Europe Set To Explode

While the U.S. is distracted by Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter (see Part 1), Europe – especially Germany – faces an increasingly explosive situation with her dependence on Russian gas supplies and involvement in the Russian-Ukranian conflict. As they cut off their own energy resources in protest over the war, who will suffer the most – the elite or the regular European citizens?

Watch as Chris connects the dots and explains the urgency of the situation and why you should care.

from Peak Prosperity https://ift.tt/B0cQJkZ

Twitter, Elon Musk, Free Speech and the Impact on Science Headline Tonight’s “Informed Consent” LiveCast, April 28, 7 p.m.

Tonight, Chris dissects the Elon Musk purchase of Twitter and the hilarious if not troubling reaction by the unserious and triggered Twitter employees and the universe of trolls all over social media. Should we laugh, or worry about the Republic and the people we call neighbors? How important is frees speech, especially when it comes to science, and your family’s health?

And as we can expect for every Peak LiveCast, we’ll discuss the proposed policies destined to lead us down dark paths, and the bad actors pointing us down to disastrous outcomes. How do we fight back? It’s another week of “Informed Consent” from Peak Prosperity.

Tune in Live tonight, April 28, at 7 p.m., EST right here at Peak Prosperity.

from Peak Prosperity https://ift.tt/Z6tmfSG

Study: mRNA Vaccines Don’t Reduce Deaths

The mRNA vaccines have been endlessly billed as “Safe & Effective.” But are they?

A lot depends on what one means by “safe” (which is always a relative term, as nothing is ever perfectly safe) and what the definition of “effective” is.

By effective, I think we can all agree that a vaccine designed to be mass adopted in the midst of a pandemic ought to reduce deaths from the pandemic disease. That means it ought to reduce overall mortality.

Hopefully, we can agree that’s the right metric, because if a vaccine reduces some deaths in this part of the equation, but induces a similar amount of deaths over in some other part of the health equation, then it’s not actually being “effective” in terms of reducing mortality.

A new Danish study (pre-printed in The Lancet) shows that mRNA vaccines offer no all-cause mortality benefits. Zero. Nada. So, let’s list what the vaccines don’t do: they don’t stop infection or transmission and they don’t reduce deaths. Using only RCT trial data from the pharma companies themselves, the pooled results from the mRNA vaccines show no discernible mortality benefit.

Alternatively, and quite happily, the adenovirus vector vaccines – that’s J&J and Astra-Zeneca – do show a VERY positive mortality benefit from Covid and, intriguingly, even from non-Covid deaths. How can this be? I don’t know, but it’s the sort of data that begs for more inquiry and understanding.

One does not need a PhD in public health policy to understand that the only appropriate response to this data would be to promote the adenovirus vaccines over the mRNA vaccines.

But the exact opposite happened and that’s quite a scientific, medical and public health mystery. Certainly, we could make allowances for that to happen in the first early months of the pandemic. But now? A full 16 months after the launch of the vaccines? It’s very difficult to explain what the CDC, NIH and FDA were up to with their collective tens of billions of dollars of budgetary funding.

These are legitimate questions and concerns to address and the only question I have is “will the Big Tech censors allow us to ask them, or will this be taken down too?”

from Peak Prosperity https://ift.tt/JkhDcft

MELTDOWN!

In 1979, the movie “China Syndrome” starring Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas ignited a firestorm among the general public about the safety of nuclear plants. In the movie, a reporter believes that if a meltdown occurred in a specific fashion, the radioactive material could melt through the Earth’s core all the way to China. Today, it’s a different story. The meltdown we’re facing is coming from China and it’s a hot economic poison that threatens the rest of the world.

But, as always, there is more to it. It’s China compounding the problems already created by our own leaders.

It is a fact and the evidence is clear; the leaders of our various large institutions have utterly and completely failed and even abandoned us.

The CDC failed. The FDA failed. The Federal Reserve has failed. In every case, the pattern is the same – petty if not pathetic self-interest and greed were more important to those entrusted with important public service roles than your life or our future prosperity

So, now it is all laid bare.

A banquet of consequences is on the way and most people are desperately unprepared for the economic pain in our future.

In this special video report, I lay out a string of financial indicators that all point to a very severe impending recession or worse.

Coupled with surprisingly draconian lockdowns in China that have hobbled the economic and exporting heart of their economy, I see a period of very painful stagflation on the way.  That is, high inflation and negative economic activity at the same time. There’s nothing more ruinous than losing income at the same time that prices are skyrocketing.

Is China playing 1D chess with a self-ruinous zero-Covid policy or is it playing 3D chess and using Covid lockdowns as an excuse to hobble the west further with another round of destabilizing supply chain disruptions? You know what? It doesn’t really matter, either way the outcome is the same. Shortages, paralysis and difficult-to-control inflation will result and China is leading the way.

The Fed is out of options here. So too is the ECB as are the other central banks of the world. The choice is now between letting inflation run away or crashing their precious financial asset bubbles. Er, markets.

Add it all up and you need to become as resilient as possible.

from Peak Prosperity https://ift.tt/LSh4XNg

You Are Not Real

Shakespeare’s famously gory “Titus Andronicus” is replete with violence, including fourteen deaths. Yet it continues to be performed, and audiences continue to sign up for a frisson of fear and pity, because this is not real.

After the play, the actors get up, wash off the fake blood, and join the playwrights and directors for drinks or dinner.

If, like me, you’ve been wondering about why things are the way they are in today’s world, and how this relates, this is my explanation: For the actors, writers and directors who create real world narratives, the play is you. And you are not real.

Actors and Reality

Much has been made of the jarring dissonance between the heroic stand of the president and the people of Ukraine and the facile signaling of the Social Justice crowd. Feel free to pick your favorite exemplar, from the merely stupid banning of Russian cats and renaming of White Russian cocktails to the more sinister cancelling of Russian performers, or the horrific threats and vandalism to places serving Russian food. There’s no shortage of content here. And, as we’ll get to shortly, that’s the point.

 

Ukraine’s policy goals do not map fully to those of the United States (think Azov Battalion, for starters), and we can and should carefully consider our response with that awareness. But this does not change Ukrainian heroism. Zelensky wants planes, a no-fly zone, and he would no doubt love NATO boots on the ground. Prudence may dictate we provide him none of these, but it is worth noting that any of us in his circumstances would likely be asking for the same things. Any of us who stayed during the onslaught, that is.

Clearly, Putin’s bet from the beginning included Zelensky on the first plane out to serve as the leader of the Ukrainian government in (comfortable) exile, after which the dismemberment of that nation would rapidly become a fait accompli. Zelensky was having none of it. He stayed, and continues to stay, at great personal risk to himself and his family. He is, unquestionably, a hero.

It is the contrast between these two extremes (the banning of Russian-themed menus et al vs. Zelensky’s stand) that provides ample opportunity to reflect on the idea that many Americans are just not serious people. Unsurprisingly, their response to events in Ukraine has been to simply cut and paste from the outrage-of-the-week playbook: change profile picture, use a hashtag, find some people to cancel, and congratulate oneself on how virtuous one is. In the real world, rational people are tempted to say, “None of this ‘support’ matters”. It’s just empty signaling. So why is it happening, why has it become so pervasive, and how should we contend with it? Examination of a few high-salience topics can shed some light.

Consider this first in the context of Covid and the by now well-known case of the Lab Leak Theory. Peter Daszak of the Eco-Health Alliance was the prime mover behind the infamous Lancet Letter branding any lab leak speculation uninformed conspiracy. This makes perfect sense when considering his incentives. Daszak (and Fauci, and others) had something to lose here. Perhaps a lot to lose. U.S. funding of Gain of Function research in Chinese labs resulting in a global pandemic is, to put it mildly, not a very good look and could be costly both financially and criminally.

Explaining is not excusing. But while we can wish for better, observing actors respond to their incentives is nothing if not proof that the world works in an orderly way. Indeed, the conservative position that we are and should be a nation of laws, norms, and standards implicitly concedes the point that our better angels are not always ascendant. If some people had enormously large reasons to attempt a coverup of something, it’s hardly controversial that some would choose to do so.

And that’s where those laws, norms, and standards come in. In an environment with many disinterested actors, those entities without skin in the game would easily out-produce the relatively small number of individuals invested in a particular narrative. In that environment, the idea that zoonotic transmission and escape from a biolab in the same city where researchers were known to be working on bat viruses were both very real possibilities would be obvious.

But that is not at all how it went down.

Instead, the idea that it might be prudent to investigate what role the lab in Wuhan may have played in the pandemic became roughly equivalent to arguing Flat Earth Theory. What the hell was going on here? Did everyone in the American media landscape owe Daszak a favor? Did Fauci have a secret cache of compromising emails and photos to dangle J. Edgar Hoover style over the heads of troublesome journalists? Why on earth would hundreds or thousands in the media run cover for these guys and for the Chinese government to the extent of making claims that mere investigation of the possibility of a lab leak was racist?

More puzzling still is the idea that there is nothing about either potential source of the pandemic that presupposes an explicitly liberal or conservative position. Indeed, one could easily flip the script and imagine a campaign urging people to “follow the science” rather than resorting to xenophobic tropes about savages in wet markets. Until, that is, Donald Trump and other conservatives brought it up, which was like Christmas came early for Daszak and his co-conspirators. For the progressive left, the endorsement of anything by President Trump was more than sufficient cause to oppose it, and thus the wheels began to turn.

None of this should be surprising to anyone who’s been paying attention. At its heart, this is an expression of the luxury of operating without consequences. The luxury of not having to think operationally. To be clear, what I am saying is that Daszak and his cronies were able to leverage a system in which those with the loudest megaphones literally did not and do not care where and how Covid originated. For them, it just doesn’t matter. The pandemic is just background noise. That may seem like a strong statement. So, why and in what sense did they not care?

Gain Not Trust

In a recent episode of Bari Weiss’ podcast Honestly, journalist and academic Yuval Levin articulated a theory of the change from institutions-as-formational to institutions-as-platforms. In his view, institutions of all types formerly served to develop the individuals inside them. If for example, you worked at the New York Times as a young journalist, you would be shaped by the ethos of that institution, informed by the repository of values developed over time within that structure. According to Levin, this has been replaced by the notion of institution-as-platform, the idea is that these structures exist as a launching pad for one’s personal brand.

Understood from this perspective, the great Lab Leak crackdown suddenly makes a great deal of sense. One of the baseline branding positions operating was “not-Trump.” I am completely persuaded that if Trump had spoken out in favor of the wet market theory, we’d all have been loudly advised to “follow the science” in precisely the opposite direction.

It is also worth noting that these personal brands are rivalrous goods. Having a “take,” even the right one, is necessary, but not sufficient. Your take must outcompete the other signals in the marketplace in order to claim disproportionate attention. And this explains why the Lab Leak Theory had to be, “conspiracist,” “anti-science,” and eventually, of course, “racist.”

The more extreme the position is, the more effective it is in gaining audience-capture. And this is not part of the story; it’s the entire story. There is effectively nothing behind the curtain. Because of these powerful incentives, what has happened without us realizing it is the creation of a public dialogue between a small, privileged elite that is fixed on in-group signaling and status-capture. The policy concerns or post-pandemic reforms that should differentially apply depending upon the origin of the disease diminish in importance to the extent that they functionally do not matter at all. And people impacted by those decisions by extension do not matter either. They are extras and scenery.

The Damaging Script

This goes a long way toward explaining the persistence of the otherwise bewildering advocacy that has permeated American life. Democratic New York Mayor Eric Adams noted that the Defund the Police crowd “are a lot of young white affluent people.” Of course they are. Poll after poll reveals that those who live in high-crime neighborhoods want more police, not less.

Like any other sane person, those citizens also want their police officers to be professional and not corrupt, but “I want my police officers to fight crime and be professional” is just not an exciting take. From this perspective, insanity like Defund the Police isn’t surprising, but rather inevitable. It is the position pushed to its logical extreme. And that is why arguing with this group is useless.

If you wonder why the obvious fact that increased crime disproportionally affects black and brown people remains unpersuasive to them, the reason is maybe scarier than you think. It is not that they are stupid; it is that they just don’t care, and they never will. They are completely unconcerned about the consequences of implementing this policy in the real world. And to take it a step further, they don’t even care about the policy itself. The proclamation and the signaling is the whole story. In a fundamental sense, any person killed or otherwise victimized by increased crime is just not real. Extras and scenery. Nothing to see here.

Perhaps nothing is more indicative of this trend than the increasingly unhinged claims emerging from the trans-activist community, as LGB became LGBT and now for some is properly expressed as LGBTQQIP2SAA, in order to be “inclusive” to intersex, pansexual, asexual, and two-spirit people.

For an outsider, it can all seem like satire. How could anyone engage in these abbreviation acrobatics unironically?

It is no surprise that all of this has continued to expand since the 2015 Obergefell ruling which legalized gay marriage. Effectively, the war was over, and the gay community won. Resoundingly. Despite that, it is instructive to note here that there’s no incentive to just take the W, as the kids say, and move on. Satisfaction, and even victory, simply does not move the needle. Outrage is the play when competing for eyeballs and clicks, and thus we have incomprehensible acronyms, death threats to J.K. Rowling, of all people, for having the temerity to state flatly that men and women are different, and an epidemic of medical intervention involving children is something for which future societies will likely judge us very harshly, with good reason.

For outsiders, the criticism seems insane. That is because, once again, we are not the audience. What we are seeing is a process of in-group jousting for status, where increasingly bizarre formulations become predictable and indeed necessary to gain attention. “I disagree with J.K. Rowling” is hardly a winning message, especially compared with “J.K. Rowling threatens my right to exist!” Thus, once again, appeals to reason, biology, or even compassion for a generation of children we are harming irrevocably do not and will not work. No one affected by these positions exists in any meaningful way because, again, they are not real.

By far the best example of this phenomenon is Black Lives Matter, a marketing triumph that proved beyond all doubt that these tactics can work, work well, and most importantly, be monetized. The familiar script is here, but no one has ever executed it better, as activists turned their rallying cry into a movement indistinguishable from religion. No nuance or difference of opinion was tolerated. Even to remain silent was proof of apostacy.

The net result? More than $60 million, most of which remains unaccounted for, and a series of high-end real estate purchases by the activists behind the whole thing. No policy achievements of any kind, because of course those were never the point from the beginning, as was obvious to anyone paying attention.

 

Inside BLM co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors’ million-dollar real estate buying binge. Photo source: New York Post

An attempt at real policy change involves engaging stakeholders, broadening your base, creating consensus, and finding ways to deliver wins for various groups in your coalition. Which to be fair, is a lot of work. It’s much easier to simply use any police shooting of a black citizen, regardless of the circumstances, as a fundraiser. Does anyone seriously believe BLM grifters wanted fewer police shootings? On the contrary, I promise you they wanted more, because each shooting represented an economic event. As in the examples above, BLM created an extremely effective in-group dialogue that served to funnel money into their pockets without any requirement to pursue or achieve any tangible outcomes. And the downstream impacts have been significant, as reduced public trust in law enforcement and plummeting morale among officers have contributed to a dramatic increase in crime which, again, disproportionately affects minority communities.

The response to this from BLM? Condemn the black reporter who exposed their murky finances and questionable real estate transactions as racist, smear the black Harvard economist as a sexual predator, and suggest that even the financial reporting required of non-profits is, you guessed it, racist. It’s not that hard to parse this: BLM activists are not friends or allies of black communities whatsoever. Instead, we come back to the same point: everyone outside of the in-group are just extras and scenery. Including those for whom they purport to advocate. None of them are real.

Luxury Beliefs

Rob Henderson calls all of this a symptom of “Luxury Beliefs.” According to Henderson, these are “ideas and opinions that confer status on the rich at very little cost while taking a toll on the lower class.” What we have is a catechism, a portfolio of dogma that operates as a signaling mechanism among the elite. And so, in addition to “Follow the Science” on Covid, “Trans Women are Real Women”, and “Black Lives Matter”, we have a host of other statements expressed as moral imperatives, including things like “Healthy at Any Size”, “All Family Structures are Equal”, “Open Borders”, etc.

All of this can be considered an unexpected and unwelcome consequence of our own success. The complex, exquisitely-tuned supply chains that funnel us goods and services have become so remarkably effective they are essentially invisible. Elites don’t have to worry about how things get done, how X leads to Y, or how thing A gets to place B. It just happens. Magically. Invisibly. How the sausage is made is a question for smaller minds.

 

In my view, Henderson gets one thing wrong about his theory. Luxury Beliefs are not in fact, the provenance of the rich, but rather of the educational elite, some of whom are also rich in the bargain. Journalists, other media members, academics, and activists typically have little to no experience in actual business and even less incentive to ever gain any. The effortless flow of goods and services they experience allows them the freedom from having to think operationally or consequentially.

Over the past two years, COVID revealed and supercharged the insular status of these elites. If you talk to business owners, no matter how wealthy they may be, who vitally need to think operationally and consequentially every day, you find considerably less support for these elitist notions.

All of this is bad enough when locked in some academic ivory tower, but as we’ve seen, this has escaped into the American Wild with terrifying effect. Crime, inflation, record border crossings, education, and more. Pick your topic, as the list goes on and on.

The Final Act

Which brings us back to Ukraine as the setting for the ridiculous virtue signaling and posturing by these same luxury elites. It is jarring when juxtaposed against actual tanks and soldiers, but it is just more of the same.

I stated earlier that these are not serious people, but that is not entirely accurate. They are extremely serious, just not about anything other than their own internal conversations.

Which then brings us back to “Titus Andronicus” and the reason behind the reason.

These people will not change, and they will not be persuaded by your arguments, your statistics, and your facts.

Because the people who make any of the things elites consume and the people elites purport to stand up for are all equally irrelevant. Performance is the point. The performance is the whole thing, and the actors, playwrights and directors aren’t taking suggestions from you, the extras and the scenery.

Which leads us to the final act: maybe it’s time to think about shutting down the whole play.

from Peak Prosperity https://ift.tt/CeHUShD

Lifestyles of the Resilient

As a person actively preparing since the late 80s, the term resilience has many meanings for me.

Am I resilient as a person, physically and mentally? Is my family resilient as well? Is our living arrangement resilient? Do we have resiliency in our plans and preparations? All of these are critical questions, ones I focus on every day, because there is always room for improvement and new ideas to incorporate. In this article I will address the types of preparedness in terms of numbers and the two primary options for one’s retreat or refuge location.

Types of Prepared People

Just as there are numerous forms of resiliency, there are many types of Prepared People. Some writers break us down into as many as 18 categories in a single list: Wilderness, Hoarding, False, Rich, etc. Virtually every preparedness website tackles this subject. Here’s a couple of examples:

• The 18 Types of Preppers You’ll Run Into
• Which Type of Preppper are You

My approach is somewhat simpler, as I look at the size of the effort more than the behavior of the people involved.

In terms of resiliency, it takes numbers to be resilient. A group is always stronger than an individual, and that is critically important to anyone wanting to become more resilient. This is a primary reason for the development of villages, walled cities, castles, and eventually nations as they developed over the centuries.

Certainly, there are multiple approaches to becoming prepared, but in my opinion the numbers are the critical aspect. These include: Lone Wolf, Nuclear Family, Small Group, Large Group, and Prepared Community. Happily, I am not the only one with such a mindset.

Lone Wolf – 1 person

The Lone Wolf is one who plans to survive any crisis situation on their own, with no help from anyone. These tend to be highly confidant and very skilled individuals, or people with some degree of delusion regarding their skills or abilities.

Some in this category seem to have personalities similar to the Mountain Men of the American West; others might be described as Marauders who plan on taking what they need from others during a crisis situation.

When I started preparing, I never considered the concept of the Lone Wolf. Granted, I was married with three young daughters at the time, but the idea of trying to ride out TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It) by myself struck me as a terribly foolish approach. Any injury, illness, or misfortune would mean almost certain death and I prefer better odds. And, as there is no way any single person can be awake constantly for security, the idea never had any traction with me. I consider security a critical concern.

Pros – decision making is easy, keeping things secret is simple, easy to hide.

Cons – Lone Wolf must be the jack-of-all trades, and will likely be the master of none. Security is all but impossible since the person must sleep sometime and will be completely vulnerable often.

Nuclear Family: 2 Adults and their children

So, I began where most people wanting to become more prepared start, at the Nuclear Family level, which is most commonly a married couple and their children. It took just a couple of months to realize that approach wasn’t significantly more survivable than the Lone Wolf.

While having double the number of adults in the mix is great, adding children means a huge amount of work and resources are required. Even with two adults, it is still impossible to mount a credible defense or to maintain 24X7 security. If the kids are older teenagers, things get better as they can take on some of the tasks involved in surviving whatever the crisis is, and assuming the parents can stomach the concept, some of the defensive effort as well. But the situation is still far from optimal. And, teenagers being teenagers, I can think of many potential issues that may arise with teens in crisis situations.

Let’s look at the most basic aspect of defending your home or retreat. There will likely be four sides of the structure that can be attacked, but with only two adults you can only defend two of them. Thus, leaving the other two sides wide open for infiltration and allowing an attack from behind your defenders. Say you add two teenage kids to the mix, the upside is you can now defend all four sides; the negative is that you really want at least two per side so that one can fire while the other is moving or reloading.

Pros – Same as the Lone Wolf, with the addition of another adult’s skills and capabilities.
Cons – Also, much the same as the Lone wolf, with the additional issue of minding children.

Small Group: 4-6 Primary, 12-18 Secondary members

The Small Group was the next step on my road to resiliency. Realizing more hands would be needed for all the work involved in surviving a crisis, as well as more people able and willing to defend the retreat, I began forming a small group of like-minded members. I was not surprised to find that very few women were interested in being prepared back then, and the group I formed was composed of men who were trying to do what they could to protect their wives and children.

I used the term Primary Member for the men who were actively involved and Secondary Members for their dependents. Doing so was important as I developed lists of all those who would be involved in our efforts, what skills they had, and what jobs they might perform at our retreat. These lists, and what are basically bylaws, provide the structure for the group to function and established the chain-of-command.

Many people forming such groups will prefer to avoid that level of structure, which is a major reason that creating groups can be very difficult. But the old adage of “Strength in Numbers” holds true, especially during a crisis situation. Someone has to be in charge as making decisions by committee takes time you won’t have when under duress, and can easily turn into a source of frustration and friction in the group so avoid that at all costs!

Bear in mind that forming a group for mutual assistance is very difficult, especially compared to the Lone Wolf or Nuclear Family approaches. You are literally placing your life, and the lives of your family, in the hands of others and asking them to do the same with you.

You are trying to identify and recruit others without giving away too much information while trying to screen out people who don’t fit with the group. You are looking for specific skills and abilities, but you absolutely must find people with the right chemistry to mesh with the group. On top of all of that, you must also find people who share the majority of your mindset in terms of your specific approach and focus on how to best survive TEOTWAWKI. Finally, they will have to accept your chain of command as it stands without complaint or issues. It is a daunting task to say the least as I can attest to with decades of experience in this area.

James Jones, a longtime survival expert and teacher, describes the process, the obstacles, and the goals when forming a group in his article “Organizing a Survival Self-Reliance or Mutual Assistance Team.”

Even if you are successful in recruiting members to the group (never assume you will be successful in your efforts) you almost certainly lose members over time. Recruiting never really ends, though the level of criticality will vary, so it’s a good idea to constantly recruit even when you don’t have a pressing need. For example, if you lose one of your Primary Members and the associated Secondary Members, it’s important to find a replacement. While if you lose two Primary Members etc. you may not have enough people to fully staff your retreat, which then makes recruiting a top priority.

Pros – More hands and skills mean more things can be accomplished, more defenders in case of attack, losses (accident, health issues, fighting) are less devastating, vastly improves the ability to cross-train people in skills.
Cons – Virtually impossible to keep things confidential (especially if anyone leaves the group), more personalities mean more likelihood of disagreements, requires some type of leadership or chain-of-command structure, recruiting can be painful.

Large Groups – 10+ Primary Members and 30+ Secondary Members

Large Groups, as the name suggests, takes the size of the group to the next level. I never tried to morph my Small Group into a Large Group. The recruiting headaches alone were enough to turn me away from that idea, to say nothing of the potential personality and “political” issues.

Sure, a larger group would mean even more hands and skills, but without a very strong chain-of-command it can easily become hopeless in a hurry. The other issue I faced was the size of our retreat location and the maximum number of people who could live onsite with any level of comfort or privacy.

Pros – Same as the Small Group, but with a multiplier.
Cons – Same as the Small Group, but with a multiplier.

Prepared Community – Potentially hundreds of members

Considered by many to be the ultimate resilience goal, the concept of a community filled with like-minded individuals/families is very appealing. There are many forms of this, from the neighborhood that forms a MAG (Mutual Assistance Group) to a town that prepares for crisis situations in a united fashion. Again, there are many versions of these and many ways to set them up. But, much like in the groups described above, it takes an incredible amount of work, effort, coordination, and patience to make one reality.

The biggest issue in forming one of these would be the people who live in the proposed community already, and those who come later, who don’t possess the preparedness mindset or participate in the efforts to be prepared. This is the equivalent of having a flat tire on a car. Sure, the vehicle can roll or move a bit with a flat, but it will not function at anything like peak performance. Such persons will likely be a drain on the group’s preps as they are unlikely to adequately prepare themselves. Such persons mean a significantly higher likelihood of failing the group in some way, as they have no allegiance to the group else they would have prepared like everyone else.

So, they might not perform in group related tasks or assignments, with potentially disastrous consequences for the group. Imagine a person such as this placed on guard duty who doesn’t guard and possibly enables an attack on the retreat. Imagine a person assigned to kitchen duty who doesn’t wash cookware properly, and many of the members end up with food poisoning. The previous examples are of a passive nature, neglecting to do what is needed, imagine a person who actively works against the group.

Unless every person in the community buys into the concept you are almost certainly going to have problems, so expect them, as I doubt any community will ever be 100% in participation or loyalty unless some Preppers only situation can be implemented.

Some examples of Prepared Communities follow, starting with one I co-founded called Fortitude Ranch.

Fortitude Ranch

This as an example of a prepared community designed to avoid many of the issues I described previously. The only way to become a member is to intentionally go through the process.

One must apply, pay the initial fees; agree in writing to follow the Ranch rules and direction of the Ranch staff, etc. All of which add up to a defined chain of command in advance, people who are trained in a multitude of areas work as staff, no one in the community who didn’t choose to be there, and no one in the mix without “skin in the game”. Granted some issues with loyalty, chain of command, and such are expected, but they should be minimal compared to what unintentional locales will likely face.

The Fortitude Ranch website lists locations open for memberships in West Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, with Texas coming soon and more states/locations to follow. Pricing starts at a level that most Middle-Class Americans should be able to afford, rather than the huge costs shown in the next example.

Is every location guaranteed to thrive or survive a crisis situation? Of course not, it would be foolish for any prepared community to think that. With any concept for surviving TEOTWAWKI the best anyone can hope for is improving the odds that you, your family, and perhaps some others can get through the crisis intact. The risks and threats are such that surviving is the only meaningful goal, anything more is a blessing.

The next example is one of the very pricy locations I referred to above.

Survival Condo

Their website describes two locations, each able to serve roughly 75 people in luxurious conditions. Evidently both are in Kansas, which makes them difficult to reach during a crisis for much of the USA. Costs begin in the millions of dollars, making these out of reach for all but the wealthy.

As if the cost wasn’t enough of a deterrent for this prepared community, they don’t seem to have any kind of leadership concept and their security arrangements seem rather insignificant for such an expensive facility. Both of these are major faults in terms of resilience.

Once a unit has been purchased it is the property of the buyer and can be visited/lived in at any time. As these are located in Kansas, and were former nuclear missile sites, I wonder about the availability of recreation options available in the area. Such resources can, in a crisis, be critical for many reasons, especially for hunting and fishing. They probably have good farmland in the area, but are folks spending millions for their condos willing or able to become farmers?

This is an example of how important mindset and skills can be to the long-term resilience of a group.

Vivos Xpoint

This facility is located in the Southwest corner of South Dakota, a long way away from most of the U.S. population. This distance is good from the perspective of isolation from potential problems with people coming out of the cities. But it’s going to be very hard to get there during a crisis before travel is somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible. Unless the members are alerted to the impending crisis before the general population most won’t be able to get there I suspect. Like many aspects of resilience or surviving a crisis, a positive is also a negative.

This place is huge; on their website they equate their land to the island of Manhattan in New York City. For those not familiar with that island, it is 13.4 miles long as well as 2.3 miles wide and home to Central Park, Broadway, Grand Central Station, the Empire State Building, etc. The Vivos site is a former Army facility built to house ammunition which closed long ago, hence the hundreds of bunkers now being offered as survival housing. Pricing is fairly reasonable for the bunkers themselves, and the owner can decide how basic or luxurious they want their unit to be with the costs reflecting their choices. Each bunker can support up to 24 people if I read the website correctly, so the total population of this place could easily be in the thousands.

I had hoped to find some useful information on a prepared community built into a small town or perhaps a suburban neighborhood but I have not been able to do so. I have found general comments about such locations, and similar, but definitive enough to share here. Such a situation is, to my way of thinking, very attractive to many people seeking resiliency. However, getting one of these up and running could be extremely difficult, for a variety of reasons. Some examples; not everyone living there will participate, nor will they accept the leadership in a crisis environment and turnover could easily be an issue.

Pros – A Prepared Community is the most likely grouping of people to survive TEOTWAWKI due to the potential number of defenders, availability of people to do the requisite work, as well as the broadest assortment of skills and abilities.
Cons – Hardest of the groups to avoid leadership and political issues, very hard to maintain a low profile to avoid refugee or marauder groups, and difficult to keep out folks who won’t contribute to the survival of the group.

Bug-Out Vs. Bug-In

The other major aspect of resilience is the opposing concepts of bug-out versus bug-in, referring to where the family or group would seek to survive the crisis.

For any refuge or retreat location one of the critical aspects is being able to maintain a low profile both before and during the crisis. The fewer people who know you are prepared the better; else they may decide that what is yours should be theirs and take action to make that so.

The Bug-In concept is staying where one lives full time and where you plan to survive TEOTWAWKI. This may be the option of choice for many reasons, some examples: no alternate location available, a lack of transportation options to get there, difficult travel conditions (especially natural obstacles such as mountains or rivers), concerns or lack of trust in others, or just a strong preference to stay where you are.

Bug-In

Whether the Bug-In concept is viable will be dependent on multiple variables including: is the location defensible, is there adequate storage for enough supplies to provide for the number of people who will attempt to ride-out TEOTWAWKI there, is there a sufficient water supply, is there enough room for the number of people expected, etc.

I have friends who are “Bug-In Preppers”, and that option is definitely the best option for them. Granted, most of them live in areas I would classify as places for urban or suburban residents to consider as Bug-Out considerations, so they have a huge advantage that way.

Personally, I never really considered the Bug-In option as viable for me or my group. Looking at the variables above, I evaluated my home location against all of them and knew there was no way to stay during a true crisis. I would happily ride out a local or regional disaster such as a tornado here, but not a major event. Here are my personal considerations:

• Is the location defensible? NO! I live in Chicago Metro Area, home to roughly 8,000,000 people, which means it wouldn’t be hard for folks wanting to take our stuff to get close enough to threaten us. There really isn’t any option here to form a prepared community as a neighborhood as the turnover on homes is fairly frequent. With this in mind, it would not be unreasonable to expect some group of motivated individuals to surround and attack my home, and there is no way I could ever stockpile enough ammunition to defend against even a small percentage of the potential threat.
• Is there enough storage? Currently, my wife and I are the only ones living here full time, and for the two of us we have ample storage space and considerable stores. If my children, their spouses, and grandkids join us, things get much more crowded. Doable, but very tight. If my group members show up, there is no way to fit everyone and everything in the house.
• Is there enough water? Not that I would depend on during a crisis. Any significant power interruption or cyber-attack means no water within a day or two. We don’t have a well and there is no potable water source nearby.
• Is there enough room? Depends on who shows up. My immediate family lives within 15 or 20 minutes of my home by car. In most crisis scenarios they should be able to get here and as noted we could handle that many. My group members are further away, call it an hour by car, and we really don’t have room for them anyway. Nor do they have room for us as an alternate approach.

Bug-Out

The Bug-Out concept is where one has determined that they cannot stay in their primary residence during a major crisis. Bugging Out typically means travel from their usual home to a retreat or refuge location. There are some with no fixed destination in mind when they Bug-Out.

A significant portion of the Lone Wolf types operate with this mindset, but most prefer not to wander off into the unknown. For the Nuclear Family, their location will often be a cabin or similar in a remote locale. For groups, their location of choice is frequently a property designed to shelter that group, complete with everything needed to keep them as healthy and safe as possible.

For a Bug-Out location to be a viable choice you must consider the same questions as the Bug-In location: is the property defensible, is there enough storage, is there enough water, and is there enough space for everyone that is expected? In addition, the Bug-Out type must also consider: whether there are relatively safe routes to get from home to the retreat, can everything (people, supplies, gear, fuel, etc.) be transported in the vehicles available, what obstacles (choke points, rivers, mountains, and cities) must be avoided, etc.

There are other key considerations when shopping for or designing a retreat or refuge:

• If at all possible, you want the location further from any major metro area than can be reached by an average vehicle on one tank of fuel. James Wesley Rawles advises being two to three hours from any major metro areas, but that is a fuzzy number at best. Are we considering that distance at highway or back road speeds? How does terrain impact the distance? This is critical because you don’t want to be easily reached by potential threats from major metro areas and being further out reduces that threat. Why make it easy for others to get to your area?
• Having to cross one or more rivers while heading to your retreat is a pain, but that obstacle can be important as anyone else heading in your direction will have to deal with it as well. And if the locals manage to set up roadblocks after you’ve passed through then so much the better.
• Mountain ranges can be worse, especially when passes close over the winter months, but again, if you can get through before they close you likely will have several months before refugees or marauders can get through.
• What medical facilities exist in the area? Hopefully you won’t need any, but if you need medical care, you will really need it.
• Are there any prisons, inpatient mental health facilities, or similar in the area you have to travel through or the area being considered for your Bug-Out location? Any of these could be problematic during a crisis as the staff might not stay on the job and might choose the “humane” approach of releasing the inmates/patients.

It is important to recognize that when it comes to resiliency or being prepared there is no One-Size-Fits-All or even One-Size-Fits-Most. Every region, every climate, every type of terrain, and every base population will have an effect on the choices and decisions made by someone as they strive to be more resilient or prepared. Each person will have to do what’s best for themselves, their families, and their groups and I pray that our preparations are never needed.

from Peak Prosperity https://ift.tt/C1qyPD7

Informed Consent, LiveCast, Tonight, April 21, 7 p.m.

Governments, corporations, oligarchs and bureaucrats are creating policies and pushing for outcomes pointing us down a perilous road. Can you survive and thrive?

Tonight, Chris dissects subjects such as the economic spiral downward, a march to war, food and energy shortages, all while our power-addicted leaders try to force authoritarian rules on the people.

Tune in live tonight, April 21, 7 p.m., EST. Here at Peak Prosperity.

from Peak Prosperity https://ift.tt/g2w4zsm

Is Covid Actually Snake Venom?? Episode 57, Part 1

“Watch the Water” is a hugely successful/popular “documentary” that purports that Remdesivir is actually snake venom, and that what we call Covid is really people’s reactions to snake venom. Worse, that municipal water systems are the means for distributing the toxins to people. Leave aside that snake venom could not be produced in such quantities as to poison entire nations. Leave aside that snake venom wouldn’t survive a trip through stomach acid. What about all the people who have well water that still got sick?

Snake venom. Graphene and Nanotechnology. These are the latest conspiracies that could be planted into the ether as a way to discredit anyone opposed to mandates and experimental vaccines. Don’t be fooled, BUT more importantly, don’t allow yourself to made into a fool.

These theories are easily destroyed with a little bit of simple science, doing a bit of research, and deductive reasoning,  yet somehow they gain traction in the public.

My hypothesis: if I had an unlimited budget to promote my highly profitable vaccines, I’d pay my public relations teams to start whisper campaigns and plant false narratives that embarrass our opponents. The trick is to take down the truth you don’t want in the public eye by attaching it to an obvious falsehood and then sinking both of them at the same time.

Politicians and the media do it every year during campaign season. (Congressman Matt Gaetz has been accused of deviant sex crimes by the New York Times and his political opponents, but one year later, not a single law enforcement agency has charged the Republican.)

And there is no doubt corporations engage in these kinds of espionage/psyops campaigns. So, doesn’t it make sense that billion-dollar corporations could work to protect billion-dollar profits by anonymously planting these outlandish conspiracies?

I may be wrong, but I’m not confused. If you buy into these myths when there is no actual, simple scientific effort to prove or disprove them, you play into the hands of the same people that wanted to dismiss and de-platform you for thinking Covid could originate from a Wuhan lab. The lab leak claims included irrefutable, solid evidence exposing the idea.

There is zero backing that covid was derived from a snake. Are there elements that might look like a connection? Sure. But they are subtle and indicate areas of further inquiry that might be fruitful. However, by declaratively spinning an entire (and false) narrative about how Covid is actually snake venom those ideas will be buried in the ridicule that is sure to arise.

In our latest video, I’ll take you through what reasonable research, inquiry and due diligence actually look like. My aim is to prevent you from being taken in by a very shoddy piece of investigative work, bad science, and faulty logical conclusions.

from Peak Prosperity https://ift.tt/I1RspBa

This Changes Everything!

Russia. Ukraine. China. Inflation. Oil. Gas. Food. Everything is volatile and changing rapidly.

In here, I explore what I think is an under-appreciated event; the sinking of the flagship Russian military vessel the Moskva.

Using a homegrown anti-ship missile, Ukraine, by all accounts, sank the Moskva. The implication? Oh, merely that navies might be a thing of the past.

Without the ability to project (as much) power by sea, the U.S. would be quite hamstrung in its global cop role and this could then add more weight to an already sinking dollar. Sinking in terms of commodities that is. Are powerful navies now a thing of the past?  Yes, at least until anti-antiship missile technology gets a lot better. For now, the offense has the upper hand and that changes everything.

Next, what’s up with China and Shanghai? In this video report, I explore a few options for what that might mean. Regardless of China’s actual intentions or motivations, the impact will be more trouble for already troubled global supply channels.

Bad timing. Or maybe good timing from China’s perspective depending on is true motivations. Maybe both?

Finally, inflation is raging and the Federal Reserve is so far behind the curve that it will, as predicted, be completely unable to catch up as an institution.

This means whatever you need to buy, buy it now!

from Peak Prosperity https://ift.tt/cMHEj8W