You may not be familiar with the meaning of 'drinking the Kool Aid', but that is a reference to the mass suicide in Jonestown, where the leader of the 'Peoples Temple' cult served his followers a 'Flavor Aid' drink laced with cyanide and various drugs, misrepresented as 'Kool Aid', when he found himself cornered. The title of this article suggests that if you are able to keep a Cool Head, you might survive such scheming bastards. How? By the timely detection of 'mass psychosis' and manipulative behaviour. The downside may be the development of a paranoid mind, where you end up feeling threatened by your own shadow.
Cult leaders offer a sense of security, of 'belonging', while *actively* trying to sow chaos in the world 'outside', or portray events as inexplicable threats, for obvious reasons. 'Divide, and Conquer'. By the time they reached the end of the line, for instance when 'Law Enforcement' is hot on their trail, or reality can no longer be kept at bay, they will not shy away from taking the whole cult with them into a 'final solution'.
The relatively stable 'middle ground' is where we find most people, until it is torn up through polarisation, forcing the common people to pick a side. Who are you with? Madman? Or Pervert? Tell me now! Usually reserved for wars with armies going head to head, but these days this level of madness is everywhere. At the start of the 'War in Ukraine' I engaged others in debate on the 'Turcopolier' website. At the time a website, and associated forum, dedicated to military matters, run by a former US Colonel with enough common sense to allow some level of opposition to his own point of view. He was convinced that Russia would go under, while I offered arguments against that outcome. By the time it became clear that his predictions were wrong, his tolerance evaporated, and my opinion pieces were increasingly 'moderated' out of view, which was when I decided to add this 'In English' part to my blog. He died, still maintaining that he and his mesmerised followers succeeded in maintaining a 'Cool Head', while I felt strongly that they were increasingly under the influence of the 'Kool Aid', embracing hope as a strategy.
Even if people recognise the facts as facts, the narrative they embrace to explain these facts may pull them apart. Last night, a shooter showed up at an event where Trump was present, causing a stir. Even the facts are not undisputed as I'm writing this, but predictable narratives emerged almost immediately. The identity of the man they caught and disarmed is known. His internet profile was taken down almost immediately, but the internet was abuzz with snippets of information supporting various claims. People constructed a link to Iran. Others pointed out that he had voted for Kamala Harris. But the more important snippet from my perspective was a picture of the man wearing an IDF-shirt. Though, as always in this world we are living in, we need to be very careful with pictures, video and sound, since 'AI-enhanced' stuff is literally everywhere. Another snippet which struck me was a story which said the 'Secret Service' prioritised the removal of JD Vance from the scene, over securing Trump's safety. But, again, that may be explained in a thousand ways without revealing anything about complicity of that 'Secret Service'. It does strike a chord though, because the 'Secret Service' dropped the ball previously when Trump was shot at from the roof of a building.
Now, which party implicated had 'motive' to cause a stir? Was it a real attempt? Or merely a warning? Or was that individual not an 'operative' activated by Iran, Israel, or powerful people in the 'Epstein Network', but a 'Lone Wolf'? I was watching an interview with an American professor, Robert Pape, a political scientist with extensive connections in the US military, and an 'Iran expert', who has 'gamed' war with Iran for years, warning against it. He has been correct in his predictions so far. And he says that the US/Trump, has reached a 'fork in the road', with two bad choices. One is 'Boots on the Ground', and the other is 'Walking Away'. He also said that Trump's 'impulse' is to 'Walk Away'. Trump has been lured into this disaster by Netanyahu, his largest donors, people like Lindsey Graham, and various individuals identified as being part of the 'Epstein Network'. Still 'High' after kidnapping Maduro and stealing the Venezuelan oil, with those pulling him in telling him that it would be as simple as that. Just 'decapitate' the Iranian leadership, and the people of Iran would rise up to give him the oil, and kiss his feet.
Clearly 'Walking Away' is not what that powerful lobby is looking for. And scaring Trump into following the 'plan' sounds about right if I look at what happened. With that guy they caught 'taking one for the team'. Or, if you will, 'mind controlled' to do a 'Sirhan Sirhan' when you want to take it one step further. The alternative, an Iranian hit, sounds really stupid, for the same reasons that proved unequivocally how counter-productive these 'decapitation' strikes in Iran were. Trump is far from popular at the moment, but if you kill him, or attempt to do so as a recognised adversary, on the very moment when he walks away from talks in Islamabad, which could signal he is willing to pull out, you will end up uniting the US (and slavish allies) for a 'Boots on the Ground' sequel. Moreover, that narrative is 100% suggestion, with no leads.
There is something else which struck me these past couple of days, related to the negotiations in Islamabad. The US kept saying Iran was begging the US for a negotiated settlement, while Iran kept saying they were not interested in talks, unless the US honoured the ceasefire agreement first. Which included stopping the fight inside Lebanon, *and* ending the US blockade of Iranian ports, and the pirating of ships Iran allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. But Trump, desperate to avoid being identified as the party left with empty hands, needed that blockade as a trump-card. Remember: Regime Change? Didn't happen. Capturing the enriched uranium? Didn't happen. Destroying the capacity of Iran to hit back hard? Didn't happen. And Iran, controlling the Strait of Hormuz, *added* a very potent weapon, threatening the world economy and the 'petrodollar'.
After a first round of talks in Islamabad failed, with the US walking away, after JD Vance called Netanyahu, supervised by Kushner and Witkoff, the 'zionist hawks' incapable of negotiating, because all they ever bring to the table are demands, and threats, and treacherous plans to attack Iran in the middle of talks, there was another round planned, without Vance. In the meantime Trump did not act, but kept the ceasefire glowing. Celebrating the transformation of the US into a 'Gas Station with Nukes', not exactly MAGA. So what was the plan?
A snippet of information caught my eye, making me wonder. Apparently the US brought *nine* large transport planes to Islamabad in preparation for the second round of negotiations. I've done negotiations, and what you need is a laptop with a harddisk stuffed with relevant information, and maybe some experts. Or a virgin sheet of paper and a pencil if everything has been worked out in advance. Or when you lost, and all you ever need to do is to take notes as the other party dictates demands. Not *nine* large cargo planes. Obviously I'm left to speculate about that mission, but even without knowing anything in addition to that simple fact, I'd say these second round of talks were a trap, set by some spy agency, involving 'high tech shit' to derail the Iranian team's winning strategy. You may unleash your fantasy to speculate about what that might entail, from 'mind controlling' the Iranians to become 'our willing operatives', to creating 'holographic' images of Iranian negotiators to do nefarious things in the war for our 'hearts and minds', creating 'Abba Performances' like that holographic show in London, making us dance to the tune of the war minded planners. But don't go overboard, stating what you thought of for a fact.
My paranoid thought got support from the news which said that Iran, at long last, *would* send a negotiator to Islamabad, Abbas Araghchi, but that he would *not* meet his American counterparts in person. Which news led to the US calling off the meeting altogether. Apparently the Iranians shared my suspicions? But whatever the case, this flurry of weird events and circumstances should be sufficient to give people pause before jumping to conclusions, and to proceed with caution. Most prominently decision makers in the US, and even more so if they allowed themselves to be taken for a ride in the past, acting as 'lunatics' to create chaos, thinking they were the 'Masters of Chaos', holding a winning hand.