Since I’m following lots of politics, the issue of lies and deception obviously comes up, so let’s introduce some analytical clarity.

People usually define lying as telling things that are not true, but that trivial definition is not valid. You see, one can say things that are not true, but he doesn’t know that. That’s not lying; that’s being under a misapprehension and uttering falsehoods.

To lie means to deliberately create a false impression upon others, in order to deceive them. One can use any combination of truths and falsehoods in one’s statements, and the thing that separates misapprehension from a lie is intent. Also, one can hide truth by omission, which is also a form of deception. One can use a combination of true statements that is expected to cause the listener to draw the wrong conclusion. One can use obscure speech that doesn’t necessarily contain outright falsehoods, but it’s not conducive to producing correct understanding.

So, we have a matrix where a statement can be accurate or inaccurate, and intent can be honest or deceptive. Let’s ignore the cases where intent is neutral or a statement is vague, for the sake of simplicity.

An accurate statement is something like “Rome is the capital of Italy”, or “Monday is followed by Tuesday”. A false statement is something like “Madrid is the capital of Japan”, or “Boolean algebra is the way to count booles”.

Honest intent is where you intend for the listener to gain correct understanding of facts, and you attempt to formulate statements with this goal. Deceptive intent deliberately aims to create a misunderstanding of facts.

This gives us four possible combinations of types of statements and intents with which they are spoken; accurate and honest, accurate and deceptive, inaccurate and honest, and inaccurate and deceptive.

Accurate and honest statement is obviously what is meant by telling the truth, and inaccurate and deceptive statements are obviously what is meant by lying, but there is a grey zone of inaccurate honest statements, and accurate but deceptive ones, and this is where people with inadequate training tend to get lost, because in the world of politics we are dealing with professional, very skilled liars and deceivers. This is why we have to open the next issue – the ethics of lying.

One would expect me to say that one should always tell the truth and never lie, but this is actually not the case. As Krishna said in the Mahabharata, there’s nothing more important and valuable than the truth, however there are times where truth needs to be hidden, and times where lies need to be said. This means that when you see a man running from murderers and hiding in a barn, followed by the murderers who ask you if you saw the man they were pursuing, it would be sinful to tell the truth, and even the fact that you know it can lead to harm. Also, truth in deceptive context can be used for creating a false impression with very bad intentions, and there are expert liars who are trained to do exactly that. That’s how governments write reports. 🙂

If you followed Putin, you know he’s usually a very honest and straightforward person who usually tells the truth. However, there are cases where he made deceptive or false statements. For instance, when he deployed special forces in Crimea to keep the referendum safe. Those forces didn’t have visible insignia and were mockingly addressed as “little green men”. Putin at first pretended not to know anything about them, but later admitted it was his men. The reason for this is potential issues with the Russia-Ukraine relations, because they had a contract according to which the Russian military in Crimea wasn’t supposed to leave the bases, and Russia was in violation of this contract in case the referendum didn’t pass. However, when the referendum did pass, and Ukraine started killing the Russian population of Donbass and in Odessa, Putin decided that his minor infringement of contract was the least of the issues at hand. Similarly, when the Russians accumulated military forces prior to the invasion of Ukraine, and they were confronted about it by the Americans, their response was that they are fully within their right to move their military within their territory. This is true, yet deceptive, and if they wanted to be completely honest, they could have said that they are preparing their military in case their diplomatic efforts fail, but this would have been rightfully construed as a direct threat, and the other side would have been under pressure to “refuse blackmail” and war would become more likely. The way the Russians formulated it was “don’t mind our military doing things on Russian territory, instead focus on our proposition for Ukrainian neutrality and withdrawal of NATO to pre-1997 borders”. This is an example of a statement that is true, but deceptive – the truth is that the military was being prepared in case the West didn’t accept the Russian “non-ultimatum”, but it was deemed prudent not to formulate it as an outright threat of war if Russian conditions aren’t met. This is a lie, but its purpose is to allow the opposing side to save face, and if we understand diplomacy primarily as an effort to avert war, a lie whose purpose is to make a peaceful outcome more likely is not an instrument of evil. This is very much unlike the American deceptions with the supposed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, whose purpose was to give legitimacy to war.

What we can see is that the Russians often don’t reveal the truth, and they occasionally use true but deceptive statements, but they very rarely use outright lies, and when they do, they look so uncomfortable about it it’s obvious that something’s up. They also occasionally use deceptive statistics, for instance when reporting their military dead, I think they used to omit the Wagner group and the Donbass militia, but outside attempts to independently establish the number of Russian dead actually gave the upper limit of 20000, and that’s using an AI to comb through raw data. This means that the Russian official reports are in fact quite accurate. Considering how the other side gives estimates that are false at least by an order of magnitude, it shows a pattern: the Russians are uncomfortable with lies and prefer to remain honest and straightforward as much as possible, but they try to avoid going so far as to actually cause harm by telling the truth.

Also, so far their warnings have always been very conservatively formulated, and they avoided outright threats and ultimatums, in order to prevent situations where the other side would lose face and appear humiliated by accepting peace. The problem is, the West painted itself into a corner by falsely portraying Putin as some kind of a new Hitler, with whom there can be no talks, and every compromise is seen as “appeasement” which would only encourage further encroachments. Since it is very unwise to do such a propagandistic preparation unless you intend to go all the way in total war, it can be concluded that those in the West running this show either don’t understand how this works, or they actually intend to produce a scenario of escalation to the point of unlimited nuclear exchange.

It’s interesting how the Russian side is more useful for illustrating the concept of diplomatic deception; it’s because they are very nuanced, deliberate and they use mostly straightforward truth, and only shade things occasionally, to either assist the diplomatic efforts or hide some embarrassment. This is what you would expect a normal person to do; tell the truth most of the time, but avoid offending others and creating awqward social situations, and try to present yourself in as positive light as realistically possible, while remaining constructive about possible improvements. The Americans (and the entire collective West they are controlling) are a different story, because they have a tendency to define their objective, and they have absolutely no respect for either truth or facts whatsoever. They recognize only “narratives”, which means story-telling with the purpose of achieving their goals, and those narratives can be utterly fictional to the point where they have only a tangential relationship with reality, if even that. Their positions are false to such a degree, they are not very useful for this type of an analysis, because they tend to create outright fairy tales, where “Russia” and “Putin” they talk about exist as imaginary cartoon characters, which is why they always serve their audience only short, edited and heavily commented snippets of the enemy, because they are aware that their “narrative” would immediately crumble in an environment of unlimited access to raw data.

This is not limited to American foreign policy, where each enemy is portrayed as a “new Hitler” that must be defeated or else no virtue has any meaning; they use the same concept of “narratives” in their economy and internal politics, where they cook the numbers in such a way as to present a “more constructive” picture, for instance if someone is unemployed for a longer time, they stop counting him as unemployed because he “exited the workforce”, which is basically the same as counting people who died of an illness as cured, or cooking the way they calculate inflation in ways that greatly under-report actual expenses the people realistically have, or print money that is deployed through investment banks into the artificially inflated valuations of companies, that creates GDP numbers that are hugely inflated, and used to retroactively justify the money printing, and so on. This pattern of painting a picture where their problems are insignificant, their strengths are magnified, and their enemies are portrayed as weak and incompetent, is a rather new occurrence. For instance, I watched military videos from the second world war, where the Americans told their bomber pilots exactly how the German anti-aircraft systems work, and how they must use complicated mathematical methods to deceive and evade them, because the Germans are sophisticated, technologically extremely advanced, competent and disciplined, and if you are in any way predictable, they will take you out of the air with perfect certainty. If such a video was made today, it would mock Hitler as a caricature figure, portray the Germans as weak and already defeated, and tell the pilots it’s all going to be a piece of cake, because they are Americans and thus destined to be invincible and victorious. Similarly, during the cold war the Soviets were feared; they were portrayed as technologically extremely advanced, strategically wise and powerful to the point of having a constant advantage over America, even when it wasn’t true. If anyone during the cold war tried the kind of a narrative that’s popular today, saying that the Soviet Union is weak, overrated, corrupt and their stuff is rusted-out junk that mostly doesn’t work, they would immediately put him under surveillance to see if the Russians are paying him to lull the Americans into complacency with false stories. It’s interesting how they used to err on the side of overestimating the danger; underestimating it and being proved false was seen as the greatest danger. Overestimating the enemy meant you were more prepared, and no harm can come from that. Something, somewhere, apparently changed since the 1990s; not necessarily in the sense that they lie more than before, but rather in the sense that they seem to believe in “positive thinking” and “creative power of thought”, meaning that you wish things into reality and what you say becomes true. This looks like those weird New Age philosophies that were ubiquitous in the 1990s, and some of that apparently influenced the way the Americans perceive reality. I might be wrong, though; it might be the other way around, that something changed in the way Americans perceive reality, and this resulted in creation of the New Age philosophy, among other things. In any case, there was some new psychological momentum that seems to have coincided with the fall of the Soviet Union and the defeat of the communist block, where the enemy that was previously thought to be invincible crumbled due to no more than persistence and “correct ideology” on the Western side. This would require further analysis, but the fact is that something changed in the American thinking about that time, and they seem to think that reality will be influenced by their narratives to the point where they don’t care about the facts at all, and merely attempt to suppress them with the story they present and stubbornly defend. This is autosuggestion, and is utilised in self-hypnosis and autogenous training with great effect, but the power of belief must never be overstated. I learned that the hard way in driving school, when I concentrated on thinking about success instead of driving well, and I failed. It is then that I realised that positive thinking can be actively harmful, and the next time I concentrated on doing everything well, and I passed. Basically, in autogenous training you get used to the “fake it until you make it” approach, where you think that your hands are warm, and when you believe they are, they actually get warm, and after you get used to this working, you tend to get ahead of yourself and start thinking that this is how things work elsewhere – believe you’re rich and you will become rich, believe you’re beautiful and you will be seen as beautiful, and so on. I don’t know if belief in such reality-changing power of bullshit came first, or if it’s the result of something else, but I see this crazy ideology everywhere, from economy and geopolitics to people trying to bullshit others by pretending to be rich and cool on the Internet. People have incredible faith in the power of their thoughts and beliefs to change reality and mould it, the way a magnetic field can shape a ray of charged particles. Basically, they believe in the power of lies, because if you lie with sufficient conviction, the reality will conform.

The most dangerous aspect of this is thinking that the things that are so scary that they are “unimaginable”, will literally be forced out of reality if you dismiss them as a possibility. You then act as if they are not possible, and act in ways that make them inevitable. This is how we got from the point where Russia was a friend of the West and tried for decades to find some equitable accommodation, to the point where nuclear war is almost a mathematical certainty. The Americans believed in the creative power of bullshit, and they believed that if they portray Russia as small, weak and unimportant, that it will just vanish from the radar, and they acted as if it doesn’t matter. By acting as if it doesn’t matter and by encroaching ever deeper upon its fundamental interests, they motivated Russia to start seriously working on protecting itself. By presenting Russia’s self-preservation as aggression, the Americans made sure they can never make moves that will remedy the situation, and assured that everything they do will escalate the conflict.

So, it’s very easy to play with the definitions of truth and justify lying – when it’s useful, when it prevents harm, when it shapes reality into something better instead of just accepting it for what it is. However, the problem with lies is that you tend to start believing them yourself, and you enter a feedback loop, where your own lies get fed back to you as “facts” confirming your actions and ideas, and the tricky thing about reality is that it doesn’t give a fuck.

Reality doesn’t care about your creative visualizations, it doesn’t care about how many people you’ve persuaded, and reality isn’t Facebook or Instagram. If you fuck with reality, you die.

Brain and heart damage caused by the COVID “vaccine”:

Getting “vaccinated” or complying with the government’s mandates just to get along, fit in, not be bullied or discriminated against, is a dangerous sport. It’s not a free and safe choice.

I ignored several big events in the world that happened recently, such as the Turkey/Syria earthquake, toxic spills in America that were conspicuously ignored by the main stream media, and more spy balloon hysteria.

That’s not because I think that the earthquake, for instance, was minor; it was not. In fact, it was extremely deadly, and the casualties seem to be 2x to 3x greater than the initial estimates, probably due to poor building practices in the region. However, regardless of the fact that more people died in this earthquake than the Russians lost in the year long Ukraine war, it is not an extinction-level event, or a civilization-ending event. It’s just a very bad natural disaster. We should always be prepared for those, and not pretend we’re somehow untouchable because we “live” on the Internet.

However, compared to what’s already in the pipeline, it’s merely a distraction. What we have in the pipeline is the collapse of civilization, collapse of the global economy, collapse of industry and agriculture. From my perspective, it already happened, the way someone’s death already happened if he jumped from the 20^th floor, regardless of the fact that he’s currently flying and feeling great. The events have been set in motion long ago – I personally started paying attention during the 2008 crisis, when the problems were not only not solved, but in fact magnified by wrapping them up and sending them down the line, because they were deemed too big to be solved. Basically, the foundation of the monetary system is broken, which means that “money” is supported by little more than wishful thinking and hoping that things will somehow work out in the end. Additionally, idiotic covid restrictions broke the inertia of the economy, and caused cascade failures that are still in the pipeline. Sanctions against Russia caused another blow to the industry and agriculture, and here the idiots in power are actually playing with the foundations of the food supply, in such a way that I really have no reasons for optimism. None of this is an accident. It’s a controlled demolition. It’s being done with the purpose of reducing the number of people in the world by at least a half, reducing the environmental impact of the rest by reducing their standard of living to the point of the poor third world countries, and giving the ones in charge of the process absolute power over the lives of the survivors. It’s basically rich idiots’ ego trip. Part of it is known as the WEF, but I’m afraid it’s even wider than that. Those rich bastards are using money to corrupt institutions everywhere by buying journalists, politicians and scientists. This means science is no longer authentic or credible, journalists are no longer authentic and credible, and the politicians don’t work for the people, they work for those rich bastards who are running the show behind the curtain. Paradoxically, one of the major aspects of collapse, that of the monetary system, might in fact erode their main instrument of control, which is why I’m actually hoping for things to break sooner rather than later, because the status quo does not work in our favour. The longer those bastards remain in power, the longer they will be able to implement measures that aim to kill, impoverish and enslave us, and enrich and empower themselves. Also, that’s why I’m urging people to save in gold – because “normal” money is already an instrument of surveillance and control, and will soon become an instrument of killing “misfits” – imagine what happens to you if you don’t take the fifth shot of a questionable vaccine, if you “misgender” some pervert, or in other ways don’t comply unquestionably. They just turn off your CBDC debit account, and you can at that point neither buy nor sell goods and services, and you’re basically dead. Just look what they did to Assange, and know that in a CBDC future, we’re all either Assange, or zombie slaves. Having precious metals is basically the currency of the future “underground”, of an alternative “terrorist” system that will be our only option if we don’t want to be zombie slaves who are routinely culled to reduce CO₂ output, when someone is over quota. Fortunately, the people designing this future are idiots who routinely ignore everything they don’t see as important, and “not important” things are the foundations of the entire system from which they derive power, things such as Russian gas, or agriculture and mining, engineering and science. Those are all “social sciences” idiots with vanity degrees, and the world they think they live in is not even remotely similar to the world they actually live in. Even worse, they are all atheists, which means they have no valid moral compass. They invented “human rights” for us to follow like cattle, but that’s not something they see as binding. Anything that was pulled out of thin air like that, can also be changed just like that. Never trust anyone who doesn’t firmly believe that he will be judged by God after death for his actions during this life. Those people are all basically insane and evil. They are not all on the same page – some are handling the economy and trying desperately to kick that can down the next flight of stairs. Some are trying to have a nuclear war with Russia and/or China. Some are trying to save the world by making us all poor and having us eat bugs, like the poor people in Asia. Some are trying to exploit the money printing machine to buy all the real estate and other assets. Some are trying to sabotage agriculture in order to reduce the food supply and have billions die of hunger. Some are trying to sterilize us to reduce population growth. Some are trying to invent artificial plagues that will preferentially cull the elderly and the vulnerable. Some are trying to invent virtual reality that will keep the servile masses occupied while they control the physical world. Some are trying to implement mechanisms of surveillance to make rebellion impossible. Some are trying to control media in order to feed us shit and keep us in the dark, like mushrooms. Half of those plans contradict the other half, because those rich idiots who think themselves geniuses have their pet projects. For instance, having a central bank digital currency and a high-tech surveillance society is contradictory with the plans to have a nuclear war that will degrade the technosphere permanently. Also, destroying the industrial energy base and the financial system is contradictory with the top-heavy centralized management plans. This is not unexpected, because half of those rich people aren’t even talking to the other half; the only thing they agree on is that the rest of us have to be relegated to the position of tightly managed cattle, and the world will just die if not for them.

So, that’s why I ignored the Turkey/Syria earthquake. People that were impacted by this are fucked, but an earthquake is not something you can do much about, other than building solid structures and being generally prepared. I don’t sweat much over things where I can’t do much to warn, prevent or mitigate effects. I focus on things where I see farther than others, in order to sound warnings.

I was thinking how the Americans don’t seem to understand anyone and have incredibly strange assumptions in communication, and I think I’m starting to understand the “root cause” of their problem.

You see, America is a land of liars; or, more precisely, a land of snake oil salesmen, where everybody is selling something, starting with themselves, and the implicit assumption they have in every interaction is that everybody else is the same. Those snake oil salesmen invented all sorts of theories to be used when marketing your snake oil to people – body language, alpha/beta male divisions, positive thinking, and so on. It all seems to describe some reality, but it works only in America, where everybody is playing the same game of selling snake oil to others, and being wary of others selling snake oil to them. They seem completely oblivious to the fact that others don’t use the same “language” in communication. For instance, they keep wearing some fake smile and being artificially friendly in communication, but that’s because they are taught that such approach is disarming and it improves your chances of selling your snake oil to others. They don’t smile because they like you or because they are happy, they smile because they are taught this approach in some “how to sell whatever stupid bullshit to customers” course. They are also taught to emulate being confident, to stand tall, look you straight in the eyes and never show that they are lying when they are lying, which is always.

It is for this reason that they assume that, when someone like Putin talks, it is safe to ignore everything he’s saying because it must all be false (the way one should ignore everything an American is saying because it’s all lies), and if he appears confident and straightforward, it must be a bluff because that’s how Americans were all taught to lie.

Their problem is that others aren’t playing the same game.

When a normal person is slouched or just has a blank empty look, it doesn’t mean they lack self-confidence, or that they are lying, or aren’t sure of themselves. They just didn’t go through an acting course for liars and poseurs. The actual meaning of the slouched, absent-minded posture might be that an engineer is thinking about a tensor-representation of multiple forces influencing a body orbiting a magnetar, or that one is just mentally tired because he had many things to do today and is just chilling and recharging his energy. You basically can’t conclude anything from an irrelevant thing such as body posture, which is why people outside America hardly ever bother with such bullshit, and instead listen to each other. For instance, if someone tells you to piss off because you’re annoying him, that’s probably exactly what he’s thinking. Also, if he says he likes your attitude and invites you to have a drink with him, the odds are that’s exactly what he’s thinking. It reminds me of one of those jokes about men and women, where a woman says “I have a headache” and it means “I don’t want to fuck you or talk to you because you were polite to the neighbour whose wife was gossiping me behind my back and I’m not going to even tell you what the problem is because if you don’t know why I’m mad, it just means you’re not paying attention to me which means you don’t really care about me so fuck you”. When a man says “I have a headache”, he means “I have a headache”. Well, the Americans think like women. The Russians think like men. When a Russian says “I’m annoyed at you because you are exiting disarmament treaties and amassing weapon systems at our borders; you should stop”, that’s exactly what he means, and the implication is that if you don’t stop, he’ll have to do something about it. When a Russian says “we did something about it, and developed modern weapons, so you better stop fucking with us or else”, this is exactly what he means, and the implication of “else” is that he’s going to use those new weapons to destroy the immediate threat, and then stop to see if you understood the message. The Russians don’t bluff, because they don’t have a national game where bluffing is the main move. They don’t play poker. They play chess. They are also very straightforward people. If they like you, they smile and take you home to cook you dinner, they get drunk with you and tell stupid jokes. If they don’t like you, they tell you to go to hell, and if you don’t, they’ll gladly show you the way.

This misunderstanding of language between people who are all bluff, and people who are all substance, is extremely dangerous, when the Americans don’t listen to the Russians because of their faulty assumptions.

Of course, it’s not that the Americans have patent rights on idiocy; humans in general tend to assume things that are completely unwarranted, and then they get shocked when shit happens; for instance, kids bully the weird kid who just wants to be left alone, and since he doesn’t appear to do anything, they do it more, until he comes to school with a gun and outright murders them. It’s weird that they think that this is for some reason a pathological reaction – it’s not. It’s a perfectly reasonable reaction – someone annoys you, you tell him to stop. He laughs at you and annoys you more. You tell him to stop more forcefully, because he obviously didn’t get it the first time. He laughs at you and continues to annoy you. Then you try to notify authorities, but they wave you off because they don’t give a fuck. You understand that your life is being made miserable by intentional sadistic action by someone who doesn’t respond to your clearly stated wishes, the authorities don’t care, and you see no way you can remove yourself from the situation, so your options are to continue living in hell or to destroy the enemy. So you destroy the enemy, and its a very rational response to the problem, and the fact that people are too stupid to understand that and interpret such reactions as “wrong” and “psychotic” only means that they are the psychotic ones, because they are too fucked up to understand how things work. If you’re a sadist who derives joy from turning someone’s life into hell, and you refuse to stop when told so, that person has every right to kill you. The fact that you assume to be invulnerable and everybody reacts with shock when the obvious thing happens, only means that you are all idiots.

If you fuck with the Russians, they will initially be shocked. Then they will be angry and they will try to explain to you that what you did annoyed them, and that you should stop. If you don’t, they will try to use more direct language because you obviously didn’t understand. If you still continue to annoy them, they will decide that you’re a bad person and they will try to remove themselves from your company and go elsewhere. If you try to prevent this and continue to annoy them and sabotage their interactions with others, they will get really angry and threaten you with violence if you don’t leave them alone. If that doesn’t work, they will kill you.

The American problem is very similar to that of a bully who assumes to be invulnerable and his reaction to “leave me alone” is laughter and escalation of violence, because someone telling you something with words “obviously” means they can’t do anything about it. When they actually do something about it, you react with shock, because you’re all idiots.