Category: Uncategorized

In 2020, I was one of the few who accurately predicted over 7% inflation. That insight paid off in the bond market, and it still guides my trading today. The reason? I rely on a simple yet powerful economic model—one that forms a foundation of economic literacy and cuts through market noise and propaganda.

Think of every trade as a barter. You make chairs and want to trade a few for a bicycle. How many chairs will you need to trade for the bicycle?

We’ll start with the basic economic model for estimating “value,” supply, and demand. Simple: if an item is abundant, it will be less valuable. If it’s highly desired, it will be more valuable.

However, in a barter situation, we have to consider the supply and demand of both chairs and bicycles. The model doesn’t allow us to calculate an absolute value, but it allows us to determine that bicycles are four times more valuable than chairs. Therefore, you will need to trade four chairs to purchase the bicycle.

Here’s the trick: all transactions are barters. Currency just disguises the exchange. If you’re a chair-making person desiring a bicycle, chairs are your currency. The bicycle maker views bicycles as their currency. Today we use a common currency. You make chairs for dollars, and then you barter dollars for the bicycle. However, to find the actual clearing price, we still have to think about the supply and demand of those dollars.

Supply and demand pressures apply to currency just as they do to goods. If you “inflate” the currency supply, it will become less valuable. However, that may not result in higher prices because demand for the currency could be rising at the same time (something banks might actually want to do because it’s profitable to make desired commodities more plentiful.)

Simple points:

• Inflation is not just about increasing the money supply but whether that currency is in high demand.
• Supply and demand pressures apply equally to goods and the currency used to purchase them.

Traditionally, “inflation” means increasing the supply of a currency, thus diluting it and making it less valuable, but today people often refer to inflation as “a general increase of all prices.” That’s a diluted viewpoint that cannot discern if bicycles are becoming more valuable, or your chairs are becoming less valuable.

Before you borrow wood, at interest, to make chairs, you need to know about the supply and demand prospects of chairs. That’s why, in predicting interest rates, we have to understand the supply and demand of the dominant currency. Blindly assuming “all prices are rising” doesn’t give us the fidelity we need.

When I’m looking at the oil market, I’m also looking at the supply and demand pressures of the currency it’s priced in. Now I know if I need to be playing a movement in oil, or the movement in the dollar. I double the complexity, but I also double the understanding—leading to clarity.

A simple example of the principle is why tariffs are not inflationary. The tax restricts the supply of some product, causing its price to go up. However, it doesn’t cause the supply or demand of the currency to change. If consumers have to pay higher prices for bicycles, they’ll have less money for chairs—so chair prices would fall. We can predict that we won’t see a general increase in ALL prices due to tariffs.

This model is why I was able to predict inflation in 2020 while others were blind to it. Why was I alone in seeing this? Because people still don’t understand inflation. They watch CPI reports like they mean something, but they never ask the one question that matters—what’s happening to the actual supply and demand of the currency itself? That’s why they get misled. The real surprise? They never question why.

Inflation isn’t just about printing money; it’s about the balance between money supply and its demand. If you can track those forces, you’ll see past the noise and propaganda that blind most market participants.

Stay present.

Professor Edward Dowdye (RIP) is massively underappreciated in physics, and it isn’t because he’s black. It’s because he dared to know better than Einstein and the official orthodoxy. He has transformative work that has yet to be officially recognized.

It’s obvious why this is. Because “disclosure” isn’t over yet. The public wasn’t given access to the truth; thus, Dowdye had to disappear.

Dowdye, you have been such an inspiration that it’s like I can feel you tapping on my shoulder, nagging on me. Thank you so much, no-wherever you are! The truth is leaking. And you remain a persistent positive force in that direction. Many have taken notice and are privately inspired by you despite deliberate attempts of concealment. Respect!

Fact: Proponents of General Relativity have no explanation for what appears to be visual confirmation that gravity does not effect light. Dowdye gives us what may be the most important visual of the 21st century: The absence of gravitational lensing where it is expected.

Dowdye, you will live on forever in the hearts that you touched.

Stay present.

November 10th, 1919, the New York Times (known globally for their unquestionable authoritative voice) announced that Einstein’s theory of light had been “proved” by an eclipse expedition. A century later, it is empirically observable that Author Eddington’s data cannot confirm light bending around the Sun. Had the observation been authentic, it still wouldn’t prove anything, and an extremely robust study by a NASA engineer demonstrates that gravity does not affect light.

Scientific review of Arthur Eddington’s work shows that valid data was discarded that would have invalidated the observation. Essentially he cherry picked the data points that fit and dismissed the rest. Subsequent studies do validate the observation. However, the cause of light bending around the sun underscores how disingenuous it was for anyone to suggest that anything had been “proven.”

Laboratory experiments show that plasma causes light to refract. It turns out that the Sun is surrounded by an enormous atmosphere of invisible plasma known as the corona. That means the corona will deflect light. Therefore, to determine if gravity bends light, you can’t just have one observation of light bending around the Sun and consider the matter “proven.” Empirical testing must occur to ensure the plasma is not 100% responsible for the effect.

Saying that one observation of light bending around the sun “proves that gravity bends light” is the formal logical fallacy “affirming the consequent.” My favorite example is:

"If Bigfoot is real, we might hear him cracking twigs as he walks in the forest. I hear twigs breaking. Bigfoot is real."

That is the same disingenuous logic the New York Times used when suggesting Relativity had been “proven,” and it’s as fraudulent and dishonest as cherry-picking data.

Sadly, other deceitful press releases have also suggested that “gravity lensing” has been observed with zero effort to test if plasma is causing the effect.
Some papers indicate they detect deflection after subtracting for the plasma around the Sun. However, the theorized gravitational effect drops off quickly, making the results incredibly difficult to discern from the effects of plasma. Dubiously, the error bars are more significant than the effect they are trying to detect. They didn’t say, “we detected gravitation lensing with a p-value of < 0.2” It’s not a definitive answer.

Fortunately, Dr. Edward Dowdye, former NASA engineer, university professor of mathematics, and internationally recognized expert in Atomic Physics, Optics/LASERs/Satellites, thought of a way to make a definitive distinction between plasma and gravitational effects.

He examined the “collected images and the astrophysical data of the stars orbiting about Sagittarius A*, a region thought to contain a supermassive black hole.” It’s the most rigorous study into the question that I know and soundly definitive. The expected results from Relativity do not exist.

Dowdye had some great graphics explaining the observations on his website extinctionshift.com which unfortunately no longer exists since his death, but can be found on the Wayback Machine. You can read his paper, “Gauss’s Law for Gravity and observational evidence reveal no solar lensing in empty vacuum space,” which tediously and thoroughly lays out the facts.

I see nothing but fraud, quack logic, and gaslighting from those asserting that Relativity has observational support. They’re the same people that would attempt to fraudulently gaslight you out of $100. Those behaviors are immoral, and they’re turning our society into irrational idiots.

People no longer understand the distinction between shaming people into wrongness and intellectually explaining. I’m incredulous over the number of college graduates, scientists even, who don’t understand that logical proofs are not confirmed or invalidated by experimental evidence. Same with thinking observations can confirm mathematical principles.

People have a moral obligation to have some discernment to protect their brethren from being infected with bogus information. I feel that it’s part of my job to understand and discern how basic scientific principles apply to my work. I think of it as having integrity.

I recommend that people review all the basic logical fallacies, but maybe start with these:

• Ad Hominem (“conspiracy theorist”)
• Straw Man (“you’re suggesting this…”)
• False Dichotomy (“are you going to buy my bullshit today or tomorrow”)
• Appeal to Authority (“DOD says Swamp Gas.”, “Scientists say…”,) etc.

Then practice identifying them. The enemy is tearing away away at you, so you have to pump your own iron. You can build your muscle of discernment and become bulletproof to absurd lies.

Stay present.

Months ago, while watching a Richard Dolan video, he declared, “In any debate, the first person to mention the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is the loser.” I chuckled. Many of us, like Dolan, have grown so accustomed to being labeled “conspiracy theorists” for things that turn out to be true we have learned to suspect anyone using the term is probably uninformed, irrational, or both.

In some ways, we can use how often someone dismisses things as conspiracies to gauge their socio-political awareness. However, we can also use it to measure people’s self-awareness.

Despite any “official” definitions, simple observation of how people use the term “conspiracy theory” shows that no definitive class of theories fit. Often theories about conspiracies don’t even earn the label. It’s used as a derogatory term like “quack,” “kook,” “crackpot,” etc. People classify something as a conspiracy theory if they want to project animosity toward the narrative.

But many people often put their lack of clarity on display as a status symbol when gregariously presupposing conspiracy theories are an intellectually distinguishable class of theory instead of an emotionally charged judgment. Just yesterday, I heard someone suggesting one can accurately estimate the validity of a narrative based on the severity of conspiracy theory-ness. Reading through his intellectual confusion, the assertion translates to, “I decide what’s true based on what feels true.” That’s not a rational approach.

At Universal Principle, we pride ourselves on the drills we endure to ensure we adequately distinguish observation from evaluation – or objective and measurable from subjective judgements. Both are important, but discerning them from each other is required to be a critical thinker.

You do not have an internal sensor that identifies correct ideas; you have an intuition (often wrong) about what seems right. Critical thinking isn’t intuition; it’s a boots-on-the-ground mathematical word-problem type of grind. If you think you have an intuition about what ideas are “conspiracy theories” and you believe yourself to be an intellectual, think again. You probably need to be made aware of how much the state erroneously crafted your intuition for you.

Your intuition will only guide you straight if you drill it to conform to reality. Carefully paying attention to the minor distinctions between observation and evaluation and courageously owning what you witnessed and what you assumed, felt, or insinuated for a month will make you feel like you see dimensions deeper than most around you.

Face it. We’re all conspiracy theorists, snowflake extremists, and superstitious hairless apes in someone’s judgment, but none of those judgments/labels are informative or objectively verifiable. It’s worthless information. They’re just mindless noises humans make when they’re incredulous.

Thanks for reading.

Stay sharp.

Cartoon expressing the types of arguments I’ve been hearing from skeptics of the Admiral Wilson / Eric Davis Notes. I created an alternated ending which might be better:

I’ve been disappointed in the intellectual prowess of #ufotwitter. It’s no wonder they’ve been the victims of career con artists and flash-in-the-pans. However, my disdain is not homogeneous. Some of the most thoughtful people I know in our society are very interested in UFOs, and not all of them avoid Twitter.

Thus there is a dichotomy between people who curiously identify the significance of investigating the Wilson/Davis notes and those who know it’s a hoax and a waste of time but can’t express it without insulting you.

When taking a rational scientific approach, we always manage uncertainty. When you come up with a hypothesis, the first thing you do is try to reject it. Fail it fast, or try. Then you report your inability to reject that hypothesis in terms of probability. Essentially, you clarify what you don’t know; known unknowns and probable ones.

That’s why we do experimentation or “take measurements.” We’re trying to resolve the uncertainties we’ve identified. However, those demanding that the Wilson/Davis notes are a waste of time to investigate/measure seem to know it’s a hoax. They’re clueless about their uncertainties, faint certitude (read “confidence game,”) faulty logic, etc. If you asked me, they’re so intellectual scrambled; I’m suspicious they’re terrified of the reality the evidence is painting.

Lue Elizondo is a former counterintelligence agent for the DOD. He was instrumental in getting some impressive videos of UFOs released to the public as he resigned his position in protest of how the UFO/UAP issue had been handled within the Defense Department. Many within the UFO community regarded him as somewhat heroic. He has a strong following as he does interviews and speaks about his criticisms of the DOD and his thoughts on how we can move toward disclosure.

While I had already seen the videos in question, I was grateful that he helped raise awareness about them and even got the Pentagon to verify their authenticity. However, it didn’t strike me as particularly heroic because there are at least a hundred people to whom I am grateful for speaking up and bringing forth evidence. He didn’t seem particularly special, except he was the only one to get a New York Times article written about him. He’s the only one to gain tremendous notoriety. And the only one to obtain an instant fan base that stinks of astroturf. I affectionately refer to his astroturfers as “Team Elizondo.”

According to Wikipedia: Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. Having been in legitimate grassroots movements that have been infiltrated and overtaken by an outside agendas, I have been spotting and dealing with astroturf before I knew it even had a name. Luckily there are some tell-tale signs.

Every movement will have some buzz words or phrases. However, when you see supposedly unassociated individuals suddenly adopting the same repetitive use of certain words and phrases, you can be sure there’s some centralized coordination. Team Elizondo likes to repeat “transparency,” “congressional hearings,” “disclosure,” and, of course, “Elizondo.” It makes me feel like he’s a candidate for president or something.

Hate Hyping is my name for a technique where you talk disparagingly about the magnificent number of haters you have. This approach signals the ‘significant importance’ of the figure you’re publicizing while stifling dissent because nobody wants to look like a hater. While the approach doesn’t belong to astroturf exclusively, the same ability to spot groups and individuals adopting this technique for the same issue applies when identifying astroturf.

In Team Elizondo’s case, the Hate Hyping has been heartbreakingly vivid. They’ve created an environment where just disagreeing with them implies you’re a felon, motivated by hate, and live in your mother’s basement. It’s apparently part of the Elizondo script that his interviews begin (and sometimes last 30 minutes) with him insulting some vague, undefinable army of haters that I cannot find.

Typically if someone is complaining about a real irritant, they will identify it specifically. However, the language pattern Lue uses seems engineered to be exceptionally ambiguous. As someone who is not only skeptical but highly confident in my assessment that Lue is part of a greater unseen agenda, the ambiguity of Team Elizond’s derogatory comments can feel like direct personal attacks. “Is he talking about me?” But, I’m just a skeptic, not a hater, and I can’t find any actual haters. However, I can find an army of social media influences using the same language pattern, that insults skeptics, regarding the mythical bunch of haters.

Because the Hate Hype technique involves being derogatory toward the “haters,” it signals to the audience that hating on haters is okay. A general “I’m not agreeing” attitude gets you labeled a hater and attacked by hundreds of tools angrily anticipating the chance to tell off one of those mythical haters. So if they perceive someone as a Lue Hater, they unleash on them hard. People still get interview questions like “Do you still beat your wife” for things Lue said months ago… yet it’s still unclear whether Lue was referring to that individual, but he’s a skeptic, so it doesn’t matter.

I’ve been called a troll, a tool, dumb, foolish, a douche, etc. (you name it) because people can convince hundreds of people to call you names. Typically, they don’t have this ability because they have a respectable intellect, but because powerful interests market and support them. They’re willing to lie and embellish, and they’ll try to present like they’re the toxicity police when they’re the ones generating most of it.

As unhealthy as all that is, it gets worse. The most immoral coordinated pattern I see within Team Elizondo is the repeated suggestion that the “argument from authority fallacy” is a valid line of thought. I know people get confused about the nature of that fallacy because we regard expert testimony as valuable evidence. However, a common blind spot is forgetting that people who know more than you can easily scam you. The fallacy is in thinking it’s like logic: “because expert, we now know [whatever].” It’s only evidence that needs to be weighed against other evidence. Experts aren’t proof of anything. It’s also fallacious to think you can create an expert by assigning them “authority.”

However, after Lew stops hating his skeptics, he pretends we can assign authority to figures within the state or even that the state has some inherent authority on the UFO topic. They don’t. Comically, the truth is the “authorities” within the state tried to sell us on weather balloons and swamp gas when they knew better, but “non-authority” regular people decided to become experts and prove the government was lying.

It’s precisely because people without “authority” highlighted the relevant evidence that people realized the government was scamming them, and the state lost credibility. But then comes Lue, several New York Times articles, and an astroturf movement suggesting that all we need to do to get disclosure is “trust the process” of the authorities. If you disagree, you’re a hater who it’s okay to hate on.

If you want to know about UFOs, you will have to research them. The alternative, trusting authority, likely makes you one of those who believe the government’s narrative on JFK and 911, ripe to accept the next weather balloon story, and an immature brat.

Ufology is at a critical juncture. We can figure this out, our we can get hopelessly lost in narratives driven by politically motivated intelligence agencies. We need ambitious people seeking the truth, not a zombie crowd shouting “disclosure.” We don’t need new government agencies that don’t know up from down presented as “authority.” We need an environment where it’s okay to speak truth without being attacked by morons who think authority is real. And that’s why Team Elizondo sucks dick.