Prude side effect

Explicit sexual intimacy is mostly expected to remain hidden and private in our love culture. While this secrecy is a necessity for cheating correctly, it also aids rapists and assailants in abusing their victims and getting away with it.

The unspoken assertion of indecency impedes proper education about good and respectful intercourse from the get-go. When porn is the only available external reference for what is acceptable, many victims tolerate varying degrees of the inappropriate, not knowing better.

And apart from spaces that invite open sexuality, privacy remains the only acceptable location for intercourse. You are forced to go on your own, regardless of how much you actually trust the person of your desire. When you are alone, nobody can help you.

This is truly convenient for all kinds of predators. For their success it is enough to emulate social conduct until absence of witnesses is reached.

Fighting Fascism

If you don’t crush fascism it will crush you. The people that didn’t join the fight against fascism are the ones to blame when it grows out of hand. The world is so fucked up because most people just sit on their comfy asses and allow evil men to do evil things.

~ “Logic”

If you feel uneasy about this statement, it could be that you are lazy and comfortable and afraid of fighting. It might however rather be that you don’t agree with the implications.

Fascism is an ongoing phenomenon despite having been crushed in the past. If economic containment and military defeat really exhausts our options of tackling this problem, we can consequently conclude that it is likely impossible to ever get rid of. But how could there be any other option than direct action?

If we as members of the liberal west determine our core problem to be that more violent cultures will always prevail over peaceful ones, it is worth taking notes of our own history. For example the genocide on the native population of north america would be only one of the more appalling examples of the western liberal heritage. And there is no shortage of aggressive force in our more recent history either. Therefore it can be argued that we are proposing to overcome the problem simply by becoming or joining the strongest force.

The liberal west value system has an undeniable expansive character which is driven by the desire to install our good values onto the rest of the world. One might argue that invasive conquest is a necessary perquisite to establish a benevolent global empire, which ultimately will act as the protector of world peace and prosperity. But that fiction is difficult to reconcile with the realities of the world we are living in.

Its easy to glance at more oppressive regimes and condemn their gross violation of liberal western values, which we claim as our main cultural export commodity. Omitting the sad truth that such immoral cultures enable and feed the overproduction that we crave to cheaply import our liberal western desires of consumerism. No wonder we are in no actual hurry to lift them up to our own standards of superiority.

Vice versa it is not clear why a regime that functions as an export based overproduction economy would be in a rush to burden itself with the heavy costs of waging war and decimating their economic relations for an increase of territory, followed by the subsequent need to treat the conquered population with either genocide or cultural transformation, both of which carry their own challenges. Nonetheless it is common to portrait these regimes as a threat that will come upon us if we don’t stand up for our values.

Unfortunately real fascism generally is expansive by nature. If not retaliated with force, it will certainly lead to oppression, torturing and killing of countless innocents. However, when resisted it will do the same. What we can only attempt is reasonably predicting and quantifying the ensuing harm of either path to compare their outcomes, also in light of whatever long term goals we want to pursue.1

A virus that faces no resistance and immediately kills its host body cannot survive. Similarly, an ideology depends on a collective consciousness that maintains it.

If I had to make a counter proposal for combating fascism it would be propagating the rejection of and radical non-participation in fascism, violent anti-fascism and war in general. Additionally, developing more strategies for disabling and healing fascism instead of just treating its outbreaks. I’m aware that this potentially could go horribly wrong. The fascist might just not give a shit and continue to kill and enslave everyone who refuses to take part. But when plan A is basically voting for eternal conflict, then personally I’m down for trying something different.

There is no doubt that humans are a wicked species capable of the most inhumane actions observable on this planet. Yet, the vast majority of us don’t have a self-image of being evil and therefore require some degree of justification for our actions. Reaping enjoyment from ones own self-perceived malice is actually not a common human trait. It’s a pathological condition that we classify as psychopathy. I would argue that on an individual level the vast majority of humans would opt for collaboration over conflict. And collaboration doesn’t require weapons.

To turn normal humans into killing machines, a good deal of ideological indoctrination is needed. A steady stream of affirmation and validation will then promote sustained hateful behavior. Adversarial aggression is without a doubt one source of such validation. Therefore you cannot even fight against fascism without also aiding its preservation.

Instead of focusing on guns and missiles we should be thinking about more effective ways to consistently starve fascism of validation. If we could successfully do that, it is conceivable that the number of willing enforcers and torturers would inevitably thin out. Fewer people would follow only out of fear to become victims themselves. What would remain then are the real psychopaths. And psychology teaches us that the most effective way to deal with psychopaths is not fighting but depriving them of attention. That’s easier said then done, because they have their ways of getting it. Therefore it should be a prime priority for our civilization to foster the skill of recognizing them and shielding us from their influence.

Because ultimately, the problem is not so much that a minority of weaponized aggressors will always win against a peaceful majority. The major problem is that the belief in their inevitable supremacy gains them a following. Of course we cannot ignore the issue that some will always end up hurting and killing others and we need to continuously figure out how to deal with them. It would however be a good start if we stopped supporting the worst of our kind in the hope that we will be on their side in case they succeed killing everyone who is not.

Unfortunately I feel these ideas are too far from the reality that most humans believe in and very far from realistically achievable from our current mindset. The game is on and we hold a rather weak hand of cards. And I believe that by continuing to play by the house rules, we are predictably going to lose everything eventually.

If we really wanted to improve the human condition in this domain, we would start thinking about the structures and mechanisms that enable ideologies and war and how we can resist them. We would direct no more attention towards nations leaders than towards transnational entities and conglomerates which are the ultimate benefactors of all violent conflicts. But we can’t, since it is also them who are directing our attention.

And it is plain obvious that plenty of effort is being spent on keeping us all engaged, enticed, enraged, entangled and in constant subliminal fear that the enemy will wreck our world if we don’t take action.

If we are incapable to even allow alternative ideas into our thinking and become blinded to our own malice by the highlighted evil of our enemy, then we are clearly not ready to evolve beyond this brutal and primitive state of our existence.

The only way that violence will end violence is by ending it all.

Informative Dominion

The global community has come very far inoculating the general public with the latest and greatest offerings of the pharmaceutical conglomerate. Still not far enough to regain control in this ravaging health crisis, some say. However, the current degree of vaccine acceptance already is bolstered by a plethora of opinionated image campaigns and zealous suppression of dissenting voices.1

A significant domain of scientific inquiry has been banned from all major news outlets and social media platforms since the beginning of the pandemic. Justified concerns of reputable and respectable scientists were lumped together with ramblings of the irate to discredit and demonize them all alike.2 The sovereignty over which information is tolerable lies within the indistinct authoritative sources; and the platforms make liberal use of their domestic authority to cleanse their streams from content that could entail negative PR. There is no secrecy about this. On the contrary, the social media giants are proudly admitting to this censorship as a public service, in the name of safety.

Emergence of COVID vaccine discussions was met with the continuation of such policies aiding the promotion of vaccine acceptance. Reports and coverage of adverse reactions to vaccines and corresponding groups are routinely removed and indiscriminately generalized as politically motivated conspiracy myth propaganda. Similarly, the ‘get vaccinated’ posters and billboards that are abundantly plastered onto virtual and physical advertisement surfaces could hardly be more explicit about their bias and certainly do not encourage any degree of informed decision making.

The politically correct justification for this manipulation is minimization of harm to the public health. Maximizing shot acceptance becomes a honorable goal in the context of a favorable risk/benefit ratio for the new vaccines. So how much do we know about this ratio? With more than 3 Billion administered doses we now have a growing wealth of data on post-vaccine COVID infection and morbidity developments as well as case reports on a variety of life impacting complications that can occur. But that’s still a dizzying number of data points too look at. To get some easily comprehensible numbers for our ratio we need to zoom all the way out: For any one of the severe adverse reactions observed after vaccinations the authoritative sources usually report a chance of 2 to 9 in a Million. That’s only roundabout 0.0002%. In comparison, when aggregating all demographics, the global average chance to die from a contracted COVID infection seems to lie somewhere in between 0.1% and 0.5%.

In other words, this looks like getting the virus is easily a thousand times more likely to destroy you and your loved ones than getting the vaccine. So how could any reasonable person even make a fuzz about this?

Because first we can already say with fairly high certainty: the safety profile of COVID vaccines falls significantly behind that of other medicinal products. This conclusion is easily available to anyone who dares look at the magnitudes revealed in the data of open reporting systems.3 Insinuating that the vast majority of these reports should stem from an army of antivax conspiracy trolls would already set us down some pretty dangerous presumptuous trajectory. The widespread disregard of this drastic alert from what was designed to be an early warning system with the mere notion of lacking clinical validity is worrisome to say the least.

Secondly it is obvious that the above stated 0.5% death rate relation is a ridiculous oversimplification. The threat posed by the virus is highly age and health dependent and must be established on an individual basis for the sake of personal risk assessment. Meanwhile we have emerging scientific consensus that the naturally acquired immunity is superior to one induced by vaccination both in robustness and longevity. Therefore, justifying the vaccinate everyone approach requires some seriously resilient scientific validation of its overall benefit. This is contrary to the belief that criticizing the vaccination agenda is unsubstantial without mounting an undeniable proof of the inverse.

Thirdly and most important: The real and ultimate danger of these vaccines is their marketing as being without alternative.

The degree at which my closest friends are nowadays trying to influence me towards getting vaccinated is frankly alarming. I want to urge everyone to take a moment and consider if we feel alright with promoting a culture we subscribed to based on faith. And faith is the only thing we can have until we take a honest dive into the questionable success story currently being painted out in real world data. And I challenge you to draw your own conclusions from that data. But to support and promote a culture based on the belief that others will crunch the data for us and they will let us know, at this point in history is more than just irresponsible.

When even the uninitiated should have had some red flags raised is once we started discussing the vaccination of children despite already being able to predict that the costs may be severely higher than the benefits.

The harsh reality however is most of us so sick of this pandemic that we are ready to gulp down whatever solution is presented to us, no questions asked.

Are we ready to accept a new informational age where policing information has become integral to the solution of our health problem? Or are we still ready to contest the ideology of free information exchange. And if not, how can we trust that the choices we delegate to some higher up entity are driven by their philanthropic nature more than their need to increase profits?

Government agencies look systemically for patterns related to the vaccine, and when someone gets sick or dies shortly after the vaccine, this is investigated in a very serious fashion to ensure there is no link or inaccurate reporting.

~ abcNEWS

It is naturally disorienting to tell what the heck is going on in this first fully blown out information world war. Yet, a very dependable aid in constructing some plausible hypotheses always has been to follow the trails of money.

I believe that in the end everyone should decide for themselves whether the vaccine is right for them or not. But if someone should asks for my advice I will openly say that buying some Pfizer stocks is easily a safer bet than putting their product into your body.

COVID against Humanity

Corona has taken the world by storm. The killer virus SARS-CoV-2 keeps us all short of breath – some literally. People are isolating. Hospitals around the world are bursting. People are dying in their homes, dying in the streets. Iran is digging a mass grave so huge it’s visible from fucking space.1 That is all very disturbing. But is it still news?

Literally nobody is denying that this novel coronavirus is a threat to human health. Yet some16 dare question whether the severity of this threat really justifies the extreme measures taken around the world to contain this pandemic. While everybody else is committed on defeating this common enemy they try to sabotage our efforts and put everyone’s life in danger by doubting the authorities? Can’t they see that it is now more important than ever for all to work together as a team?

My very first exposure to COVID was after a friend had mentioned it to me, through a quick YouTube spree. Footage of collapsing people, bodies on the streets and crisis intervention troops in hazmat suites left a pretty alarming impression. But the ensuing media coverage quickly reassured me that everything was exaggerated for the sake of making news – because it sounded no different than the usual noise. Only with persistence and increasing impact unfolding over time I understood this needs to be taken serious.

It was this video with Harald Lesch that made me reevaluate the situation. I watched it to get reassurance after getting some controversial information. Only when I re-watched it for some reason days later I noticed how impudently it presents logical fallacy as indisputable truth. How serious must the situation be to require a reasoning based on unfounded pretense presented as hard facts? I feel betrayed by whom I believed to be a representative of scientific values. And maiLab, the remaining silver lining of truly objective and well-founded yet easy to understand information within the German YouTubiverse dares to take a break for birthing a child in this time when we need her most!

But she made a comeback, just in time. And it was very sobering. She fails to adequately address issues of the underlying data during 20 minutes of calculations but is seriously suggesting that because keeping up the measures for as long as necessary is essentially impossible our only possible course of action is to just wait it out until big pharma is ready to sell us salvation.2 Instead of coming to terms with the reality that irrespective of our concealment efforts, people are dying from respiratory diseases every day and every year, like they have throughout all history, we need now swallow and accept any sanctions deemed necessary for our own good and make this epidemic last as long as humanly possible.

It is right that we most likely can prolong a significant number of lives if we maximize our treatment capacities. It is wrong that those lives are the only metric we should care about. The problem here is not that we are told to stay inside, but that we are not allowed to question why. The possibility of any real discussion is suffocated by morals and war rhetoric. Any actual expert with a differentiating opinion gets lined up as a public enemy to the extent where it becomes next to irrelevant what they have to say.

If we were to listen, the almost two weeks old open letter3 by Sucharit Bhakdi still provides a good summary of the gaps in the foundation of our decision making. But perhaps it is more interesting to look at the response of a more trustworthy media outlet. They make a commendable effort to suggest that this professor in retirement doesn’t know what he is talking about but amidst their rhetoric have to admit that he is asking very important questions and the current decision making is largely based on assumptions.

But we get new data and learn more every day. The number of new cases in proportion to the number of tests carried out is not rising exponentially at all4. European excess mortality rate so far is still well within the regular seasonal bumps.17 In Germany the number of severely ill patients does not rise exponentially,5 SARI cases were going down18 and the number of available ICU beds has been going up6. These are all good news that don’t get a lot of coverage. We can’t risk a false sense of security.

At the root of the statistical fallacies propagated since the beginning of the global pandemic is the idea that we could realistically trace the spread of the virus by testing. Most of the unreliable7 tests aim to detect the presence of the virus. It is logic that subjects with favorable immune responses are much more likely to get false negatives than those struggling under their viral load. Add to that the bias of testing only people with symptoms and it must be obvious that we are not talking about a generally representative sample. Now add to that the fact that every single positively deceased case counts as a corona death19 and the suggested lethality rate can easily gets skewed by an order of magnitude.8

If you don’t realize how ridiculous that is then maybe a more graphic example can help: If a person with their arms and legs chopped off gets thrown on a rail to be subsequently overrun by a train, many would agree that person was indeed killed by the train. But some will argue that person had an apparent severe lack of limbs, while others will argue that everybody needs to be afraid of trains. And even the fact that perfectly healthy people die in the occasional train accident should make you no more concerned than the risk of getting hit by a car, struck by lightning, killed by a lawnmower or crushed by a vending machine.9

Its all about commensurability and so far we are not getting it. Instead we continue to neglect voices warning us about the health consequences of fear10 and quarantine20, which are poorly tracked by the global corona death ticker. This is especially troubling when comparing this war on corona with the war on drugs, where the civil health protection measures are proven to cause and amplify the harm that justifies its continuation for decades after its failure became evident.11

At this point there is no proof of neither the full extent of the death toll nor the quality of our containment measures. But soon we should no longer be able to evade the comparison with places that have taken little repressive measures like Sweden12, Japan21 or the “ticking time bomb”13 Africa which stands out for its eerie absence of corona-anything news in recent months. And the amount of creativity and number artistry required for maintaining the current outlook could get a lot higher within the next weeks. But there are few things that cannot be created by mere perspective.

And if all this seems to you like an implausibly big conspiracy then you are missing the point. Because preparing the stage and setting the emotional tone is all that is really needed to get the idea of fear out in the world. From there it can self-replicates exponentially, even faster than the virus itself. Through its central role in this propagation the media might appear as evil14 – but that is not because they inherently are. They only do what is always dictated by the framework of the system they operate in: They compete for your attention against all other players. And in this case, reporting about the global pandemic15 is essentially free attention real estate.

But all that still is not what is most alarming. What should really give you some serious pause is how frictionless all of this is happening. If we as a society not only obediently accept a truth that is presented to us in absence of verifiable information, but readily carry out moral judgement on those who speak heresy then we have really become indifferent to the rights and freedom that were paid for by blood and centuries of struggle. The destruction of rights is fatal for a free society.

It is truly unprecedented times when there are leftist voices calling to stand united behind our leaders and alt-right conspirators seem to acquire the monopoly on system critique. Without theorizing about conspiracies, now being sceptic can already suffice for anyone to become a crackpot.

It has long been speculated that the decisive weapon in World War III will be information. It is my opinion that the waging of this war has been in full swing for many years. And the next stage of escalation arrived by the emergence of a novel virus that transformed into something even more dangerous. A highly contagious pathogen that exists on the informational plane and clouds the perception of reality even for those not physically infected.

At no point is it more important to remain calm and rational than in the time of grave danger. Such is an essential quality of a good leader. But if Trumps aversion to the pandemic panic was anything but a blind man hitting the mark and he has some saving the world plan up his sleeve that he keeps secret from us then he is an apocalyptically good actor.
Let’s face it: We are on our own.

Doomsday clock is ticking.

Sacrifice the Old

So far, the Coronavirus has brought only good things to my life

~ S.D.

The COVID-19 crisis is far from over. If we want to save the economy we need to stop this silly quarantine and accept the inevitable spread of the virus. We can expect fatal consequences for many of the elderly population especially. But that is a sacrifice they’ll have to make.

Who, if not Donald Trump could come forward with such an outrageous and unspeakable opinion? Yet, putting those words in his mouth as of now would be fake news. Trump merely suggested that the collapsing economy will ultimately cost more lives than a full-force pandemic and that the elderly will somehow be fine, magically.

It was Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick who proposed seniors should put their life on the line if that’s what it takes to preserve “the America that America loves1 for it’s children and grandchildren”, counting himself as part of that endangered population segment. I respect his commitment and willingness to die for a cause he believes in. I just don’t believe in his cause. Putting the blame for a dying economy on the pandemic prevention measures is like holding a virus accountable for the demise of a terminally ill patient just because it was detected in the body at the time of death.

But I do find something remarkable in the statement of Dan Patrick: He laments that nobody reached out to him to ask if he is prepared to die for a higher cause, if that is what it takes? Because dying is the last thing anybody is supposed to ask from an old person. By default it is assumed they are weak and in need of protection. Being asked to die is a privilege reserved for the young and healthy when they get sent to war.

What would happen if we actually dared to ask? Would we hit a brick wall of stubborn senile grumps, outraged at the denial of an ignorant generation that only wants to see them gone? We seem to easily disregard that old people by logic tend to have more life experience and wisdom under their belly than those who eventually have to take care of them. We might find that those who still got their five senses together have come to terms with the reality that their life story is moving towards a conclusion, one way or another. They probably have accepted that, regardless of the life which lies behind them, at some point things simply won’t get any better.

Nevertheless talking about impending death is a hard thing to do – usually tabooed rather than approached in a factual and down to earth manner. How can we fail so monumentally at integrating this integral part of human existence in our culture and upbringing? This counts among the most jarring neglects2 of our praised education system in the civilized world. Some may dream about eternal life – but we are clearly not there yet so let’s be frank: Everyone has to die! It is an essential part of the cycle of life. Refusing to acknowledge that is the only morbid thing about it.

There is also no law of nature for death to be brought upon only through ailments and suffering. What if humans were able to pass on to the afterlife by mere intention and will once they are ready? Most people with some knowledge in the spiritual domain will concur that this is not the stuff of fairy tales but within our capabilities. But who is ever going to be ready for something they don’t engage with anything but avoidance and fear?

That’s why we make old-age provisions, to ensure that someone will be around to cook our meals and wipe our asses once we can’t. Personally I’ll prefer guaranteed access to a death pill to that any day.3 Some gentle poison that ensures the option of mercifully passing away on my own terms when the time is right. Because for sure I can not rely on anyone else to do that for me since moral and legal restrictions have been put into place. Giving someone the ultimate freedom of choice over their life is something only few places in the world deem justifiable.

The church preaching suicide as equivalent to murder and a shortcut to eternal burning in hell might have contributed to shaping this current state of affairs. But those teachings originate from a time before medicine was advanced enough to resist with sheer force whenever god is calling for a soul to return home.

Helping people out of life would also be magnitudes more efficient and economical4 than seeing things through till the bitter end. This may sound cold-hearted. But more lacking in empathy is our current approach of sustaining life no matter what. Claiming that everything we possibly can do is nothing but a continuation of the futile effort to avoid death. Few endeavors have a more reliable guarantee of failure. And I can’t help but wonder what it is that these people are still looking forward to in their lives. Why we need to shackle them to this world until no chains can hold them anymore.

I am not saying that old people should be denied the right to live. They should get every bit of medical treatment that they want and need. My point is that the we should ease the fuck up on frantically valuing the preservation of life above everything else. The German constitution gets it right and states:5 The human dignity is inviolable and needs to be protected by any means possible. Human dignity. Not life. Relentless efforts are being expended around the world to keep already decomposing bodies operational on an endless conveyor of death. Often even against the will of those bodies’ inhabitants. It is undignifying, without sense and at heavy cost.

Now is a time where we can rethink our values. Consequences of the ensuing economic crisis may be daunting. Also my friend S.D.6 is now facing uncertainty regarding his income. But if that equals a truly existential threat then something clearly went amiss within all the prosperity of our economic system. Any government that is truly pro-life would now focus on reassuring us that nobody needs to starve and freeze to death only for not showing up to work on Monday. This crisis actually holds immense potential for a giant leap towards a better form of society. We should take a step back, breath in that fresh Corona air, feel the tension of the constant treadmill loosen its grip. Tune down the constant highly contagious information onslaught of the media and regain some clarity.

The social isolation has already driven many of us to strengthen bonds with their loved ones again. If we can get back to talking and actually listening to each other we may find more profound meaning and solace about any of the tragedies of life and its ends than the biggest possible pension could ever provide. What everyone wants after all is to be accepted for what we are. And having to die is part of what we are. I am wishing for a world where the human experience is valued for more than its GDP and is allowed to end in graceful ways.

We keep hearing and rehearsing and telling a story of humankind dashing headfirst into extinction-threat disaster. For any chance of survival we would have to give up or drastically change our current way of life. But that is too inconvenient. Now a little virus has changed everything. Still, the dominant question being sold to us is ‘when things finally will go back to the way they were?’

What is the real illness here?

Why Bitcoin cannot cure the wealth inequality

You might have heard some of these or similar claims about Bitcoin:

It can reclaim the money from the evil banks.
It can catapult the poor into sudden abundance.
It deals a new hand of cards.
It puts you back in power.
The same old lies.™

While none of them is strictly false I have a problem with these statements and the underlying message especially.

I don’t consider myself an investor and much less an expert on trading and market dynamics. And I don’t need to be one, because the underlying principles are extremely simple. For the point that I am making it is enough to understand that a crypto currency is a token, which can be owned and freely traded on the open market. Everyone is always free to place an offer or to accept a standing offer that fits their needs. So if you have $ and want bitcoin you either announce that you are willing to exchange a certain amount at a certain rate and wait for someone to agree on that, or you directly find and accept one of the existing offers to trade BTC for $. That is the basic mechanism that has been used to exchange all kinds of goods and services for thousands of years. So far pretty fair and equal, eh?

The catch is this:
The price of a trade item is never inherent to or derived from the item itself.
The price is created and derived from the market!
Our perception of monetary values is the natural balance that establishes itself because few people want so sell their goods for less then they can get and even fewer people want to pay more than they have to.

Now imagine you have a Billion $. Imagine bitcoin gets traded around 1000$. Now what could you do? You could offer to buy a bitcoin for 1050$. It is a good strategy if you need your coin quickly and don’t mind paying some extra, because for sure very soon someone will take this advantageous deal. So that’s how it will look like to others too. But what happens if you immediately add a second offer and a third, maybe even up the price to 1060$ this time? You see where this is going…
Go ahead and automate it. You could do this 1000 times for only little more than 1%1 of your capital. On any common trading platform all those transactions are visible to the public. But not the identities of the contractors, only the volume and the exchange price.

Who will still want to sell their bitcoin for 1000$ now? Other people will naturally start asking for higher price too. And they will easily find buyers because hey, didn’t the value just increase 6% in only a few hours?! All those deals and the rising price will generate even more interest in bitcoin so increased demand further increases the price. To add further momentum to the rolling ball you can now already start selling back some of the 1000 coins you bought, already at a profit and with those gains you can immediately buy back in, creating even more volume, more momentum, more hype.

In all that chaos it is only the trading platform who can easily figure out whether most of the initial trade volume is connected to a single or very few clients. But since the trading platform earns on a small fee that incurs on every single trade, their motivation to put a stop to this will be sort of limited.

But any manic craze can only fly so high. Once the illusion begins to crumble you sell off the majority of your coins, and you do it fast. Because once over the point of no return the free fall has started and it wont stop. Not until the price is so low that the first people will buy back in again at what a is very attractive price point, if you consider how valuable this figment can be when sold at the right time.

Obviously, the full story is much more complex. But that doesn’t invalidate these very fundamental dynamics. If you feel like this is your kind of game and are prepared for the possibility of losing every last bit of your investment – go ahead and join the ride.2 It can be speculated that we have not seen the last of those bubbles, because they are so insanely profitable. Just be warned that the big players will always be a few steps ahead.

The blockchain is revolutionary technology that is here to stay. But the crypto market in its current manifestation is not re-balancing the global wealth distribution – it is making things worse!

It is true that almost anyone could become a Millionaire within this system. But certainly not everyone. And that’s one more thing you can bet on: The ones who got lucky didn’t bite their shiny new million off some big tycoon shark’s bank account. They withdrew it from countless poor fucks that now lost everything on a dream that wasn’t theirs to catch.

Imagine the financial world like an ocean of money we’re all sailing on. Strangely enough all those boats swimming in that sea of liquidity are fueled by cash. Many captains spend their lives building on their ever extending massive Moloch of a ship trying to somehow make enough room for all the cash that’s flowing in so they wont sink. My own boat however I prefer to fuel with no more funds than are needed to steer around.

May you always do what you fear to do

~ Elliot Hulse

I sometimes make myself do things I’m afraid of. Is that making me do things I don’t want to do? Is thinking to want them or wanting them helping to overcome the fear? Is overcoming the fear making me think that I want them? How can I overcome the fear of doing things just for the sake of overcoming fears? How can I overcome the fear of not doing things to avoid doing them just for the sake of overcoming that fear? How can ^C<(stop right there!)>