By Ajit Varki: Why Men Are Destroying the Planet (Planet: Critical Interview)

Dr. Ajit Varki is a co-originator of the Mind Over Reality Transition (MORT) theory which explains why my species exists with its uniquely power intelligence, and why, despite this intelligence, is unable to see and act on its obvious state of overshoot that threatens the survival of itself and many other species.

I started this blog in 2013 to spread awareness of Dr. Varki’s theory because I believe all possible paths to reducing the coming suffering caused by overshoot must start with an understanding of MORT.

Evidence for this is that to date all environmental initiatives, climate change agreements, energy transition plans, degrowth movements, etc. have utterly failed to change our trajectory, and I’m certain will continue to fail, unless MORT is acknowledged.

It’s simply not possible to craft a useful to response to our overshoot reality until the majority becomes aware that a powerful genetic force is blocking its ability to see the reality.

Unfortunately, there’s a Catch-22: MORT predicts that MORT will be denied and therefore if MORT is correct then MORT will never be acknowledged.

Perhaps someone smarter than me will figure out a path around this Catch-22, I don’t know. Regardless, I still find value in MORT because it keeps me sane by providing a scientific explanation for why so many are so blind to so much that is so obvious.

The Catch-22 may explain why after 10 years of work I have built very little momentum and have scant few successes at spreading awareness of MORT into the 99% of citizens and leaders that aggressively deny reality.

The last interview with Dr. Ajit Varki occurred in 2017 at my prompting by Alex Smith of Radio Ecoshock. Unfortunately, as predicted by MORT, Alex shortly thereafter forgot about MORT and has spent the last 6 years reporting on the coming climate disaster and wondering why we do nothing meaningful about it. If you listen to the interview you will see that Alex at the time understood the answer, then his brain subsequently blocked this understanding.

I was pleased to learn that Varki was interviewed yesterday by Rachel Donald of Planet: Critical. Thank you to Rachel for her initiative, I played no role in setting up this interview. I have been impressed by some of Rachel’s prior work such as this interview she did with Joseph Merz.

Let’s hope that Rachel’s denial genes are sufficiently defective, like mine, so that she helps to spread the MORT message on an ongoing basis. MORT is central to everything that Rachel reports on so we’ll know shortly if she has normal denial genes and is captured by the Catch-22.

In the interview Varki introduces a new idea by proposing that we put more females in positions of power. Apparently females tend to deny reality less than males, as demonstrated by their higher rate of depression, and are more empathetic, both qualities we desperately need today.

Given the 50/50 polarized nature of politics today it does not take much of a voting block to swing an outcome. Perhaps if we target females with overshoot awareness they will abandon useless left/right politics and vote as a block for female leaders that support the only policy that will reduce suffering and improve every problem we face: population reduction.

Who’s in denial now? 🙂

If you are unfamiliar with the MORT theory, this is a very nice introduction by Dr. Varki:

If you want more detail on MORT, this 2019 paper by Dr. Varki is the best source, as it expands and clarifies the ideas presented in his 2013 book.

250 thoughts on “By Ajit Varki: Why Men Are Destroying the Planet (Planet: Critical Interview)”

  1. I do not believe that women in our current social system can make the drastic changes, that would be needed to avert a collapse. The women who are intelligent enough to understand our predicament will not give themselves up as front figures to be mentioned in the same breath as our current supreme league of incompetence (Merkel, Von der Leyen, Baerbock, Ardern, Truss,…).

    It is the cultural cycle, which brought us were we are and we are doomed to bring it to an end, which we are currently witnessing live. This decline is inherent in every cultural cycle, we can’t avert it – it was already so with the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Mayans…. What goes up, must come down. Unfortunately, this time we messed up the whole planet with our civilizational achievements.

    After that, there is a good chance that people will be organized into small tribal-like units led by women. The men can then go back to foraging in groups, while the women keep the clan going…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yeh, you’re probably right.

      To your examples of women with political power I would add Victoria “fuck the EU” Nuland who is the mastermind behind the plan to provoke Russia into war, and Hillary “we came, he died” Clinton.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Recent news from China, as well as Europe and North America, says that birth rates are collapsing far below the replacement rate. This is always presented as a challenge and/or disaster, but it’s exactly what we need if we are to trend toward a steady-state world economy with a substantially smaller population. I hope that it’s sign that the People are out in front of their Leaders, taking the matter of resource depletion and pollution control into their own hands in the one most effective way. It may lead to some awkward moments as we adjust, but I’d choose it over trench warfare and/or pandemic disease any time.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Exactly. Without our reality denial blinders population reduction suddenly switches from an evil unspeakable idea to the most important, rational, compassionate, and obvious thing we must do to prepare for resource depletion and to protect what’s left of the planet’s ecosystems.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I felt sorry for Rachel throughout that interview. She was articulate and sadly Dr. Varki was not. Rachel with all her effort was trying to move the interview along rather than having “dead air”. Dr. Varki seemed depressed to some extent, as he said. Maybe that’s just a fact of getting old? OR not having any positive responses (in the larger scientific culture) to MORT/denial over many years? (we don’t count as there appear to be too few of us who understand the theory). I do wish people who are aware of MORT/denial would also push population reduction. I also am not sure that just putting women in power changes anything. As you all enumerated above we have had plenty of bad female leaders.
    What the MORT/denial theory needs is an articulate cultural icon with a megaphone, i.e. a demagogue? Probably is too late for anything to stop collapse and save some remnant of civilization.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree with all you said. I didn’t want to comment on Dr. Varki’s clarity in the main post but something has clearly changed. Let’s hope he simply didn’t have enough sleep. I detected he is depressed about understanding the implications of his theory.


      1. I received a note today from Dr. Varki saying that “Depressive Realism has superseded my Optimism Bias”.

        He is not happy with his performances on the Rachel Donald and yet to be published Nate Hagens interviews. Because of this he discouraged both from publishing. Personal and profession pressures unfortunately prevent him from redoing them.

        I do not know if Nate has decided to proceed with publishing.

        Dr. Varki sent me some additional material and encouraged me to do with it as I see fit. I will review it and decide what to do.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. I think it’s helpful to temper depressive realism with a sense of humour. This is something Tim Watkins seems to have figured out. I hope Dr Varki feels he can get through this time and keep going. He’s got an important story to tell

          Liked by 1 person

  4. Varki’s politics suggest a defect in his theory. The idea that women would run the work is naive, especially considering some of the examples he cites – Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand as a prime example. I can’t think of a single female political leader who is ipso facto better than a male – the curren Scandinavian female leader, like Ardern, is part of the woke squad pushing the Global fascist transition proposed, activated, by the World Economic Forum. He says men are the source of the trouble – he mentions Putin as a prime example, totally ignoring the role of the Biden admin, “intelligence agencies and NATO powers’ role in provoking the Ukraine war. Failure to look at the political roles of troublesome males, including of those whose roles are covert and deceptive, especially when so organised, makes this analysis incomplete.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I also heard some chaff with Dr. Varki’s wheat including I think the words “vaccine denial”. Hopefully he was referring to traditional live attenuated vaccines and not novel untested mRNA technologies.

      I agree with your comments about current female leaders. Perhaps females on average have less genetic denial but those who run for office seem to behave like men to get elected.

      Dr. Varki’s proposal for putting women in charge smelled like desperation to offer any constructive idea rather than simply saying we are screwed.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I’m not a Jacinda fan but I’m astounded at the way she seems to have become the sole focus of all the ire directed at politicians. I don’t think she’s the least empathetic leader we’ve had in a long time but she is typical of that trait in all so-called leaders.


        1. Jacinda admitted to willingly creating a 2-tier society with the vaccine mandates regardless of public health benefit with a sneer on her face.. ruined peoples lives and livelihoods based on a series of calculated lies and misinformation techniques and supported behavior levers and censorship to push dangerous drugs like the rest of the Western leaders. She deserves all the ire she receives. Mike, from the beginning on OFW you consistently erred on the side of the experts and stuck with the prevailing narratives on the safety of the vaccines. You drew ire when you commented that there was nothing wrong with getting vaccinated to participate in normal life. You come across as understated and thoughtful on these important matters but I believe you are deliberately obtuse. I don’t trust you.


          1. Very little of that is an accurate characterisation of my activity on OFW. If I followed the official narrative in some aspects, I didn’t in others, because I looked at what science was available at the time. Certainly my position on the vaccines has changed, as the data came in. I never blindly follow the official narrative, whatever you may think. But it’s sad that you continue to push a false lie about my position on getting vaccinated to participate in normal life. Your characterisation of that, in itself, is cherry picked and I explained how that comment came about but most of those who frequent the comments section are only interested in trying to ridicule anyone who doesn’t follow along. There is almost no interest in calm discussion there.

            It’s sad that you chose to come here just to insult me but it would certainly be unsurprising from most OFW commenters.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Mike, I too got vaccinated because I thought it was the best decision at the time. I was very wary of conspiracy theories re vaccines. Many of the OFW commenters are so rude, that’s why I barely ever comment there

              Liked by 1 person

          2. Your post started off so well, then descended into character assassination. You provided no links to support your accusations. There are millions of people that ‘believed’ the excrement promulgated by governments and main-stream-media and later tempered their views (e.g. Dr John Campbell on

            Why do you feel compelled to share your ‘beliefs’ and details of who you don’t trust?

            Liked by 1 person

            1. That gets to a core issue that I still don’t know what is true. Were Trudeau & Jacinda et. al. conspirators or dupes? Given that they probably injected themselves and their children I’m thinking dupes but I’m not sure.

              Liked by 1 person

  5. Some years ago, one of the doomer blogs (that guy in Alaska?) ran a survey, asking readers to indicate which of the Meyers Briggs personality categories they fell into. From my memory, something like 70-80% were either INTP or INTJ (The Architects, Logicians, Thinkers. Names do not refer to occupations). Also, something like 80+% were male.

    From experience, my guess is that there is also a mostly male audience for your web blog, and some the other “doomer” blogs that some of us read.

    Totally anecdotal, but the women in my life really do not like hearing about existential threats, particularly if there is no solution on offer. (You can talk about climate change only if you can offer “green” energy as a solution!) But in daily life these women gladly embrace the emotional pain of other individual human beings, and they will act on that at a personal level to help fellow human beings, or through charity to other human beings they do not know.

    Thought: Maybe, I think, “empathy” can be the wrong emotion for driving the making/taking of hard decisions about life, especially between societal “choices” where there are no solutions only choices. The response to that might be that we must extend our circle of empathy and trust beyond ourselves, family, and close friends, to the wider human and non-human world, and make decisions from that context. A few people seem to be able to expand their awareness in this way. But most cannot, or do not. I doubt humans have the cognitive capacity to do so.

    Well, I have offered nothing useful here in terms of solutions, just a rejoinder to some of the ideas in the post above. Apologies.

    (P.S. I don’t think putting only INTPs or INTJs in charge would solve anything. But interesting question as to whether these personality types actually have less empathy than others, enabling their more logical thinking style.)


    1. No need to apologize, you always say something interesting.

      I don’t have anything useful to say about the Meyers Briggs stuff. For some reason my brain blocks understanding it, just like obtuse poetry.


      1. The Myers Briggs tests/personality types are poo-pahed by some and do read at first a bit like an astrology chart. Weird however, that there is such a strong correlation with some personality types and readers of certain blogs. Maybe the deeper correlation is around intelligence levels as hinted at in the Doomstead Diner thread linked in the comment below. (Thanks.)

        So what if everybody was more intelligent, would this help solve our problems, or make it easier to take decisions on hard choices? Say for example if the entire population was moved one standard deviation higher on intelligence tests.

        Some people have asked that question in other contexts. The responses are usually vociferous attack for even raising the question, citing eugenics, etc. Given the past history of nationalism, racism, etc. such gut reactions to the question are probably warranted.

        My gut answer to the question is no, having a more intelligent population (as defined by IQ or similar tests) will not solve problems of resource consumption, depletion, and waste products. But it might give rise to a group of people who think they have the right to make those decisions, in what THEY regard as in the best interests. Sci Fi stuff.

        IF we can keep the lights on industrial civilization another 20 or 30 years, we could be headed toward indirectly answering this question anyway. We could see the widespread introduction of artificial intelligence, machine-brain interfaces, a full detailing of the human genome, and genetic editing becoming technically practical and widespread. Etc.

        The AI chat machines are biased right now, but maybe one day those machines give very clear unambiguous answers to questions about the human future.


        1. To me it looks like intelligence is not the barrier. Look at my list of famous polymaths in denial. These people are super smart and super educated with a wide command of topics, yet every one is blind to anything associated with limits and overshoot. They’re not only blind but if you approach them with facts about limits and overshoot they aggressively deny those facts. In other words, their brains are incapable of learning about overshoot.

          How will a wise AI help if no one believes what it says?


        2. it’s not intelligence ie cleverness that counts, it’s awareness ie consciousness that counts imo. that’s the journey we’re on. the evolution of consciousness and we’ve run out of time.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. The attraction of the Briggs-Meyer 16 personality profiles scheme is, aside from its Jungian roots, it offers one comparison with famous people of each personality type, but that’s as far as it goes. Kind of narcissistic and a bit like reading tarot or tea-leaves. “I’m like Einstein, or Benjamin Franklin!”, and so on. I find the Big-5 Personality test (of which much maligned and theatrical Jordan Peterson is a developer) far, far more useful – it is based in the real (developing) science of psychometrics, and measures the 5 major psychological personality traits (and their subtraits) on a scale of 100, and the finer points of interaction of each of the 5 major traits – Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism – OCEAN). I did it and I learnt stuff about myself I had no inkling of, even after registering as an INFJ and earlier as a INTJ several times on the Briggs-Meyer test (studying life stage theory and life-long learning styles helps explain why ones personality profile changes over time). Both tests tell me I’ve always had my head in the clouds, (busily clearing a path through the cloud of unknowing), as every practical woman in my life repeatedly reproved me of – I thought I was doing a good job and that like me it was vital they know – but universal gender differences may be helpful here, when it comes to considering salvation by female leadership – from recall these difference are totally absent from the Briggs-Meyer analysis, other than nostrums like “women are more empathetic” (true to some extent). The only significant differences (on average) between men and women are in traits Agreeableness (men are on average 20% more disagreeable than women), and Neuroticism – sensitivity to negative emotion (women are on average 20% higher in neuroticism than men. In all other traits, and subtraits, the average differences are less than 5% (no significant difference at a population level).

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Thanks for explaining why my brain is allergic to Briggs-Meyer. It looks like you are saying something important about the usefulness of female leadership for our overshoot predicament but I can’t tell if you are arguing for or against Varki’s proposal.


      1. I’m an INTF. I find this personality thing very interesting. We did an informal survey on the Peak Oil Facebook group, and most people were INTJ. Considering how small a % of total population these personality types are (2.1%), it is an interesting signal that they are over-represented in the peak oil/climate change/end of civ discussion.

        I is for Introversion.
        N is for Intuition – poorly named – but stands for “big picture thinking”. Enjoying ideas and concepts. Rather than accepting reality is what you see or what you are told.
        T is for Thinking – logical reasoning to decide rather than basing on feelings. Linear thought patterning.
        J is for Judging – values order, structure, wants things settled.

        Rob, would be interesting for you to test yourself. You may be an INTJ as well 😉


          1. Typo fixed.

            I’m definitely introverted, many days pass without me speaking a single word to another person. Sounds like I’m N because I enjoy (but am not necessarily good at) connecting dots to understand systems. Probably T, I graduated top of my class with honors EE. Definitely hyper J, I’m too embarrassed to explain how I organize my life.

            So INTJ I am.

            Do you have any speculations on a relationship between defective denial genes and INTJ?

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Your personality type is meant to be fixed, so would indicate some genetic component. But personality testing isn’t exactly good science 🙂 I’m going to mull on this


  6. I’ve been trying to think of the most compelling, succinct, and difficult to rebut argument that our leaders are lying to us about mRNA. Here’s my first attempt.

    Q: What’s the most useful, easy to collect, unambiguous, and unbiasable health statistic?

    A: All-cause mortality. (Because it’s hard to screw up counting dead vs. alive)

    If all-cause mortality vaxed vs. unvaxed supported the claim that mRNA is safe and effective, the data would be front and center in all official covid communications.

    No government in the world reports vaxed vs. unvaxed all-cause mortality.

    The conclusion is obvious.

    P.S. Here’s the denial spin:

    Q: Why aren’t the covidiots demanding all-cause mortality data to support their views?

    A: Because they don’t want to know the truth.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Well I’m looking forward to watching the series. I might even subscribe to Netflix for a few days to watch it if I have to.


  8. I believe that denial or as I call it willful ignorance is definitely a thing. There is no possible way anyone can claim that it is a genetic trait…thats just ignorant.

    It is real and it is rampant but it is almost entirely an anglo western civ perspective. It also happens to be the #1 population on the planet that has been buried is massive lies from birth to the point that they are totally schizophrenic.

    The current generation, the millennials and those younger have never known a world without massive lied and delusion. They have never known real news, real journalism, basic truths. They honestly and truly believe in the ever increasing magic of technology providing infinite resources and a endless future of growth. It isn’t denial, it is what they have been taught, programed to believe since birth.

    There are countless examples of indigenous cultures thriving for millenia while facing all of the harsh cold truths of the natural planet

    What is genetic is mans potential to misbehave, to be greedy, selfish, violent, just plain evil. We know this about ourselves. We have known it for more than 10,000 years and we have always made conscious effort to structure ourselves in such a way as to discourage that kind of behaviour, or at least to make certain we do not encourage it.

    A small faction of humanity got the upperhand and have aggressively, violently, but covertly structured a system of control designed to bring out the worst in humanity and have successfully applied it to the world for the last 100+ years. They did it in the name of freedom, democracy, and most of all anti-communism, anti-socialism, in short anti-equality.

    Their success has been largely due to their ability to control the narrative aka LIE! Just look at what is coming out with the twitter files although there is really nothing new there for those who pay attention.

    This latest book gives some damning info if you can spot it in this interview;


    1. I think its possible for some of your points to be true without MORT being false.

      Dr. Varki would like someone to slay his theory. If you have a fact that kills MORT I will pass it on to Dr. Varki and will publish his response here.

      If you turn out to be right you’ll get credit for shutting this blog down.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. As I said denial is absolutely and obviously a thing and it is a thing worth sussing out so I would never want to shut down your blog.

        I believe it is a demonstrably true fact that one can not deny something that they do not know.


        1. You said, “There is no possible way anyone can claim that it is a genetic trait…thats just ignorant.”

          Those are strong words that if true would invalidate the purpose of this blog and would disprove Dr. Varki’s MORT theory.

          Please provide a fact to support your statement and I will pass it on to Dr. Varki.

          Suggest you use language appropriate for a scientific discussion or Varki may ignore you for being rude.


          1. “Denial or abnegation (German: Verleugnung, Verneinung) is a psychological defense mechanism postulated by psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.” (Freud 1924/1961).

            Calling denial genetic and the way that you choose to interpret that implies that humans have no control over it, that it is inevitable. Denial is no more inevitable that greed, Narcissism, lying, hating, and dozens more bad behaviors. Then there is all of the good behavior including courage which is the opposite of denial.

            Again I agree that denial is happening and indeed is increasing as bad things are increasing but if you look you will see that courage is also increasing. I see it everywhere you seem to see denial everywhere, I see both as rational human behavior.

            The bigger problem, the reason that “no one is doing anything” which isn’t completely true by the way, is that the global population, especially the global west, is and has been lied to for so long and so completely that they, the vast majority of the population simply do not have the proper information they need to make the right choices. So they are lied to and therefor ignorant and then we berate them for being ignorant. They are not ignorant, they didn’t choose to be ignorant, they don’t even know they are ignorant, so how can they then be in denial.

            There are much bigger and more accurate reasons for inaction. In addition to ignorance there is the simple fact that …everyone has to go to work in the morning!

            I believe that both you and Prof. Varki want to believe that denial is inevitable as a coping mechanism to deal with collapse. It is a way of stating that there is no alternative to collapse, which by the way is a huge and growing bad behavior used to absolve oneself of responsibility and action. There are a growing number of people selling the idea that this is just how it is, it was always going to be this way, there is nothing anyone could have done to change this outcome, etc. I say BS!

            Read about Nicaragua after finally shaking off the shackles of empire. They are rated one of the happiest populations on the planet, their per capita income and carbon footprint are a tiny fraction of that of the global west.

            I am not saying what is happening in the global south or eurasia is good. Their exponential growth that is really taking off spells disaster for the planet but again it is because they are not allowed to have the proper information to do otherwise. Why do you think that is?


            1. Thanks for clarifying your beliefs. I think I understand.

              This feels like deja vu when I had a heated debate with the deceased godfather of the doomer community Jay Hanson. In the end I discovered Hanson did not understand the core ideas of MORT and so was arguing against something that did not exist. Unfortunately he had very poor ethics and deleted his tracks to hide the fact he did not understand, so I quit his group.

              You say Varki and I want to believe that denial is inevitable as a coping mechanism to deal with collapse. That’s incorrect.

              Varki and I are trying to understand why, when there are many intelligent social animals on this planet, and a huge fitness advantage for doing so, only one species evolved an extended theory of mind?

              We are also trying to understand why, when overshoot is so obvious and so important, there are so few people capable of seeing it, and even when presented with clear evidence by competent experts, aggressively deny that evidence.

              I personally am also interested in why there is only one species on this planet that has religions and gods.

              MORT hypothesizes there is a barrier to evolving an extended theory of mind that results from awareness of mortality. To break through the barrier an improbable double mutation for an extended theory of mind plus a tendency to deny death must occur. Each trait on it’s own is maladaptive but when combined created a super-species that now dominates the planet.

              Varki explored possible ways evolution could deny death and concluded it was too specific to evolve quickly. It’s much easier to tweak a module in the brain to deny all unpleasant realities, including death, which explains why we also deny overshoot.

              MORT thus explains the existence of a singularly intelligent species, and why that species is unable to use its intelligence to constrain itself from self-destruction, and why that species has gods and religions which are decorations we created to dress up our denial of death.

              P.S. Religions are also helpful for improving the fitness of tribes, so there are reasons other than MORT for their existence, but it takes MORT to explain why every single one of our thousands of religions has denial of death at its core. Without MORT there’s no reason a religion needs to deny death and could be based on any wacky story.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. All of your deductions which supposedly ONLY lead to denial being genetic, a gene function of the brain, can easily be explained by lies. Big lies applied on a constant basis, insinuating its self into every facet of society for millenia.

                Yours and Varkis arguments boil down to the classic economist argument of “all things being equal” and “assuming everyone fully understands the whole picture”, neither of which exists.

                Religion is a LIE…all of them. The #1 driver of behavior, which denial is along with all other human behavior, is a constant narrative fully saturated with lies. No one can possibly come to any conclusions about human behavior in this environment, which by the way has been going on since the beginning of humanity.

                You want to blame something blame the tiny, tiny % of the population that perpetuates massive society wide LIES and take them out on a seal hunt in the Arctic.

                Look I know I have zero chance of getting through to you on this issue. I can’t get hardly anyone to acknowledge the depth and effect of generations of deep lies. Almost no one understands how all pervasive the lies and outright evil have defined life on the planet. Most DENY that whole concept.
                That does not mean that denial is the issue, its the LIES.

                Virtually all social critique and analysis completely ignores the effect of generations of lies piled on civil society from K thru ….hospice. Don’t you think that that would tend to affect people?

                Again I will emphasise my main argument against Genetic Denial as an issue. The majority of the population of western civ, (which is the demographic that this argument is focused on because most other cultures embrace death) simply do not have the information so can not possibily be accused of denial. There are plenty of people who do have the information and choose to deny it but they are a tiny minority.


                1. We seem to be talking past each other.

                  I’m not arguing against the presence of lies. I’m saying genetic denial of unpleasant realities created our species and explains many unique characteristics of humans.

                  One of many reasons we lie, but of course not the only reason, is that we deny unpleasant realities.

                  If you’d like to kill MORT the best evidence for me (maybe not for Varki) would be to find a religion that does not believe in life after death. You seem to be implying you know of such religions.

                  Please name some religions that do not believe in some form of life after death.


                  1. I am saying all religions are lies. I am also saying that many cultures through out the ages embrace death not because of the promise of life after but simply as acknowledging the fact that there is birth, life, and death. Duh! There is also ONLY male and female. Duh! The RoW laughs at the west for proposing otherwise.

                    Sure there are dozens of effed up religions but that is hardly proof of genetic denial.

                    If religion is your only parameter for proof or disproof of MORT then I give up.

                    I agree we are talking past each other as you have not addressed any of the points of my discussion.

                    “…denial of unpleasant realities created our species…” Massive claim without any scientific, genetic proof. It would be like stating that greed created our species and explains many unique characteristics of humans, or avaris, or cheating, or stealing, or selfishness, or any one of a dozen human behaviors.

                    Most of what denial is is lack of courage and I agree it is rampant but hardly a trait that furthered the evolution of humans.


                    1. I see you backed away from your claim that there are religions that do not believe in life after death.

                      I also see, like with Jay Hanson, you do not understand what you are arguing against. I recommend you watch the video and read the paper by Dr. Varki that I linked to in the post above.

                      My guess is that you have normal denial genes and find comfort in the idea that we can solve our problems if only we did something about the bad powerful people telling us lies.

                      Most people share your view.

                      There’s no need to deny the existence of bad people because that can be fixed with political will. Genetic causes of our problems, on the other hand, are difficult to fix and so are very unpleasant requiring the denial module to kick in.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    2. Rob – I never said I believe that there are religions that do not believe in life after death. What I have always said is there are countless indigenous cultures who do not believe their is life after death. They do not consider their beliefs as “religion” that is a very alien concept to most of the history of humans.

                      Again you dance around my logical, scientific data, physical reality based arguments and insist that it just is…

                      Your last statement below is just pitiful. It boils down to “I know you are but what am I”.

                      Blaming it all on genetic causes allows you to not have to address the issue. When has anything ever been addressed and ‘fixed” with political will. Stop trying to rationalise your own personal inclination to sink into denial. Man up, put down your purse and grow a pair.


                2. You want me to be scientific, I have seen the book…where is the denial gene? Has it been sequenced?

                  I communicated with Jay also and found him to be highly intelligent but completely stuck in his own theory, not unlike some folks here.

                  I seem to be more “scientific” that most in this discussion. I look at the data, what has happened and is happening in the real physical world and it is LIES up one side and down the other. Prove me wrong.

                  If you have followed and or researched the concept of “manufactured consent” which is real and all pervasive, you would understand the concept of manufactured denial. Any and all human behavior is elicited. TPTB understands this implicitly and uses it to their benefit. If you don;t understand this “you know nothing John Snow”.


                  1. IMO calling people down, ‘pitiful’, ignorant, incapable of simple understanding is the fallacy of ad hominem attacks and may explain why Jef has not been able to convince reasoning people to his view.
                    I have not seen a definition of terms in this most enduring thread: genetic for instance. If it is a genetic trait of a species, is it immutable, like opposing thumb or eyes on the front? or more like handedness or giftedness? Is someone’s capacity as a musical genius or engineering virtuoso also genetic, but which may go undetected and undeveloped. What about epigenetic, aka environmental influences. That famous woman biologist married to Carl Sagan who developed the theory of epigenetics showed that simple bacteria mutated in their environment to be able to survive. Means to me that genetics are not immutable and that there is a spectrum of traits we call genetic, some unchangeable, some less so.
                    Lies are a form of denial, deceitfulness is a tactic for survival, growth, power, control. How often am I deceiving myself, for better or worse? Self-deception is being in error about what will make me happy, ie is more stuff the answer? How about infinite growth on a finite planet? Indeed that one makes me think some things can be a deception in one age and not in another, practically speaking.
                    I’ve never gone looking or come across a study that says all religions are inherently in denial about death. I have been reading Marcus Aurelius (Meditations, 170AD) recently though, and he is clear that death is nothing to fret about. I understand that is a stoic philosophy. granted we could quibble when a religion is/is not a philosophy. But I have read in the vedic and yogic literature ie early hindu, or even mystical hinduism, (I differentiate between the everyday garden variety of religion and the esoteric wisdom teachings that are more difficult to grasp). Death is certainly not denied or feared or resisted in the esoteric teachings i have read, like the yoga sutras of Patanjili or the Gita. But fear of death is described there as one of the obstacles to higher consciousness.
                    Another term: consciousness, barely able to be parameterized. But we know from historical accounts that great souls have existed and still exist. Not just in India and Arabia. Even the Catholic church has/had it’s bona fide saints. Think George Fox and John Woolman for examples of protestant great souls. Great souls to me demonstrate higher consciousness, and that too is a spectrum. Ken Wilber did an admirable job of trying to map that spectrum.
                    Finally and carrying on from 5, maybe deceitfulness and denial of death are not binary, maybe they are analog across a spectrum so it’s not possible to argue that the tendency to deceive or deny is hard wired genetically after all.

                    thanks for this thread, Rob and Jef, I treasure the integrity of this blog to persistently seek truth.


                    1. I had 6 points numbered in post to make it easier to follow, that formatting got erased somehow. here is:
                      1. IMO calling people down

                      I have not seen a definition
                      Lies are a form of denial, deceitfulness is a tactic for survival
                      I’ve never gone looking or come across a study that says all religions are inherently in denial about death.
                      Another term: consciousness, barely able to be parameterized.
                      Finally and carrying on from 5, maybe deceitfulness and denial of death are not binary,

                      thanks for this thread, Rob and Jeb, I treasure the integrity of this blog to persistently seek truth.


  9. This is good for a chuckle. Anyone following this story know if it is a big deal or not?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Karl Denninger explains what’s going on.

      In summary, when there’s a lot of leverage in the system, and laws are passed to encourage “fake” economic growth, and you have regulators that don’t do their jobs, and interest rates go up, then things break.

      This morning I heard on my daily news feed, “this time is different” because we learned from the 2008 GFC.

      Those words planted by our “leaders” tell me more is coming.

      It’s a sad world when to understand reality you have to invert what the news media says.


      1. Yeah, I read Karl this morning too and have followed this for a few days on Zero Hedge and Wolf Street. Quite a few divergent opinions out there. Some think this is the “Lehman” moment when the system’s wheels start to fall off. Some, like Zero Hedge generally think this means that Powel will pivot and lower rates to save the other banks (they of course didn’t think Powel would raise rates and kill the everything bubble that has made all of us (substitute 0.1%) all so rich;)).
        However, this might be the “Bear Stearns” moment and everyone (in power) breathes a sigh of relief and we all go back to faking money, GDP, inflation, growth (all things financial) until it all really blows up a few months later in a “Lehman” moment.
        I’m really waiting for Mac10 to prognosticate – he’s more fun than all the rest.


  10. Probably the best read on the Silicon Valley Bank fiasco is:

    Even more in depth is this link from within the above article:

    Both of these writers know a lot more than me. It’s still up in the air as to whether this is Lehman or Bear Stearns. But at least according to Tooze, Asia is where the problems lie.



    1. I have some, I’ll look tomorrow to see how much. Couple of months ago I bought a radiation dosimeter. I guess if I ever have to use it I just as soon be dead.;)


      1. Thanks, looks like the dose is 130mg (1 pill) per day but not sure how many days to fill up the thyroid nor how long it stays filled.

        Don’t think Vancouver Island will be a target but when LA and SF are vaporized we may get some fallout drifting north.


      2. I have 200 each of 65 mg of potassium iodide. The bottle says two a day for an adult for as long as you have a risk of radiation in the environment. In other words, it would probably mitigate your worst exposure if it’s a single incident where the exposure dissipates, but probably not help much in a nuclear winter- where we’re all be dead in time.


    2. May not be relevant to you Rob, but it is considered best to give Potassium Iodide to children first because they are more at risk.


  11. This is a very nice calm intelligent discussion on the total loss of diplomacy skills and good manners by the western powers.

    At the end an observation is made, maybe it’s not a loss of diplomacy skills, maybe the west wants war.


  12. el gato malo with a new theory that smells right and maybe his best of an excellent body of work…

    There’s a similar theory for the Spanish Flu that hypothesizes most of the deaths were caused by overdoses of aspirin, which was the main treatment drug and safe dosage levels were not yet understood. The 1918 mistakes differed from today in that they were probably not intentional.

    what follows is essentially a working draft of a hypothesis i’m assessing in an effort to untangle some longstanding associative puzzles from covid. it seems sufficiently plausible to warrant consideration and i’d love some feedback and review.

    the closer i look at this, the more it looks to me like the huge killer here was the truly nasty combo of bad policy on care homes, hospitals, and vents and the massive suppression of effective medicines and health aids. covid became deadly because we lost our collective minds and short circuited the functioning of modern medicine.

    it looks like the virus did a fair bit of killing, but it was not because the virus was inherently unusually deadly, it’s that we made it so through mishandling.

    this was an own-goal.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Wolf Richter with another perspective on SVB.

    It seems our financial regulators are as incompetent as our health care professionals. Is there any profession other than engineering that still knows what it’s doing?

    Let me just divert your attention for a moment from the collapse of SVB Financial and what it might and might not mean for the financial system or the startup bubble or whatever, to another troubling aspect of SVB Financial that shows that no one has learned anything since the Financial Crisis, least of all the credit rating agencies.

    So you know what is coming: The solid investment-grade rating on a company – SVB Financial – that then collapsed with its investment-grade rating, taking investors down with it.

    On Wednesday March 8, Moody’s still had an A3 rating on SVB Financial, owner of the now defunct Silicon Valley Bank, as it was already collapsing for all to see. Four notches into investment grade – a very respectable rating!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Steady on with the engineering hubris Rob. I’m sure I don’t have to remind you of this but I will anyway.

      Some great links been posted lately by you and others. Thanks

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Civil engineering is not really engineering, they just mix concrete and pour it over rebar. They’re the bottom of the pecking order in engineering. The engineering that separates the men from the boys and that enabled the advances in pretty much every other profession are the electrical engineers.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Rob, why do you think a bridge collapsing is more to do with “civil engineering” than (say) Structural Engineering? And are you implying that Material Science is (e.g.) superstition and faith based?

          MickN is correct to request that you “steady on with the engineering hubris …”.

          Do you also want to pooh-pooh some other (real?) engineering FUBARs?
          Nuclear : Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, et al.
          Aero : Two Boeing Max nose dives. Concord’s vulnerable tanks, et al.
          AeroSpace : The shuttle; Launching (O-Rings), Returning (foam/missing tiles), et al.
          Software : Microsoft Exchange and generally anything Microsoft or Android.
          Medical : Too long to list.

          There is a strong argument that without engineering, science and technology our population would not have been able to explode and our current existential predicaments would have taken much longer to manifest – perhaps long enough to see the error of our ways and make course corrections.


          1. Yes you are right. Engineers created the technology that accelerated overshoot.

            There have been some big engineering disasters. Many were caused by management overriding the technical recommendations of the engineers such as Boing Max and shuttle o-rings.

            The engineering profession in my eyes has integrity because mistakes are investigated and steps are taken to prevent a repeat. Engineers pay a price for making mistakes.

            Compare with the healthcare profession that when deaths rise due to vaccine side effects they stop reporting the data so no one can see what’s going on. Or they force risk onto children with zero benefit to anyone except pharma. Or they block safe, effective and cheap early treatments. Or instead of prosecuting the person that illegally created the virus they put him in charge of pushing profitable ineffective unsafe vaccines.


            1. Yes, “many were caused by management overriding the … [engineers] …”

              How many of those managers were also engineers that caved to pressure from the bean counters?

              Could the engineers have done a better job of whistle blowing?

              General Motors used cheap parts that caused ignition keys to fall out, leading to deaths. Are the engineers completely innocent?

              I completely agree that the denial of treatments and vaccine issues are catastrophic and nothing to do with engineers.

              Was the Deepwater Horizon rig disaster (Macondo Prospect) entirely due to management malfeasance – were some of those managers also engineers, or could some of the engineers have done more to prevent it?

              The engineers (and managers et al) that designed and built the Drax power station in the UK had no idea that acid rain would destroy forests in Norway – does ignorance (across the board) get a pass because “integrity” and later on they corrected things using flue-gas desulfurization?


    2. SVB fell because they were invested in low interest bonds whose value is now diluted by higher interest rates. Speculation two weeks ago was that the FED would raise rates another 1/2%, now speculation says 1/4% or 0%. Not raising rates could trigger inflation back up again and making more rate hikes necessary. Not a problem but a classic predicament.


      1. Yes, a rock and hard place.

        I don’t understand what really controls interest rates. When inflation increases do banks raise the interest rate because central banks have raised the rate they loan to banks to cool inflation, or do banks raise the rate because they don’t want to lose money when repaid with dollars that are worth less?

        Is inflation due to the money supply growing faster then the real economy the same as rising prices due to scarcity?

        How much power do central banks really have? If the economy crashes and central banks lower the interest they charge banks to stimulate the economy, why would a bank make loans if it has no credit worthy customers?

        Is it all a façade that is really controlled by the cost and availability of surplus energy?


        1. Central banks set the prime lending rates, they base it on inflation and economic growth. When our central bank in Canada lowered the prime to zero people were getting 1.5% adjustable mortgages. Commercial banks then lend at prime plus.

          Inflation usually starts from too much money in the system, except that the money is only credit. Thats the theory, however, higher energy costs impact inflation as well.

          We have been through another oil price jump and now it’s in the red again. In 2008 oil went from $150/bbl down into the 30’s. This time we hit about $100/bbl, now back down around $70.

          My take is we will see a rate pause this year, possibly lower rates going forward. Then inflation hits again, but harder, another series of rate hikes and a harder crash the next time.


          1. Thanks, but I still wonder what controls rates.

            I agree it appears that mortgages track prime. But is prime set in anticipation of what the banks will/must charge for mortgages based on inflation and growth?

            For example, assume we have 10% inflation with high unemployment. Central banks decide to prioritize employment and lower prime to zero. Will banks offer mortgages at 1.5% when they will be repaid with money depreciating at 10%? I don’t think so.

            I think central banks respond to growth and inflation. They don’t control growth and inflation.

            I think it’s all a façade.


  14. Comment by Withnail @ OFW

    “Peter Zeihan is busily telling everyone that the USA could easily win a war simultaneously fought on European soil and east Asia.”

    No, absolutely not. The US is an industrial midget compared to China and Russia. The US produces 49 million tons a year of coking coal (needed for new steel) a year. US allies in Europe (the EU) produce 13 million tons between them. The UK produces zero.

    Russia and China between them produce 640 million tons.

    It’s not even close. The US can’t fight a sustained war against anyone that actually has any weapons.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Thanks to several commenters at OFW for reminding me of Reg Morrison, a great Australian mind in the overshoot awareness space.

    Gail Zawacki, my recently deceased friend who wrote at, spoke with reverence about Morrison. He was far ahead of most other intellectuals thinking about the human predicament.

    Reg Morrison was sniffing around the edges of MORT long before MORT was a thing. He saw the unique and strange evolved mysticism behavior of our species as being central to our overshoot predicament. I wish Morrison and Varki had connected to discuss how mysticism is simply a manifestation of our genetic tendency to deny death and all other unpleasant realities as explained by MORT.

    Here is a superb essay by Reg Morrison written 25 years ago.

    The case against us….

    If we were to assume the role of advocate for the biosphere, we should have to concede that what evolution most requires of us now is to ignore the warnings on the current environmental package and continue to behave as we always have. Should we falter in our rate of economic and technological progress we might jeopardise the nice swift end to the human plague that is now being signalled by the soaring extinction rate and the rapid carbonisation of the atmosphere.

    Armed with nothing more than sticks and stones, a little cunning, and a crucial streak of mystical madness, this extraordinary species gradually learned that by hunting in well-disciplined cooperative groups they could, with the aid of careful planning and a touch of fanaticism, bring down such formidable prey as the woolly mammoth, the sabre-toothed “tiger” and the woolly rhinoceros. No wonder our genes still display the same magic blend of mysticism, cooperation, and technological competence that carried them safely through those hazardous early years. The question then arises: If those genes saved our hard-pressed Homo erectus ancestors, might they not rescue us now in much the same fashion?

    I would argue that they may, but only in the sense that they will probably save us from total extinction. Unlike the first environmental assault on our species, the present one is primarily anthropogenic and represents a biospheric backlash against our overwhelming success as a species. In anthropocentric terms this assault is directly aimed at us, and so the very best technological defences we can muster may well prove much less effective than the sticks and stones of our ancestors. This time it is human technology itself that lies at the core of the problem. It gobbles too much energy. We are thereby pitted against the full weight of the world’s biospheric machinery, and to make matters worse, the carefully tailored mythologies that used to sustain us now handicap us with misconceptions that seem sure to sink us. To our peril we cling to the following beliefs:

    1) Humans have spiritual autonomy and are therefore accountable for their actions.
    2) The environment is inherently stable, and will rebound if we give it half a chance.
    3) Most environmental damage is the product of human ignorance, greed, and technological malpractice, and is therefore repairable.
    4) Human ingenuity and technology can solve most environmental problems and repair most environmental damage, if given enough time, money, education, and political will.
    5) We will survive, just as we always have, by drawing on our unique ingenuity, resourcefulness, and indomitable spirit.

    By contrast, the facts are as follows:

    1) We are genetically driven just like any other animal. We have no mind other than the body, and we lack behavioral choice.
    2) The environment is a Chaotic system and is therefore inherently unstable and always has been. If it were not so, evolution could not have occurred. Rebound is not characteristic of the system.
    3) Most environmental damage is the inevitable by-product of over-population, and is a necessary part of the plague cycle.
    4) The environmental problems we now face do not have a technological solution. There is no such thing as a technological solution. All human activity—”good” and “bad”—adds to our environmental debt. The more technological the attempted solution, the greater our environmental debt (Impact = Population x Activity x Technology).
    5) The plague cycle is a vital component of the evolutionary process and an essential evolutionary escape clause in the case of a fertile, high-impact species like Homo sapiens.

    Handicapped as we are by such monumental misconceptions, we are likely to discover that the endgame is rigged beyond redemption.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Excellent discussion yesterday between Ray McGovern and Garland Nixon on China’s influence over the world’s remaining oil reserves, and US blowing up the critical infrastructure of a “friend”.

    Lavrov: “If the UN does not investigate the destruction of our pipeline we will have to retaliate (in kind).”


  17. God damn there’s a lot of smart people analyzing covid from different perspectives to demonstrate how evil/corrupt/stupid our health care professionals are.

    How come I never ever have stumbled on a single essay by a super-smart person making the case that our health care system is competent, cares about health, and did a good job?

    Today Endurance (who’s also a Ukraine expert – see previous post) does a fresh and insightful analysis by comparing those regions with 100% vaccination rates with those that had no vaccination.

    Canaries in the Coalmine

    We have departed from the commonsensical long ago and are floating in a sea of obfuscation, so here’s a challenge; let’s practice our critical thinking and bring some clarity to proceedings. Let’s assume, for the sake of this little thought experiment, that we believe that there was a genuine natural pandemic. Let’s ignore the evidence that shows that the US Department of Defense awarded a contract for Covid 19 research in December 2019, one month before it was detected and three months before the disease was even named.(1) Let’s also ignore all the incriminating patents filed by Moderna et al years before the ‘pandemic’ struck.(2)

    Let us look away from the evidence that shows that Fauci funneled millions of dollars of taxpayer money to the Wuhan lab – for coronavirus research.(3) Let’s just pretend that there was a genuine outbreak of an infectious disease and that, initially, the deaths purportedly caused by said disease in China and then northern Italy spooked the politicians. And let’s just ask a sensible question – what would they have done if they had the general public’s interests at heart? Given the fact that it was clear from the outset that it was the old and infirm who were most at risk.

    Chinese data might not be deemed particularly reliable, but the average age of the alleged victims in Italy was 78; not only were they old, they also suffered from an average of four co-morbidities and lived in care facilities.(4)(5) Government should have taken this data under advisement and, as an initial response, taken steps to warn these populations and mitigate the risk. Not with mandates, but with compassion. Government should then have delved deeper because, on the face of it, China and northern Italy seem to be strange bedfellows. So the next question should have been this – we understand that this virus is said to have originated in China; why would its next port of call be northern Italy?

    Had governments performed this basic task, they would have discovered a possible explanation. Italy (along with others) had introduced a new ‘super vaccine’ for influenza in September 2019. It had been developed using a new technique that stimulated a much greater immune response than previously, which would also have resulted in a longer period of depressed immune response post-jab.(6) As we know, nursing home residents have the honor of being the primary victims of influenza vaccines every year. Connecting those particular dots oughtn’t to have presented too much of a challenge, even to bureaucrats.

    Government should have taken these data and combined them with a risk/reward analysis of the various options available. Had they done so, they would have swiftly learned that the medical profession had ready-made solutions, chief among them ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. They were already prescribing these drugs off-label, as they had proved effective on the first SARS go-around in the early 2000s.(7) Remember, this is back when doctors were still allowed to diagnose patients themselves.

    By this point in proceedings, even a politician wholly unversed in virology would have come to the following conclusions; firstly, that the elderly and infirm were most at risk and, secondly, that early treatment options were readily available and should, therefore, be obtained and dispersed as widely as possible. It would also be sensible to issue an advisory that emphasized which groups were most at risk.

    And so, despite man’s propensity for drama, salvation was most definitely at hand. The storm could have stayed in its tea cup. As time passed, more data would be available and tweaks to public policy may have needed to be made. It should be stressed – this is Janet and John stuff. What an ethical politician would definitely not have done is the following:

    a) Shut down the economy and lock down the population.

    b) Mandate mask wearing, social distancing and exhaustive testing with a device that was never intended as a primary diagnostic tool and which had been programmed to give a false positive rate of 97%.(8)

    c) Actively campaign to trash working remedies while rushing an unproven, experimental gene therapy through clinical trials instead.(9)(10)(11)

    d) Brainwash the population (via government sponsored propaganda) and create an entirely false narrative that serves to harm them, whether through ‘vaccination’ or ostracization.(12)(13)(14)

    And yet, that is exactly what happened in country after country, in lock-step. That narrative is currently collapsing and those at most risk of exposure are struggling to morph it into another narrative that won’t be true either. Huge dollops of falsehoods have been lathered over every aspect of the ‘pandemic’ and the ‘vaccines’; so much so, that it’s often difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff, particularly when it comes to assessing the true effects of the jabs. We can’t even be sure of some of the most basic facts, such as how many people have truly been ‘vaccinated’ and how many have actually died of the disease, as opposed to other ‘vaccine’ related injuries. Calculating the proportion of such injuries, for instance, becomes problematic if one cannot be sure that governments are telling the truth about the percentage of the population that is jabbed.

    Similarly, sudden upticks in other diseases cannot be definitively attributed to the deleterious effects of the ‘vaccine’ – often, the vaccination status of the victim is unknown. One can usefully speculate but it is, after all, in the best interests of those who pushed the jab to suppress any information that may implicate them in bad actions, committed wittingly or otherwise. About the only measure we may still be able to rely on is excess mortality and even that is really a rough and ready statistic that can be used to link ‘vaccine’ rollout and extras deaths temporally, but which is still vulnerable to being fudged by the ‘correlation does not equate to causation’ crowd. Additionally, as we shall see, the reporting of excess mortality can simply be terminated when the numbers start raising questions that cannot be satisfactorily answered.

    What we need is a community that is 100% ‘vaccinated’. That way, the statistics (if reported truthfully) pertaining to infections, hospitalizations and excess deaths from whatever cause cannot be in dispute. These events are, therefore, all happening to the jabbed; the deliberately seeded forest of uncertainties can be largely stripped away. Fortunately, there are several examples of moderately sized territories or countries that took the bait, the hook, the line and the sinker – Gibraltar and Singapore prominent among them.

    There are also some countries that serve as control samples; those with very low rates of ‘vaccination’, such as Burundi, Haiti and the DRC. In fact, there was an entire continent that gave the lie to both narratives – the ‘deadly pandemic’ and the ‘safe and effective vaccines’ – and that’s Africa. The globalists are currently doing their best to remove any evidence that demolishes the claim the jab is necessary, by kindly making it available to low income countries, but there is still some efficacy in looking at the before and after there, too.


    So, there we have it. Despite the best efforts of our elected officials and their poodles in the Fourth Estate, there is still incontrovertible evidence that the ‘vaccines’ are not worthy of the name and are, instead, effectively bioweapons. We can argue about whether they are so intentionally, but it’s clear to me that they are. The dishonesty involved in the entire scam, from an engineered ‘pandemic’, through PDC testing, lock-downs, masks and all the other nonsense is powerful circumstantial evidence and, though knowing that our paranoia is not misplaced and that they really are out to get us is useful information, the fact that so much damage has already been done is a tragedy.

    Ultimately, the exact mechanism of damage is downstream from the fact that there is a clear relationship between the ‘vaccines’ and subsequent bad outcomes. The signal is repeated across the globe, in countries big and small. It’s robust and is apparent in several different modes; from controlled environments where there is a straightforward, temporal relationship (such as Gibraltar and Singapore), to booster obsessed Japan (a country that has shown us that the more jabs mean more damage inflicted), to control samples such as Haiti, Burundi, the DOC and much of Africa itself, which demonstrate that there is an absence of death and damage when ‘vaccination’ rates are low.

    The ‘experts’ have been studiously avoiding both the massive grey animal in the corner and Occam’s Razor to boot and, no matter what the current state of the narrative, they will continue to do so. There will be further limited hangouts, fallback positions that have either been long prepared (the recent acknowledgement of the lab leak theory, for one) or which need to be constructed on the hoof (Midazolam Matt and the Lock-down Files, perhaps; or perhaps not). However, there will never be an admission of guilt. They will never concede that the ‘vaccine’ needed a ‘pandemic’, which they were happy to provide. They will never admit that they knew the jab was a killer, nor that that was the entire point of it. But we don’t need them to. It’s obvious.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Here’s the essay I wrote about that diagram.

      How is it possible that a group of experts over 15 years can assemble a list of 195 cognitive biases and completely miss the most important one?

      The only explanation big enough and powerful enough to explain this gobsmacking dumbfuckery is denial of denial.

      Biased Cognitive Biases

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Excellent discussion on SVB.

    On today’s episode of The Macro Trading Floor, Alfonso & Andreas walk through the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. On a historic week where we saw the collapse of the largest bank since 2008, we walk through the dynamics throughout 2020 – 2023 that caused SVB to fail, what risks lie ahead and if we should expect spillovers into the broader banking system. To hear all this and more, you’ll have to tune in!


  19. I have no idea whether the critique of the Cochrane review on masks by Pueyo had any impact on this but a clarification has been published on the web page for the review:

    “Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that ‘masks don’t work’, which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.

    “It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.

    “The review authors are clear on the limitations in the abstract: ‘The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.’ Adherence in this context refers to the number of people who actually wore the provided masks when encouraged to do so as part of the intervention. For example, in the most heavily-weighted trial of interventions to promote community mask wearing, 42.3% of people in the intervention arm wore masks compared to 13.3% of those in the control arm.

    “The original Plain Language Summary for this review stated that ‘We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.’ This wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize. While scientific evidence is never immune to misinterpretation, we take responsibility for not making the wording clearer from the outset. We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.”


  20. Ok Rob let me provide some push back against MORT.

    On a scientific level – please provide the causal linkages between a slight change in the pattern of sequences in a biopolymer (a gene in DNA) to the belief in an afterlife? How many hand wavey steps are needed ?

    Philosophically – Taking Schumpeter’s the World as Will and Representation as a starting point, we don’t deal directly with reality, we combine inputs from the outside world that move through our evolved senses and the structures of our brains and minds to create a representation of reality. If we pay close attention to both our representations of reality and what actually happens, we will find that sometimes our representations of reality are not accurate. So, it should not come as a surprise that people learn to Doubt Representations of Reality. No denial genes needed, just a learned ability to doubt representations of reality.

    I think DRR ( Doubting Representations of Reality ) is a much more reasonable general principle than MORT (Mind over Reality Theory).


    1. Varki proposed one possible pathway and says there are other possibilities. Mammals have a fear suppression module in their brain that is turned on when they are forced to fight for survival. A mutation that tweaks this module to turn on more often would manifest as an optimism bias (aka denial of unpleasant realities). Mortality, being an unpleasant reality, is thus denied.

      We do not deny all realities, only unpleasant realities. DDR would distort all realities so that does not seem to be a plausible explanation for our behavior.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. ummm… you are missing the big difference between denial and doubt,
        Denying all your representations of reality is not the idea, learning to doubt the accuracy of your representations of reality is the idea.

        And i would argue the more abstract the representation of reality the easier it is to doubt. For example we both have this abstract notion that ecological overshoot is the most accurate way to understand our shared situation, most others find it easy to doubt this representation of reality because they don’t see the crisis happening and have heard similar ideas in the past and they have not come true (yet).

        The basic problem with MORT is we do not understand Reality we only have the capability of thinking about our representations of reality and we know that they can be wrong.


          1. Well no
            I would argue that eternal death, life in heaven and reincarnation are all abstract representations about death and people choose the representation (belief) that that they find useful.

            Some people believe in heaven and that can help them to do what they think is right.
            Some people believe in reincarnation and that helps them handle life’s difficulties.
            Some people think of themselves as hard headed realist with no time for wo, courageous enough to accept the reality of eternal death.

            Rob, you don’t have a defective “denial gene” you just have different representations of reality and you doubt the accuracy of others representations.


            1. I’ll think more about what you’re saying but my initial reaction is that if MORT was false our representations of reality would be randomly distributed. But they’re not.

              Half of the population does not accept limits to growth. 99% of the population rejects limits. Half does not believe the lights turn off, 90+% believes in some form of life after death. Pretty much no one argues we’ve got to get the population down.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Rob
                We are story telling chimps
                We tell some freaking tall tales
                And have some good ideas
                but can’t always know which is which.


                1. True but I am unsure if your points are relevant to MORT. Our species has many behaviors contributing to overshoot. Nate Hagens has done an excellent job of cataloging them. The piece I’m interested in is what is preventing the same intelligence that got us to the moon from seeing and discussing the elephant in the room, especially among our elite scientific method trained intellectuals, who as I have documented hundreds of times, see most everything except what they need to see.

                  If you want to continue the discussion, I would appreciate a big picture statement with your hypothesis to explain what we observe because I’m a little lost in what we are debating here.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. Ontological discussions annoy the fuck out of me because it often leads to lazy thinking. There is still a real world out there that we can understand perfectly well using logic and science. Just because we view reality through our senses doesn’t mean it isn’t real. Yes we frame our understandings through abstractions – but that doesn’t change the fact that some things are real/true, and some things are false. If a person disagrees that, then there is ZERO point arguing with them!!
                    What is astounding is that you can prove a lot of things are true – irrefutably – and yet so many idiots will still claim (until they are blue in the face) that the opposite is true. We have very good science that explains why humans will continue to believe things that are false – even when you’ve shown them good reasoning why it is false.
                    The way I see it, MORT is a hypothesis of another such explanation for why humans believe things that aren’t true. I.E., we are talking about a hypothesis for a real psychological/biological phenomenon that we could study to see if it is falsifiable.
                    This is NOT a post-modernist discussion of how do we know what we know. This is NOT an airy fairy discussion into the meaning of knowing. MORT is NOT a debate about people’s personal feelings towards the topic of denial.

                    Liked by 2 people

                    1. Thank you. Something was bothering me about the discussion but I could not articulate it.

                      I don’t know what ontological means, but if this is it, then my brain fogs over when I see it.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. Ontology is the philosophy of how we know what we know or how we catergorise things. Plato in his cave playing with shadow puppets or whatever LOL. You’ve heard the saying “don’t mistake the map for the territory”. Well when some philosophers get carried away, they’ll be telling you the map damn well mad the territory. hahaha OK bro


                    3. *Made the territory. But actually they would probably say something more like, “the map provided a frame of reference that brought the territory into existence.”

                      Liked by 1 person

                    4. I forgot to add one thing. If MORT is true, it would be a precursor to culture, not an outcome of culture. I do think there is value in discussing how different cultures do denial. But if MORT is psychological/biological and developed in early humans, then it would be observable in all peoples. Cultural differences might increase/decrease the effect of MORT, but MORT would always be there


                    5. Exactly. MORT states that we all descended from one small tribe that experienced the mutation for an extended theory of mind plus denial of unpleasant realities. This is why I was pushing Jef to name some tribes that do not believe in life after death. My expectation is that there will be zero despite his claim that there are countless.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    6. Of course materialist hate discussing ontology, they want to assume away basic problems.

                      You can’t prove Truth – that your idea(s) are an accurate representation of reality,
                      You can tell when your ideas are false and you can find situations where your ideas are more or less useful but Truth (Reality) is beyond our ability to perceive and understand.

                      As for MORT I find it unnecessary. You don’t need to have some denial gene
                      all you need is the ability to doubt the stories you are being told along with a preference for pleasant over unpleasant.


                    7. Just to be clear, are these the points you are making:
                      1. It is possible there is a denial gene.
                      2. You don’t think it is likely that mind over reality theory is connected to the denial gene.
                      3. Or you don’t think Mind Over Reality is a valid theory in of itself?
                      4. If a denial gene does exist, humans can over come this by questioning themselves and the stories they are told.
                      5. The presence of lack of denial in certain cultures could be used to prove there is no denial gene, and that denial is a product of culture/stories.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    8. Well monk as i said, you can know when ideas are false, and you can learn what ideas are useful in which context, so there is a lot to discuss.

                      As far as a denial gene – i don’t think it is a useful idea, if you do please describe the causal mechanism for a slight change in the sequence of a biopolymer causing you to deny unpleasant realities.

                      Again, this MORT hypothesis is unnecessary, if you have the capability to doubt the accuracy of your beliefs and the stories told by others and you have a preference for pleasure over pain there is no need for a denial gene. Combine that with the very strong tendency to look to others for clues on how to behave, there is no mystery that needs to be solved. People are in denial about ecological overshoot because they doubt the story being told, don’t like the obvious consequences of ecological overshoot and they look at what others are doing and they see complacency.


                    9. Rob, please correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s just a hypothesis at this stage. Noone has done any research into look for this specific gene/s right? As to how it could evolve, Varki has described in some detail in this paper:

                      It is reasonable to suppose that fully understanding the death and mortality of other individuals is a prerequisite to fully understanding one’s own personal mortality. If so, the emergence of a full theory of mind would eventually result in full understanding of the death of another individual, i.e., the permanent extinction of another mind, not unlike oneself. This understanding should translate to stark realization of one’s own personal mortality. Severe death anxiety should affect the few individuals who develop this ability at any given time, and this may have sufficiently reduce their fitness to negate the possibility of passing on the genotype to offspring (Fig. 3).
                      Excessive reality denial and risk-taking should have been maladaptive each time that they first emerged in individuals of a species with advanced cognition. And we have just argued that although an extended theory of mind can have fitness value in the right circumstances (as it does in today’s humans), the initial negative impact of the resulting mortality salience should be maladaptive, because of the resulting mortality salience and death anxiety. But if both of these very rare maladaptations happened to evolve in the minds of the same individuals at the same time, they could combine to allow tolerance of death anxiety, and this unlikely combination could be genetically established in the progeny of these individuals (Fig. 4). In the more expanded view of this proposed “mind over reality transition” shown in Fig. 5, a species with a complex social organization, a long life, a preexisting maternal instinct, and helpless young could evolve (Froehle et al., 2019; Hrdy, 2009; Konner, 2010), such as occurs in some of the other mammals mentioned earlier. Such a species might also be more likely to develop some level of self-awareness and basic theory of mind, especially in the context of cooperative caring for helpless young (Hrdy, 2009).
                      In the absence of a full theory of mind, observing the death of another individual of the same species would not trigger full mortality salience and its negative consequences (Fig. 5). On the other hand, individuals who first develop a full theory of mind and observe the death of conspecific would then suffer from awareness of personal mortality, and the resulting psychological terror would result in a failure to establish the genotype in that lineage. If so, a highly unlikely one-time combination that includes reality denial of mortality salience would allow psychological tolerance, successful reproduction, and establishment of the benefits of extended theory of mind (Fig. 5). It is also noteworthy that the ability to hold false beliefs, self-deception, optimism, and confidence might support a successful mating strategy, especially for males. This suggestion is congruent with Trivers evolutionary theory of self-deception that includes denial of ongoing deception, self-inflation, ego-biased social theory, false narratives of intention, and a conscious mind that operates via denial and projection to create a self-serving world (Murphy, von Hippel, Dubbs, et al., 2015; Ramachandran, 1996; Trivers, 2000, 2011).
                      One can thus posit a hypothetical singular phasein human evolution, during which mortality salience and maladaptive death anxiety were triggered by acquiring extended theory of mind, but happened to be stabilized by simultaneous evolution of reality denial in the same minds. Returning to Table 1, and doing the thought experiment, it is noteworthy that the combined deletion of reality denial and extended theory of mind would blunt or eliminate many of the unusual cognitive features of humans. Thus, once this unusual combination was established in the lineage that gave rise to modern humans, it would have given such individuals a considerable advantage at the cognitive level.


                    10. Correct.

                      MORT was a side a project for Varki. It is not his day job. He has suggested avenues of research to test MORT that he hopes researchers some day will explore. He and I discussed this and both agree it is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes due to denial of denial. Varki fully expects to die without his theory being acknowledged but points out that it’s happened many times in the past such as with plate tectonics.

                      I think MORT is the most important theory since Darwin because it explains both our existence as a uniquely intelligent species (Varki would say species with an extended theory of mind) and will explain why we were unable to use that intelligence to prevent a reversion to primitive hunter gatherers, at best.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    11. While MORT has not been validated by identifying the specific DNA/brain change, there are many possible ways to kill the theory with inconvenient facts. Varki encourages critics to identify such a fact and he will acknowledge the problem if true.

                      I have my personal favorites that Varki may or may not not agree with:
                      1) Find another animal that believes in life after death.
                      2) Find a human culture anywhere in time or space that does not believe in live after death.
                      3) Find evidence that pre-behaviorally modern humans believed in life after death.
                      4) Population reduction policies intended to reduce suffering from overshoot collapse becomes a popular election issue.


                    12. Thanks monk for more details on MORT.

                      Let me paraphrase it in my own words:
                      If people really understood the existential dread of death they would be to depressed to have sex and the human race would die out.

                      lol the brain thinks it is in charge.

                      I am quite sure that people who believe that there is no life after death still have sex and have kids and are not totally depressed all the time.

                      Hell, the Stoics routinely imagine their death in order to actually live a life in the time they are given.

                      Liked by 1 person

            2. Nicely said. This comment and the one below, where you remind us that:

              You can’t prove Truth – that your idea(s) are an accurate representation of reality,
              You can tell when your ideas are false and you can find situations where your ideas are more or less useful but Truth (Reality) is beyond our ability to perceive and understand.

              Thank you.

              Personally, I find the fact that we can’t fully comprehend reality harder to accept than death.
              Just to get to the point where one understands there is more to reality than his particular belief of reality, is already pretty damn hard.
              Then to accept one will never “get” reality, but can at best navigate from one limited representation to another (when it serves a purpose).
              Then to be relieved to see reality does not cease to exist when all representations are cast away.

              As long as one is embedded in a particular belief, there is undoubtedly a defence mechanism (denial?) to prevent the recognition that one is only dealing with a representation rather than the “actual reality”. It takes quite some courage to accept reality can’t be represented at all: there is suddenly no grip, no basis (the abyss). But the leap of faith is truly liberating.


                1. Don’t worry if you do not understand. At some point, you too will lose interest. You will then see what I mean.

                  Once you stop trying to understand, because you get to the point where you are utterly convinced that you don’t truly understand a thing and never will.
                  Then you truly live.
                  You begin to see again, all that you were missing: a baby smiling, a dog barking, the first tree flowers of spring, the ocean within an eye… Simple, yet incomprehensibly beautiful things.
                  Most things happen without us doing anything. Why worry? It is a feast.

                  Once I let go of trying to grasp the world in its entirety, I gained it.
                  Sorry, I don’t have a specific example to give: it’s daily. It’s all the same, but under a different light and that changes everything.

                  It will come to you some day. It can even be right now, cause it’s always there.
                  Sorry, I don’t have a better explanation. I just can’t express it. You will know. Don’t worry.


                  1. Thank you. That was an excellent explanation and I think I understand what you are saying.

                    I do sometimes wish I could switch off the Why? machine in my brain and simply enjoy what is. Perhaps that’s why I enjoy riding my motorcycle so much. It’s such a dangerous activity that it’s not safe to think about anything except driving. I see more when I’m riding.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. Yes. Exactly 🙂
                      The motorcycle is a great example. A great way to shut down the monologue.
                      Fortunately, we can also get to this clarity of being, even while the monologue runs in background. It is not necessary (and maybe not possible) to shut it down forever. I found, it suffices to acknowledge it gently and let it run his course. As long as we don’t believe we are it or immediately react to its injunctions.

                      I am grateful you could see what I was expressing. Yesterday, I was really not happy with my answer. So, in the meantime, I came up with a complementary explanation from a different angle.
                      I don’t know if it is necessary now, but, if you bear with me, here it is.

                      Once I saw the mental for what it is: a limited mechanical device repeating itself, then I stopped clinging onto it in hope of relief for the suffering it was itself generating.
                      Because it is fundamentally a compulsive parasitical movement, an addiction. It binds you in little loops of dependence of the form: if only CONDITION, then SOMETHING would be fine, at last.

                      To give some concrete examples:
                      * if only I were rich, I wouldn’t have to work
                      * if only I were powerful, I would straight this mess out
                      * if only I were good looking, the women would fall for me
                      * if only I would study more, I would understand everything
                      * if only I understood everything, I could save the world
                      * if only I buy this new car, my neighbours will admire me
                      * if only Russia would falter, we would remain the kings of the world
                      * if only all Jews were eliminated, the Aryan race would prevail 😮
                      * if only we would drive only electric, climate change would be solved
                      * if only everybody acknowledged MORT, we would avert collapse 😉

                      Something is, purposely implicit here. The complete pattern would rather look like:
                      1. belief: some representation of reality
                      2. identification: meaning of self in the representation
                      3. idea of a problem
                      4. idea of a solution
                      5. promise of relief
                      6. sets in some kind of reaction (lots of sweating)
                      7. go back to 3, rarely 2, even more rarely 1
                      8. acknowledge this program failed so many times, see the loop for what it is (a bondage, a veil)
                      9. leap of faith in the unknown (to step 0): recognize the limitations of the program and go on with life

                      And we are running around, following the loop of eternal misery. I call it the one-slot worry box (not 2, not 0, always exactly one worry at a time, all the time). How can such a simplistic device keeps us enthralled for so long?

                      Getting to the point where we put no more faith in the failed promises of this process, is like stopping continuously banging one’s head with a hammer. We won’t ever get to a reasonable answer and that’s a pretty reasonable answer.
                      (Aside: to me, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God” is Jesus’ way of putting the mental state back in place. Isn’t the devil the great deceiver?)

                      So now, I accept I can’t understand most of what’s going on, but it is still fine, peace sets in, life goes on. Life has this property that it doesn’t stop when we stop thinking about it. Funnily, even the mental activity doesn’t stop then, it is simply relegated to it’s rightful place: that of an entertaining, sometimes useful, most often broken automata (our personal ChatGPT 🙂

                      Liked by 2 people

                    2. Very wise words, thank you Charles.

                      I think I’m aware of the mechanical device that frequently repeats itself. I have a little trick I use to shut it up. I say out loud a secret phrase that pulls my mind back to the here and now.

                      With regard to the cyclic patter you describe, I’d like to think I occasionally revisit my beliefs. When I started this blog I had hopes that MORT awareness would improve the world. Those hopes are now gone. I now know MORT will never be acknowledged and there is a chance it is not true, although I’ve yet to find a fact that kills it. MORT is now simply something that gives me some peace of mind by providing an explanation for the insanity all around me.

                      I’ll try to pay more attention to the voice and put it in its place so I enjoy more of the life I have left.

                      Thanks kindly.

                      Liked by 1 person

  21. Mac10 on the possibility of a Minsky moment.

    Nate Hagens I believe called it moving from the era of “too big to fail” to “too big to save”.

    In summary, one bank fails and the regulators use up all their insurance money to protect rich people who knew they weren’t protected thus screwing all the poor people in the future who think they are protected.

    Among the various causes of this crisis, chief among the immediate risks is that these banks are sitting on gargantuan unrealized losses while still passing regular FDIC-conducted audits. In other words, the FDIC itself is to blame for this fiasco. Clearly the magnitude of potential losses dwarfs any prior period INCLUDING 2008.

    All that was required to bring down Silicon Valley Bank was a small deposit flight which was taking place anyways as their base of bankrupt Tech firms was steadily going out of business. That left them forced to raise capital and sell bonds at a loss, thus revealing the chasmic hole in their balance sheet which had been there all along. It’s the exact same thing that happened to Bernie Madoff in November 2008, he ran out of cash to pay redemptions.

    [Update: Sunday March 12th, 10:10pm]

    Ok, so we now know they got their bailout which comes in the form of an asset exchange program. Banks can use their “illiquid” aka. underwater assets for a short-term loan from the Fed. This way they can ensure ample liquidity in the event of a bank run without having to sell down their assets and otherwise expose their true capital deficit.

    However, the Fed just promised to make ALL depositors at SVB/Signature whole even beyond the $250k FDIC insurance limit. To do this, they will tap the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund which has ~1% of assets relative to the U.S. deposit base. Yes, you read that right. Which means sure they will bailout everyone this time, but can they bailout every regional bank and ALL of their depositors? Of course not. Ex-Congress, the FDIC just unilaterally raised the $250k limit for those depositors who are part of the very first banking dominoes to fall. I have no doubt that’s not actually legal. Basically throwing everyone else under the bus to bailout companies with millions of deposits.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Must listen interview of David Martin by Kunstler today that will make your head spin.

    Proposes the real power behind the covid crimes was the US defense department. Also discusses the legal actions underway to punish the criminals. Not clear to me they will succeed.

    I heard some hopeful words that in the end it may be the insurance industry, who will soon be crushed by mRNA harms, that will shine light on reality, as I think they did for climate change.

    I’m doing another lap with Dr. David E Martin the Founder and Chairman of M·CAM Inc., the international leader in innovation finance, trade, and intangible asset finance. He’s been among a select band of international thought-leaders investigating the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic, in particular the relationships between US public health officials, the pharmaceutical companies, and a number of shadowy organizations behind the development of hugely profitable vaccines with a poor record of safety and viability.

    He’s currently working directly with sheriffs and district attorneys to bring criminal cases against the perpetrators of this historic fraud — including negligent homicide, premeditated murder, and reckless endangerment charges against doctors, hospital groups, managed care groups, et cetera, for the deaths of the vaccine-injected and deaths from treatment with the drug remdesivir. He has found 25 sheriffs and DAs willing to take prosecutions forward. Anyone seeking to inquire about adjudicating deaths of family members can go to

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’ve followed Martin for over 2 years and have been tentative as to whether we should trust his integrity. This discussion pushed me into the trust camp. He is really smart and is working hard to bring justice to the murderers.

      My take is he still doesn’t have a full grasp of the WHY in that he attributes all of the motives to money with no awareness of overshoot and that there may also be a collapse prep component to covid.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Paraphrased quote of the day from this interview:

        “The woke smartest people in the room who will only eat non-GMO kale are waking up to the fact they GMO’d themselves, and are not only victims of a fraud that harmed themselves, but were duped into promoting harm onto others, including their own children.”

        Liked by 1 person

  23. Wow. This is a must watch. The west has lost its mind.

    Legendary investigative journalist and Committee Defender of Liberty award winner Sy Hersh has unveiled convincing evidence of President Joe Biden’s ordering the explosions of the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 Russian gas pipelines. The September 2022 explosions diminish the reliance of Western European economies on Russia and corresponding reluctance to oppose Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The incident brings the United States closer to war with Russia.

    Presidential lying has a rich history. President James K. Polk lied about an American soldier killed on American soil by the Mexican military to deceive Congress and the American people into supporting the Mexican-American War. President William McKinley misrepresented the cause of the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana harbor in 1998 to enlist Congress and the American people behind the Spanish-American War. President Woodrow Wilson lied about munitions on the Lusitania to build congressional and public support for United States entry into World War I. President Franklin Roosevelt lied about the USS Greer attacks on Nazi submarines in the Atlantic to assemble congressional and public support for United States entry into World War II. President Harry Truman lied about the Korean War being a “police action”. President Dwight Eisenhower lied about Gary Powers and the U-2 spying on the Soviet Union. President Lydon Johnson lied about a second torpedo attack in the Gulf of Tonkin to obtain the Gulf of Tonkin resolution begetting the Vietnam War. President Richard Nixon lied about the secret bombing of Cambodia. President George W. Bush lied about WMD in Iraq to enlist congressional and public support for initiating war against Iraq in 2003.

    President Joe Biden follows the examples of his predecessors in denying Sy Hersh’s J’Accuse. Who has the greater credibility?


  24. Finally got around to listening to this 4 hour Feb 22 interview of Eric Weinstein by Joe Rogan.

    Weinstein is super smart and may or may not be super crazy. I wrote about Weinstein as a poster child for polymaths in denial here:

    Eric Weinstein: A Case Study in Denial

    Highlights of the Rogan interview include:
    – Weinstein is certain we are on a path to extinction via nuclear war and we must get off this planet ASAP a la Elon except Musk’s plan won’t work because it depends on chemical propulsion and available destinations in our solar systems are crap.
    – Weinstein believes recent UFO reports are real and he finds this hopeful because it means a new space travel technology is feasible.
    – Weinstein is ashamed that his fellow jews invented the nuclear weapons that will destroy us. He wants other brilliant Jewish physicists to redeem themselves by joining him to push forward our understanding of the laws of physics so that interstellar space travel becomes possible.


  25. The monetary deflation the pessimists have been worried about appears to have started.

    It’s fascinating that even the pessimists can’t bring themselves to use the word “depression”.

    Limits to growth and depression are taboo terms probably thanks to MORT.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I left this comment on YouTube:
      What is the evidence that the leak was accidental? They lied about everything else. They blocked safe and effective early treatments. They pushed risk with zero benefit on children. Why should we believe the lab leak was a mistake?


    2. I’m incensed that the Dems did everything they could to support the narrative and quash any dissenting opinion. I will never again trust any politician, left or right.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. The government’s own data shows 256,000 people aged 50-59 need to be jabbed to prevent one serious case of covid resulting in 321 people being hospitalized with a serious side effect. It’s much worse for younger age groups.

      Almost all MPs from all parties walked out rather than listen to this speech. They all need to burn.


  26. Excellent detailed peak oil discussion today with Steve St. Angelo.

    LOL, I notice that everyone in the limits space is getting very intense. We must be close. 🙂

    St. Angelo thinks central banks are not evil. He thinks they probably don’t understand what’s going on but nevertheless their ZIRP and printing has kept the lights on a few extra years.

    I disagree that central bank actions were a good idea. Instead of a gradual decline that we might have adjusted to, they have guaranteed a rapid collapse with chaos.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick today….

    When people ask me, what has gone wrong with medical research my reply is usually. ‘Money’. When they ask me what else, I reply, ‘More money’. Yes, but what else? ‘Even more money’. Yes but…

    The end result of replacing science with money has been a terrible distortion of research. Followed by distortion of clinical guidelines, followed by people taking medications that very often do more harm than good. Followed by people dying – early.

    Why do I believe that medicines may now be doing more harm than good? The honest answer is that I can’t know for sure, because nothing is absolutely certain in this life.

    However, what I do know is that the US has by far the greatest healthcare expenditure in the world. $4,300,000,000,000.00 per year (four point three trillion dollars, or $12,914 per person). Yet, life expectancy in the US is around five years lower than in any comparable country. Lower than in Poland, for example, which spends just over $1,000 dollars per year.

    In the US there are certainly more and more, and more and more drugs. Polypharmacy is now the norm. If all these medications were truly as wonderful as they were supposed to be, life expectancy should be going up. At the very worst, there would be stasis, i.e., no improvement.

    Instead, despite these trillions of dollars being spent, life expectancy has been falling. It was falling before Covid, and the downward trend has continued. Perhaps most telling is that Covid had a catastrophic impact on life expectancy in the US. Not simply due to Covid deaths, but from everything else as well. You spend $4,300,000,000,000.00 a year and what do you get? A system so rotten that it falls apart in a strong wind.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Dowd who is mRNA aware but not overshoot aware says the M2 money supply has contracted and this has only occurred 4 times in the past, the last being 1930.

    He says don’t panic, the banking system will collapse into the 6 big banks. I say, what makes you think the big 6 are sound?

    He has an interesting observation about the 2008 GFC. Wall Street did not take over the government, rather the government took over Wall Street.


  29. Doug Nolan today with a very nice big picture look at the current financial crisis.

    He’s suggesting that unlike in 2008 when China saved western economies, this time we are on our own.

    Some data to ponder: Outstanding Treasury Debt ended 2007 at $6.051 TN, or 41.8% of GDP. Treasury Securities ended 2022 at $26.832 TN, or 105% of GDP. The Fed’s balance sheet was $951 billion (7% of GDP) to close out ‘07. This week it’s $8.639 TN, or 34% of GDP. Bank Loans ended 2007 $8.259 TN. They’re now $14.054 TN. Consumer Credit jumped from $1.132 TN to $2.661 TN. Total Bank Deposits have inflated from $8.487 TN (58% of GDP) to $20.698 TN (79% of GDP) – with Deposits expanding by a third ($5.165 TN) over the past three years.

    There were many alarming developments this week. None could prove more consequential than uncharacteristically belligerent comments from one of the world’s leading central banks.

    March 15 – Bloomberg: “China’s central bank echoed President Xi Jinping’s warning that the US is seeking to suppress the world’s second-largest economy, an unusual move that suggests the central bank could be looking for ways to safeguard against possible further sanctions. The People’s Bank of China will ‘appropriately respond to the containment and suppression of the US and other Western countries,’ it said in a statement… following a meeting to study Xi’s speeches during the National People’s Congress session…”

    After central bank officials have mastered their Xi studies, we shouldn’t bank on the PBOC’s eager participation in concerted policy measures to thwart U.S., European and global financial crises. On many levels, risks today greatly outweigh 2008. And no amount of money-printing will resolve deep structural problems decades in the making. Moreover, we could be entering a major global crisis with every man (central bank) for himself. There will be an inclination to prioritize domestic over international. Some will remain focused on severe inflation problems, while others will pivot to financial instability. There are different agendas – “world orders” and geopolitical considerations to contemplate.

    I don’t like being the guy yelling “fire” in the crowded theater. But there’s a fire burning. I hope it can be contained. It’s uncomfortable to hear so many shouting “stay calm, no fire!” And we’ve all grown tired of the false alarms. There’s just so much highly combustible material that has accumulated over the years. The stuff’s everywhere, in the aisles and even obstructing some exits.

    How much confidence should we place in those decrepit fire extinguishers working this time around? With all the structural changes, it’s become such a towering theater – the grandeur, the dazzling new technologies and sophistication, filled with the unsuspecting, the rascals and newbies – with the same old small exits. Look at those guys eagerly making their way through the exit. Weren’t they the ones hollering “no fire”? It’s difficult to predict how the jittery crowd will respond to those first whiffs of smoke, but I’m not going to assume things stay orderly.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. My feeling is that one day (maybe soon) we will find many shuttered banks, no ATM’s working and no credit/debit card terminals working and stores that are open not accepting cash. It is a frightening prospect because everything financial could collapse in the literal blink of an eye. It’s what I have been planning for the last 15 years but it will still come as a shock and I’m sure to lose a lot of money and equity. But, that’s what collapse is and sad to say that’s what happens in overshoot. Still even though I will be vindicated in my knowledge it will be sad and frightening.


        1. I meant to say that initially I don’t think stores will take credit or debit (how would they clear it initially and then when they submit it?). I hope they take cash but then if the banking system is in doubt where would they put their cash or what would they do with it? Cash becomes questionable without banks. What would they do with the stock on hand? Barter? for what?
          I read an interesting post this morning on The Automatic Earth (link to Mish Talk). Not a final solution, because short of collapse everything is a stalling action. But an interesting take on banking I have never heard before.



          1. Interesting. He seems to be proposing we move to a full reserve system.

            I think that would be a very good idea because it would force us to live within our biophysical means and the economy would contract as non-renewable resources deplete rather than expanding until every drop of affordable oil is gone and then crashing into chaos as our current system is designed to do.

            I think a full reserve system would be a very different world with much less credit. No more purchasing a house after saving a 5% down payment. No more cars loans. No more buying groceries on credit. Etc.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I was in India when they did the demonetisation of all ₹500 and ₹1,000 notes. Overnight, everyone stopped accepting cash. If you can get a billion people in one day to stop believing in the current cash, you can more than easily do it in Canada, Australia, New Zealand.


  30. Denninger today links GMO food risks with covid….

    “Should the results of the genetically engineered virus give us concern about genetically modifying seeds/food?”

    The clear answer is yes, for the following reasons:

    Everyone involved lied about the SARS-CoV2 origins. Ecohealth got caught lying quite early on when DRASTIC was exposed; DARPA turned down their requested program to engineer and test modified coronaviruses in Chinese caves, and among the slams in that refusal was the fact that the population of the nation in question were effectively not being asked for their consent. That Ecohealth arrogated to itself the right to test a genetically-modified organism on someone else’s soil without the informed consent of the people residing there was sufficient grounds to destroy the organization and jail every single person involved. DARPA has no authority to do that, but our DOJ does and didn’t. The deception did not stop there; Fauci claimed that NIH wasn’t actually funding said research when it was, and we now know he was lying. He didn’t go to jail for that either, did he? That the virus was clearly engineered was known very early on because it contained a patented sequence and, in addition, had another sequence in it that never occurs in nature. The latter is routinely used by virus labs for this exact reason; if you put a virus through some process (e.g. through a cell line) and that sequence comes out the other end you know what you did worked because it can’t occur naturally. That this was present in SARS-CoV2 was known within weeks of its alleged “arrival” in the US.

    Everyone involved lied about when Covid was first “out” in the population. This was known too. When it first arrived in Washington State and NY, along with the outbreak in Italy, we knew that the strain in NY was not the same as the one on the west coast; it was instead essentially the same as that in Italy. We also knew at that point from the mutational rate it had to be in the wild no later than roughly the end of September of 2019. I posted on this at the time and we later proved this was correct because analysis of blood donated during the first week of December of 2019 detected antibodies specific to SARS-CoV2 which, at the time (there were no jabs of course) could have only occurred if the person who donated the blood had become previously infected and survived.

    There were plenty of additional lies but those are enough.

    He then goes on to discuss GMO food risks that have not been adequately investigated.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I thought this was an interesting discussion. They both see that population and consumption are part of the problem of overshoot AND that both have to be brought down. Neither of them seem aware that there is no 20, 30 or 100 years to go to solve this problem. Both don’t seem to want to address collapse. Denial?

      Liked by 1 person

  31. The Canadian Prepper can be overly dramatic since he makes a living by selling doom clicks but he also has a calm intelligent side that shows through in this excellent discussion on the failing financial system. He’s pretty good for a young man.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Always stressed, but Spring is arriving and it’s time to get started doing garden prep (bees, last biochar application, turning the ground cover over by hand (shovel), starting seeds). Oh, and finding time to watch all the videos posted above.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hi AJ, I see you pipped my post by one minute, are you up early or what? Just wanted to say I hope you had a happy birthday, did you have a big family celebration, after all, you have achieved 70 years, marking the proverbial three score and ten, not a small feat!

        Aren’t we just stupid lucky that our planet has its tilt so we have our seasons? I know it’s all pretty elemental physics but it still never fails to amaze me that life on earth follows this rhythm and rhyme at its core. Whilst you are busy with Spring garden tasks, it’s full-on Autumn harvest here and tucking in trees for their time of rest. Somehow we always look forward to another Spring, if that’s not the ultimate expression of hope (or denial?) I don’t know what is under the sun.

        Wishing you and your family all the best.


        1. Thanks for the birthday wishes. It’s in two weeks still;) I’m an April fool.
          I have always been an early riser. Now day the chickens want out of their coop and to get those egg producers going I let them out an hour early.
          I’m not really looking forward to spring. I’m getting a little tired of all the chores, but it is better than the middle of winter where you are stuck in doors in a dark gloomy rainy environment (I love the desert – can’t grow much there though).
          Have a nice fall day!


    2. Happy Equinox everyone! I’ve been off radar in terms of posting but still check into my favourite blog every day. I have been especially touched by the recent exchanges that invite us to surrender to that innermost sense of just being, and that is enough. Surely the longest, often hardest and loneliest path is that from our heads to our hearts, but from this journey all else finds direction and place. Hey, it’s been exactly one year since my first post! Time has flown, kinda like how a toilet paper roll goes faster the closer to the end! I think every day now is like a compressed year of contemplating our existentialism, now that the time is contracting so clearly for our species. Somehow the planet still turns and orbits with us on it doing our best to derail it with all of our shenanigans, and yet it continues to tolerate our presence for a while longer. No wonder cultures since time immemorial have called Earth our Mother, as only a mother could accept her wayward child with such patience! So, although I do try to seek peace in every day, it’s been more than a bit of choice number 3 here, how can one not feel the collective angst?

      It’s been full-on autumn harvest of fruits here in Tasmania so that fits answer number 2, as well. It’s nice to know one has an abundance of fruit for one’s family (the apples and pears were stupendous this year) but I am always wondering if there will be enough to go around when the time of scarcity and requirement knocks upon our doors. Prepping for ourselves alone will not be the answer when societal collapse happens, the key will be making it through the transition time in relative stability and then having enough societal organisation left to continue. I have nominated one pear tree in particular to receive the MVP award amongst all our fruit trees, it has over 500 fruit on it, a lovely juicy crisp Nashi (Asian pear). It gives me some comfort to think that even our trees can sense the urgency and are rallying to give it their all, but hopefully not a totally last ditch effort?

      As for being tired of your and others’ most well-intentioned and on the pulse contributions to the sanity space, well, I think we all hope that the day this blog ends will be when the lights go off for the last time, and I will offer my best Hopium that will be a ways off yet. Thank you everyone for just being here and doing your brave and true thing however and wherever you can. I feel very humbled and privileged to see you and for you to see me.



      1. I’m glad you’re well and having a good harvest.

        I’m still on my zero sugar diet however I am eating some dried fruit after dinner as a desert. Does anyone think dried fruit every day is too much?


        1. Should be OK, though I prefer fresh fruit every day. Drying does concentrate the sugars but if they are wrapped in their fibre jackets, it should be fine, I think. There is usually a small amount of dried fruit in my raw sprouted muesli, which I have with the fruit, coconut yogurt and kefir, every day.

          Any joy with the kefir? It was almost a miracle cure for my aches but everyone is different. I just did a couple of hours of double digging with no after effects.


      1. Thanks for the reminder Mike. I printed them out way back when and must read them
        again. A grumpy but brilliant man. Probably driven grumpy by living surrounded by Flatlanders. He certainly took no prisoners in the comments.

        Liked by 1 person

  32. I think there is value in being able to accurately describe our predicament(s). As things unravel, being able to understand what is happening to us will lesson the likelihood of people lashing out at their preferred minority groups (etc.).

    Liked by 1 person

  33. If the West losing in Ukraine while threatening nuclear holocaust and collapse wasn’t enough to get your attention (and depress your optimism circuit) – then we have ECONOMIC COLLAPSE on tap for you. . .

    Mac10 today was beyond depressing. Are we going to have a financial system in a few days, weeks, months? Or will we be chasing armed people off our property trying vainly to protect what little is left to eat? Neither sound real nice. Maybe I should just deny it’s as bad as he makes it sound?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Good one. Perhaps because they didn’t achieve their reset via covid they’re trying again. This time they’re forcing all the small banks to fail so that it’s easier to reset the system via a few large institutions. Or perhaps it’s just biophysical limits, compounding math, and human behavior doing what they must do.

      Charles is probably the wise one here. We’ll never know the answer.

      Liked by 1 person

  34. I remember noticing that covid began simultaneous with mysterious stresses in the repo market and that it provided political cover for printing money to keep the wheels on a little longer.

    so, i don’t mean to sound critical or anything, but jeez you guys, it sure takes a special kind of stupid to spend the combined annual GDP’s of france AND italy on “covid response” and not manage to build a single new hospital or med school…

    The federal government has provided about $4.6 trillion to help the nation respond to and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Tracking federal spending is complex—especially at this unprecedented magnitude. As part of its ongoing and comprehensive review of the federal pandemic response, GAO oversees and regularly reports on this spending.

    Six COVID-19 relief laws enacted in 2020 and 2021 provided about $4.6 trillion of funding for pandemic response and recovery. As of January 31, 2023, the most recent date for which government-wide information was available, the federal government obligated a total of $4.5 trillion and expended $4.2 trillion, or 98 and 90 percent, respectively, of these relief funds as reported by federal agencies to the Department of the Treasury in accordance with Office of Management and Budget guidance.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. If he is right, the time is indeed short. Like I said above, days, weeks, months? I doubt it’s years. And when the financial system collapses, into what? Will we have electrical power, internet, money to pay for anything?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Into what is a good question.

        My brain can’t visualize how this will play out. If they try digital currencies what about all the old and/or poor people who do not have smart phones or internet? Do they have the worldwide infrastructure ready to go for digital currencies? I’m betting not. What happens when ISPs bankrupt because their customers cannot afford their bills?

        Looks like it will be a giant chaotic shitshow to me.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Amazing. A 30 page document discussing pros and cons of digital currencies and not a single word on the core issues:

            1) A negative interest rate might extend the longevity of the debt bubble that sustains modernity however we need a digital currency to implement negative rates.
            2) Digital currencies would be a very useful tool for maintaining social order via fair rationing of scarce resources when the economy collapses due to overshoot.

            Not one word about anything that matters. That pretty much sums up our leaders today.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. Gosh it just occurred to me, CBDC could make banks obsolete – or at least big chunks of their business model. Interestingly, there is a lot of propaganda against banks in NZ at the moment. Lots of talk of their excessive profits (40%) and questioning what value they bring to our society. Rob I think you could be onto something with allowing the small banks to fail

          Liked by 1 person

  35. Yeah, same here in imaging a shit show. As Tim Watkins likes to point out many businesses like power companies, phone companies, ISP’s, etc. are going to enter death spirals as they lose customers the higher costs are passed onto a smaller customer base causing more lost customers until they fail. Not a nice scenario.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Interesting article from the Honest Sorcerer, although not much new for experienced doomer. In the comments Louis Arnoux (friend and collaborator with the late Hills of the Hills Group) makes a reappearance with some dire warnings and with a little bit of hopium (sigh). To be fair to him he doesn’t say what size population the hopium is for.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks. Did not know the mysterious Hills had died.

      Good essay filled with aware reality, and then as you say, he bolts on a final paragraph to provide hope. Notice that unlike the rest of the essay he provides no graphs or data to support his optimism. Smells like MORT to me.


    2. I always wondered what happened to the Hills Group. Their engineering model of the oil system, and the prediction of a “dead state” always intrigued me. I thought they were on to something, but I lack the skills to analyze the mathematics/physics of their model. A few qualified folks did, some said it was wrong, a few folks said they got it right enough.

      The key understanding for me was that roughly two-thirds of the energy from oil burned in internal combustion engines (as liquid fuels refined from oil) is lost to 1. friction, and 2. heat. So, roughly, only one-third of the energy in a barrel of oil burned in ICE is available to perform “work.” As the cost of extraction and processing to refined fuels increases, the surplus energy available to perform economic work is even less than you first assume when looking at the energy content of a barrel of oil.

      Louis Arnoux’s improved on the Hills Group model, visually at least, providing a better understanding to the layman not equipped with the skills to understand thermodynamic equations. But I never understood the Green box or other ideas he was offering as future solutions.

      Liked by 1 person

  37. As Jack Alpert explained, we later learned that mothers who protected their child with an arm just prior to a crash actually increased the harm because the distance between child’s head and dashboard was increased thus maximizing the velocity of impact.

    Fed Hikes by 25 Basis Points, to 5.0% at Top of Range, Pencils in One More Rate Hike, No Rate Cut in 2023, QT Continues: New Regime of Tightening while Providing Liquidity for Banks

    Stepping on the brake with one foot while putting an arm around the baby to keep her from hitting the dashboard.

    Liked by 2 people

  38. Nate Hagen’s interview today with Paul Martin provides an excellent explanation for why a modern civilization powered by hydrogen is 100% hopium. I learned a lot. Hydrogen is not as clean as most people assume.

    Other discussion topics were not impressive. It’s amazing how a person can be aware in one dimension and totally in denial in another. In this case the guest thinks electrification of the economy is the solution to peak oil and climate change, but is blind to the material and economic constraints.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. That is similar to my thoughts, Rob. He seems to want a “solution” that allows a high tech civilisation to continue and doesn’t appear to contemplate other futures, calling them unrealistic.

      I was a bit disappointed that Nate didn’t persist with getting good explanations of the different hues of hydrogen, particularly green. However, generally a good reality check on the hydrogen future.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. I have had so many arguments with Paul Martin and he refuses to apply his hydrogen lens to anything else. He thinks renewable energy means there is nothing to worry about with peak oil. He thinks Jevons Paradox is a load of hogwash.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. He also blatantly disregards the laws of physics when it suits his denial (e.g. think we can get close to perfect efficiency from a system). FFS I shouldn’t have to argue for physics with engineers and scientists. It winds me up no end

        Liked by 1 person

    1. That was excellent thank you.

      My take away is that after the collapse when we’re all struggling to find enough calories we can eat pretty much anything. In times of plenty, like today, we have to be careful to stay healthy. Therefore rice, due to its long shelf life, low cost, and low energy for cooking, is an excellent emergency food to stock. Brown is healthier than white but the oils in its bran reduce shelf life. So if the choice is sufficient calories vs. insufficient calories, I’ll stock mostly white, and not eat it too frequently today unless I’m working hard.

      Liked by 1 person

  39. I always pay attention when HHH @ POB comments:

    Central banks don’t inject liquidity like they say they do. Rate cuts don’t inject liquidity. QE doesn’t inject liquidity. Currency swaps don’t inject liquidity. That’s all bullshit.

    Dealer banks distribute liquidity. And those in need of liquidity have to have collateral to borrow that liquidity. If you don’t have collateral then you don’t have liquidity. If the collateral you do have is impaired then you don’t have liquidity.

    No collateral no liquidity no $140 oil. Prices aren’t set. Prices are bid to whatever level they are at.

    You have too much faith in the central government, central planners. Because you believe they have a printing press.

    Japan has been doing QE and rate suppression for 30 years. Has it worked at any point over those 30 years? The answer is a resounding no it hasn’t. Why? Because all that stuff isn’t what they say it is. It’s just smoke and mirrors.


  40. I love Tim Watkins’ clarity of thought and ability to concisely explain complex topics. Today he explains what’s really going on in the economy. It’s an explanation you will not hear from almost any investment/economic expert, nor banker, nor mainstream news, nor political leader.

    We live in a reality free world now.

    One of the remaining myths about currency, is the idea of the bank reserve – the belief that their has to be a token, a central bank reserve or a piece of precious metal, against which banks multiply their lending. The reality – which will become better known when the coming crisis is over – is that the only limit on bank lending within the Eurodollar system is perceived counterparty risk. That is, so long as an international bank believes that the corporation or nation which wants a loan is good for the repayment, they can create as many dollars as they wish… entirely independently of the US Treasury or the Federal Reserve.

    By 2022, the big multinational banking and financial corporations had radically altered their perception of counterparty risk. In part this was due to the lack of investment during lockdown, in part the impact of broken supply chains and the rising cost of essentials, and in part the likely impact of state and central bank policy. Either way, they began the process of tightening lending standards, while seeking to generate a safe cash cushion on their own ledger books. In practice, they ceased rolling over the debts of zombie households, companies and even countries, while buying up whatever “safe” government debt they could find – in theory, governments cannot go broke because they can always screw their taxpayers for more currency. Although this might not work out in practice.

    The feedback signal from the collective change in multinational financial institutions’ behaviour is what is known as a “yield curve inversion” – one of the most historically accurate predictors of a near-term economic downturn. A yield curve inversion occurs because the global financial corporations are prepared to lend to the government in the long-term at a lower interest rate than they could get by simply parking their money at the central bank overnight. They only do this when their data – which is far more accurate than the data used by governments and central banks – points to a weakening economy.

    To some extent, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, since the main consequence of the institutional behaviour change is to pull currency away from the real economy. That is, zombie households and companies which had been servicing their debts are no longer able to do so – at least, not at an interest rate they can afford… a process not helped by the central banks raising interest rates at the fastest pace in history.

    This sets up what analyst Jeff Snider refers to as the “2008 trap.” When it comes to interest rate rises, it can take months for the effects to filter through. And so, viewed through the lens of employment and GDP data – which, remember, tells us about how the economy used to be, not how it is going to be – the picture looks far more positive than it ought to. The result is that economists and central bankers begin to talk about “soft landings” or even no landing at all, just at the point that inverted yield curves – synchronised across the western economies for the first time in history – are pointing to the mother of all economic downturns just weeks from now.

    On a much longer timescale, we have lived through a growing gulf between the nominal value of debt and currency claims on the economy and the true value of the economy itself for more than half a century. Each time it has faltered, the “solution” has been to inject even more debt into the system. But by 2008, we had reached “peak debt” – which is, in reality peak resources, as there is no longer enough surplus energy and resources to expand the real economy any further. And so, the reckoning that states and bankers have been putting off for decades – in shorthand, the bursting of the “everything bubble” – is at hand.

    It could be that the only question left to be resolved is how much of what was considered to be “too big to fail” last time around will prove to be too big to save this time?

    Liked by 3 people

  41. Finally, a politician that speaks honestly and intelligently and ethically about covid.

    Senator Rennick from Australia was interviewed today by Dr. John Campbell.

    Lots of detail here and many things health care “professionals” did wrong that I was not aware of. The only reason he knows what he knows is because some very determined woman in Australia fought like crazy for a long time to force the government to release a document under a freedom of information act.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Hey all! I have been dealing with family Shit. Mother died. Seems simple right …wrong! I can not believe what is involved … no wonder everyone denies it ;-} She was in massive pain, in and out of conciousness for weeks, begging to die but hospice would not allow it and warned all family that they were watching everything. Total BS.

    Anyway I have an essay about ignorance that explains what I mean when I call someone ignorant, [definition is lacking information or knowledge…that it] and it also explains my thinking on denial.

    To Ian … musical genius or engineering virtuoso …” those are not behaviors.

    To Jim – I like including doubt into the equation.

    To Monk – Nailed it! ontological, metaphysical, mystical…I have no time for any of it. The physical is where I live and that is more than enough for me.

    To Varki – I agree 100%…men are destroying everything but to be fair women have the potential too.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s so hard watching a loved one suffer when they are ready to die. My deepest condolences for your mother. I hope the funeral and estate process all goes well


  43. Russia replied FUUK today to the UK’s decision to supply depleted uranium shells to Ukraine.

    Russia will deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus by July 1.

    Curious minds want to know what a has-been soon to be starving island with no asset other than City of London money launderers is doing mucking around in Eastern Europe?

    Liked by 1 person

  44. A good summary (one more) from B of our predicament and how f..d we are – just as a reminder to enjoy life now, as long as possible.
    I’m not totally convinced by the timing he proposes, since I think there will be some dramatic events which accelerate our way to rock bottom (like the global financial bubble, whose burst we are witnessing right now).

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That’s an excellent essay, thanks!

      I agree he’s probably optimistic on the speed of the decline. I also note he did not mention one word on how feeding 8 billion requires affordable diesel and natural gas. I expect food will be a bigger issue than the loss of a stable grid or personal transportation.

      A few quotes I liked:

      We’ve found ourselves in a hole, yet we keep insisting that digging deeper is the way out.

      It is absolutely no wonder then that there was not a single project in the past half a century aimed at proving that renewables can be made by renewable energy alone, all the way through the entire supply chain. As I explained above, every process step, be it mining or manufacturing has its optimal fuel type for very good reasons, and this won’t change just because some government want it so.

      At a certain point — and I firmly believe that we are right there — demand outstrips supply. Prices spike, then fall sharply as machines burning the fuel get mothballed and companies using them go bankrupt. Oil companies become reluctant to invest into new drilling, because they don’t see a return on rising costs (energy, equipment, other inputs), plus drilling new wells becomes riskier as fat, high yield ones dry up and only the low quality dregs remain. This lack of investment begets a new supply shortfall, followed by another price hike and another round of demand destruction. This is peak oil: not running out of oil all of a sudden, but slowly one step at a time, while leaving most of it under the ground.

      ‘Renewables’ and electrification simply replace the consumption of one finite resource and its related pollution (fossil fuels and CO2) with another set of finite resources and their related pollution (metals and ecological destruction caused by mining, plus the CO2 released during the process). All the while these technologies are doing nothing to stop the sixth mass extinction and pollution crisis we are witnessing… The same goes for carbon sequestration, geoengineering, the hydrogen economy, nuclear, bio-fuels, fusion, mining in space, colonizing other planets and all the rest. None of these ‘solutions’ address excess consumption of the living world and turning her into lifeless junk, just prolong its shelf-life.

      If you want to save the world, first do no harm.

      We are at a turning point though, where global growth slowly becomes impossible and turns into a global economic contraction — primarily due to the increasing scarcity of energy and resources. This change is coming whether you like it or not, want it or not. It is not going to be dictated by governments, politicians or ideologues, but the very biophysical reality, all of our lives are rooted in.

      Until that sinks in, denial will prevail though.

      Liked by 1 person

  45. For any who have not seen it yet I highly recommend this interview. It explains my position better than anything I have come across in a long time. Please do not skip the last 20 minutes of summation.


  46. Anyone following Charles Rixey?

    This smells legit and significant to me but I have no history with Rixey.

    They KNEW – The REAL case against Fauci et al

    We don’t need to know the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to know the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic

    I am a member of DRASTIC,

    Last fall, I signed an affadavit with 4 others, submitted to each state’s attorney general.

    I will soon provide testimony under oath in support of grand jury proceedings to hold US and international officials & organizations responsible for actions taken before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, which constitute crimes against humanity.

    This post lays out many of the conclusions formed through my research.

    Many of the features listed above have direct ties to historical bioweapons research, in the US and abroad. Superantigens including SEB were stockpiled as part of the US offensive bioweapons program until its closure by President Nixon in 1969. Furin Cleavage Sites are even more ubiquitous, in all the wrong places/viruses.

    The FCS, HIV-like inserts, immune dysregulation and chimaeric viral construction were four key features that were described as project goals within the DEFUSE proposal that EcoHealth Alliance submitted to DARPA in March 2018. Neither Dr. Fauci nor the US intelligence community disclosed this proposal in testimony or in the “Biden Report” on the origin of SARS-CoV-2; they covered up what is in fact proof of intent to produce a virus much like the one that caused the COVID-19 pandemic.

    These conclusions indicate that the potential human cost of Dr Fauci’s pandemic decisions to suppress information about the FCS and other inserts may exceed that of President Franklin Roosevelt’s decision to call for declarations of war against Japan and Germany in World War II.

    Without hesitation, I will testify under oath to the veracity of the evidence in support of these conclusions. They involve implications that are horrific regardless of which scientists, from which country, may have been responsible for creating SARS-CoV-2; [their] actions constitute crimes against humanity.


    1. Here is a MUST WATCH background discussion from April 2022 between Rixey and Couey (who I can vouch for). I don’t detect any BS, just super smart high integrity people seeking truth and justice.

      What they did is so horrific it boggles the mind.

      Fauci needs to hang.


  47. A rare politician speaks to vaccine harms and almost all of his colleagues boycott his speech.

    Does this demonstrate poor ethics or our genetic tendency to deny unpleasant realities, in this case that they’ve probably damaged their own health?


  48. Nate Hagens today interviewed a permaculture expert and somehow forgot to ask the only questions that matter:
    1) What percentage of the calories you eat do you grow?
    2) How much money do you make per acre growing and selling food?
    3) How did 1) & 2) change when you adopted permaculture techniques?

    It seems permaculture experts always make their living selling expertise rather than food.

    That’s a big clue.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. AND the weather stays consistent with your climate zone and always cooperates by not throwing once in 100 year storms at you, or late or early season cold snaps, or heat waves, or droughts, or fires OR nuclear winter.
        ALL gardening/food growing is now a crap shoot (and unreliable) now due to unstable weather brought on by climate change/overshoot. (I apologize fob being a little snarky here;) ).

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Hey Rob;
      Might want to rethink your take on permaculture.
      First- conventional farmers don’t earn enough money to get by either. The system is rigged to get big and maximize subsidies to get by.

      Second- Permaculture based food systems have to deal with competing with the entrenched food system of ultra cheap, fossil fuel subsidized empty calories. Makes it hard to match price points.

      Third- Permaculture, being based on perennials, inherently takes time to get up to production, and as a system, is still in the early stages of refining the best practices. (My chestnut trees gave their first few nuts after eight years)

      Fourth- As we transient off fossil fuels, ( whether by choice or otherwise) what else would you suggest? Endless square miles of row crops managed with diesel equipment and fertilized with Haber Bosch nitrogen will not be happening. Perennial systems try to work toward closed loops and tap into natural nutrient sources.

      Yes, many permaculture advocates end up on the promotion circuit, but they need the off farm income, and they obviously see the need for the food system to transition, so are trying to ge the word out.

      There are going to be all sorts of relocalized variations on growing food more sustainably, but the base principles of permaculture are sound.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I have nothing against permaculture. I studied it about 10 years ago and it has a lot of wise ideas. I’m just not convinced the ideas are any different than those known by pre-industrial small-scale farmers. Especially when you remove the diesel needed to build the water conservation structures that permaculture frequently advocates.

        It also bugs me that permaculture experts often dress up their desire for unsustainable planet destroying long distance travel with a “green” story. Why doesn’t this guy stay home and teach his Oregonian next door neighbors?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I have been doing permiculture design ideas since 1997 in landscaping and then my own farm and for the most part it is just massive amounts of work. It also requires massive amounts of fencing materials and other high end IC inputs unless one has inherited a property that has hedge rows and ponds all included. But even my ponds need a large excavator in every 10 years to clean them out. All this could be done by hand of course and eventually will. Though by younger people. I highly recommend permiculture but it is not an easy path.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. I live on a big-ish property (11 acres). I had dreams of doing permaculture stuff. Have realised how incredibly hard it is just to maintain what we’ve already got. Everything you need is so expensive. Contractors are expensive. We just make hay and do lease-grazing at the moment. I am hoping eventually to grow a lot of native plants and do restoration planting

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Despite the lovely principles, it does seem like the old Permaculture Design Certificate is an elaborate ponzi scheme


  49. el mar´s survival question:

    What does a bacterial culture do when the nutrient solution on which it lives disappears?

    It sets up wind turbines?
    It escapes into space with the help of trans-bacterianism?
    It dies?

    What does a human civilization do when it runs out of fossil fuels?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s