of things that we do know, and these things can be used to make predictions. They can also be used to shape what tomorrow might look like.

Direct observation combined with an understanding of history and the human psyche are our main tools. Hearsay and narrative, especially when coming from government and their minions in media, should be treated with prejudice. Such stories should be interpreted in light of what they are trying to achieve rather than what they are actually saying. The true message from media is not what they are saying but what they are trying to convince us to do.

When the media tells us that only 10% are skeptical to the vaccine, they are telling us to submit and to abandon our suspicions. The 10% figure is no more trustworthy than the 97% effective figure used to sell the vaccines in the first place. Everything coming from media is a sales pitch. It's propaganda. However, direct observations don't lie nearly as much. Many more than 10% of my friends are skeptical to the vaccine. They have either told me so directly, or they have signaled it in the way they behave.

Most of my vaccinated friends would rather not discuss the merits of the vaccine. They either proclaim it as important and the right thing to do, or they avoid the topic. If asked by a polling service about their feelings, I'm sure they would tell the pollsters that they feel confident and happy about their decision. The 10% figure is not a lie concocted by the pollsters. Rather, it's a product of the human psyche. It reflects a false sense of confidence.

This means that government and media are not as powerful as they appear. The narrative has not been fully internalized. There's a lot of doubt, because everyone knows that the future is uncertain. They also know that direct evidence is not in line with the narrative. There's a great deal of deception everywhere.

The most sinister lie that we're faced with at the moment is the idea that the vaccine has a net positive effect. If not struck down, there's a real danger of increased coercion, because collectivists will see it as morally justifiable. Mandatory vaccination of everybody on a regular basis becomes justifiable in their eyes because it is for the greater good. We must therefore act to strike down this lie, and the way to go about this is through direct observations.

Everyone needs to list a few facts and observations that can be tossed into conversations whenever appropriate, and every one of these should be linked to a short phrase. There's no point in lengthy explanations. What must be achieved is not some sort of enlightenment, but an awakening. People must be made aware of the lies being pushed by the media. We must highlight how their lies conflict with the truths that are hidden in plain sight through direct observation. Letting people know that our personal observations conflict with what the media is telling us, will make others think about their own observations and how they too conflict with the narrative.

We can also toss in some personal musings and speculations so as to encourage others to do the same. We can make predictions about the future based on what we've already seen. This too should be done with short statements. Lengthy explanations are only dished out when asked for.

Here are some of my personal observations, based on raw facts and direct evidence:

• I know very few people who got sick from the flu.
• The only young and healthy who got seriously sick were vaccinated.
• My mother got ill from taking the shot.
• Natural immunity is 13 times better than vaccines in preventing illness from new variants.
• There are more people ill this year than last year.
• People are dropping dead left, right and center.
• The vaccines aren't very effective.
• Official figures can't be trusted.
• Official figures conflict with what I've see with my own eyes.

As for predictions based on my observations, I got another list:

• The vaccinated will get more severely ill than the unvaccinated.
• There will be no end to all the booster shots.
• The vaccinated will get all sorts of illnesses unrelated to the flu.
• There will be new illnesses that target the vaccinated.
• Total deaths for 2021 will be higher than the figures for 2020.
• We're going to see a lot of illnesses and deaths going forward.

There's no point in shouting this from rooftops. It's much more effective to let these musings seep into people's consciousness through casual conversations and the occasional comment on social media. The more this drifts around in society, the more it will stick. The point is to wake people up, and that is best done through the natural network that we're all a part of. A message heard from multiple sources, seemingly unrelated and yet all confirming an idea, is much more powerful than a message shouted at us from above.

Cumulonimbus cloud

By Arnold Paul - Selbst erstelltes Foto, CC BY-SA 2.5, Link

Scaremongering

There's a pandemic brewing in India that will eat our brains and leave 75% of those affected dead. This is the latest scaremongering on the virus front. However, there's a detail to the story that can be turned against those who might see this as an opportunity to create even more damage to society.

The virus in question is called Nipah and has been around since 1998. In all these years, it has failed to become a pandemic. That means that if it ever becomes an issue, its spread can be linked to events that took place in 2021; most notably, the vaccination campaign. We can therefore create a plausible narrative that links the spread of Nipah to the vaccine.

It's clear by now that there's a campaign of fear directed towards us, with the aim to control us. However, any use of Nipah to further such an agenda can be countered by the construction of a plausible counter-narrative. Should the virus emerge in conversations or on social media, we can note that its spread appears to be related to vaccines.

Our counter-narrative will highlight the facts, and can be backed up with rumors of our own making. We can thank ourselves lucky that we're not vaccinated; that our immune-system is intact and prepared. We can use the 3% trick and claim that the virus is nothing to worry about because it only affects a small portion of the population, and that the unvaccinated are spared pretty much completely.

Should anyone respond with fear, we must take care to calm their nerves. Let them know that vaccines wear off over time. If they refrain from taking the boosters, they will get their immune-system back.

The mask of the beast

Irritating Conservatives

The great wall of China is being worn down by tourists. I learned this from a friend that we had over for dinner the other day. He told us this as if it was some kind of catastrophe. But the great wall is already a ruin. What the tourists get to see is a restored section of the wall. What's being worn down is not the original wall, but its restoration. However, I didn't bother to point this out. The man was on a roll, so I let him lecture us further on the horrors of mass tourism.

Next thing up was the price of air tickets. They've been much too low for too long. This would have to stop. At this point, I mentioned the flu as a perfect excuse to make travel both difficult and expensive. But he brushed this aside. This was not about the flu but about sustainability.

Speaking of sustainability, the man went on to lament the fact that a container ship had to cross several oceans to bring a scarf ordered by his daughter all the way from China to Portugal. I had to smile at the thought. A whole container ship crossing oceans to deliver a scarf to his daughter. It conjured up images of utter insanity. However, the only insanity in this was the man's insistence that something had to be done about it.

My only concern with the current state of the economy is that it's fragile. Low prices is not a problem. It's a blessing, and it's borderline suicidal to invite politicians into this to make things more expensive.

Politicians are experts at making life both miserable and expensive, so they will be more than happy to help out in this respect if asked to do so. However, they can only do this if enough people beg for it, so they are constantly pushing narratives to defend the sort of waste that they can bestow upon the world. These narratives are picked up by friends in the media who in turn make scary stories about climate change and waste to persuade the romantics, and stories about wear and tear to persuade the conservatives.

The romantics and conservatives end up begging for regulations, and the politicians step in. However, there never was a problem in the first place. It's all in the minds of people. The oceans aren't overflowing with waste, as a romantic friend of ours discovered the other day when she was frustrated in her search for garbage littering the shores of Portugal. She was so convinced that there was a huge waste problem related to the oceans that she went for a walk with her children to collect garbage from the beach. But she found next to nothing.

Furthermore, things are cheap because they are made efficiently, and efficiency implies little waste. Industry is never designed to be wasteful; quite the opposite. Hence, there's nothing that a politician can do to improve the environment. All they can do is to protect certain industries at the expense of everybody else. China protects polluters by denying people the right to sue for damages caused by pollution of air and water. Western governments protect electric car industries and wind farms by turning a blind eye to the damage created to wildlife and nature due to this type of unsustainable sustainability.

But the dumbest of all ideas is the myth that humans are harmful to our planet and ourselves.

Well managed nature is superior to untended nature. My balcony is full of green plants and insects due to my management. Without my interference, our balcony would be a barren desert. Likewise, a well tended forest has more wildlife than an untended forest. A well tended forest doesn't burn because it's kept tidy. A well tended forest is rich in plants and wildlife. It's also safe and pleasant for those who live near it.

A well tended forest isn't cut down indiscriminately. That only happens in countries where property rights are weak. Countries like Norway, where property rights are strong, have well tended forests. It's in countries like Brazil, where property rights are fleeting, that we see mass deforestation with little willingness to plant new forest. Because there's no point in investing in something that may be confiscated.

Yet, the stupidest of all these dumb ideas must be the idea that buildings and artifacts need government regulations. These are things made by people. This has nothing to do with mother Earth, and everything to do with value. Why does anyone think that a bureaucracy is better suited to appreciate value than the owners of a property or artifact?

The great wall of China was restored for the purpose of tourism. The point was to get a lot of people up to the restored section to have a look at it and spend some money, so the fact that it's wearing down is proof of success. All that's needed in order to continue the success is to restore the worn down elements. That's it.

As for any old building in a town, the owner would be stupid to make something hideous of it. That would reduce the value of the building. We don't need bureaucrats to tell us this. The same goes for ancient coins and treasures found on private land. The finder will most certainly not melt it down or destroy it. It will be brought to an auction and a collector will buy it, who in tern will take good care of it. There are private museums where such treasures are displayed. They are no worse at taking care of their treasures than a state run museum; on the contrary. Private owners are always the most caring, because the treasures are linked to their wealth and social status. Bureaucrats on the other hand, have no such incentive to take extra care of things.

As for the old stuff that private entrepreneurs find of little value, there's little to no harm in having it torn down. We can't preserve everything. Some things must go in order to make room for new stuff, and what goes up is almost always superior to what's torn down. I live in a town that's been around for thousands of years. Imagine the squalor that would exist if nothing was ever replaced.

There's no reason to regulate buildings for their appearance either. Entrepreneurs seek to maximize their profits, so they have to make whatever they are putting up sufficiently appealing to attract buyers. They will do this on their own. They don't need bureaucrats to tell them the obvious.

Rome

By Canaletto - Web Gallery of Art:   Image  Info about artwork, Public Domain, Link