Eradicating Flu

I must admit, I'm not enjoying this daily posting thing, I have very little to say. I'll persevere for the time being though. The summer heatwave seems to have died down, so that's one excuse I can't use anymore.

Earlier today I was getting on my Twitter soapbox a little in regard the coronavirus issue, so I'll talk about that. The quest to eradicate the virus seems unabated. What triggered me in particular was seeing Dominic Cummings retreat a thread from a corona-busting scientist who was discussing nasal vaccines to stop the spread of the virus.

From the very start it was always my feeling that a standard seasonal virus had been taken and hyped up into something more scary. However, it was only partly through the crisis that I realised that the people running the corona show were ideologically bent on eradicating cold and flu viruses completely.

At one point Bill Gates even spoke on TV stating that one of the long term aims was to "eradicate" flu.

It seems that many of these people at the top - that really believe in science - believe that at some point it will cure all disease. This all overlaps quite heavily with the concept of the singularity, which is basically the point at which technology becomes so advanced it becomes self-perpetuating, and beyond the control of man. Some of those invested in this idea believe if they can live long enough to witness this moment in history they will go on to live forever. Or at least a very, very long time. As the technology will conquer the problems of aging and death.

All this will no doubt sound farfetched to the average person, but a quick Google search for the term will illustrate how serious many take the idea.

The concept of the singularity also overlaps somewhat with the idea of the coming Messianic Age. When the Mashiach arrives he will bring a great age of peace where all illness and want is eradicated, and a man one hundred years old will be viewed as a child. I don't think many religious believers see the Messianic Age through such a materialistic lens, but for those of a slightly more atheistic bent the parallels are quite appealing. With technology ushering in everything that only God could once promise.

As you can no doubt gather from my own tone I'm somewhat sceptical. I fear scientism has become the religion of our ruling elite, and they worship it beyond all else. Convinced it will bring them what money cannot buy.

To return to the flu though, which is now a key battleground in this ideological crusade, my views are somewhat different.

Firstly I very much doubt that common cold and flu viruses can be completely eradicated. Even if they are however I fear they'll just be replaced with something else. Nature won't allow an ecological vacuum to exist. Humans can't be sterile environments, there'll always be viruses and bacteria hanging around. So why eradicate the 'mild' ones when something less mild may replace it. Haven't we learnt this lesson with antibiotic resistance?

Then secondly I also wonder if flus and colds are beneficial in someway. They're a common, seasonal experience for humans. They're a normal part of life, so perhaps it's for a reason. Maybe they help the body repair or do other necessary things. After all, we have good bacteria as well as bad, so why not viruses too. Just because colds aren't nice as an experience doesn't mean they're necessarily bad full stop. Perhaps the human body needs to have this functionality. Is it a good idea to stop people going through these snotty processes? I wonder.

Badenoch Gone, My Instincts All Wrong

Okay, so Badenoch is out now. Dashing my instinctive fear from yesterday that it would be a Sunak v Badenoch final. This is a bit of good news for me, though many will be disappointed. We get to avoid the prospect of a complete unknown quantity taking charge of the country, and it isn't all bad for her followers. She's very young, and there's plenty of time ahead of her, and plenty of time for the public to learn more about her.

Also, and crossing the blog streams for a moment, I noticed a huge uptick in the Polymetal share price earlier. Apparently there are plans afoot to off-load their Russian assets. Meaning shareholders (of which I'm one) will end up owning shares in a wholly Kazakhstani operation. I was intermittently posting blog updates about my wanderings in share-land. I'm not sure it's too useful blending share commentary with political commentary in the one blog post, but I really have so little focus regarding what I want to say on here at the moment (I'll blame the heat 🌞🌞) so I might as well just roll with it.

I'm actually using shares a vehicle, or lens, to watch the Ukraine conflict through, so in a way things all intersect. As well as the Russian stocks I own I also have some Ferrexpo - which is an iron ore producer that operates in Ukraine. So it's interesting to watch what happens (if anything) as the war continues and the Russians make gains. The Ferrexpo operations are all fairly safe and comfortable in the Ukraine controlled part of the map (I think), so I don't think there's much chance that they'll end up lost behind the "sanctions curtain" like some of my Russian shares.

Obviously, the great hope is peace, but with Polymetal fracturing along this financial dividing line between the West and Russia that doesn't look likely. It seems, or least feels, like the divide is here to stay and everyone's just learning to accept and adapt to it. My instincts about Badenoch yesterday were wrong though, so hopefully my instincts here are wrong too.

Anyhow, it's very, very hot here in the UK, so I'll leave it there. Hopefully when it cools down a bit I'll be able to think a bit clearer.

Too Hot for Tugendhat

It's too hot. Far too hot. I know I should post something, but the climate forbids it. I read up on Lord Liverpool yesterday - what a fascinating period of British history. I really need to indulge it further.

As for today Tom Tugendhat is now out (unsurprisingly), meaning now just four remain.

I have a feeling the final two will be Rishi and Badenoch for some reason. It might just be the heat though. I can't think straight.

Hopefully I'll have something more substantial to say tomorrow.

Not So Bad

Okey-dokey, so I've just watched today's leadership debate on ITV. I feel somewhat more optimistic than I did yesterday. It wasn't entirely depressing.

I thought all three women were good. Liz Truss did well which was good to see. I still believe she's the most sensible choice given the circumstances. Her mannerisms are quite quirky. At times I was thinking she looked like she could be Mr Bean's girlfriend lol. Personally I like that though, it makes her seem a bit more genuine. Plus it's quite fitting for Britain to have Mr Bean's girlfriend in charge.

Kemi Badenoch seemed likeable again, though she came across more like a normal politician here, and she didn't sound especially right-leaning when the question about strikes and unions popped up.

And Penny Mordaunt actually came across as fairly nice and genuine too. So the women won it for me. The guys weren't my cup of tea. Though again, nothing from today gave me the feelings of horror I was experiencing yesterday. Perhaps we might get by as a country after all.

Now I'm going to read the Wikipedia page about Lord Liverpool. I had no real idea who he was when I referenced him a few posts ago, so that's a gap in my knowledge I really should fill.

Brexiteers - Outfoxed

I've just been firing off some tweets, largely into the void - I have very few followers. It completely slipped my mind that I was supposed to posting on here daily (daily on my days off at least). It would've probably made more sense to focus my energy here, into this void.

As we speak the word on the Twitter street is that Tory MPs are beginning to switch their vote from Liz Truss to Kemi Badenoch. The people that are excited by Kemi Badenoch are excited by this. Myself not so much ..and that's what I've been tweeting in response to.

Kemi Badenoch seems very nice and intelligent. I've tried to watch some of her speeches and interviews over the last few days or so and she always impresses. I missed yesterday's debates as I was working, so I only caught a few soundbites from all that. I get the feeling she didn't make an impact in that arena - her fans were quiet on Twitter last night. Still however, she's the hope for people that don't want 'more of the same'. Though I suspect Rishi, Mordaunt and Tugendhat will all bring something quite different to what Boris brought.

My instinct with Badenoch is one of scepticism. Again, I really can't criticise her if I'm to judge her on what I've seen of her personally. It's more the political intrigue aspect that arrests me. Her entry into the race is quite convenient.

• It took the shine and limelight away from more familiar Brexiteer outsiders, like Suella Braverman. She pretty much stole her thunder.
• Her freshness and lack of experience makes Sunak and Mordaunt appear older and more experienced than they are.
• She splits the right vote. First with Braverman, and now with Truss.

Plus, if she does somehow win we have no idea who her team would be. She was supported by Michael Gove - which isn't a great omen. On top of this her husband is apparently a pro-remain banker who works for Deutsche Bank (in fact she herself also started out in banking). So though she herself appears to be a Brexiteer it's all a bit opaque. Again, we know very little about this person. To me it's crazy to put someone so unknown into Number 10, but people like shiny new things.

As with the Boris ousting it's hard to not see this as Brexiteers being thoroughly outfoxed.

Also finally I've been thinking about when the next General Election will be. I'm never entirely sure about the dates and rules for when elections happen, but my feeling is that we won't be having one too soon. Personally I think people are focusing far too much on which candidate is best placed to win the next GE for the Conservatives. The more immediate concern is the here and now, as power is power, and an election could be a good while off.

If Truss wins then given her polling it'd be wise to wait, and all the other candidates that helped to oust Boris will fear the public too much to call one eagerly. They'll probably want to make the most of the power they've just grabbed. So thwarting that grab should be the overriding focus.

[Caveat: As I've stated numerous times on this blog over the years. All the above is simply my own assessment and opinion. I could well be wrong, either partly or wholly. So perhaps my sense of doom and suspicion is misplaced and we'll be sitting pretty with Badenoch or one of the other anti-Boris candidates firmly at the helm of a successful post-Brexit Britain. Hopefully this is the case.]

Political Princes

Back again.

I've been following the Conservative leadership race and have partly been thinking about it in terms of age.

Here's a list of the final eight candidates and their ages:

Jeremy Hunt (55)

Nadhim Zahawi (55)

Penny Mordaunt (49)

Tom Tugendhat (49)

Liz Truss (46)

Kemi Badenoch (42)

Suella Braverman (42)

Rishi Sunak (42)

[Boris (58)]

..and today the two eldest have just been knocked out. So the remaining six are all under fifty.

Younger People Are More Malleable

Ever since Rishi Sunak was raised up, quite out-of-the-blue, to the position of chancellor an instinctive dread has gripped my stomach. I instantly thought, "Oh no, we're getting a Macron". A young, slick banker to set the country straight.

So sitting here with him as one of the favourites to win doesn't surprise me. I've been expecting it.

Now I'm not saying a 40-odd year old should never be chancellor, or that a 42 year old should never become PM, but it's definitely something that you should try to avoid. Younger people are generally less worldly and more pliant. As we grow older we gain experience, and we gather gravitas, and we learn how to say "No" to people. We become less willing to bend with the wind.

There are countless examples of this sort of thing from history. The sturdy old king, unwilling to bend to the wishes of his advisors. Ousted and replaced by his younger and more easily flattered son. Who, enamoured with the fashions of the day, pursues the policies of his advisors - as long as they provide an easy path for him and flatter his ego enough.

In the modern world we have a bevy of these young princes: Trudeau, Jacinda Ardern (who still, even now, is just forty-one), Macron. Obama kinda fitted the mould too.

Tony Blair was arguably the first prototype - he was aged forty-three, and according to Wikipedia was the youngest person to become PM in Britain since Lord Liverpool in 1812.

I say according to Wiki because I'm literally getting these ages straight from there. I don't want to create the false pretence that I'm recalling all this straight from the top of my head. I have no idea who Lord Liverpool is, what he did, or if he was any good. I do know what I've witnessed with my own eyes however, and since Blair we've had these cookie-cutter political princes thrust upon us time and again. Always, strangely enough, pushing the same progressive globalist politics.

And if we ever choose not to vote for them it's called populism.

Sun and Ice

So much for this daily thing. It's the second day and I have nothing to write. Plus I'm heading out into the blistering sun in half an hour or so, so if I don't post something now I may not have a chance to post anything later.

Writing is a habit though, so I guess something is better than nothing.

I may as well mention the book I started reading yesterday:

Captain Scott by Ranulph Fiennes

It's superb so far. I really love these adventures in Antarctica. The icy coolness of it also helps take the edge off this heat. I'll hopefully get to read a few more chapters on the bus when I head out today.

The Self-Awareness Has Gone

Think I might start posting daily again ( ..well, daily the days I'm not at work anyway). We'll see how it goes. I'm in quite a bad mood about Boris being forced to resign this week. I won't go over the ins and outs, but the spectre of another Tory leadership race made me revisit some of the posts I wrote back in 2019. Back then I was posting daily, and it was quite a useful endeavour. It's also provided quite a handy reference to look back on. To see where my thoughts were then and where they are now. So it might be good to begin again.

One of the disappointing things about Boris leaving for me is that I think he's actually much more intelligent than most of the other people in politics. I read a book about John Lennon a few months back and there was a quote from the singer Billy Joel, who said he'd been inspired when younger by seeing Lennon on the Ed Sullivan show - "He's standing there, looking around him as if to say, "Is all this corny or what?"

It's a self-awareness thing. Most people who want to be famous and on TV take these things very seriously - as they take themselves very seriously, but though willingly part of it Lennon was always aware how ridiculous it all was. Meaning that though he took part in the showbiz-ness he viewed it as somewhat beneath him at the same time.

I think it's similar with Boris. People mock the "clownish-ness" of his public persona, but the reality is he can't help but be aware of how ridiculous it all is, meaning he can't take the performative aspect of it seriously. Hence the smirk that's nearly always on his face. The other politicians take themselves seriously and lack the self-awareness to see how pompous they are. Whereas Boris is too smart. He knows it's bullshit and sees that it's beneath him to put his soul fully into it. That's not to say he doesn't take the actual politics seriously though.

I read Boris's book about Churchill during the corona panic. It was great, and it was fascinating reading a book about a former leader, by someone who was now a leader during a difficult period. There's a self-awareness and an awareness of history with him. He's a very intelligent guy.

It's a shame what's happened this week. I could rant on about all the back-stabbing that's went on, but it's probably not helpful. I need to calm down and be a bit more forgiving going forward. It's not the end of the world, it's just a bit of summer madness. It is a bit of a mess though. The country was united. Not anymore.

Bitcoin: Currencies Are Backed By Cultures

I've been watching the recent bitcoin crash, as well as the surrounding online furore, and it's made me think about what currencies are backed by a little more. Obviously bitcoin isn't backed by anything in particular - I see more and more people pointing this out online. The reply to this from pro-bitcoin people then being something along the lines of:

"Well, the dollar/pound/euro [insert fiat currency] isn't backed by anything either."

However, though this is a good point to make, it isn't really true in quite the same way. Fiat currencies, although not backed by a particular commodity, are backed by something much more powerful: an entire culture.

Particularly the state force manifested by that culture.

So, for instance, here in the UK we use pounds sterling. This is backed by a state that controls a large area of land. That has an army, and tanks, and law, and the power to enforce that law, and to collect taxes, and to jail people who don't pay their taxes; and so forth.

This power to impose a currency and demand taxation in that currency can be tyrannical, or it can be democratic, or something in between - i.e. it manifests however the politics of that country or state manifests.

Still, on top of this state power the currency is also backed by the wider culture that chooses (or is forced) to use it. How trustworthy that culture is. How innovative it is. How strong that country or culture is on the world stage. Its historical track record and reputation. All these things back a currency.

The Culture of Bitcoin

This then returns us to bitcoin. The question being: what culture backs bitcoin?

hope / HODL

Bitcoin isn't backed by a state, with state force. So it definitely isn't backed like the dollar or the pound is. Yet still, you don't necessarily need state force to have at least some cultural backing.

For example, no state is forcing an individual to value gold. The value of gold is largely derived from the simple fact that we live in a wider culture where gold is valued. In every major culture of the world the idea that gold is valuable is ingrained in the collective consciousness. A view that has been ingrained and embedded in our worldview over centuries and millennia.

Perhaps if we found an undisturbed tribe somewhere they might not care for it. They may deem it just a shiny rock, but for us the value of gold pervades our culture and history.

[I discussed the psychology of gold (and bitcoin) here: Metals, Markets, and Digital Jewellery ]

The question then for bitcoin is how many people believe in bitcoin like people believe in gold - and how ingrained is that belief. You can be fairly sure people will still value gold in 20 or 30 years time, the concept being so culturally pervasive, but bitcoin is relatively new. Will it be a fad? Or will the people who swear by bitcoin now still be as passionate and invested in it in a few decades time.

I personally have no idea what the answer is to this question. So remain open to either possibility.

Cultures without state force..

To flesh out this issue of "culture" further it might be worth considering other strong cultures that don't have a particular state. You could take the Amish as an example. Though the Amish don't have their own state, they still carry a fair degree of weight. So, hypothetically, if they were to issue some kind of token or currency you could perhaps have a high level of confidence in it.

• They have a trustworthy culture.
• They have a strongly ingrained set of cultural values: so you can have confidence that they'll still hold their current values in 20, 30 or 40 years time.
• There are quite a lot of them, i.e. they have strength in numbers - meaning if the wider state (in this case the U.S. government) did try to ban or suppress their Amish currency it would be quite difficult.

A similar, though more warlike example of a strong culture would maybe be the Taliban. Again - they have strength in numbers, and a strong set of cultural values that are heavily ingrained - and that they're prepared to defend. Hence why entire states and their militaries have failed to quash them.

So groups of people with a strong set of shared cultural values can wield a lot of influence. Even though it's not quite at the same level as state power, they can kind of exist (or compete) independently of states.

So what culture surrounds bitcoin?

At present it seems to be quite a mix. Ranging from genuine believers in the concept, to get-rich-quick types, to outright grifters. There are also some big companies and players involved (perhaps even state actors). It's quite broad. The confusion enhanced by the fact that many of the true believers also want to get rich quick too.

If all these people simply fizzle away when the going gets tough and there's no more money to be made then obviously that would bode badly for bitcoin. Alternately, if there is indeed a hardcore of people that genuinely believe in the concept - and to an extent that this belief will persist throughout their entire lives, then that may be different.

If there's a culture of people - where belief in bitcoin is tied up with other beliefs, such as belief in liberty, or religion, or gun-ownership. Or whatever the set of values may be. Then that would be something that could help support an alternate currency or store of value.

Other cultural currencies..

Of course, you could take this understanding that currencies are backed by culture and apply it to other crypto-coins or currency concepts. A few days ago I tweeted that holding currency is like holding shares in a totemic flag, representing a particular culture or worldview.

Perhaps you could deliberately create a currency that is tied to a set of values in some way. I mentioned a few posts back about potentially buying shares in Stonehenge. There you'd be investing in, but also sponsoring, a particular cultural artefact. An artefact that symbolically represents something more than the material artefact itself.

A totem pole. You're buying shares in the flag (and the values) you're rallying around.

Again though, we already have something not a million miles away from this with national currencies. I use pounds sterling partly because I'm forced to by my government, but also partly out of choice. British people aren't happy with the state of inflation at the moment (something of an understatement), but at the same time we're not exactly on the verge of overthrowing our government and demanding something new. So we consent to it to some degree.

We also choose how much we invest in it to some extent too. For example, if I have money in my bank account I can choose to keep it all there in British pounds, or I can take some of it out and invest it elsewhere. In gold, or other assets and currencies. So again, even just as individuals we all have these small ways of exercising power in the real world.

In fact, I have shares in U.S. dollars in American companies. As a Brit no one has forced me to do this. I've chosen to do it - partly because I believe in the values of America.

In contrast I haven't chosen to buy shares in Chinese companies because investing in a non-democratic country doesn't appeal to me. That wouldn't reflect my values. As much as I like and admire Chinese people.

So our economic choices are often deeply entwinned with our beliefs. These individual choices, multiplied by the numerous people making them, can aggregate into something quite potent.

.. as I'm still not sure what the core beliefs and values of the bitcoin community are I'll remain on the sidelines in this arena too.