Persuasion and Fat

Reading Time: 5 minutes

 

The Easiest Formula for Mastering Persuasion, Losing Weight, and Avoiding Disease (video)

“Persuasion” is part of my job title. When you’re a persuasion professional, you get a lot of questions about persuasion. Some are sincere. Others are skeptical, like, “Okay, persuasion boy, persuade me to give you a hundred dollars.”

Persuasion doesn’t work like that. But it also does. Here’s the thing: if you ask me to persuade you to give me a hundred bucks, you already want to give me a hundred bucks. You want my magic to work.

Likewise, those people who pay $122 to see David Copperfield in Las Vegas want Copperfield’s tricks to work. They want to be dazzled, even if they’re skeptical. They want to try to figure out the trick, but they’d be disappointed if they did. They want to be fooled.

Persuasion isn’t about fooling people. It’s about helping people get what they want. Some people want to be amazed by David Copperfield defying the laws of physics. Some people want to give me $100. Persuasion, like stage magic, delivers.

So, let me state this unequivocally: you are free to give me $100 if you choose. I won’t try to stop you. It’s up to you. If giving me $100 means you’ll understand persuasion, go ahead. But you don’t have to give me $100 to understand how persuasion works. You can learn shortcuts. And I’ve discovered one of the best shortcuts ever.

It’s called The One-Sentence Persuasion Course by Blair Warren. 

Warren admits his method has been scientifically scrutinized. That means scientists haven’t developed a theory to explain why Warren’s method works. Then again, scientists don’t why men find Eva Longoria attractive.

LOS ANGELES, CA – JANUARY 30: Eva Longoria attends The 22nd Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards at The Shrine Auditorium on January 30, 2016 in Los Angeles, California. 25650_012 (Photo by Kevin Mazur/Getty Images for Turner)

Now that you know Eva Longoria’s attractiveness lacks scientific theory, do you think she’s ugly?

Of course not. And the lack of scientific theory to explain Warren’s persuasion method doesn’t make it ineffective. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as Nassim Taleb says.

Read on to find out where to get the One-Sentence Persuasion Course for free. Actually, I’ll do it right now.

On one condition. Make that two conditions:

  1. You will read this entire PDF before reading this blog any further.
  2. You will return to this blog after you have read the PDF.

Do we have a deal? Good. Here’s the link. I’ll see you back here in a few minutes after you’ve read the PDF from top to bottom without skipping ahead.

http://www.actionplan.com/pdf/BlairWarren.pdf

What do you think? Are those the five magic bullets for persuasion?

  • encourage people’s dreams
  • justify their failures
  • allay their fears
  • confirm their suspicions
  • help them throw rocks at their enemies

Psychologists and hypnotists call this “pacing and leading.” You align yourself with your patient or subject to build rapport. Then you lead them where they want to go. Where they want to go but have been unable to motivate themselves to get there.

Personal trainers do this. People go to personal trainers because they want to get healthier and look better. Personal trainers simply get their customers out of their own way.

Example

Do you weigh 300 lbs? High blood pressure? Borderline diabetic? If so, you probably want to be thinner and healthier. You want to look good in a swimming suit. If you’re a guy, you want Eva Longoria to find you attractive. If you’re a girl, you want to look like Eva Longoria on the red carpet. But you don’t know how.

Well, it’s not your fault. You’ve been lied to about what you should eat. For decades, doctors, dietitians, the government, and popular magazines have encouraged people to eat foods that make you fat and unhealthy. Society and advertisers have told you that comfort is the goal in life.

Both lessons were lies.

Natural fat is the healthiest food you can eat. Conversely, most fruits, all sugars, all grains, all starches increase disease and obesity. Food labeled low-fat? Very bad. Breakfast cereal, oatmeal, and orange juice make you sick. And fat. Sitting six hours a day is worse than smoking a pack a day. And breakfast doesn’t matter. (You’re better off with a Bulletproof coffee.)

You’re fat because you listened to doctors and the government. You’re sick because you listened to the ads of furniture makers.

You’re overweight because society shames you into eating food that’s bad for you. How do I know this?

Last week I attended a conference at a great hotel in California. I watched a man eat a plate of scrambled eggs and bacon for breakfast. Then he got up, went to the buffet, and returned with a plate of muffins and fruit. And a tall glass of orange juice. As this man sat down, he announced, “now for the healthy stuff.”

He was wrong. The healthy stuff was on that first plate. This plate will kill him. Or give him Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s. Either way, fruit and grains are the enemies. But no one ever told him.

No one told him because there’s a lot of money in keeping people confused about healthy eating. Here’s a short list of the organizations that benefit financially from bad dieting:

Healthcare

  • Hospitals and their employees
  • American Medical Association
  • American Heart Association
  • American Cancer Society
  • All those Type II diabetes organizations
  • Pharmaceutical companies
  • Cancer treatment centers
  • Universities like Harvard and Washington University
  • Proprietary diet companies
  • Fitness centers

Agriculture

  • Corn growers
  • Sugar producers
  • Grain growers
  • Soy farmers
  • Fruit growers

Retail and CPG

  • Coke and Pepsi (and other soft drink makers)
  • Beer brewers
  • Kellogg’s (and other cereal makers)
  • Frito-Lay (and other snack makers)
  • Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers
  • Walmart (grain and sugar snacks)
  • Grocery stores (higher margins on CPG than whole foods)
  • Starbuck’s (sugary drinks have higher margins)
  • Fast food restaurant chains
  • Sit-down restaurant chains

Those lists are just off the top of my head. Every company, industry, and association mentioned benefits from bad health. If most Americans adopted a high fat, low carb diet tomorrow, all of those entities would be in deep financial trouble. And so would their lobbyists.

The reason the government tells you to eat food that causes horrible diseases is simple: lobbyists write the bills. Have you ever heard of the National Measles Foundation? No. Because measles has been pretty much wiped out. As has small pox. When a disease diminishes, funding for research disappears. A lot of people make good jack working for the various heart, cancer, and diabetes associations. They need a steady increase in those diseases to justify their existences. And the government is always happy to legislate disease into existence. For a fee.

If you want to be thin and healthy with a brain that works great, it’s as easy as a low carb, high fat eating system. You can kick it off with a 3-day water fast. (No, it’s not dangerous to go three days without food. It’s dangerous not to.)

What I Just Did

I just gave an example of Blair Warren’s method. Let’s take a look.

  • Encourage people’s dreams: I asked if you want to be thin and healthy, to look good in a swimming suit, to look like Eva Longoria. Or to date Eva Longoria. That’s the dream.
  • Justify their failures: “Well, it’s not your fault.”
  • Allay their fears: No, it’s not dangerous to go three days without food. High fat, low carb diet can reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes, and other chronic diseases.
  • Confirm their suspicions: The pop-science “healthy” eating recommendations are not just wrong but destructive. Eating what the government tells you is dangerous. Large, well-funded organizations use government to maximize their financial success. Everything labeled “healthy” and “low-fat” is bad for you.
  • Help them throw rocks at their enemies: Disease and obesity are everyone’s enemies. So are know-it-all, do-gooder organizations that shame you for eating eggs and rib eye steaks. I just loaded you up with a pocket of rocks to knock them in the head.

So, there you have it. Blair Warren’s one-sentence persuasion course. The easiest way to master the art of persuasion. It’s a simple formula for practicing pacing and leading.

Finally, $100 seems like a lot to ask. Most of this information is free on the Internet. It’s just that no one wants you to know about it. Except me and few others. If you feel guilty about getting this lifesaving information for free, you can just send ten dollars to my PayPal account:



That’s a 90 percent savings if you find this information valuable. It could save your life. And you may look better, too.

P.S. If you want to learn more about the One-Sentence Persuasion Course, check out Blair’s great book. Scott Adams recommends it. And for more on the diet that reduces disease in improves life, see dietdoctor.com and watch this video by Dr. Ted Naimen.

 

Why I’m Not Freaking Out About the Budget

Reading Time: 2 minutes

 

Congress is about to pass a budget. I call it a “Paul Ryan Special.” This budget lets the government spend money for four months. It expires in September.

The budget is horrible. Republicans are spinning a few “wins” in the budget, but that’s a terrible argument. It’s like telling a terminal cancer patient, “but your blood pressure’s pretty good.”

Here’s the thing: you cannot control Congress. You can only control what you focus on and what you do next. That’s it. That’s all anyone can control.

Sure, you can influence people. If you capture their attention, bypass their critical thinking, and trigger their subconscious mind. That’s how you influence. But you cannot control. What they do next is up to them. What you do next is up to you.

I’ve learned that making fun of Paul Ryan on Twitter does no good. He’s not reading my tweets.

I’m, instead, focusing on improving my work. If I improve my work, the economy might grow. If the economy grows, people will give Trump credit. If Trump gets credit for the economy, he’ll get more positive attention by September. If Trump has positive attention in Congress, he’ll have more influence over Paul Ryan and Democrats.

People want a vibrant economy. People want to choose between several good job offers. No one wants to feel trapped in a low-paying job they don’t like. People want options. You want options.

I can’t fix the economy myself, but I can do my job better. And that will make my company and its clients better. If enough other people do the same, the economy will grow.

The other thing people want is safety. People want to be safe. What good is a great job if you get shot walking into work?

If President Trump makes America safe again, he will earn more positive attention. With more positive attention, his influence in Congress will increase.

I can’t do much about safety, but my kids can. I have two sons in the Navy and one who will soon be a firefighter. They keep us safe. I can choose to support them and their careers. That’s how I can make America safer. It’s not much, but it’s in my control.

You, like me, hate this 4-month budget. But I’m not freaking out. It’ll be over in four months. That’s about the same amount of time that Trump’s been in office. See how time flies?

It will be okay.

 

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz: Mensch!

Reading Time: 1 minutes

If you read my blog, you know I’ve had differences with Senator Ted Cruz. But the Senator has stepped up. Bigly! Only a gentleman would do what Cruz just did with his El Chapo bill.

Remember the GOP race? Cruz and Trump went at each other like nobody’s business. Wives and all. While Cruz couldn’t bring himself to endorse Trump at the convention, Ted has stepped up a lot since the election.

The biggest step-up to date: this El Chapo bill. Via Breitbart News:

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced a bill calling for the use of $14 billion seized from cartel drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman to be used to pay for the President’s border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

Trump’s most prominent issue in the campaign starting June 2015 was the Wall. You remember the rallies, don’t you? “And who’s going to pay for that big, beautiful wall?”

M E X I C O!!!!

Senator Cruz has no reason to help Trump solve his number one issue. None. No one would think less of Ted Cruz if he continued to pursue his personal goals, paying no attention to President Trump’s agenda.

But Senator Cruz has gone total mensch. He’s taken it upon himself to find a way for Mexico to pay for the Wall. A solution NO ONE can possibly object to. Making a Mexican drug lord pay for it.

Brilliant!

My hat is off to Senator Cruz. Now, if we can get some Missouri NeverTrump Republicans to step up and put America before their own egos.

Democrats Ruin the World (f-bombs included!)

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Picture this.

Every time you leave your teenage kids home alone for a weekend, you come back to stink-eyes from your neighbors, a living room that’s a sea of empty beer cans, a yard filled with cigarette butts, and a pregnant cat.

Pretty soon, you’d stop leaving those kids to their own devices, wouldn’t you? If you had to leave town, you’d find a sitter. Maybe a retired Marine uncle. Or a friendly cop to send a car by the house every half hour during the dark hours. But you wouldn’t let the behavior continue.

Now, think about how Democrats fuck up the world every time they get into the White House.

  • Kennedy/Johnson left Vietnam for Nixon
  • Carter left the Soviet Union, Afghanistan, and Iran Hostage Crisis for Reagan
  • Clinton left North Korea and al Qaeda for Bush
  • Obama left a nuclear North Korea, Syria, Russia, China, Libya, Egypt, Ukraine, and a dozen other geopolitical nightmares for Trump

What’s worse is we elected those Republicans (excepting Nixon) largely to deal with problems at home. But each of those presidents had to spend his first term on foreign policy. Not because they wanted to. Because Democrats had actively fucked up the entire world while they were in charge.

Face it: international relations is just too complicated a subject for a Democrat’s brain. They’re not equipped for the challenge.

Democrats handle geopolitics like a cat handles an iPad. Sure, they can stomp on the icons and make sound come out, but the cat thinks it’s stepping on bugs when it’s actually tweeting out your online banking password. But you get million YouTube views for the video, so it all evens out.

Maybe you don’t want to think about foreign policy. Maybe you don’t want to deal with the fact that we are closer to nuclear war than we’ve been . . . ever. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter managed to help North Korea get nuclear weapons and ICBMs. Carter told Kim Jong-un’s grandfather, Kim Il-song, to do whatever he wants; we’ll bring the casserole.

Now, Il-song’s deranged, inbred grandson has nukes and a million bottles of inherited Hennessy. He’s murdered his wife and her band, his brother, uncles, and thousands of others. He holds 100s of thousands of people in concentration camps. And he has a hard-on for using those nukes Grandpappy Il-song left him.

Two of my kids are within range of Kim Jong-un’s weapons. One is on shore duty with the Navy on the island of Guam. The other serves in the Navy with a helo combat squadron assigned to the USS Nimitz. So, I have some skin in this game. But this isn’t about my fatherly worry. It’s about my responsibility as a voter. And yours.

As a voter, I’m kind of like the government’s parent. As a parent, I won’t leave Democrats home alone again. They’re irresponsible, immature, and kind of stupid. That’s why they’re drawn to safer careers like acting, journalism, and university professorships. Those are good jobs for irresponsible, stupid people.

Respect the planet. Don’t ever vote Democrat.

You Might Be Thinking About ‘Passion’ All Wrong

Reading Time: 3 minutes

You hear people say “follow your passion.” It sounds nice.

Then you hear wildly successful people say “do NOT follow your passion.” Mark Cuban is in this camp. So is Dilbert creator Scott Adams.

So which is it? Do you follow your passion or not?

My answer might disappoint you. Because it’ll sound evasive. But I’ll give it a shot. I’ll need you to help out here, though. Think of this as an exercise. When I ask you to write down your answer, please do that. Write it down. Commit your answer to paper. Use a pen. Don’t erase.

What Do You Mean By “Passion?”

First, write down what you mean by “passion.”



Next, what do you think it means to “follow your passion?”



Have you written your answers? Good. Now, no matter your religious background or beliefs, you probably know that “the passion of Christ” refers to Jesus’ betrayal, persecution, crucifiction, and death. Write down how that series of traumatic events fits with the definition of “passion” you wrote above. I’ll give you more time for this one, because a  lot of people might have to fit the square peg of their definition into the round whole of crucifiction.





What Passion Really Means

Here’s what passion really means: suffering for love or purpose.

Notice that. It’s not about doing what makes you happy. Passion is doing what makes you miserable. For a higher purpose. Or for love.

Mark Manson has written one of the great books about following your passion: The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck. Mark doesn’t use the word “passion” a lot, but he’s talking here about the same thing:

Who you are is defined by what you’re willing to struggle for. People who enjoy the struggles of a gym are the ones who run triathlons and have chiseled abs and can bench-press a small house. People who enjoy long workweeks and the politics of the corporate ladder are the ones who fly to the top of it. People who enjoy the stresses and uncertainties of the starving artist lifestyle are ultimately the ones who live it and make it.

This is not about willpower or grit. This is not another admonishment of “no pain, no gain.” This is the most simple and basic component of life: our struggles determine our successes. Our problems birth our happiness, along with slightly better, slightly upgraded problems.

I like sitting in bars and drinking, having boisterous conversations filled with loads of uproarious laughter. I can do that without an ounce of struggle. And many people tell me I’m great at it. People love hanging out in bars with me.

But that’s not my passion. It’s not a struggle. If anything, the struggle and pain come as a result of that, not in the pursuit of it.

And that’s the key difference. Passion means you suffer through the process to achieve some greater good.

Happy hour heroism is the reverse of passion. It’s maximizing immediate happiness in pursuit of a less-satisfying future. It’s living on credit. It’s borrowing from your own future and from the future of the world.

Answers

Mark Cuban is wrong if Mark knows what “passion” means. But if he uses the popular meaning, which is something like “do whatever makes you happy while you’re doing it,” Mark is dead right. Scott Adams is right, too. They both think of “passion” the way popular culture thinks of passion: hitting all the happy hours you can.

Here’s the answer key.

  1. Passion means suffering for love or purpose, or both. It’s having the hangover first, then getting to drink because of it.
  2. Follow your passion” means suffering for a higher purpose. It’s doing things that are painful, boring, and even dangerous. But doing them makes you and the world better. Lifting heavy weights hurts, but the practice makes you stronger, healthier, and braver. Picking up dog dirt stinks, but it means little kids can run around barefoot without accidentally putting on a crap-sandal.
  3. Christ’s Passion: He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell. In other words, he suffered for love and purpose. We are his love and purpose.

Go ahead and follow your passion. We all should. But know this going in: if your passion is worthwhile, following your passion means going through hell in the process.

Happy Easter.

P.S. If you’re wondering why I’d choose such a profane book for an Easter post, there’s a reason. It’s called “pacing and leading.” In fact, Mark’s entire book practices pacing and leading. It’s one of the most effective tools of influence and persuasion you can use.

False Flag or Not

Reading Time: 8 minutes

The contemporary term false flag describes covert operations that are designed to deceive in such a way that activities appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them. [Wikipedia]

Think of a time when you acted on false information. You knew it might be false, but you acted as if it was true. Why did you do that?

As absurd as it seems, people do this all the time. People behave as if something were true even though it might not be true.

Think about runaway stocks. Remember the Iomega Zip Drive stock surge of the 1990s?

A lot of people thought Iomega would become bigger than Apple or Microsoft. I know of a man who sold all of his investments in 1995 to buy Iomega and only Iomega. He said at the time, “this will be the most valuable company of all time.”

Was he right?

From a technology standpoint, no. I was a techie back then, and I knew that Iomega Zip Drives would have a short life expectancy. Maybe two or three years tops. Rewritable CD-ROMs and massive online storage would soon make the Zip Drive a clunky burden. The Zip Drive would die fast.

But in 1995, everybody knew Iomega was the king. In fact, the Zip Drive remains to this day the number one selling computer peripheral of all time.

Because the mid-90s were the peak of nerd-worship, anyone in the tech business learned what everyone thought about technology. At family gatherings, everybody wanted to talk to me about computers. People wanted to know more, and they saw me as an expert. They also wanted to share with me their knowledge. So I learned what people were thinking.

That’s how I learned that a senior vice president at a very large corporation, a man with an MBA from a school you’ve heard of, took his life savings and bought Iomega.

Well, Motley Fool also bought a lot of IOM in 1995. And the value of their Iomega stock rose 1,500% in the next 13 months.

I ask again, did my acquaintance make the right move on IOM?

To answer the question, you need more information. You also need an understanding of the game theory concept of “common knowledge.” For that, I’ll let genius Ben Hunt of Salient Partners explain:

Your feelings about a stock, as opposed to your feelings about a company, should be completely determined by your beliefs about other investors and their feelings about the stock. In the lingo … your preference functions for stocks qua stocks are entirely exogenously derived and epiphenomenal. There is no rational internally-developed preference for one stock versus another stock, any more than I prefer a $5 chip from Harrah’s to a $5 chip from Caesar’s Palace. The only thing I care about is whether other investors, for whatever reason, will value the Harrah’s chip at $6 tomorrow.

Common knowledge is something everyone knows and everyone knows everyone knows. It’s information on which you can expect other people to act a certain way.

For example, imagine that on a Thursday NOAA and the local weather fearmongers bombard St. Louis with news of the “winter storm of the millennium” scheduled to begin the following Tuesday. You can bet store shelves will be devoid of bread, milk, eggs, and rock salt by midday next Monday. It doesn’t matter whether the prediction is right. What matters is that most people will behave as if it’s right. If you need bread or milk, you better get it on Sunday.

Except . . . other people will also think ahead, so you better beat them by shopping on Saturday. But what if a lot of people also think about shopping on Saturday? So you decide to shop on Friday.

Until . . . you think of all the other people who might be reasoning backward like you are. So, you stop at Schnuck’s on your way home from work Thursday and find bread, milk, and salt already running low. You buy three gallons of milk, three loaves of bread, and 100 pounds of rock salt. The perishables will go bad before you finish them, but that doesn’t matter. You beat both the storms and the common knowledge game. And if worse comes to worst, you can always sell your excess milk and bread to desperate, short-sighted neighbors at a high price.

That’s common knowledge. Again, it doesn’t matter whether the forecast is right. What matters is what everyone else will do in response to the forecast.

Now, back to Dr. Hunt and the old newspaper beauty queen contests:

[The 1930s was] the heyday of the Miss America contest and “bathing beauty” pageants everywhere), less so to us. Here’s how it works.

A newspaper would run a page of photographs of pretty girls, and readers were invited to mail in a ballot with their choice of the prettiest. If you picked the girl who got the most votes, you were entered into a drawing for some sort of prize. Voting for the girl you think is the prettiest is what Keynes would call the first degree of decision-making.

Now it doesn’t take a lot of thought before you realize that choosing the girl who you truly believe is the prettiest is probably not a winning strategy. To win, you need to choose the girl who gets the most votes as the prettiest, and your personal preferences aren’t nearly as useful in that task as figuring out who everyone else is going to vote for as the prettiest. Voting for the girl you anticipate more people will consider to be the prettiest is what Keynes would call the second degree of decision-making.

But there’s a big problem with the second degree. It assumes that everyone else is making a first degree decision, that everyone else is making a choice “on the merits” of the photographs and you’re the only one smart enough to think about the average preference of the group. As a result, you quickly realize that everyone will be thinking exactly like you are, so you need to make a third-degree decision – who will get the most votes when all the voters are basing their votes on who they think will get the most votes? This is the Sentiment game!

Note that this third-level decision probably has nothing to do with the relative or objective prettiness of the girls. If “everyone knows” that the brunette with the biggest smile tends to win, then that’s where you should place your vote regardless of your personal preference or your knowledge of everyone else’s personal preferences. It’s the “everyone knows” component of the contest – regardless of what the contest is fundamentally supposed to be about – that determines voting behavior and contest winners. To get beyond the third degree of decision-making requires a superior identification of whatever it is that “everyone knows”. As Keynes wrote, “We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be. And there are some, I believe, who practice the fourth, fifth and higher degrees.”

Just like shopping for staples before the snow storm, winning these beauty pageant contests required knowing what everyone else knows and anticipating their behavior.

My friend with all the Iomega stock was smart to buy when he did. If he sold near the peak, he was brilliant. If not, he might have lost a lot. Either way, though, he bought Iomega for the wrong reason. He bought Iomega because he loved the company, not because he expected everyone else to buy the stock. He wasn’t playing the common knowledge game. He was playing the corporate strategy game. My guess is he held onto the stock all the way to bottom. Unless he learned about game theory before the crash.

When you’re in a game like stocks, shopping for stables, or geopolitics (and geopolitics is a formal game), common knowledge must determine your moves. And common knowledge means you must behave as if everyone else will behave as if the key information were true even if it’s not.

Which brings us to Michael Savage and the Syrian sarin gas attack.

Dr. Savage has determined that the sarin gas attack was a false flag. Dr. Savage is not alone.

Now, let’s pretend Dr. Savage is right. Let’s just pretend that the sarin gas attack was a false flag. In other words, let’s pretend the Russians were right and there was no gas attack. Instead, anti-Assad forces staged the whole thing.

Remember, this is just make-believe, so don’t assume I’m a false-flagger. And don’t believe I’m not, either. Instead, ask yourself this: should the US response be different if Savage is right?

Your immediate answer will probably be, “Yes, of course.” You will probably tell yourself that, if the sarin attack was a false flag perpetrated by the rebels, then we should punish the rebels instead of Assad. That’s the logical and moral answer.

But is that the game theory answer?

Well, how many people besides Michael Savage and a few others believe the sarin attack was a false flag? Of those people who believe in the false-flag theory, what is their role in the game of geopolitics? Are they heads of state or of government? Do they have armies? Are they in the mass media, broadcasting into billions of brains 24/7?

Dr. Hunt reminds us what’s most important in the common knowledge game:

But the more precise answer is that the role of the Missionary is served by any signal that is propagated widely enough and publicly enough so that everyone thinks that everyone has heard the signal. The important thing is NOT that lots of people actually hear the signal. The important thing is that lots of people believe that lots of people heard the signal. The power source of Common Knowledge is not the crowd seeing an announcement or a press conference. The power source of Common Knowledge is the crowd seeing the crowd seeing an announcement or a press conference. This is why sitcom laugh tracks exist. This is why American Idol is filmed in front of an audience. This is why the Chinese government still bans any media mention of the Tiananmen Square protests more than 20 years after they occurred. The power of a crowd seeing a crowd is one of the most awesome forces in human society. It topples governments. It launches Crusades. It builds cathedrals. And it darn sure moves markets.

Geopolitics is a different game than national or local politics. But it’s still a game like stock markets. Geopolitics influences local politics, and vice versa. But it’s not a direct influence. And it’s imbalanced. Geopolitics has an immediate and ubiquitous effect on local politics, while local politics has a very slow, very gradual, and muted effect on geopolitics. Until those local events reach a tipping point.

WWII was a geopolitical event that affected the local politics of just about every country in the world. But WWII resulted from local political developments over the previous 30 years. It took a long time for local events in Germany and Japan to hit the world stage. And those local events in two countries had little influence on local politics in the USA. Until December 7, 1941, of course. Then everything changed.

Just as we stipulated that Savage was right about the false flag, let’s stipulate that all of the players in the geopolitical game will behave as if Savage was wrong. They might all know he’s right, but they also know that all the other players will behave as if he’s wrong. Like the beauty contest players, picking the prettiest girl isn’t the game. Picking the girl who will get the most votes is the game.

In Syria, the crowd saw the crowd seeing Bashar al-Assad gas babies, little babies. And that’s all that matters.

The US response, then, must be appropriate to a game in which all the other players will behave as if Assad gassed his own people. Who actually did it, if it was done at all, matters morally but not strategically.

If this story leaves you feeling dissatisfied. I’ll give you a thought experiment. What would happen if Trump had acted as if the Savage was right? How might that game unfold?

You may have your say in the comments below.

P.S. Even if you’re not interested in stocks, markets, and investments, Ben Hunt’s Epsilon Theory is a must-read site for anyone who likes to learn and think.