By marromai: Post Peak Everything

Today’s guest post by German speaking marromai contemplates the implications of peak everything caused by energy depletion and concludes the coming collapse will be rapid, harsh, and permanent. Other essays by marromai can be found here.

Following is an edited excerpt from “A Book for no One” by Stefan Gruber that discusses the so called “tipping points” worked out by David Korowicz of Feasta and concludes “Peak Everything” in the near future:

Systems have the tendency to increase their degree of complexity more and more and thus to become more and more susceptible to collapse by the smallest triggers. This is true for any chaos-mathematical system, for any physical system and, of course, for civilization. Every self-organizing system needs energy to be kept away from the chaotic state.

The replacement of human labor by the production of fossil fuels led to the fact that less and less humans were needed to produce food more and more cheaply, to mine metals and of course to extract fossil fuels themselves. Wealth increased exponentially – as did the population of Homo sapiens – and the labor force became increasingly differentiated and redirected into higher-skilled fields to meet people’s increased consumption needs, which in turn relied on the use of fossil fuels, other raw materials, and innovation.

Initially, in any self-organizing system that runs out of fuel, synergy occurs to compensate for the loss of cheap energy (globalization; outsourcing of production tools from companies), which further increases complexity. After that, the highly interconnected structures collapse.

But how can a fully mature civilization collapse worldwide? To understand this, we must familiarize ourselves a little more deeply with dynamic systems and the so-called “tipping point” and relate this to the raw material robbery and the compulsion for permanent economic growth of a system built on exponential credit growth. The true extent of the catastrophe will then reveal itself unvarnished.

The geophysicist Heribert Genreith calculated the life span of our system solely based on the debt based money view, according to which there will be a sustainable GDP decline from 2009 and a destruction of values until 2024, with subsequent hyperinflation until 2030 and the catastrophic finale (GDP exit) until 2034. In his forecast, which is supported by pure mathematics, however, he leaves out the most serious and destructive factor “peak everything“, which we will come to in a moment. It is this factor that will throw the system out of its orderly course during a global economic crisis and destroy civilization as we know it. To back this up scientifically and in terms of systems theory, we recommend reading the overview by the “Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability”, or “Feasta” for short, the essay by an international think tank based in Ireland, entitled “Tipping Point“:

We are trying to solve problems within the same systems that are responsible for creating them and that only exacerbate those problems. Moreover, we are locked and trapped in these systems. […] But these systems are far too complicated and too interconnected to fully understand their function. Managing these systems in a way that would allow for controlled shrinkage while maintaining our prosperity is not possible. There is no path to sustainable or planned decline. […] The conclusion of this report is that a decline in energy will almost certainly initiate a series of processes, at the end of which will be the collapse of our civilization. We are close to a point where world oil production will decline or may have already reached that point (peak oil). Our civilizational structure reacts unstably to a withdrawal of energy. In all likelihood, our globally interconnected civilization is on the verge of a surprisingly rapid and imminent collapse.

David Korowicz – Tipping Point – 2010Download

Oil is the foundation of our economic system and at the same time the bloodstream of civilization. It is taken for granted as a source of energy that simply exists to drive the debt-based global economic ponzi scheme – also understood and included by this think tank – and thus “economic growth”. It is subject, like all commodities, to “Jevons’ paradox“, which in economics is understood to be an observation by William Stanley Jevons “according to which technological progress that allows the more efficient use of a commodity ultimately leads to increased use of that commodity rather than decreased use. In a broader sense, this is now referred to as the rebound effect.”

We observe this effect in other areas, too: The world’s oceans have already had their “peak fish” for decades. Ever more brutal methods are used to fish at ever greater depths, with the help of ever more energy-intensive technology and with ever more unwanted by-catch to satisfy the demand for the last fish. The extinction of species is proceeding at a gigantic pace. The widespread use of pesticides and genetically modified plants is already having its first effects, and the extremely environmentally damaging mining of industrial metals (aluminum, copper, nickel, etc.) will reach its peak in a few decades, but in reality, will already become unprofitable before then due to peak oil. Whereas in the 19th century, for example, copper nuggets weighing tons were still lying around on the earth’s surface, today people are digging for the metal in kilometer-wide and hundreds of meter-deep pits to extract the metal from the stone through chemical processing, in which it is often only found in the order of per mill. So the more metal that is mined – and this yield must increase steadily to maintain our debt backed monetary system – the less copper per ton is found in new mines. This makes mining even more energy intensive and expensive, and it has been shown to be along an exponential curve – the less metal per ton, the exponentially more oil is needed to extract it.

The same phenomenon is taking place with oil itself. The largest oil reserves were already pumped dry in the 1970s. Today, oil is pumped out of the ground using increasingly costly methods (which in turn require oil), and although the price of oil is rising inexorably, there is no longer any increase in production, no matter how refined and expensive the method of oil production or how high its price, because there is simply less and less oil distributed over an ever larger area and no new large oil fields have been found for decades. And the more the oil runs out and the more its price rises with it, the more expensive the mining of industrial metals becomes, which in turn additionally reach their peak in a few decades.

So these processes are based on feedbacks and they build each other up. The same phenomenon can be observed with the technology metals (indium, gallium, germanium, etc.) and the rare earths, which are not only approaching their peak in a few decades, but are also becoming increasingly expensive due to peak oil.

Peak oil is followed by peak water: Scientists estimate that by 2030, due to population growth alone we will need about 30 percent more water, 40 percent more energy and 50 percent more food (while at the same time arable land will become scarce). How is this to be accomplished when the only cheap energy that has been available to us across the board for the past several decades is rapidly running out? Peak water” will be followed by “peak food”, which is already close to its maximum because of climate change and will be completely stifled by rising oil prices. Substitutes for oil are not in sight. High-quality coal had already peaked 20 years ago, even low-quality coal will peak in the foreseeable future, and the so-called “renewable energies” could substitute oil demand to a large extent in the most optimistic case, but only under the assumption of an immense consumption of raw materials to produce these technologies.

One cannot simply take away the cheap energy source from an overpopulated, highly complex world that grew on the foundation of cheap energy and replace it with a more expensive one because, after all, cheap energy was the cause of overpopulation and complexity in the first place. So if no miracle happens in the next few years in the search for cheap energy or in the development of new technologies, one has to agree with the conclusion of Donella and Dennis Meadows and Jorgen Randers in their book “Limits to Growth – The 30-Year Update: Signal to Change Course”: a continuation of “business as usual” will lead to collapse from the year 2030.

Everything is striving towards the magic point “Peak Everything“, which of course will be the final nail in the coffin for the debt based economic system, if it does not perish by itself before then. And of course, already before “Peak Everything” the global commodity wars will break out, and the motives will of course be underpinned with ethical arguments – there will be little to read about commodity wars in the system media.

In the so-called ‘developed’ regions, there will be no more ‘growth’; in fact, the development will be the reverse. Constant economic growth will be replaced in the future by perpetual economic recession. How will the industrialized countries react to this enormous challenge? These peoples will experience that they are in a permanent state of siege, in which the material living conditions will be as modest as during the two world wars. The modest way of life during the wars was temporary, but the future one will be permanent and increasingly serious. A small consolation for the present and future generations, because one thing should be clear by now: The world’s population has also peaked, and like any exponential curve, as cynical and horrible as it may sound, it will collapse along with “Peak Everything” – to about one billion people. In the medium term, humanity will fall back to the level of the Neolithic Age.

———

The following is copied from discussions in the yellow forum (a German economic forum). It illustrates what may happen post peak everything during collapse and what effective prepping may look like.

Q: Why should our highly complex society not “only” be thrown back to the development level of the 16th century?

A: This is just not possible. Where are the tools of the 16th century?
Where are the robust but low-yielding seeds of the 16th century?
Where are the cows of the 16th century? Small-framed, robust, calving unassisted because the offspring are not uterus-bursting high-yielding cattle?

All that is no longer there. Instead, we have corn rootworm, fire blight, Colorado potato beetle and other pests that were unknown in the 16th century.

Where are the 30 people per square kilometer of the 16th century?
How many do we have today? Around 250.

No one is going to push aside some humus and use a pickaxe to mine coal or ores anymore. These resources are gone, no longer extractable without large-scale industrial material and energy input.

Economic reconstruction, by the way, goes the same way as energy consumption: No energy, no recovery.

Nobody will found a city at the sea anymore and reach a population density of 100 persons per square kilometer, thanks to fishing like in the antiquity.

The shoals of fish for this are also gone and will be for our lifetime.

Even if we still hurriedly forge everything possible to plows: Where are the oxen?

Even if we plow the fields with human power: Where is the non-F1 hybrid seed for next year’s harvest?

(Comment by another person)
I do not want to criticize these views. Unfortunately, I find too few discussions here that are constructively positioned and deal with the will to survive inherent in every human being, which historically proves that after every system collapse, reconstruction has taken place, resulting in a better living situation than before the crisis.

Good then a constructive approach: What does man need to survive?

Man dies after:

  • 3 minutes without air
  • 3 days without water
  • 3 weeks without food
  • 3 hours without shelter (in a snowstorm without special equipment)

Air:
We have plenty. But what about this in the event of a crisis?
When solvents, detergents and chemical precursors of all kinds are stored in countless tanks and plants as a result of an economic crash and these rust away merrily.

What about the decay ponds of nuclear power plants when the water supply fails and the freshly burned fuel rods ignite themselves after a few weeks?
Not to be extinguished and with consequences in the dimension of Chernobyl.

Where is the fire department in the collapse when whole areas full of low-energy Styrofoam pressboard wood façade houses are in flames for whatever reason?

Or the parched meadow of farmer Horst in midsummer bursts into flames due to a discarded glass bottle?

Water:
We have plenty. But … is it drinkable?
In many areas, even if one should succeed in reactivating one of the wells, which had to become deeper and deeper due to the falling water levels, the groundwater is no longer drinkable.

Be it because of agriculture, be it because after WWII the bomb craters were filled up with used oil drums, paint cans and similar debris and today no politician dares to tear away the corporation (and major employer of the region) that was created on it, to clean up the contaminated site.

Not to speak of the dozens of “pits” and embankments in each municipality, which were used as garbage dumps, whose positions are well known thanks to measuring helicopters, but no one dares to touch them, because otherwise the municipalities would be immediately broke.

Streams and rivers? Full of sewage from overflowing house pits, failing municipal sewage treatment plants, unmaintained oil separators from gas stations?

Food:
Huge problem in the worst case. Today, 10 calories of oil are in every calorie of food. Without oil, there is no food. The oil does not even need to “run out”. It is enough if we can no longer afford it or if the producing countries simply do not want to or can no longer supply it.

Or the transport routes fail, the farmers go broke, the freighters no longer run, the JIT logistics fail, etc.

The greatest danger: On the one hand, hunger does not kill immediately (i.e. the hungry person goes in search) and on the other hand, the stomach then takes control of its evolutionary-biological protuberance (aka. brain).

This offers plenty of room for scenarios, nature shows how little squeamish “hungry people” deal with each other without stockpiling.

The only consolation is that if we are going to have an abundance of one resource in the crisis, it will be “long pig”.

Accommodation:
The small cottage with garden in the wasteland, in it the stove rumbling away, a sign of civilization in a dehumanized world, a source of warmth and life energy, the small dream of every serious “prepper” and “survivalist”, on it delicious chicken soup from own chickens…

In short, a gigantic target, visible from afar thanks to a column of smoke and smellable for miles in the wasteland, attracts uninvited guests like flies and they will usually outnumber you and most likely be better armed. The owner of the oven could well end up as a “long pig” in that oven.

Are you happy now with this constructive approach?

If you don’t have any obligations, you might want to get a shotgun ready, one shot is enough. Probably better than being beaten to death in the fight for the last edibles.

This time we get Game Over… in all aspects, not only monetarily. The main problem is a caloric one, we can print money like hay … but not hay, nor potatoes, and not a drop of oil.

255 thoughts on “By marromai: Post Peak Everything”

  1. Art Berman today is excellent with a wide view on overshoot and energy.

    Nuclear Is Not The Answer

    Let’s think about the constraints on new nuclear generation without considering cost. Eight new nuclear plants were completed worldwide in 2022. An average of nine new plants per year must be completed to go from 2,682 terrawatt hours in 2022 to IEA’s estimate of 4,353 terawatt hours of generation in 2050. In order to double that, an additional 24 plants must be added each year for a total annual addition of 33 new plants per year. Building four times the number of plants completed in 2022 every year for the next 27 years would move nuclear to 4% of total energy supply. That’s not going to happen. And even if it did, 4% is not going to change our predicament.

    Climate change is not the biggest problem facing the world. It is a symptom of the much larger problem of overshoot. That means that humans are using natural resources and polluting at rates beyond the planet’s capacity to recover. The main cause of overshoot is the extraordinary growth of human population made possible by fossil energy.

    Overshoot is more difficult to dispute than climate change—the destruction of rainforests, the population decline of other species, the pollution of land, river and seas, the acidification of the oceans, and loss of fisheries and coral reefs. These are not part of any natural process and human activity is clearly responsible.

    Technology, unfortunately, is no more a solution to climate change, overshoot or the human predicament than it was the primary cause for human prosperity.

    When I talk to people about energy, the environment and the human predicament, they want me to help them understand what society can do to solve the problems that I describe. They are often frustrated when I tell them that it’s not that simple. Focusing on one part of the predicament like emissions or nuclear power may feel satisfying but simply shifts most of the problem somewhere else.

    Energy is the organizing principle that connects all of the elements of earth systems and human society. If we use less energy, emissions will decrease. Energy consumption and GDP have an almost perfect correlation so less energy use will reduce economic growth. Less energy will force a reduction in population. Lower economic growth, fewer emissions and a smaller population will result in a reduced human footprint on the environment. It’s logical but not simple. It won’t happen voluntarily so it will be imposed by circumstances. It will be traumatic.

    Making adjustments like substituting renewable energy for fossil fuels is like removing pieces from a Jenga tower. We’re pulling out pieces but don’t think it will collapse. In the Jenga game, the tower always collapses.

    The answer is to end the delusion that we can substitute one form of energy for another, and that it will solve all our problems. Nuclear power is part of the solution but it’s not the answer. Let’s acknowledge the complexity. The answer is to use less energy. It’s time to get honest about the human predicament.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    2. “The conclusion of this report is that a decline in energy will almost certainly initiate a series of processes, at the end of which will be the collapse of our civilization. We are close to a point where world oil production will decline or may have already reached that point (peak oil).”
      Peak oil was in 2018, hence all the wars breaking out as we fight over the last of the low hanging fruit.
      ” Our civilizational structure reacts unstably to a withdrawal of energy. In all likelihood, our globally interconnected civilization is on the verge of a surprisingly rapid and imminent collapse.”
      The above quote is from a paper written by David Korowicz
      “I’ve added this link to my blog post titled Financial system supply-chain cross contagion – a study in global systemic collapse.”
      Close examination reveals that climate change consequences haven’t been factored into this collapse hypothesis.
      Making this set of living arrangements more precarious than portrayed in an otherwise good analysis.

      Financial system supply-chain cross contagion – a study in global systemic collapse

      Like

      Reply

  2. Thank you for this post Marromai. Sometimes it is helpful to remind ourselves of how dire the situation is, using basic logic and maths. It’s un-denialable!

    Like

    Reply

    1. Hello there Monk,
      By now you must be counting the sleeps in earnest and I just wanted to wish you and your beloved every happiness for your life together, come what may, you will always be with your best friend and that is a good and beautiful life. I don’t think you made an announcement here and I’m not sure you wanted to, but I hope you don’t mind that I posted this well-wishing publicly! One of the reasons is I don’t have your email with me (I’m back in Queensland for a short stint and it’s not on this computer’s address book). I also wonder if you received the Judge Dee books yet? I also didn’t bring the tracking receipt to check!
      Safe travels and all the best to you and your family, old and new.
      Love from Gaia xxx

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Hi Gaia. Thank you so much for the wishes and the card, that was so lovely of you. I received the books today yay! Perfect timing as I’m on holiday for 4 weeks now so will have something new to read 🙂
        I’m getting married next weekend, so excited but also got a lot of chores and errands to do in the mean time. Best wishes for your travels

        Like

        Reply

  3. This is a serious question: would a fatty like me really die after 3 weeks of no food? 30 kgs overweight…

    Yes I am trying to get fit for the impending apocalypse

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Yeah, I’m not so sure either. I’ve heard of people doing very long water fasts (i.e. just drinking water, not eating) that are longer than 3 weeks. And it seems to me that there have been hunger strikes that have gone on longer (probably with water intake). I’ve even seen a claim of someone going months without food but I’m not sure that can be right.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Yea I’ve heard of people doing fasted retreats for many days, sometimes people die or become very ill. But others can last a long time without food. But you wouldn’t be in any state to go fighting zombies or looking for more food

        Like

        Reply

        1. Intermittent fasting has improved my arthritis in the past so I want to try that again and, if possible, try a three or four day water fast to really get that autophagy going. But I have a quite low BMI (about 19) so I’m not sure a multi-day fast is a good idea, certainly not a multi-week fast; there would be nothing left of me!

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Agreed, My BMI hovers around 19 to 20 and I would never do a multi-day fast without some kind of medical supervision. At my age of 70 it might be my last fast 😮.
            AJ

            Like

            Reply

      2. A relation of mine was a political prisoner in a European country and went on hunger strike in protest.

        They lasted 31 days, and have permanently damage digestion. I believe it also caused brain damage of some kind.

        It is gravely weakening, and coming out of the starvation has to be managed very carefully indeed. Their doctor gave them sips of orange juice to start with. You will feel the urge to gorge on things which may well kill you.

        During the recovery period, which will depend on access to increasing and regular amounts of good nutrition, you can die or fall gravely ill very easily, and will be easy meat for any human aggression.

        Starvation is NOT a fast!!!

        In parts of Europe where frequent famines were anticipated. the peasants ate famine foodstuffs in the good times, so as not to go into shock when they had to consume a lot of them, eg birch bark.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

      1. Hello everyone,

        What a very interesting topic fasting is–it may just be the cure-all answer to anything that ails us as well as our population conundrum!

        Just for the record, about 15 years ago when I took a very deep dive into the psychological and physiological limits of my own body, I embarked on a 21 day fast which started with a 7 day dry fast (nothing by mouth, no water!) and then 7 days of increasing water intake and finally finishing with 7 days of watered down juice intake. I was 53kg when starting and considered myself in good health (but I can claim better health now) and I ended up 48kg. I went into this as part of a spiritual quest and absolutely believed that I would be fine, and remarkably, I was. I had read accounts of yogis and other spiritual masters who claimed they could go without eating for long periods, called breatharianism, and although I did not think that was possible, I wanted to test my own limits, in every way. Probably because I believed there were true accounts of humans who had undergone extreme fasts, at no stage was I afraid of my safety–this was not done as a death wish. However, my scientist husband had severe reservations but somehow he allowed me to proceed, but by now you all must know that I do have a very strong sense of self and self-direction! I kept a detailed journal throughout and for the most part, the clarity of my thoughts was amazing as well as the sense of rightness and peace. After a few days, there was no hunger, only fatigue, but there were bursts of energy as well. The process was done as a retreat, I self-isolated for the time and read, listened to music, sat in front of wood fires, wrote in my journal, took showers and baths, walked around the garden (but no physical labour), and slept a lot. I will always remember it as the most intense and yet reverent time in which I tried to discover the boundaries of body, mind and spirit for my own being. I proved to myself literally that “man does not live by bread alone” and there is something more within and without us that drives the life force. Of course, my relative euphoria and arguably delusional state could all have been the result of chemical imbalances in my brain during the fast, but my point is long fasts (deliberate withholding of food and/or water) can and have been done for various reasons by many people throughout all our human history.

        Truth be told, I was so emboldened and intrigued by this experience that I actually repeated the 21 day course another 2 times !! within the next 12 months, just to prove to myself beyond doubt the first occasion was not a fluke. Because I knew I would and could survive it, the next two attempts were totally non confronting and almost gentle. I have not fasted in that capacity since, it seems that I have gotten that need out of my system but what I am left with is an absolute confidence that I can go without eating and even drinking much for an extended period of time and still be able to function. For my particular constitution, this ability translates into extra stamina needed for extended physical work which is so necessary for our current and future life. Also, I like to think that I would be mentally and physically prepared to forgo a share of food for others if called to do so, or by my own choosing. I think I first cultivated this fasting habit during medical training as we often skipped meals when doing long 36 hour shifts and even forget to drink (which in the short run had the extra benefit of needing less time-sapping toilet breaks!)

        What is even more consoling to me now is that this lack of fear of fasting and knowing how my body will adapt, having experience of the physical, mental, and emotional sensations, gives me courage and a method to end my life peacefully in this way if and when the time comes. I think there are many in our sphere who also have the same thought pathway. But that is another digression for another day.

        I must add my most strident admonitions that the type of fast I have described should not be attempted–it was foolhardy for me to do so but I made my own choice for many reasons. I was already a very experienced faster before the event. And most importantly, because of my own medical training, I believed I could recognise and manage any serious signs and symptoms of incompatibility with life–you would think I would have stopped the fast in that case! But this is not the situation for the greatest majority, in fact, this kind of extreme self-experimentation will only draw those who desire it, for whatever their own reasons.

        Forgive me if my revelation today brings shock and horror, but I trust this group of friends are here to support each other through whatever may come and there is no other place I would be willing and happy to bare my soul than here and now at the peak and aftermath of all things.

        Namaste, friends.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Very interesting and impressive Gaia. Thanks for sharing. I would never have imagined a week without water was possible.

          I struggled a bit but was ok with a 48 hour fast. Now I fast everyday between 8pm and noon.

          It is good to test limits and build confidence. This summer when camping I learned I could live comfortably for 10 days without a refrigerator/cooler and no cooking.

          Like

          Reply

    3. Monk,
      You should watch the survival series on HGTV called “Alone”. The premise is that they take people who are proficient in wilderness survival and put them in a wilderness situation where they have a limited amount of tools and the one who survives the longest wins. It’s instructive as to how long people can survive starving.
      AJ

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. When our government tells us to prepare for hurricanes or other emergencies, they always mention “non-perishable foods for three days”, as if 1) we will die without our next meal, and 2) someone else will bring the food after three days. People who’ve never gone three waking hours without eating probably think that they will die in agony three days after their last meal.

        Lathechuck

        Like

        Reply

        1. You’re so right.

          Everything we do on matters of overshoot is make-believe without substance. Green, CCS, net-zero, PV, EV. organic, etc. etc..

          They should say “food supply is at risk due to war and extreme weather so you should have 12 months of stored food and you should not have any more children.”

          Like

          Reply

    1. I’ve heard that argument but never understood it. A functioning financial system with credit and trust is required for international trade. Most everything we need now comes from or is partially dependent on other countries. How do you think the financial system can collapse without the material economy following in lockstep?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I think there will be a steep drop in the material economy, likely steeper than in the early 1930s, but it won’t disappear entirely. In the Long Descent, which I linked to above, John Michael Greer mentions that governments can do many things when their backs are against the wall.
        From page 92 (paraphrased).

        Many people underestimate the resilience of the modern nation-state. If faced with a severe economic crisis, it has plenty of options. It can devalue its currency to make debt serviceable in real terms (Like Japan did in the 1990s and the U.S. did after 2008). It can respond to currency collapse by issuing a new currency with solid backing. It can manipulate markets, nationalize industries, enact wage and price controls and even subsidize basic necessities and impose rationing. It can even declare martial law and use the military and national guard to restore order.

        The financial reckoning will be quite painful, but as long as there are some physical resources still around, national governments can do things to mitigate the situation.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        2. I’ve read The Long Descent but am not convinced that it could take centuries for global industrial civilisation to collapse. JMG often uses the Roman Empire as an example as that contracted for centuries before ending. We have built a world that highly dependent on supply chains and fossil fuels. And as collapse proceeds, countries which may control some resources will seek to keep them for itself. Of course, this could lead to wars but that would hasten collapse. I think there will be elements of catabolic collapse, and some parts of the world may collapse sooner than others but then that would make it a fast collapse for those areas.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. Isn’t that what’s happening now? The whole neocon war in Ukraine is to break up Russia and steal its resources for the resource hungry West. The same is true in the Middle East, the west wants the right to steal Middle Eastern resources for themselves. The problem is now the rest of the world understands that.
            AJ

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

  6. Nice essay from Tom Murphy, The Intransigence of Now. Examining different ideas about what is normal and what might follow modernity. For some reason, it sparked a “what if” thought. What if CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases did not trap heat? Would we still be trying to develop so-called renewable energy infrastructure or would we be piling more and more resources into finding and developing more fossil fuel supply? Would we recognise the utter destruction of the real world due solely to our desire for more, and try to do something about it? I know, not a particularly useful thought, but there it is, nevertheless.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  7. I also believe, we will suffer a fast breakdown.

    This was my answer to the last article of Tim Morgan:

    “Thank you! This is a very good article that shows the connections between our predicament.

    Due to the path dependencies and the many feedback loops, our BAU system can only continue to grow or collapse.

    It can’t be brought down in stages. It will collapse like a wooden house gnawed by termites when the everything bubble bursts. It will burst!

    It is praiseworthy that Mr. Morgan is trying to spread hope and optimism.
    But there is no solution. We are living through a one-off event. Like a table fireworks display.
    Because there are only two states for our civilizational cycle. On or off.
    “Seneca Cliff” is a good description. When the deflationary depression sets in globally due to energy scarcity, a rapid chain reaction on the highest wave levels will lead downwards, back to a subsistence economy.
    Then there will only be room for very few people and industrial civilization will be over.”

    #265: Explore and explain

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  8. Why the insistence on peak oil when there are plans afoot for a massive expansion of oil and gas? And 2. the talk is always about how collapse/ climate meltdown will affect humans, rarely does anyone mention the extinction we’re forcing on all other life forms.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Can you share any of these plans for expansion? All the super wells where we still get most of our crude oil from are all in decline. There have been no new discoveries of equivalent size that I know of. There is about 40 years left of fuel, and then that’s it for modern civ.
      The extinction of other life forms is well covered in the Deep Green Resistance analysis. Are you familiar with that work? You should join us over there as a member 🙂
      If humans did discover some source of new abundant cheap energy that would be the worst case for all other lifeforms, and then ultimately us.

      Like

      Reply

  9. Excellent essay, marromai. Thank you.
    A lot of my thoughts concerning decomplexification.

    “What about the decay ponds of nuclear power plants when the water supply fails and the freshly burned fuel rods ignite themselves after a few weeks?
    Not to be extinguished and with consequences in the dimension of Chernobyl.”.

    I don’t know if someone already advertised TV series “L’ Effondrement”
    but in case wasn’t, I highly recommend it. For every collapsnik like you and me 😉
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11248266/

    One of the episodes shows the nuclear plant’s “final stage”. Very realistic.
    It is available in some streaming services.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  10. Even though collapse is inevitable it will play out differently across different regions. For instance countries with access to large coal reserves will try to ramp up coal production and set up CTL plants as oil declines. This was discussed at a congressional hearing a long time back as part of mitigation strategies. U.S has the largest coal reserves and has the potential to produce at least as much coal as China which is currently producing 4.5 billion tonnes. Countries just like organisms will do everything they can to keep themselves alive. Of course these attempts will only buy them a few decades at best at the expense of trashing the planet and the climate completely.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  11. marromai, this essay by Eugyppius says the German government is in crisis because it wants to spend beyond the allowed debt limit on electrifying the economy.

    It seems no government is capable of prioritizing what is most important and living within the taxation ability of citizens. Yet somehow the Germans have billions for Ukraine.

    What is your perspective?

    https://www.eugyppius.com/p/ampeldammerung-scholz-government

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. This government is a disaster, I can’t believe there are still so many deluded Green voters after all what they have done. In my eyes, the German government is the perfect counter-example to Hanlon’s razor:
      You can’t be that incompetent, so malice must be assumed in their actions.

      In conspiracy circles, it is said that the Greens are an offshoot of the CIA to finally finish off Germany – still an occupied country and enemy state according to the UN Statute. It certainly sounds plausible when you look at their actions. All of it points to the fact, that we are only a serf of the USA. And since resources are getting rarer in the world, one unnecessary consumer can be removed easily by ruining it’s economy. Only a conspiracy theory, of course…

      Our clowns only have to hold out for 3 more weeks, then the government will have been in office for 2 years and all the ministers will receive their full pensions. After that they will probably disappear…

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    1. Interesting podcast. she illuminated how much energy has played into politics worldwide over the last 50 plus years. The interrelationships she pointed out in the middle east were particularly significant. I was disappointed in that, I’m not sure she’s very collapse aware. I was astounded because implicitly. she seems to think green energy would solve our problems or even ameliorate them. Also one of her throwaway last lines about wouldn’t it be nice if we just had fusion and didn’t have to think about energy anymore, evidenced a profound lack of awareness of the dire situation we’re in. Seems like there’s some denial, mixed in with hopium.
      AJ

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

    1. LOL. I feel bad for Thunberg. She takes a lot of heat.

      I think she has a good heart and a lot more confidence and bravery than I do.

      The problem I suspect is she’s surrounded and advised by green idiots that don’t understand how the world works.

      I’m pretty sure she has defective denial genes so a couple hours with me and she’d be focussed on the correct path of population reduction.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  14. I posted this new video by Jack Alpert a couple weeks ago but am reposting because Jack has asked me to provide suggestions for making it better. If you have any opinions you’d like passed on to Jack, please reply to this thread.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I sent it to an overshoot aware friend who is definitely not i denial and is familiar with Jack’s work. He had tis to say…….

      “I think his math is faulty (not enough to diss his message, though). Seems to me, that of the 8 billion here now, 5 billion will die naturally before 2100. Not 2. And that has knock-ons for reproduction rates, so I think his 14 billion is over the top – indeed, we can’t feed our way there anyway. So a few billion are doomed to remain hypothetical (I never had a baby with Stevie Nicks, either :). Also, I suspect long-term-sustainable population is more like 1-2 billion than 600mill, and that we may be traversing 3 billion on the way down, in 2100.

      Still, looking at it from a financial-crash POV; 5 billion would be in trouble pretty soon after…”

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Thank you, I’ll pass it on.

        I’d point out that it’s not possible to argue between 600M and 2B as the sustainable maximum unless you specify the standard of living. Jack’s vision is to keep some science, technology, and comforts, which means the number must be much lower than 2 billion living as medieval peasants.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

      2. I have a comment in the same area. Jack talks about Limits to Growth and seems to used the original edition of the book. That showed a peak of 6 billion, falling to 3 billion. But Jack then talks about 8 billion falling to the same 3 billion, so 5 billion lives lost. So he’s talking about the original LTG model reference run but uses current population figures along with that original run for the century end figure. As it happens, the LTG 30-year Update edition is a bit closer to today’s number. Its reference run shows a peak of a little over 7 billion in 2030, falling to a little under 4 billion, which is a difference of about 3.5 billion.

        Not that those figures are what he chooses to focus on, instead going for a final population of 600 million. So it is not, perhaps, very important but I noticed the slight of hand straight away and I always think it better to use reasonable calculations otherwise the whole thing can be dismissed.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

    2. Confirming that Jack Alpert has seen the above two comments and says he stands by his numbers which were justified in prior more detailed videos and he does not want to engage in a discussion here with people that he does not know.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  16. “You know what I like? Trees, birds, mushrooms, rivers & wind. You know what I loathe? Cars, cities, museums, movies & shopping. I do one cause it’s the modern way to exist, dependent on civilization & hooked on comfort & convenience. “

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  17. There’s a lot I dislike about Rintrah’s ideas including left/right politics and diet religion, but occasionally he has an interesting idea.

    Today he proposes an explanation for the insanity we see all around us.

    I’d point out that the same brain damage could be caused by mRNA clotting as per Dr. Joe Lee’s String Theory, which as of today, everyone is still ignoring, but Lee’s still aggressively pushing like a mad dog. Rintrah appears to be unaware of Lee’s theory.

    Don’t read if you’re unable to sift wheat from chaff.

    https://www.rintrah.nl/what-would-it-look-like-if-the-whole-population-now-has-brain-damage/

    What would it look like, if the whole population now has brain damage?

    I have to point this out. There’s a new study that looks at what happens to dogs when they are infected by SARS2. I don’t endorse these experiments for obvious reasons, but I can’t ignore the news. They find that after infection, everything turns to shit. T cells infiltrate the brain, the blood brain barrier degrades, the vessels in the brain get fucked up and eventually neurons start dying too. This continues after the virus itself is gone from the brain.

    That’s the thing with the “0.2% fatality rate” narrative. There’s a vast demographic of people who survive but have some form of lingering damage to their body. And then they get infected again. And you have to be really intellectually creative to just deny this growing pile of evidence that people’s brains are degrading as a consequence of their exposure to this virus.

    But I want to ask you: What do you think it would look like, if everyone now had brain damage? I think it would basically look like the world we see today. The thing to keep in mind is: Brain damage is subtle at first. You don’t suddenly forget what your wife looks like. Your brain is basically a giant prediction market. It creates a model of the external world and attempts to maintain homeostasis.

    If you have less cognitive capacity left, your brain’s model doesn’t radically change. Rather, your model remains the same, but you have less points in the model. Imagine I made a very nice connect-the-dots puzzle of a dog. All those dots are the equivalent of neurons. Now imagine I removed half the dots, at random. It would still look like a dog. It would just be less sophisticated.

    Anyway, the syndrome that SARS2 causes is something we know all too well. It’s called hypofrontality. That seems to be most of the issue. Our prefrontal cortex expanded to reach its massive size relatively recently in evolutionary history and it’s quite fragile. When the amount of blood that flows through it decreases, we call it hypofrontality. This state basically causes you to retreat from the world. It’s seen in depression, as well as in schizophrenia, where it’s thought to cause the negative symptoms (that is, the absence of certain forms of normal behavior seen in schizophrenics).

    Like

    Reply

    1. Some on in the comments replied
      @Skeptical

      Brain drain has been a problem for us prior to this panic, and as a species we seem hell bent on brain damaging ourselves.

      We have a culture of multitasking / multislacking with endless amounts of attention grabbing apps and games, with their notifications and their dopamine traps, all designed by professional psychologists and weaponized by intelligence agencies. It didn’t require a virus to melt brains, and it was apparent long before. People already were acting like raving retards by 2018 compared to 2008. Even without the scamdemic, can you honestly say we would be in a better spot by now in 2023 with the further march of ‘progress’?

      I have ADHD and I feel that it got worse during the pandemic.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  19. After 36 days of pounding on the American Academy of Pediatrics to acknowledge or rebut his String Theory, which Dr. Joe Lee is certain explains the worldwide rise in all-cause mortality since mRNA injections began, he is now bringing his theory to the attention of the major malpractice insurance companies for pediatricians.

    Lee’s got cojones and conviction.

    I’m still looking for a scientific rebuttal.

    https://josephyleemd.substack.com/p/day-36-aapeds-it-is-very-much-looking

    https://josephyleemd.substack.com/p/day-36-part-2-letting-the-aapeds

    https://josephyleemd.substack.com/p/day-36-part-4-american-academy-of

    Like

    Reply

    1. Like

      Reply

    2. “Information today from the United States, from the life insurance industry that shows deaths in young adults in 2023 so far are 20% above what we would expect…

      …And they do use quite strong words like, the numbers are ALARMING.

      Jan – May 2023 data showing…
      15 to 19 year olds –> 24% increase,
      30 to 34 –> 23% increase ,
      40 to 44 –> 25% increase.

      And it just seems incredible to me that this is not at the top of the political agenda and the mainstream news agenda.”

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  20. Must watch (or read).

    Despite the big money involved, I always doubted that pharma had sufficient power to synchronize all western governments, and to override 100 years of pandemic response and vaccine development practices, and to censor all news and social media.

    I’m thinking this may explain why Dr. Lee is being ignored. The organizations he is confronting may be protected by the DoD.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Here is a list of musicians that deserve our support for their covid integrity.

        Like

        Reply

  21. Today’s is my favorite episode by Canadian Prepper.

    He simply asks a bunch of questions about things that do not make sense.

    I’m thinking many of the answers may be “no one is driving the bus” as per Nate Hagens.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    2. He’s quite wrong on one thing: most people I encounter have NO ‘inkling’ at all!

      They just want to get back to house flipping/renovating, vacations and career building, and don’t want to hear about anything else.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

        1. Lucky me, my wife listens to me on geo-politics (she hate’s U.S. exceptionalism) but completely tunes me out on anything related to collapse, Covid, shots, medical – she doesn’t want to know either.
          AJ

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

  22. This is an interesting article “debunking ” Simon Michaux’s claims about shortages of minerals for a bright green future filled with EVs, Solar Panels and Wind Turbines.

    How Many Things Must One Analyst Get Wrong In Order To Proclaim A Convenient Decarbonization Minerals Shortage?

    Its really interesting to see the visceral response almost as if defending a religion or personal god against a blasphemous outsider threatening it. Obviously none of the counter arguments – if you can call them that – have any merit but the tone of the article is what struck me. It is clear no amount of logic or reason can get through to this person and unfortunately the world is run by people like him.

    Like

    Reply

    1. You’ve touched on an important theme that I’ve been noticing more and more. Beliefs on important issues like covid, war, climate, energy, diet, and politics are hardeneing and there is no openess in any camp to exploring nuance or the perspective of others. I expect it is a bad omen for future conflict.

      I skimmed the article and noticed two things. Half of the essay was spent disrespectfully undermining the credibility of Michaux. The other half was rebuttals to Michaux’s thesis without providing a single quantitative number on the materials required or their source. It was all fluff, whereas Michaux is all substance.

      Rather than undermine the author, I’ll let him speak for himself:

      Michael Barnard is a climate futurist, strategist and author. He spends his time projecting scenarios for decarbonization 40-80 years into the future. He assists multi-billion dollar investment funds and firms, executives, Boards and startups to pick wisely today. He is founder and Chief Strategist of TFIE Strategy Inc and a member of the Advisory Board of electric aviation startup FLIMAX. He hosts the Redefining Energy – Tech podcast (https://shorturl.at/tuEF5) , a part of the award-winning Redefining Energy team.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      2. If Mr Barnard’s expert opinions were published in an esteemed mainstream tech magazine (science-fiction magazine) it would hardly be a matter of significance. In fact Hollywood needs imaginative people like him to make good sci-fi movies. Michio Kaku (another futurist) has already contributed to a number of movies, some of which I even enjoyed.
        What greatly concerns me is that people like him are now walking down the corridors of power in global capitals advising our leaders and influencing actual policies.This is equal to somebody playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare and put in charge of military strategies at time of war.

        I do wonder 2 things

        1) At what point does the denial break apart and reality begins to dawn upon a person? It has to break at some point whether it is declining oil supplies or collapsing states.

        2)What does a person do then or think about?

        Like

        Reply

        1. Very good quesions.

          Peak oil is being blamed on falling demand instead of geologic depletion. Climate change is being blamed on oil companies instead of your last flight to Europe and overshoot. EVs are saving the planet instead of being more fun to drive than gas cars. mRNA saves rather than kills people. Ethnic cleansing by a friend is a lawful military action. Censorship is required to protect democracy. Debt does not matter.

          A few years ago I said: “Way too many smart people with big reputations are wrong about everything that matters. Something’s gonna happen that gives them an excuse not to have to admit they were in denial.”

          I stand by that predition. An economic collapse or a global war are good candidates for forgetting all the wrong experts.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. So that means an accomplished physicist who wrongly believes that “renewable” energy will save the day -because of denial- will blame failure of governments, corporations, bankers and politicians instead of recognizing the physics part of the problem which is what he has dedicated his entire life towards.

            Something similar is happening in Ukraine right now as this video explains.

            I can understand America meddling all across the world and destabilizing various regions as they are unlikely to face any blow back since there is an ocean on each side to protect it. But I can never understand how Europeans can be so stupid. Just imagine this scenario-

            Its 2080, industrial civilization has come to an end in most parts of the world and climate change is wreaking havoc as temperatures have crossed 3.5 degrees from various feedbacks. Middle east and North Africa are hit hard and people start to migrate north towards cooler climates. Europe has no means to stop this migration of tens of millions as militaries are non functional at this point. A terrorist group similar to ISIS emerges and declares its mission to establish a caliphate in Europe and destroy the Vatican, millions who have nothing to lose flock to its rank. How will the European native population which is already one of the oldest protect itself ? Will the Americans come to their rescue ?
            The same logic can be applied to Israel too. These countries are dooming their descendants to horrors.

            Like

            Reply

            1. Proud to say I’ve never listened to a speech by Biden, Trump, Trudeau, or Zelenskyy. I have no patience for idiot leaders.

              You’re probably younger than I am. I have trouble imagining 2030 let alone 2080.

              We are a tribal species so I expect countries like Japan with uniform cultures will be the safest places to live during collapse and I’d prefer to live in one of those countries.

              However, even if someone prefers to live in a multicultural country, I still think immigration should be stopped because we’re already over carrying capacity with much less fossil energy and an unstable climate, so every extra person means one more person will suffer.

              Like

              Reply

              1. I agree that multiculturalism is an experiment unique to the modern industrial society. In all of human history there has never been a multi ethnic , multi racial society of the kind that we have today and with good reason. As you mentioned we are tribal beings and find comfort with people who are similar to us. There were cultural exchanges but never the kind of mass migrations that we witnessed in the last 100 years. People can be nice to one another in times of abundance but the ugly reality of tribalism surfaces during times of scarcity.

                The most ethnically,racially diverse and multicultural population in the world also happens to be the most heavily armed population in the world absolutely addicted to consumption. One doesn’t need a lot of imagination to see where this will go.

                Liked by 2 people

                Reply

    1. Sorry, I think that AI is just hype. A “new” thing to sell to gullible corporations and people. Garbage in : Garbage out. AI is just a computer algorithm that incorporates all the code and blindnesses (prejudices) of it’s programmer. Tech or biology have not figured out how the brain works and all tech has done is make us more proficient at MPP. I especially liked Nate’s takedown on Andresen (I see his Star Trek beliefs everywhere).
      AJ

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. Yea when I’ve really tried to use Chat GP for professional work it’s actually so garbage. It writes like I did fresh out of uni ahaha

        Like

        Reply

    2. I, for the most part, agree with Nate Hagens. When it comes to dealing with overshoot, AI is a double edged sword. I fear that AI will allow us to continue business as usual for a little while longer at the cost of a much steeper descent (Think of a Hubbert Curve vs a Seneca cliff). AI (obviously) cannot extract CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into cheap oil, or bring extinct species back to life (Although some people are trying to the latter with CRISPR). AI also relies on a stable electric grid and telecom networks. Microchips (without which AI would be impossible) rely on finite critical metals.

      https://energyskeptic.com/2021/interdependent-chip-fab-electricgrid-financial-sys/
      https://energyskeptic.com/2021/fragility-of-microchips/
      https://energyskeptic.com/2021/microchips-detailed-description/
      https://energyskeptic.com/2021/motherboards-in-computers-too-complex-to-be-made-eventually/

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    3. As ridiculous as Marc Andreesen’s dreams are, I don’t see how a 5,000 times increase in energy use could boil the oceans. The Earth loses energy to space but is warming because the amount coming in is more than the amount going out. I’m not sure where all of this Andreesen energy would come from but, even if it was “new” energy (e.g. from fusion) the GHG blanket would not be able to keep enough heat in to boil the oceans.

      Or have I missed something?

      Like

      Reply

        1. Thanks. Tom did mention radiation to space but was very brief. I think he may have said that radiation can’t happen anywhere near quickly enough to avoid the boiling ocean. Maybe that’s it. Of course, that level of energy use can’t happen but it’s amazing that apparently smart people can’t Do The Math.

          Like

          Reply

  24. The irrigation pond that we doubled in size to (I think) a couple million liters filled in 7 weeks from rain.

    I built the windmill about 6 years ago and it pumps air into a stone at the bottom of the pond to keep the water oxygenated and cleaner.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  25. Why Chris Martenson took money out of the bank. Given that banks rely on endless growth to remain solvent, is it wise to open a bank account right now?

    (BTW this came out before Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic imploded)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  26. Pingback: Peak everything? – Just Collapse

  27. We often hear, from the optimists, “things have never been better” but it’s a feature of growth that this will continue to be true, until it isn’t. Once we reach that peak, or those peaks for different aspects, then it will always be, “things have been better.”

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Hello Mike,
      I have to strongly disagree on that.
      Depends where on the ladder of society you are.
      Depends on your outlook on life, your fears, your relationship with death and change.
      Depends on so many things.
      Hand in hand with material affluence came loss of the spiritual, disregard for the living, and consequently isolation, addictions, increased pollution of all kinds, concentration of power…

      Good and better have nothing to do with growth. The way we organize our society have not much to do with material affluence. I am not saying I have a perfect solution in mind, far from it (if I did, that would be a problem). Humans have been trying for quite some time 🙂 But maybe there are some things like maturity of a society, wisdom, sharing of a burden and trust in what ultimately is.

      This is why I understand when some say it’s all about the opening of the heart, or an heightened consciousness rather than necessarily ensured eternal darknesses. Even if, for hard-core doomers this position may fringe blasphemy 🙂

      Like

      Reply

      1. It’s nuanced but I’m talking about the self-style rational optimists who rail against those they see as doomers. They see everything through the prism of the moderately well off. They might also point to supposed statistics about how the numbers of extremely poor are dwindling. They point to various stats which, as a feature of growth, are getting better. But all of those things that they focus on only get better during the growth phase. After we head over some peak, they will all start declining. You won’t hear the rational optimists after that.

        In general, I agree with you, Charles.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. That kind of “optimists”… I understand better. Yes that’s totally true.
          I don’t bother about them any more. They are old news. They live in some kind of fantasy world. Maybe they are just deploying some kind of defence mechanism (denial again). They are not useful to the way I want to live. There is a lot of mental pollution on the web. I let them speak. I may be wrong, but it seems to me, many of them will be shocked at some point.
          Although, unfortunately wagers of the Simon-Ehrlich kind may turn out to be always in favour of Simon. Some stats obscure reality of day to day life by incorporating an element from the fantasy world (such as money/debt).

          I was thinking about other kinds of “optimists”. Those who are intimately aware of the hardships of life, by having gone through them. But still offer outlooks which do not imply rotting in the relentless loops of mental doom.
          Because I have slowly come to understand that framing everything under the filter of “what could go wrong down the road” is not helpful either. To me, that exercise has its limits and should be dialed down once it served its purpose of decision making/danger avoidance (or simply can’t serve any purpose, such as in the current case of predicaments).

          About stats, beavers and wolves have been slowly recolonizing France. Personally, this makes me happy.
          On a different note, according to our national statistics bureau, there was 53 800 more human deaths than expected in 2022 (this is accounting for factors such as the aging population) and life expectancy was stable (that is down compared to 2019).
          Maybe the “rational optimists” will just pick up other stats to boast about but not change their nature 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  28. Don’t know if he’s right but I do enjoy the intelligent geopolitical speculations of Simplicius the Thinker. Today he paints different end games for the middle east conflict.

    https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/israel-and-americas-growing-zugzwang

    We can now safely say that our previous reading of the Israeli situation appears to be accurate. The U.S. is acting as a rudderless ship, rushing to the MidEast out of reflex with no clear gameplan, and is in fact terrified of Iranian escalations.

    …Iran is striking major blows on the U.S. And how does Biden respond?

    Biden is now offering to bribe Iran with a massive $10B as concession to make them stop escalating.

    Why is that? As I wrote before, it’s primarily because the U.S. is not ready for true full-scale war, doesn’t have the ammo or assets in place, nor has the resolve—as there is a full-blown mutiny inside the State Department as more and more officials side with Palestinians and believe the U.S. to be in the wrong.

    The tide is slowly being turned against Israel with many in the Western structures now seeing a ceasefire and some sort of political solution as best.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I have followed Simplicius’s posts. I was again rewarded in that he quoted extensively from Crooke who has a very good insight into the thinking of Israeli society. They are acting very much like they will go all in on “The Greater Israel” plan. Unless the U.S. puts a stop to them soon (Now) it might be too late for all of us. I fear that maybe the Biden group want to step back from this but Congress is run by the Israeli lobby (and now evangelical christians) so there might not be much they can do.
      AJ

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    1. Sigh. Excellent until the end when Mearsheimer is asked if he is optimisitic about the future of the US. He answered that power is proportional to wealth * population. The population in competing countries like China and Russia is going down, but US population is going up due to immigration, so US will do very well in the future.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Seems like not many have incorporated the disadvantages of more (such as maintenance costs or fragility of the foundations) in their models.
        There is too much of a good things and there is the optimum.
        Most are still targeting more.
        I think this will change, but will need some time to be incorporated in our models of the world. In a world where limits could not be felt, yet, such awareness was not necessary, counter-productive even.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  30. Today Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of key mRNA technology, says he just learned that there have been 17M excess deaths caused by mRNA, and that he is shocked.

    Dr. J. Couey attacked him saying Malone’s playing a deceptive charade and that he had to have known about the problems long ago.

    Dr. Malone was one of the top experts that I assumed had integrity based on many hours of following him. I was warned by a reader here that Malone might not be on the up and up. Now I am not sure.

    Someday we’re going to get to the bottom of this f**king debacle.

    P.S. I’m very depressed today because one of my few friends, who is elderly with health problems, just got boosted on the advice of his doctor, weeks after I warned him that there is now solid evidence that mRNA is dangerous and that our healthcare system is lying to us.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    2. This morning I think I grasped the magnitude of something you said a while ago: that covid lies were of a different nature than lies about an enemy of the group (say like misrepresentation about Russia).
      Indeed, it’s analogous to an immune system which would turn against the body it is suppose to protect. It’s self destructive. I guess it’s not supposed to happen unless there is some kind of malfunction. Probably a sign of either: inside collapse (most likely), outside aggression (a bit of that too), the emergence of a system operating at yet a bigger scale (unlikely)? In any case, it is a step towards disintegration (even not widespread it still resulted in increased mistrust towards the institutions and authority)

      Like

      Reply

      1. Covid broke something in me. Healthcare is a core institution built on trust. I used to be proud of and trusted our system.

        Now I think pretty much everyone in the system is unethical or a moron, at best.

        It might be a similar feeling to being a devout catholic and finding out your long trusted priest abuses little boys, and then learning that your fellow parishioners don’t want to hear about it and prefer to turn a blind eye.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  31. Nice vivid doom porn today from Jonathan Hollerman on what a 2-year grid down EMP event would look like.

    Hint, your food stores and people trying to take it or share it will be the key issue.

    Good thing I don’t have many friends nearby.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  35. B today is superb. It’s difficult to explain our overshoot problems and the dependencies between wealth, growth, debt, fossil energy, alternate energy, materials, climate, ecosystems, and geopolitics, but B does it today without wasting a word.

    https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/financing-the-end-of-modernity

    This financial-economic situation we are in today is nothing new: all this has happened many times over the last five thousand years. Debt has always kept increasing exponentially thanks to interest, while productive assets (land) kept hitting limits in production or rather, diminishing returns. Energy is (and always was) the economy, from food calories stored in grains to fossil fuels powering this entire modern world. So just as every ancient civilization went broke soon after they failed to feed (and thus “power”) their population and economic growth further, so will our uber-complex economy hit the slide as soon as it fails to grow its energy use.

    Remember: no net growth in energy means no net growth in the economy. And when the economy simply cannot grow further and contraction begins, then the galactic amount of financial obligations will be impossible to meet. Suddenly an exponentially growing amount of money will chase a shrinking amount of goods. Thus as soon as net energy production switches from stagnation to fall, the financial system will either default — wiping out the assets of the rich — or will switch to hyperinflation — destroying all the excess purchasing power left in the pockets of average folks. All what we have seen since 2008 was a teetering on the edge. What follows is impossible to describe in today’s terms. A panic like the one in 1929, following a similar peak and plateau of energy production, is all but guaranteed.

    Also an important reminder of a stressor in the system that is not immediately obvious to my old brain but is true and important:

    As if on cue, a recent discussion between Nate Hagens and Luke Gromen shed some much needed light on this unhealthy relation between finance and energy. The argument is fairly simple and goes like this: if the break even price of the next new barrel of oil goes up by 8% each year due to depletion and rising costs, then so must the financial returns on treasuries increase at a similar rate. And while interest rates on investment loans can go up as high as they can, the same cannot be told about returns on bonds (where central banks actively interfere with the market to cap interest rates).

    Large oil companies (national and private alike) keep their profits in treasury bonds, then use this money a few years down the line to finance their new drilling and exploration activities. It’s easy to see the double whammy here: investment costs just go up and up, while the returns on the oil company’s savings lag further and further behind. (Partly because higher interest rates and cost inflation, but also because ever more material end energy is needed to drill new wells.) So while this year’s profit (let’s say a $100 million) will worth $104 million a year later, the cost of drilling to keep production levels the same will go up to $108 million. The missing $4 million will either have to be loaned into existence (but then one needs ever higher oil prices to pay back that loan), or the amount of oil production has to be reduced. With oil prices stagnating it increasingly looks like that it simply does not worth for oil executives to store their profits in bonds any more. Instead they shower all what they earn on their shareholders, or spend it to buy up each other. The result: oil companies live up their existing petroleum resources, and then pull the plug when those run out.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      1. We’ll all be poorer, necessities will be scarce, social unrest will rise, despots will be supported, censorship will increase, religions will gain power, energy transition will stop, we’ll burn the forests for warmth, species extinction will increase, no one will talk about climate change, we’ll blame other tribes, nuclear war will be probable, and our population will fall.

        Like

        Reply

  36. There’s so much to do and so little time to get prepared for the big day. Damn neighbors already have their Christmas lights up.

    Like

    Reply

  37. 40 days in and Dr. Joe Lee is still attacking daily all the major healthcare organizations. Today it’s the New England Journal of Medicine.

    Still no rebuttal from any expert on Lee’s String Theory.

    Total silence, even from dissidents like Weinstein, Martenson, Malone, Campbell, Van den Bossche. Also total silence from readers of un-Denial that have strong opinions on covid.

    It’s very very strange. Maybe it’s kryptonite because acknowledging the theory will (apparently) take down half of the vaccines in use and will prove the entire “healthcare” system is incompetent.

    https://josephyleemd.substack.com/p/nejm-quit-running-man-up-and-admit

    @NEJMEvidence Really NEJM. Why don’t you just use this time to show the world how science is properly done? when you’re WRONG, you ADMIT IT like a PHUCKING MAN.

    @NEJMEvidence running and hiding like the half azz scientists that you editors are?? does NOT WORK.

    It just makes the WORLD trust scientists LESS.

    @NEJMEvidence I’m going to spell it out for you idiots ONE MORE TIME.

    The RISK/BENEFIT ratio for the COVID mRNA booster vaccine?

    The RISK you thought was LOW, I show it is THROUGH THE ROOF and that the MAIN effect of the booster? to cause STRINGS of antibodies that cause CLOTS.

    @NEJMEvidence so you thought? Let’s say you thought the RISK was 1. I show it to be at least 1000.

    You thought the BENEFIT was HIGH, let’s say a 1000.

    Well, the BENEFIT of the BOOSTER would be to INCREASE antibodies. Let’s look at that CLOSELY.

    @NEJMEvidence The patient HAS antibodies from the FIRST vaccine. When you give the BOOSTER vaccine, the pt produces ANTIGEN in the blood. WON’T the Antibody from the FIRST vaccine then BIND the antigen from the BOOSTER? So, the antibody will KEEP binding until no more ANTIBODY or ANTIGEN.

    @NEJMEvidence Then, did you not DECREASE the antibodies and isn’t that the EFFECT of the BOOSTER vaccine? to USE UP the antibodies you made from the FIRST VACCINE? So, you had NO BENEFIT, becuz you DECREASED the antibody level, correct? SO NEGATIVE benefit, but I’ll give you ZERO, or .001.

    @NEJMEvidence so your RISK/BENEFIT ratio BEFORE you knew me.
    1/1000= R/B ratio = 0.001

    But AFTER I explain all this to you.

    RISK = 1000 BENEFIT = .001 R/B = 1000/0.001=
    R/B ratio after u met me = 1 million.

    So I INCREASED your R/B ratio by a BILLION.

    @NEJMEvidence EXPLAIN to me where I am WRONG in this papernapkin ANALYSIS that is a VERY GOOD BALL PARK FIGURE.

    And remember, I gave you a FAVORABLE BENEFIT because you really had LESS antibodies but I allowed 0.001

    and remember, the TRUE BENEFIT? Is when the antibody binds a VIRUS–

    @NEJMEvidence and the antibody binding a virus? EVEN LESS LIKELY, not MORE LIKELY, which WORSENS the TRUE R/B ratio.

    AND, that’s not even CONSIDERING that antibodies in the BLOOD have NO PATH INTO THE LUNG, so the TRUE BENEFIT? EVEN LESS than THAT.

    WRONG WRONG WRONG. EVERYWHERE WRONG.

    @NEJMEvidence You guys were THIS DUMB and pro vaccine scientists THIS DUMB supposedly led us through the WORST pandemic in history? LMAO.

    LEARN HOW TO DO SCIENCE. ADMIT WHEN YOU’RE DAMN WRONG.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. To be honest, Rob, I usually stay away from such debates. I realise I have zero expertise in the mRNA vaccines, so any opinion from me would be worthless. I have no intention of getting any further boosters of an mRNA vaccine and I am amazed at this constant prompting by others to get boosted, given the public data evidence here in New Zealand. But I’m not surprised. Heck, even Jessica Wildfire was pushing the boosters in one of her OK Doomer posts. I don’t know about the string theory but if not even mRNA renegades are not picking it up, then maybe there is not much in it? But my opinion, remember, is worthless.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    3. Sorry Rob,
      Just on a stylistic note; I don’t like Lee’s writing. His use off all caps is like screaming and I avoid those people like a plague. Screamers are unhinged. Once in a blue moon all caps is ok but constantly makes you seem unhinged too.
      As to his theory. My feeling is that Covid is now like nutrition to me. Everyone has a theory, everyone has proof. Everyone is a maverick with their own exclusive take on what is right. Everyone can’t be right and I refuse to go down every rabbit hole with every kook (especially the screamers). I got the first shot, it probably has lots of bad repercussions for a percentage of the people who got them, so be it. I now distrust medicine because of all the deceit at the top (gov, pharma, CDC, FDA). I will not trust any of them.

      But, every conspiracy theory is not possible because some are mutually contradictory and I’m not smart enough to sort out which is right.
      And I especially don’t listen to people who scream at me.
      AJ

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. I also find Lee to be rude. Apparently he was more civil in the early days but after all the experts ignored him he blew a gasket. I also hate that Lee often mixes partisan politics into his rants.

        I follow Lee because all-cause mortality is up when it should be down. His theory is the most plausible explanation I have found. Might also explain other trends like autism.

        Like

        Reply

    4. Hello there Rob,

      Forgive my delay but I’ve finally had a chance to read through Dr Lee’s String Theory of antibody/antigen clumping and to me it makes perfect sense in providing the mechanism for the chain reaction much like polymer formation. Now it’s clear how these extended clots can form anywhere in the blood stream, from micro to macroscopic, causing all forms of cellular and tissue damage. Because the new mRNA technology induced the human body to actually produce just the spike antigen, and not limited to the muscle cell where injected but throughout the body, this was always going to be a recipe for disaster as the body’s immune system will attack indiscriminately the free antigen floating about or presented on the surface or attached to otherwise healthy cells. And apparently, the RNA was deliberately engineered to not be easily degraded (earning a Nobel Prize!) therefore the inoculated cells continue to produce the spike antigen for some time. Each booster shot just reinforces this chain reaction and it becomes a Russian roulette (no offence to Russia) when and where the damage will occur and if it will finally be at the level incompatible with life.

      Previously, traditional vaccines present the whole virus, usually denatured, into the nascent system and the body’s immune system does clear the single dose inoculant completely, with the result of generating a whole battalion of antibodies to various parts of the whole virus. It’s a generalised and well rounded defense that can be marshalled up quickly the next time we are infected with the virus whereas solely focusing on the spike formation as the antigen is like limiting the artillery to just one type of weapon that can hit a certain target. Unfortunately, the analogy is like we chose to drop nuclear bombs repeatedly upon every object that looks like a vehicle on the road, such is the extensive and collateral damage.

      Moreover, Dr Lee and many others have pinpointed a fundamental glaring error in strategy, which is this–the coronaviruses’ main form of bodily entry is the respiratory tract, starting with the nasal passages, not the blood stream! so the wrong immune pathway was activated from the start, and in a way that permanently disables or reduces the effectiveness of the correct one. It’s now like we are using the Navy to shoot nuclear torpedoes at the intended target (which happens to be our own side, mainly friendly fire) when we really needed the Air Force in action. Our bloodstream becomes littered with the debris of unintended casualties from friendly fire whilst the true invader storms in at the unguarded nasal gates, each and every time forthwith. With each infection or booster, we squander our resources and deplete our energy and capabilities further, so much so that sooner or later the entire organism starts to fall apart at the seams. The continued excess deaths and sky-rocketing morbidities across the age cohort board is proof that something is not going well for our side at all.

      I want to add here that the focus on generating antibodies as the main indicator of a successful immune reaction is misguided. The presence of antibodies is not the main driver of the immune response, that is a whole cascade of specialised cells we collectively call our immune system. Antibodies are one of the markers of an immune response but not the complete picture. Every time a booster is given, it is like whipping a horse to run faster, it will generate antibodies but at what cost and purpose? It is well known that any number of adjuvants common in vaccines accomplish the same intended end measure, to stimulate the immune response into overdrive. It is hard to imagine that anyone could possibly construe these substances are health-giving as injectables, I mean aluminum salts, mercury, formaldehyde, egg protein? Heck, you could inject horse manure (from the whipped horse) and receive the same increased antibody signal (along with other insalubrious effects). Boost with the same vaccine enough times and the immune system either figures it’s a cry wolf scenario (thereby dumbing down the response to that of an allergic one, that is living with the virus continually as we are seeing) or we sapped so much of the immune system energy and capacity that it can no longer can function properly and do all its other critical jobs, like keep cancer cells in check. Bingo-the increased incidences of new and turbo cancers.

      The problem was always the mRNA technology and the fact is it was completely experimental and we were the guinea pigs. It’s really so obvious that it beggars belief that vaccine scientists have not been able to foresee this, or perhaps those that did were already de-funded (or otherwise silenced) a long time ago so as to not raise the issue earlier in the vaccine development process. We all saw what happened to those brave academics and doctors that did raise the alarm, they were black-balled to the extreme to be made an example of to keep others in line if they wanted to keep their livelihood and reputation. Similarly, it concerns me greatly that the inventor of the PCR reaction and vocal adversary of Fauci, Kary Mullis, “died suddenly” just months before the whole Covid thing went live. Just way too many smelly dead rats piling up, to me this is not just happenstance. For those more faint-hearted, these kind of events or repercussions may be all that’s needed to continue toeing the party line. It’s just like how public displays of torture and execution are supposed to serve as a gruesome warning; we humans have been good at this sort of thing for a long time. And just as with public executions, it seems that the masses enjoy this spectacle of singling out those who have committed the so-called crime, it is as if there’s safety in numbers to stand with the masses denouncing the one singled out, especially if you also have even the slightest cause to be similarly accused. Maybe that is part of the psychology why no-one wants to or has responded to Dr Lee?

      I like your description of Dr Lee as a rabid dog that won’t let go of the bone, much reinforced by his liberal use of capital letters and invectives. Could this be also the reason why he is avoided like the plague? Better to continue to ignore the mad dog or side step away as far and quietly and quickly as possible. To admit to his and others of his ilk (but less colourful) being correct, therefore breaking the dam and damning all, one must be ready to face the consequences, and not just that, one pretty much has to up-end the current world view, a very difficult, if not impossible thing for the scientific status quo. It is a sort of a religion, after all. Science has replaced the belief of the unknowable with the belief that everything can be known, but underneath there is still dogma and rules to be followed as science and its community have always been a social construct more than just the pursuit of pure knowledge. Those who rebel and refute the leading dogma of the day are labelled heretics, driven out of the fold and punished just the same. Even if medical or academic institutions can break these fundamental paradigm shackles, if they have not been given the legal immunity (as the pharmaceutical companies have) and a way to scapegoat their travesty, they will not admit failure and wrong, for it would be self annihilation. It’s like pulling back the curtains to reveal that the whole hallowed academia is nothing but illusion, smoke and mirrors–the great wizard is literally just someone backstage working the strings. Doctors, academics and scientists are only too human, at the beginning and end of the day, self preservation is still the driving force.

      I see this has been one of my usual rants and I can only ask for your indulgence in the reading of it. Well, at least I’ve made up for the relative recent silence of the un-denial crowd on this matter! I know how much angst you carry with this topic because it was an epiphany of sorts for you that the world is not what you had envisioned and the sense of trust has been irrevocably broken, especially with the medical establishment which is entrusted to promote and preserve health. I am already quite jaded in this regard but still will always bear some of the burden of my once honoured vocation. I beg for some leniency for my would-be fellow colleagues, they are only human after all. Alas, “Physician, heal thyself” is the hardest prescription to write and take.

      Namaste, friends.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Wow! Thank you so much Gaia for your well-informed, comprehensive critique of Dr. Lee’s theory.

        I’m grateful to hear that I’m not crazy for suspecting that Lee is correct.

        To any new un-Denial readers, Gaia has formal medical training so her opinions should be taken seriously.

        Like

        Reply

      2. Gaia, I sent a link to your comment to Dr. Lee. This was his response:

        fun to read!
        tell her thank you for me.
        i won’t stop cussing out these retards who brought science this shitty onto the American public.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Hey cool, Dr Lee responded in all lower case! We must be alright! So you see, there is a special level of hell reserved for those he feels needs lambasting! I can almost feel his spittle fly when he SCREAMS!

          Thank you, friends, for taking the time to read my contribution. I am very happy if you got something out of it and grateful that I could be of service. If anyone has any medical related issue I can give advice on or help you understand, please don’t hesitate to ask, you can get my email from Rob. I have always thought being a good doctor was mostly common sense once you had the foundational knowledge, and the art of it is in the communication and how one connects with another human being through empathy, compassion, and honouring. It makes me both proud and humble to know that everyone here has that capacity, having witnessed so many instances where you have whole heartedly shared knowledge and advice to help one another. This space is an oasis from which to drink deeply for comfort and yes, healing.

          Namaste, friends.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Gaia, there’s a piece of Lee’s theory that I do not understand. The clot forming matrix requires a molecule with two receptor sites that act as a link to form the matrix. Why do these molecules have two sites? If it had only one site the antibodies would still be neutralized but clots would not form. Are these two sites common in other vaccines?

            Like

            Reply

            1. Hello Rob,

              Thank you for pointing out that very important question, indeed with Dr Lee’s theory it is the crux of the matter and why it makes the scope of damage from this particular mRNA therapy unprecedented.

              Will you indulge me in another version of a deep dive into the immunology? I warn you, it will be another long lesson so make a cup of tea.

              In terms of immune response, very simplistically, part of our immune pathway is capable of producing a puzzle piece that locks onto any other shaped piece from a foreign entity like a virus or bacterium or toxin. This is the antibody (our immune system’s lock-targeted seek and destroy unit). The antigen is the foreign particle or configuration, the target piece for which the antibody is primed. This is very important to understand the difference between antigen and antibody; I think this where most people glaze over and just shoot the term antibody around without really understanding the mechanism.

              Normally, if the immune cells in our bodies were to encounter a virus (any virus) in the normal fashion, it would create antibodies to a wide range of topographical sites of the invader cell, imagine the virus is like an asteroid shaped lump floating around in the bloodstream instead of space, exposing all sorts of nooks and crannies, or in this coronavirus case, so-called spikes on all sides, and other spatial formations which can be used as antigenic sites for our immune system generated antibodies to glom onto (very scientific, that word). Go over the definition of antigen and antibody again if this is not clear. Our immune cells usually do a fabulous job creating a whole host of different antibodies that will cover every puzzle site. In fact, it’s almost like magic the exponential number of possibilities of creating such a match which then can be scaled up upon the next infection–the whole point of our innate immune system and the general premise of vaccines. Sometimes the virus has already infected a cell and the cell begins to make the whole virus, and expresses them on the cell surface as they start getting churned out of the cell. After all, that’s what happens when a virus “hijacks” our cells, it makes it a virus producing factory. What happens next when the antibody locks onto its specific antigen is that co-joining marks that unit for destruction and other immune cells are activated to take it out, whether it be a free virus or one of our own cells with parts of the virus exposed. That is how we overcome the infection, and this is the same if the invader is a bacterium or parasite or even toxic substances. It is brilliantly simple in that the same mechanism works for any non-self object, it doesn’t have to be even be alive (such as viruses) it only has to be recognised as a non-self particle, including chemicals and other organic irritants. Think of when you splintered your finger or got dirt into a cut, that started the inflammatory (immune) process just the same. Basically, the foreign entity is tagged and then destroyed. We have evolved over hundreds of millions of years to know how to take care of these things, otherwise we would have never gotten very far if we didn’t distinguish self from other self inside our bodies and have a process to repair that imbalance.

              In naive infections (where the body sees the virus or bacteria for the first time, usually in the normal route of entry for that particular pathogen, either respiratory, gut, skin or other mucous membranes, or bloodstream, the specific immune cells that are stationed at these different tissues produce the antibodies and that properly trains the immune system from then onwards. Our first infection with anything was our natural “vaccine” and it worked amazingly well to produce such biodiversity and homeostasis amongst micro and macro organisms as our planet has seen.

              Now we have a key reason why many human created vaccines are not effective and may even do more longer term harm than good (and especially in the case of other respiratory virus vaccines). Most vaccines are injected, thereby bypassing the normal channels of entry which are already well fortified with the correct immune cells ready to deal with invaders. If we introduce the foreign particle into the body in a venue that is not the native pathway for that pathogen, the resulting immune response may backfire in several ways. Firstly, the body’s response may be overkill to the actual virulence of pathogen as anything that usually escapes the natural route of entry and gets into the tissues or worse of all, bloodstream, signals a maximal response, pretty much sending out the big guns that can cause more collateral damage than what the virus would have done, especially in a tissue that it’s not designed for in the first place. In the case of an injectable traditional vaccine that possibility is still usually self-limited because most of the active particles do not get directly injected into a blood vessel (but sometimes it does and that can account for the immediate anaphylactic and sudden death reactions). If left to its own devices, our bodies in its infinite evolutionary wisdom would almost seem to indulge the fact it was a case of mistaken entry and just does the best clean up job it can in the muscle tissue that was more damaged by the trauma of the shot than the actual denatured virus, and gets on with it. However, since our scientific definition of a successful immune response is high antibody titres, we in our infinite stupidity have stacked the injectable with arguably toxic adjuvants that deliberately send our immune system into hyperdrive. That whips up the inflammatory response to create the much touted antibodies as well as all the side effects of a raging immune reaction including redness, swelling, aches and pains, fevers, fatigue, and worse, all of which we are told “shows the vaccine is working”. That is why adjuvants must be added in modern vaccines, if it were just saline and a bit of denatured virus, you wouldn’t get any measurable antibodies to “prove” how good a vaccine you made. This is the standard definition of a successful marketable vaccine, it produces antibodies, the more the better, even if it doesn’t stop the actual infection at all.

              However, the most concerning consequence of introducing a virus or other antigen into an abnormal route of entry, especially if it is a brand new entity (like the novel Covid 19) is that you start to train the immune system to respond in a way that is not efficient nor effective for when the virus enters the usual channels which is what you are preparing for in an endemic or pandemic situation. This is especially the case for respiratory-based pathogens. Antibodies are created but different immune cells are given precedence for the first responder which then cannot be untrained. Given enough boosters to reinforce this response, and what you have is an immune response for that virus that is asleep at the wheel because the correct immune cells that should be activated upon infection are sluggish because the lion’s share of energy is going towards the other type of immune defense. Over time, the whipping of the dead horse effect of boosters take their toll in depleting the system and homeostasis in the organism becomes ever harder to achieve. I think we all know people who get yearly flu shots but only seem to become weaker with each passing season as well as still get the flu or endless bouts of colds.

              Now you begin to understand how the whole vaccine construct is a platform of half-truths and mostly manipulation to get the results needed for widespread indoctrination. Because being vaccinated since birth is the overwhelming default state in Western societies, we cannot know what level of innate health is possible otherwise, and we are not encouraged to find out. But there are seismic cracks that show how entire populations of children in pediatric practices that support delayed or non vaccinations are superior in health to vaccinated children, and their rates of autism are significantly lower.

              The above was a crash course in very simplified immunology and vaccine theory, and you should be commended for sticking through! I tried my best to explain some concepts which have eluded many health professionals, so please don’t be discouraged if it’s still not very clear. Now I can go back specifically to your question of what’s the difference with this particular vaccine that produces exponential damage. Deep breath.

              It’s all in the mechanism of the genetic modulation therapy. The aim of the mRNA inoculation is to induce our own cells to produce the bit of the Coronavirus known as the spike protein which as everyone knows is the small part which sticks out all over the virus. giving it a crown of thorns appearance (thus corona, meaning crown). It was supposed to be just isolated to the muscle cells infused by the shot, it was supposed to have been degraded quickly (but not that quickly!), and it was supposed to be the best candidate antigen because it was supposed to be unique to this new virus (or at least coronaviruses). Wrong on all accounts. Now we know that the hijacking mRNA floated into the circulatory system and went into all cells of the body, the mRNA lasted in the system at least 2 months if not more, and the spike protein was a terrible choice of antigen as it already is a good puzzle match to certain receptor sites in all kinds of our normal cells. Now we have factories all over our bodies churning out this little piece of protein, floating merrily along wherever it may be made, including into the bloodstream, and that can latch onto normal cells and turn them into non-self cells. And thus havoc was wreaked, to be understated.

              The main thing is so many of our cells are pumping it out this spike protein after being transfected with the message to do so, far more antigen presentation than would be in a “normal” viral load infection. But remember, this is anything but normal because this class of virus doesn’t even belong anywhere else but the respiratory tract! And it’s not even the whole virus, just a very small part of it, and way more concentrated now than would be in any other situation. This has never been done before! Normally our cells infected with virus would produce the whole virus, not just a piece of it! (I am now using exclamation points like Dr Lee uses all caps. Sorry. I am not screaming, but I think I feel like it.) The little free-floating bits of spike protein are small enough to have what you can call a top and bottom configuration, or you can even say 4 sided topography. Our dutiful immune cells in the circulatory system and in the other areas of where the spike particles may be, still have to respond to this annoying debris and create antibodies to lock onto it, some match the top, some match the bottom, others may match any other exposed surface, but since it’s a rather small particle it will only be a limited number of other sites. This is where you have to imagine the chain polymer reaction starting, aka the String Theory. Dr Lee’s diagram pretty much shows how it can be done, with the topping and tailing and the antibody/antigen glob just grows from there. Factor in all the other immune cells trying to clean up this ever growing mess, the mix of debris and chemicals released, and you can see how this inflammatory reaction can cause cell and tissue damage in all areas of the body. This can explain the production of those rubbery extended clots pulled from cadavers, it is a spent collection of denatured protein from the antigen and antibodies and all associated cells in this runaway immune reaction to a situation never before experienced in evolutionary history. If the antigen were larger, say a whole virus instead of just a piece of one, the way the antibodies would attach onto it would prevent it from polymerizing, it would just be wholly surrounded by antibodies for different parts of the virus, and then the tagged virus would be destroyed. This is how it happens in a normal reaction, and traditional vaccines have used denatured whole virus or larger parts of virus in discreet amounts (whatever contained in the inoculation), not gadzillions of mRNA factories pumping out these small fragments of spike protein.

              It’s because the small size of the antigen (spike) produced in such large quantities over an extended period of time in the wrong places that has made the perfect storm for such extensive damage. The first shot was to start up the factories, churn out spike protein, pre-train the immune response and develop the antibody to the spike protein. Remember, in a normal immune response to a whole virus (whether denatured or not), antibodies would be produced to match many different sites of the virus, not this one trick pony we’ve designed. Depending on the uptake and efficiency of the first shot, the second shot 3 months later may also act as the first. This is why some people (hopefully many) did not have too many effects after either first or second shot. Their first shot may not have been too effective at transmitting the mRNA into cells, or their immune system did the right thing and straightaway killed off all the transfected cells before they could churn out enough spikes to prime the system. Then they were given the second shot to confirm the process, if the first shot was effective at producing spike and antibodies, you can deduce that on-going damage could be happening. If the first shot wasn’t effective, then the second one gives another chance and then the booster and every booster thereafter would seal the deal. That’s why getting one booster (third shot) was pushed on people so vigorously, it took 3 goes to increase the chance of longstanding damage. Just look at all the excess deaths in the elderly cohorts who have received 5 or more shots by now. I personally know more than a dozen elderly friends who have died since the shots came out, and many of my older friends still living are noticeably weaker and sicker. In fact, they don’t even look the same, their faces are somehow more pinched, eyes more vacant, can’t quite describe it but to me it’s definitely something changed in a short period of time. I am getting a bit creeped out writing this down so clinically. It is such an insidious, but now clearer to me, process that left nothing to chance but capitalised on all our human tendencies for doing what we are known to do. To me it has not been an experimental therapy, but rather, a continuation of a global biopsychosocial experiment long in the making and for purpose.

              I took the moniker Gaia Gardener when I first started posting here because I wanted to remain anonymous since it was the first time I ever did anything like this and being a caretaker on this planet is my greatest joy. Little did I know then how I would wish now for courage to be able to express my opinions about this topic in a condemnatory way as so many doctors and academics have done publicly, staying true to themselves and their oaths to better humankind. Part of me holds back because I can see a bigger picture here which gives me a perspective that not all is what it seems, and what we think abhorrent now may be an unexpected benison in time. I hope my attempts at explaining my understanding of the Covid topic has helped whoever reading it to seek their own conclusions. To be part of this earnest seeking group already gives me so much courage for the future, and I thank you all for witnessing my own journey into more wholeness and peace.

              Namaste, friends.

              Like

              Reply

                1. So glad to hear you’re taking time for yourself, I can imagine you’ll be amongst trees, streams and rocks. You certainly don’t need my post as extra reading material! Have a lovely time.

                  Like

                  Reply

              2. What an amazing explanation Gaia! Thank you so much. This topic is so complex that most everything else I’ve read is too complex for laymen like me to understand, but you did a superb job of making it understandable.

                It seems tragic to leave your two posts buried as comments on an unrelated post. I’m wondering if you have any interest in converting them into a guest post. Perhaps in addition to what you’ve already covered you could touch on:

                1) The recent all-cause mortality analysis by Dr. Denis Rancourt that shows:
                1.1 There was no viral spread of covid, thus suggesting as per J.J. Couey’s theory that there never was a contagious dangerous virus. Couey argues that all excess deaths were caused by overly-agressive treatments, dangerous drugs, blocking of safe supplements and drugs, incorrect assignment of death causes, PCR tests designed to mislead and create panic, etc. etc. All the big names are ignoring this new corroborating finding by Dr. Rancourt so you have an opportunity to be first to explore the implications.
                1.2 17 million deaths to date were caused by mRNA. Malone agrees this is what Rancourt’s analysis proves.
                1.3 Contrary to the recent Nobel prize, mRNA saved zero (or close to zero) lives.

                2) The initial benefit of mRNA that was detected and used to approve the injection of 8 billion people can be explained by a side effect of toxins in the “vaccine” and has nothing to do with mRNA.

                3) Why did they not use traditional denatured vaccines? Could it be due to patent protection expiring and the profit potential of mRNA? Or is this just another example of human technology hubris and being excited by a “programmable” technology that could address many of humanity’s health problems?

                4) Is there a motive other than profit for pushing mRNA with zero benefit and high risk into children?

                5) Something that troubles me deeply, and that I do not understand, is why some “enemies” of the west like Russia and China did not have covid policies better aligned with science. I can’t imagine these countries are collborating on a Great Reset plan, or are they? I haven’t seen anyone discuss this. Could be another first for you.

                6) Now that we understand the depth and breadth of mRNA lies, what questions should we be asking about traditional vaccines?

                7) Any other big questions you’d care to address.

                Like

                Reply

                1. Gosh, Rob. For once I’m at a loss for words! I am humbled by and appreciate your and others’ encouraging response to my posts but I don’t have anywhere near the authority and expertise compared to all the far braver and vocal champions of the Covid Chronicles.  I am flabbergasted that you could even imagine me to add anything of any significance to what has already been so meticulously documented to date. The only thing I can take credit for is my trying to help those here achieve a very basic understanding of the science so you may be able to get more out of all the other discussions.  You are my tribe here and I want to contribute and aide in the same token, if not the same measure, as I have received from your collective generosity of knowledge and good will to share it. 

                  Rob, you being keeper of the keys so to speak, know how many thousands of words I have already spouted on this topic over the past several years since I’ve faithfully joined this band.  I feel as if I have already taken up enough of your and others’ time on this, having held the floor for too long in my long-winded fashion.  I am only relieved that some of what I spewed has hit the mark occasionally and helped you to some understanding of the topic.   I don’t know if my trying to put all the words together again will elucidate anything more than what is already out there, presented far more cogently and rationally than is my usual modus operandi of co-joining my idea of logic and reason with a hefty dose of my own curious insight and unprovable intuition.  Thank you all for bearing that with every Gaia dose; I cannot be anything other than who I am and I have found it a safe space here in which to do so. 

                  I prefer to continue adding my comments ad hoc to whatever and whenever thread has been started; this site has been for me a congenial gathering of friends at the dinner table sharing good company and interesting conversation, like a supper club at the end of the world.  I feel very honoured to be part of it and hope it will be a lifetime membership, however you may interpret that.  It means a lot to me to be able to respond as I feel and take note in turn of all others’ offerings; if we were all sitting in a parlour, I would be happiest near the wall, possibly even behind a potted plant.  But I am emboldened to share my mind, especially when asked or provoked! 

                  Can I suggest that we continue this conversation as it naturally will unfold?   I think all those here who are interested enough in this topic will eventually find their way in and those who have had enough of it will step out for some fresh air.   I must say some of the questions you and Kira have raised have opened up once again the can of worms that is at the heart of my own theories of what is happening in the bigger picture scale, recall Rob’s thread the Great Reset.  You know I have quoted Sherlock Holmes from the earliest of my posts here, and I still abide in the statement “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”  There have been just too many impossibles in the past years to tidy up in countless unrelated narratives when an overarching one can plausibly explain it.  The proof is the impossibility of everything else.  I learned this method of diagnosis through my medical training–myriad signs and symptoms, however seemingly unrelated to the gross inspection, most likely can be explained on the micro and macroscopic level as one coherent process, not a jumble of different ones. 

                  I am keen that the game is afoot again!  I will try to find some time in the coming days to address various business arising (I like Rob’s very focussed dot points, I can see you have tried very diplomatically to rein in my disorganisation, good luck!) but may I leave this reply (apparently I was NOT at a loss for words at all!) with the possibility that “The vaccine (or truthfully, experimental genetic-based immune-modulation inoculation) was not created for the Covid virus, but rather, Covid (all of it, the virus and resulting pandemic response) was “created” for the vaccine.”   Everything that drives my intuition resonates most strongly to this.  Now that we have hindsight of several years, we have the ability to see clearly the results of this new mRNA vaccine push onto namely the Western world.  It is the mRNA vaccine that has generated the long-standing morbidity and mortality and will continue to do so, now that we understand more fully the mechanism of action.  What if everything that happened was NOT a mistake or oversights or failures, but rather, intended consequences?  How does that change one’s understanding of what is actually happening and does it provide a truth, however improbable? 

                  Thank you again all here for lending me your ears (or eyes) and joining me for another dive down the rabbit hole.  It looks like the conversation will be taking an interesting turn from what can be surmised factually to now the deep heart of the matter of how and why, and we call for courage to face that which surfaces, however anathema to our sense of rightness and justice.  I crave your insights and your indulgence as much as your warm company. 

                  Namaste, friends. 

                  Like

                  Reply

        1. Hello Charles, thank you for your kind acknowledgment. I trust you and your family are well. It is my pleasure to be able to contribute something that may have given you another key for your own wisdom, and it is a small return for all the times your posts have increased my wonder, comfort, and peace.
          Namaste, friend.

          Like

          Reply

      4. Thank you Gaia for that detailed explanation..

        I just have few questions about it.

        1) Why did pharma companies not use the traditional vaccine technology and instead went for the untested and unproven RNA technology? Was it because the traditional vaccine would have taken a long time and an opportunity for profit would have passed?

        2) Lets say someone has taken the RNA vaccine how long do the studies show that RNA will take to break down ? I imagine that after the RNA has cleared completely the immune system should be back to normal.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Hello Kira,

          Hope you and your family are going well. Forgive me for not quite remembering if you’re in the States but I hope you’ve had a lovely Thanksgiving and besides, it’s always a good time to give thanks no matter where in the world we are! It’s always nice to read your thoughtful and insightful comments here. Thank you for your reply, I am hopeful that my explanations of basic immunology may help any reader to a better understanding of how our body works. As difficult as immunology can be as a subject, as long as we approach it through a basic science standpoint, it’s still pretty straightforward. You have touched upon several issues that are anything but clear, and have been a continual forefront topic with Rob and many others here, myself included. I wonder if you have been following Rob’s blog from the earliest onset of detailed discussions of Covid, the vaccine development and roll-out, and all the rest?

          Rob, I wonder if there’s any way to tease out all the comments throughout these past 3 years that deal with this very tangled web and create a thread just with that database? I know it would be the mother of all topic threads, it might have to be presented in separate chronicles. It would be interesting to me just to see how our own thoughts have evolved over the past years.

          I just wanted to say I’m very much willing to try to answer your questions in more detail as soon as I find another window to do so properly. Your first question is quite loaded and if we could actually find the answer to that truthfully, a lot of mysteries would be solved! And as for the second, the quick answer is one study has shown that the injected mRNA was still present after 60 days, and that was the endpoint of the study so it could have been longer. But it’s the repercussions of having that mRNA affecting human cells that is the longstanding issue, perhaps my second go replying to Rob (it’s even longer than the first, I must warn you!) will explain that?

          Prepare yourself for a deep dive if you dare!

          All the best to you.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Thank you Gaia for your kind wishes. I hope you and your family had a wonderful Thanksgiving. You are right, there is a lot to be grateful for.

            Thank you for explaining such an unbelievably complicated topic in such simple and elegant fashion.

            So if I understood correctly (please correct me if I am wrong anywhere) the whole problem is that these guys used the spike protein which is much smaller instead of traditional vaccines which use a whole virus or at least large parts of it. This spike protein is being pumped out by the cells and is wreaking havoc all over the body and not even providing protection and preventing transmission like normal vaccines do. Now you mentioned that the spike protein is being pumped out for 2 months, it is possible that it could be 6 or even 10 months. And until the production stops there is going to be damage done due to inflammation as the immune system responds to the garbage.

            You mentioned in one of your comments that using spike protein is akin to nuking an area just to hit a small target instead of using a small precision munition. Going by that metaphor could it be that developing a precision weapon to destroy the selected target would have required more time and effort and risk losing a lucrative opportunity? My understanding is that it takes years to test and develop safe and effective vaccines that prevent transmission and infection neither of which seems to have been the goal here.

            Like

            Reply

            1. Hello Kira, I am so glad that you got some benefit from my attempt at explaining basic immunological principles–I think the main reason is you’re a quick study and not because of any extraordinary skill on my part!

              Just to clarify further a few things, although I think you’ve gotten a pretty good handle on the main ideas, now it’s just refining the understanding. You can see how the spike protein being produced throughout the body by different cell types can wreak havoc with the immune response, but the key factor that makes it even more a long-term threat is the fact the introduced modified mRNA allowed our cells to produce it in such great numbers and for an extended time and in areas that never should be exposed to an isolated novel foreign protein in the first place. Because of the configuration of the relatively small spike fragment, the antibodies that do get created to lock onto it have a greater tendency to cross-link and form a clumped matrix of spike, antibodies, other immune cells and resultant debris which then activate even more immune cells to try to clean up the whole mess. You can see how this becomes detrimental to normal cell and tissue functioning if for example this clumped mass develops in heart muscle, thereby permanently damaging cardiac cells, or causes blockage in small blood vessels, which can result in lack of blood flow and end organ damage, like strokes.

              However, the problem doesn’t really end when the mRNA finally breaks down up to 2 or more months later and no longer gets expressed by our cells making spike. This is a key thing to understand–because it was a new foreign antigen (genetically engineered, as the body would normally never have encountered free-floating spike protein) the whole time our cells were initially hijacked to make this spike, our immune cells were being trained into how to respond to this new foreign entity forevermore. It’s like when a gosling follows the first moving object it sees and gets imprinted as its mother, it’s a one time deal and sticks. And because we have only concentrated on training onto one small part of the whole virus and in such an overwhelming concentration, we will never have the chance to rebalance our immune response when we actually encounter the whole virus.

              However, the problem doesn’t really end when the mRNA finally breaks down up to 2 or more months later and no longer gets expressed by our cells making spike. This is a key thing to understand–because it was a new foreign antigen (genetically engineered, as the body would normally never have encountered free-floating spike protein) the whole time our cells were initially hijacked to make this spike, our immune cells were being trained into how to respond to this new foreign entity forevermore. It’s like when a gosling follows the first moving object it sees and gets imprinted as its mother, it’s a one time deal and sticks. In very simplified terms, because we have only concentrated on training onto one small part of the whole virus and in such an overwhelming concentration, we will never have the chance to rebalance our immune response when we actually encounter the whole virus.

              It’s like our body thinks “hey, I’ve got this” and pumps out only that particular antibody for spike because that’s all it knows whilst the rest of the whole virus can slip around undetected. The worst part is that the initial training occurred in tissue types that never normally get infected with a respiratory virus (like heart muscle and in the lining cells of blood vessels) so we’re like a sitting duck for when the real infection occurs in the nasal passages and further down the respiratory tract like the lungs. The whole, robust, full, normal immune response to the whole virus in the usual channels of entry has been permanently disabled, which explains why you have people who got the mRNA conditioning shot get Covid over and over again whereas someone who developed natural immunity through a real infection will be able to overcome the first initial one and prevent subsequent ones.

              When I made the analogy of using big guns (nukes) for small potatoes, I was trying to emphasise that a foreign protein being present in an “inner sanctum” area like the bloodstream would elicit a more extreme immune response as that is definitely not a place for an invader to be, especially as it has seemingly undetectedly skirted all other defences. For a respiratory virus to enter the bloodstream (or a heart cell? can you really picture how that would normally happen?) you can imagine one would have been pretty sick for some time, with obvious lung involvement (pneumonia) and breakdown of tissues for that to happen. You would be a rip-roaring septic case. For a foreign entity to be present in the blood means it’s time to go all guns blazing. For so many small foreign entities to be present all at once for such a long time in deep tissue cells like heart muscle and blood vessels you can imagine the collateral damage to these cells would be substantial. This was the picture I was trying to paint. The problem is the mRNA generated spike protein never had to even evade other normal mucous membrane defences like the nasal passage and the back of the throat (that’s why many colds and flu give you a hell of a sore throat, that’s your body’s defenses in action to stop it before it gets further), it was like a Trojan horse directly into the body bypassing all the other usual entry avenues. This is why respiratory viral vaccines administered by muscle injection do not accomplish the stated goal. Perhaps if it were administered by nasal spray, one can see the logic of that route, and the flu vaccine does come in this preparation and interestingly, it’s a live attenuated virus, which comes with other caveats.

              A traditional technology vaccine for Covid, that is one using denatured virus, not mRNA, was produced by China and Russia and distributed to other BRICS nations. In fact, the whole of China only had access to this non mRNA type of vaccine although they were proffered the Pfizer version, they steadfastly refused. Curious, isn’t it?

              The mRNA technology was in the pipeline for many years and originally touted as the magic bullet for all manner of diseases as we could induce our own body cells to make whatever substance or protein that was missing. Gene therapy was to be the answer to degenerative disease in general but various starts at the gate failed to come up with a viable product that showed efficacy not to mention overcoming safety hurdles. It was not a simple matter to keep injecting vectors to infect cells of different tissues, and regulate them to keep producing whatever was wanted. If they couldn’t work out how to sustain genetic therapy to treat longstanding disease, then perhaps the same concept would be perfect for vaccines which just needed a short term push to get the immune system activated, why let a good idea go to waste after decades of research? Moderna’s (Modified RNA) whole premise was this almost infinite potential possibility although it never had a successful candidate until Covid broke out and then it was almost instantaneous that they produced a front-runner vaccine which was championed from the start. This alone was very unusual, barely had the ink dried on the “novel” coronavirus genetic code and they had a vaccine ready, or was it the other way round? Of course other leader pharmaceutical companies were all chomping at the bit to get into the action, guaranteed cosmic profits and indemnity for life. Here was their once in a lifetime opportunity, a full blown WHO sanctioned pandemic! It turned out that there would only be a few golden ticket ones chosen, or rather, prechosen, for the speed in which everything got whisked through. I mean heck, who calls it Operation Warp Speed if there wasn’t some sick joke behind it? Here I will go out further on my personal (but not unique) limb. It’s like someone was laughing at and playing with us. Each player in this game was well, gamed, to react just as expected, the academics, the big pharma, the doctors, the epidemiologists, the media, the masses and the conspiracy theorists. But this story has been told many times now and by better tellers than me. I think that’s enough of an excursion down the rabbit hole for one day!

              I hope that I managed to shed some more light (and possibly dark) to our discussion. Kira, I know you will take everything I’ve presented, compare and contrast to your current knowledge and understanding and come up with your own conclusions. It is my highest aim that I have only increased your scope to do so, and whatever doesn’t resonate with you, toss aside as just another perspective.

              All the best to you and look forward to chasing rabbits together again next time.

              Like

              Reply

              1. Thank you for that explanation. Now I am beginning to see the picture more clearly. It also explains the excess deaths we have been seeing all around the world.

                I think you may have also addressed the issue of motive in the last part of your comment. This is actually familiar territory for most readers of this blog. An untested, unproven, over-hyped and flawed technology was lying around until an opportunity just happened to come up. This technology was then pulled out of the trash heap where it rightfully belongs and put into action regardless of consequences. We see this all the time with absolutely stupid ideas like electric planes, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen economy among others taking advantage of a very real climate crisis. The way COVID was handled confirms something that I have always suspected –

                Science is dead, It has been replaced by “Scientism”. The may look and sound the same but are very different. Scientism is the blind worship and abuse of science without understanding or respecting any of the fundamental tenets of it.

                This is the last move of a civilization at the brink and grasping for straws.

                Like

                Reply

          2. Gaia, if you decide to write a guest as per my suggestion above, I can help you find all the relevant posts and comments on this site. I also keep a separate “best of covid” list of articles that impressed me.

            Like

            Reply

  38. When I said “but constantly makes you seem unhinged too.” was not in reference to you Rob but to Lee and his style. Just a clarification of my possible poor grammar.
    AJ

    Like

    Reply

  39. A lot of people ask me about when I woke up and became FULLY Red Pilled to the sheer volume of Medical Establishment corruption and buffoonery?

    2020 was like a bad dream of foolishness, but I’d give the Answer: 2021, when I witnessed:

    1. Big Pharma Shill Doctors and Institutions, willing to Die on The Hill of saying that someone with high antibody levels from prior mild infection needs to be vaccinated ASAP with a novel *vaccine*

    2. When I saw top *scientific* institutions rush to change longstanding medical definitions, to suit their narrative

    3. Seeing Doctors and Medical Centers deliberately gloss over serious side effects and adverse events— and knowingly shame, silence and censor those poor people that suffered.

    But today in 2023, this Doctor couldn’t be happier to be wide awake:

    – Our *Top Institutions* are a complete joke

    – *Evidence Based Medicine* is a complete joke

    – The *Hippocratic Oath* is a complete joke

    The FIGHTBACK against these sinister forces that have corrupted Medicine will be long, hard, and difficult.

    But Fight We Must.

    Like

    Reply

  40. Dr. Tom Murphy continues to explore human supremacy.

    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/11/and-why-is-that-desirable/

    Bananas!

    Statement: We have learned that ripening bananas in proximity to others cause them to ripen faster due to ethylene emissions from nearby ripening fruit.

    Q: And why is that desirable?
    A: Well, it’s pretty cool to have isolated the chemical cause of this observable phenomenon.

    Q: And why is that desirable?
    A: I suppose it could go two ways: use this to accelerate ripening on demand, or to hold off ripening by clearing out the ethylene.

    Q: And why is that desirable?
    A: This is good for food distribution: better control to better serve demand.

    Q: And why is that desirable?
    A: By being more efficient, we can reduce waste and serve more people: provide nutrition to a greater fraction of the population; fight hunger, etc.

    Q: And why is that desirable?
    A: Need I justify this? You insist? Okay—people suffering or going hungry is bad. By mastering the whole ripening process, we might help prevent starvation and even unnecessary death.

    Q: And why is that desirable?
    A: You are a piece of work, aren’t you? It gets us a healthier population. We want to support as many people as we can. To say otherwise seems pathologically misanthropic or even evil.

    Like

    Reply

  41. Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  43. A new? commenter named Deimetri that I haven’t seen before at OFW wrote a nice rant today.

    *ttps://ourfiniteworld.com/2023/11/22/running-short-of-tailwinds-for-the-economy/comment-page-1/#comment-443094

    The current tailwind in my business (legal) and markets these days appears to be the over-hyped AI craze. Investors are lining up to throw insane amounts of money at anything anyone says has AI in it. Every application/start-up that I have seen doesn’t have anything like AI, it has ChatGPT guessing what word comes next based upon a statistical analysis of text on the internet and that is about it. – No intelligence in artificial intelligence. But let’s not let that stop the gullible from throwing insane amounts of money at it…

    Anyways,

    We humans are working to turn the Earth into pollution and garbage as quickly as possible. We are racing for the edge of cliff and constantly looking for another tailwind to speed us faster on our way to the bottom. As Moloch knows, we ‘can’t stop, won’t stop’, because to do so would collapse our debt based economy and financial system (that relies on perpetual growth), and any level of de-growth would require a necessary population reduction (lots of people die).

    Basically, we cannot stand the thought/idea that we would have to take a reduction in our constant quest for more. Even if some of us were enlightened and decided not to play this foolish, insane game that only ends in the eventual destruction of our society, we would be outcompeted by those who did play, and we would fade into irrelevance. On the societal level, nothing would change.

    So yes, I guess in our service of Moloch we should hope that there is one more tailwind over the horizon to speed us on our way to oblivion.

    On the other hand,

    According to Jared Diamond and others, 26 civilizations have previously collapsed in our known history (known history is not very long). An ‘invisible hand’ did not save them. It let them descend (in certain cases) to cannibalism and death. It seems foolhardy to assume that we will be saved (especially by outside forces) from the consequences of our 100-year orgy of oil and debt.

    More to the point, should we be allowed to sleaze our way out of the consequence of these actions? People hope for one more tailwind, just another one, that will continue this fraud, this Ponzi, long enough to outlast their miserable cowardly existence. Cowardly, because while we have enjoyed the benefits of the feeding frenzy of the last 100 years of (mostly) free energy, we do not want to pay the tab, suffer the hang-over, experience the ying for the yang, whatever. We would rather (cowardly) push these consequences onto our children and grandchildren and pretend that we did not know anything about it. -Despicable. And it is not like we did anything meaningful with this free energy, we did not work to establish off-planet colonies or anything else that may ensure the survival of our species. What we did was bang each other over the head and adorn ourselves in useless baubles. Such a waste..

    Whenever I see pretentious, self-absorbed retirees, I wonder to myself why they are not begging their grandchildren for forgiveness and providing them with all that they can to ensure that they enjoy what little time they have left in this dying society. Instead, they are buying a vacation home, vanity sports car, or taking another useless cruise to god knows where…wasting their ill-gotten gains (ill-gotten because they are based upon debt that will be paid back by their descendants) on anything but the atonement that, perhaps, it should be spend on…

    If Fast’s vaccine UEP looked like anything other than incompetent grift, perhaps I could grudgingly understand the motives of the so-called Elders. As it stands, maybe we should be honest about why we are going to collapse and perhaps acknowledge that on some level we deeply deserve it.

    Like

    Reply

    1. A guy named Cromagnon commented this

      All the objective climate science points toward a rapidly cooling climate and a falling atmospheric CO2. Countries like Canada, Russia, Northern USA, Northern Europe etc would do well to realistically assess their future prospects of rapid cooling in the face of rapid energy restriction.
      Long term investment strategies would look shockingly different if they would.
      But they won’t………they better hope for one hell of a tailwind……

      What world is he/she talking about? There is some concern over the collapse AMOC, but this person is completely delusional.

      Like

      Reply

      2. A reply by Deimetri..

        “The salinity of the oceans keep ice locked at the poles. The earth’s weakening magnetic shield (auroras in Arizona, look it up) allows more solar energy in to our atmosphere which heats the earth and melts the polar ice caps. This water melt flows into the ocean and reduces the salinity of the ocean and interferes with the Beauford Gyre ocean currents. With the reduced salinity and no more warm water currents traveling north, oceans can freeze much farther away from the poles, and wham, back into the earth’s most common state of being a snowball..

        Basically, it was what was depicted in the movie, The Day After Tomorrow, just on a longer timescale..So yes, countries like Canada, Russia, Northern USA, Northern Europe need to hone their ice fishing skills or pack up and move south..”

        Like

        Reply

  44. This is the big trick health authorities everywhere are using. If they do not look at the data, they can legitimately claim that they’re not aware of any problems. How do these assholes sleep at night? Some of them must have family that was injected with mRNA. Maybe it’s another example of MORT on steroids.

    https://substack.com/inbox/post/139089062

    Months ago, CDC Director of Media Relations admitted to me face to face that they don’t have the record level data needed to assess vaccine safety.

    He said Congress never granted them the authority to ask for this information.

    When I asked him, “Have you tried asking nicely? I’m sure Gov. Newsom would give you the data!”

    He said, they don’t have the authority to ask for the information.

    In other words, they don’t want to know.

    I believe that it is because if they got the information, I could legally FOIA the information, so they don’t ask.

    After I finally got record-level vaccination/alive/death data from an official State source via a whistleblower, I offered Ben the opportunity to see the data that they don’t have and have never seen.

    He refused.

    This is gold-standard data and it shows truth. It can be fully authenticated. There is no way to hide a signal in data like this. There is no better source of truth than this data. I have been saying this like a broken record. They should be jumping to see “ground truth.” Instead, they are running away from it.

    Like

    Reply

  46. Like

    Reply

    1. Excellent find el mar!

      I’m going to have to read several more times because this stuff is very complicated for my old brain but he confirms several important things:
      – Lee’s String Theory is based on solid science and has prior art
      – J.J. Couey is perhaps the most import critic to be following right now
      – we still don’t understand what our “leaders” are up to or why

      Lee’s string theory just shows “once again” what arrogance and blinders – or fear – the responsible scientists and authorities have. You don’t want any criticism, you don’t want any questions, because otherwise a trillion-dollar business would implode. Money is not only earned from the vaccinations, but also from the consequences. Furthermore, so many (liability) questions would arise and the loss of trust in medicine would be gigantic. Ultimately, none of those involved want this, they simply can’t be so stupid that they don’t know or understand what’s happening, because the question would also be asked about those responsible and those involved…

      Emphasis on “Money is not only earned from the vaccinations, but also from the consequences.”

      Like

      Reply

    2. Hello el mar,
      Hope things are going well for you and your family as you prepare for another European winter. Thank you so much for that link, which explained in more detail and more clearly than how I presented my understanding of it! Back in my medical school days, immunology was not my best subject (but it was certainly one of the most interesting!) probably because it was just so complex and we were to memorize all the different immune pathways and how they were activated. Who would have thought that general knowledge of immunology would be such an important foundation for understanding what has been happening. Now I am happy to just remember a gestalt concept but when I see all the old scientific terms and diagrams, it’s like meeting old friends! But at least I don’t have to be judged (examined) anymore on whether I remember their exact names!
      All the best to you.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    3. el mar, FYI I made Dr. Lee aware of this essay on X and he was VERY grateful as it is probably the first essay that has discussed Lee’s String Theory. I stirred up a hornet’s nest on X and now many people are discussing why all the big names are ignoring Lee’s theory, including truth seekers like Kirsch, Weinstein, Malone, McCullough, etc.. Many people think J.J. Couey is right and that the public dissent that is “allowed” is designed to distract us from the fact there never was a contagious virus and no vaccines work as advertised. I have not yet formed an opinion on what is likely true.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Fun fact.

        Even Fast Eddy, the King of conspiracy theories, seems to be ignoring Dr. Lee’s String Theory.

        Maybe Fast Eddy is employed by the WHO to distract us. 🙂

        un-Denial.com is rapidly becoming the only site on the planet that you can trust.

        Like

        Reply

  48. Preston Howard here …

    Like others, I was disappointed by Gail Tverberg’s discussion of economic “tailwinds” in her last post on ourfiniteworld.com. The only “tailwinds” I’m noticing lately is all the hot air from climate-denying assholes.

    Happy Holidaze, everyone!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

        1. Hi there AJ, just wanted to say Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family, hope you are taking some time off from all your heavy labors on the farm and are enjoying your harvest. Do you have a traditional spread on the table or are there lots of Chinese dishes represented too? I can imagine you’re a pretty good cook (and your wife, too!) and I wonder what is your favourite Chinese food? Way back when I used to be a good Chinese and eat anything and everything that walked, ran, flew, or swam my favourite was actually a melt in your mouth, slow-cooked soy and rock-sugar beef tongue that my father cooked, if you can believe it! Also, I was very partial to duck. Now there is Tofukey! (not really, I never got into fake meats)
          All the best to you.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Hi Gaia,
            Happy Thanksgiving to you too.
            My wife and I had dinner with a few of our children and significant others. It was a mixed spread. One daughter is vegetarian. It was a different dinner for me. I was a ovo lacto vegetarian for 40+ years up until this last summer. After reading Dr. Malcom Kendrick’s book this past year I decided to go low carb. Quite a change. I now have my doubts about all diet “science”. I’m not positive Kendrick is right and I’m not sure being vegetarian is right. I know being vegetarian is probably better for the planet but at the same time I realize one can raise farm animals in a more sustainable fashion than corporate agriculture.
            We had a heritage breed turkey raised on a local farm that I bought from the farmer. My first turkey in 40+ years. It was good. Stuffed with a tofu mushroom stuffing of my own concoction. My wife, on holidays eats traditional U.S. fare (turkey, mashed potatoes, apple pie). Otherwise she eats a mix of Chinese (what she was raised on) and U.S. fare. I do remember going to the village in Guangdong 35 years ago and thinking that because of the starvation multiple generations of Chinese went through they would eat anything that moved (a starvation cuisine). I liked tofurkey – when you don’t eat meat it’s not a bad substitute.

            AJ

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. Hi AJ,

              Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. I am happy for you that you and your family enjoyed a lovely time together, whatever the occasion it is important to share quality time with those we love. I respect very much your honesty in your personal health journey and open-mindedness for learning and trying new things. We have had the chance to talk about the topic of diet many times here and I am heartened to know that everyone has their own experiences and reasons for their choices. There is much more to wellness than physical health as you know.

              I am a tofu addict but I realise it’s not quite a whole food so now I try to eat more tempeh which being fermented whole soybeans probably provides more nutritive value. Recently I have eaten something called Quorn which is made from mycoprotein, it’s a bit strange to me that it does have a chickeny taste and texture (like nuggets) but I thought it worthwhile to try even though it’s obviously a very processed food. I usually try to eat as close to the source as possible and lately I am finding just eating very basic, plain fare to be very satisfying (not to mention easy to prepare!)

              Knowing your wife is from Guangdong is very interesting to me as that’s where my father was from, one of the myriad small villages in the province. We may even be related! I recall visiting his ancestral village about 30 years ago, everything had such a blackened-grey distressed and dilapidated look. I remember a dirty, stagnant, pond with a dead dog floating in the middle of it and my father saying happily that was where he used to swim. It was so humbling to realise that life was just a few generations removed from my Western one, all due to the twists and turns of fate. That pilgrimage impressed upon me so much that I was born into a certain privilege far beyond my own efforts and that I bore the weight of all those before me to never take my life for granted. I felt that whatever good thing I could do in my life was also the direct result from all my ancestors’ sacrifices and efforts. At that time, I was still in the middle of my medical school training and this experience redoubled my desire to help others.

              It’s always nice to connect with you and everyone else in this space. We humans have so much more in common than what is different between us, chiefly the desire to seek our own meaning and freedom to live our own lives in relative comfort, peace and security. I have had a life that wanted for nothing in this regard, and the only way I can find meaning in this is to live with acceptance and gratitude for all that has been and all that is to be.

              Namaste.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

            2. The problem of being a vegetarian is it’s reliant on a modern, fossil fuel chemical agricultural system. Without fertilizers we need to restore soil fertility. You need manure from animals to retore beneficial bacteria, not just compost. Try working hard in a post oil future without significant protein and fat. CAFO’s (concentrated animal feeding operations) are definitely not sustainable but mixed farming with animals using manure as fertilizer is a far better system.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

              1. Hello Anon, you are the most prolific of writers being represented everywhere! Of course in natural systems animal manure and carcasses are an integral part of the self-sustaining ecosystem. We have replaced 96% of the land mammal biomass with ourselves and our farmed animals, and most of the resultant excrement and carcasses have not been redistributed back into the land we have usurped for our agricultural needs, eventually leading to soil nutrient and microbiome depletion and our reliance on chemical fertilizers. If it is possible to imagine a new system combining all that we know now of the biosphere web and best practices to emulate that, it would still necessarily require a drastic decrease of human population as top predator/consumer so the main food choice would still be plant material but grown and harvested in very different ways. Just imagine a planet without Homo sapiens and you can know teeming biodiversity in flora and fauna.

                I am always amazed to contemplate that top carnivores such as tigers (which now only number a few thousand in the wild) need a hundred square kilometres of range for each individual in order to find and sustain enough prey for survival. We 8 billion are living as top predators, so we have to find other foodstuffs and decrease our numbers exponentially as our territory (the entire planet) has been exhausted. Even the Old MacDonald mixed family farm with happy cows and pigs can only sustain so few and in the longer term would still be unsustainable if population increases and we need regular inputs from outside the immediate system. Eventually the pioneers in the American West cut down all the trees to create their homesteads and towns, but before that natural experiment into self-sufficiency could go the full course, we luckily (or not!) harnessed the power of fossil fuels which could bring resources to our living sites instead of constantly needing to use our own labour (or that of domestic animals) to find and cart them back, or even move to create new homesteads on virgin resource land.

                Yes, we need animal and our own manures, and animal and our own carcasses, along with all other plants and living things to be returned to the soil to continue to create new living things. Currently we have forced stopped this most fundamental cycle with our modern agri-lifestyle and just re-adjusting our food mix of farmed animals and farmed plants one direction or another isn’t the long term answer. We don’t really know what is the answer as the whole Homo sapiens experiment since the advent of agriculture is still on-going. Perhaps we have just answered that question, the answer is not the type of agriculture we have adopted as part and parcel of our definition of humanity.

                New systems such as permaculture have the goal of making a sustainable human and other animal territory, often focussing on the ideal of a forest as the natural environment for food and other needed resources. There are many practioners of this all around the world, and many indigenous peoples already living more or less naturally in this manner because it has been sustainable for their limited population, but the full extent of how permaculture could work for larger populations has yet to be explored. If we were a truly wise species, we shoud utilise all available resources now to encourage the development of new systems of simplification living in different climate and geography zones. There should be institutes created all around the country for this purpose, educating people, especially the younger generations, with the skills of living from the land. Alas, until forced, it seems that our society will not embrace a lifestyle outside the current one dependent on large scale agriculture and city living.

                I hope you are enjoying the fruits of your labours wherever you are growing! Namaste, Anon and friends.

                Like

                Reply

      2. Why Rob, that almost sounds like a Proverb direct from the holy book! How about “Blessed are those who believe in god for comfort in times of overshoot” ? I still think it’s not too late for us to make your blog the canon of a new religion…

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    1. Sorry, the above comment is mine but I accidentally hit the enter button prematurely. The degrowth movement is the only political ideology that actually recognizes overshoot (at least with regards to overconsumption), but I don’t get why they generally don’t talk much about population. Maybe it is because talking about overpopulation is taboo and they don’t want to be called “eco-fascist” or “Malthusian” (which now have become become slurs against anyone who recognizes limits to population and consumption).

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Overshoot is overconsumption. Population is only one element of the equation:

        Consumptiion = consumption/capita X population

        The dirty secret that “overpopulation” activists try to ignore is that the industrial societies are responsible for the lion’s share of the overconsumption. We consume 15 times the world average per capita, and many more times the consumption/capita of the poor countries. Hence, I would never start an analysis of overshoot by complaining about overpopulation, as if it were “those damn third world peoples who reproduce like rabbits”, who are the heart of the problem. Not true.

        Like

        Reply

              1. The regions in blue are sparsely populated for a reason. They are mostly deserts, jungles, mountains, taiga and tundra, which are not very suitable for hosting large human populations. Also, the regions in blue contain a lot of earth’s remaining wilderness and biodiversity.

                Like

                Reply

        2. I agree. Rich countries in colder climates have a particularly large footprint. I think Canada should set an example and be the first to establish population reduction policies. None of our political parties and vanishingly few of our citizens agree with me.

          Like

          Reply

Leave a reply to Lathechuck Cancel reply