That is the expression, but it came from a time when a word meant something. Far before the idiom of marketing and business practices. That word is a temporary setting towards to goal to do no harm to the shareholders and the business need of the few. In essence, the old “is an idiom that means a person’s promise or word is as good as a formal agreement. It suggests a commitment to honesty and reliability in one’s dealings, and is frequently used to signify that a person’s word is a reliable substitute for a written contract” it is said that a word is merely a mirror of the intent of the person speaking it. And when you look at bonds, we see “A bond is a form of debt security, essentially a loan made by an investor to a company or government for a set period of time in return for regular interest payments. When you invest in bonds, you are lending money and receive back your principal plus interest at a specified future date” Now here we get the problem. You see, as it stands “an investor to a government for a set period of time in return for regular interest payments” and now as it seems that government (America) can soon no longer make these “regular interest payments” and the investors are backing away. We saw last week

and we have seen a few of these settings and again today we see a continuance of these messages. The stage is not really as clear. As bonds are sold before maturity the investors are losing money and you know how they lose money. Yet the setting for that is when will we lose it all? And there is the crunch. Lose some now or a lot later and these happy wuzzes are weaseling out before it is too late. So as such we see

If you think that I feel sorry, you would be wrong. I saw this as early as 2018, but the people called me and idiot, a fool and a cowardly weasel. That’s fine, they are merely words. As we see the dumping of bonds these high and mighty wannabe’s will get the limelight shining on them and as they hide like the little cockroaches shouting “it’s more complex then I thought” and I giggle because all I needed was an abacus, this contraption (which preceded the computer and the slide ruler) was invented somewhere between 2700 and 2300 BC, so there was time to learn the essentials.
I don’t know how much the damage is at present, but with every sell off, the burden of America deepens, which as of April 30, 2025, there were $28.575 trillion in outstanding U.S. Treasury securities. So we do not know how much is sold of and I doubt America will divulge that information and as I stated in March 2023, when I speculated that the SVB had too many bonds in there possession and could not deal with a bank run, I asked whether the media would ever look into how many bonds they had and they never did (I wonder why), but a more large setting was seen in the movie The Big Short (2015), an American biographical comedy-drama where we see the implied setting of Janet Yellen in her role at the federal reserve. Now, this is a mere movie, but when movies get to close to reality, there is the chance that there might be correlation. And as the Federal Reserve kept close eyes on the SVB bank, my thoughts wondered whether there wasn’t anything more going on. It is merely one bank, but was it? This also set my mind in a certain direction. The media was no longer to be trusted and they are too often a spokes vessel for stakeholders with political and personal plans. This time around the gap is a lot larger, a lot more than merely one bank. So how many bonds are being sold off (read: dumped)? We don’t know and the investigating party (read: the media) is being told to stand down as I see it. There is no way they are all being sold but to which amount of the $28.575 trillion is being sold off, we just don’t know. In the end America will face a brunt of invoices due to be paid. Yet consider that a bond is a certainty of income through interest and now these investors are bailing. How much is being bailed on is unknown to me and to many others.
But the media isn’t asking the hard questions, isn’t that interesting? They are so busy to chase digital dollars for their own good, whilst at the same time pleasing the shareholders and stake holders making the audience a distant fourth or even fifth party. So how do you feel about getting actually informed?
Don’t ask me for the information because I have close to none. I can merely see the issues, but the actual facts are not visible to me and to many others. But there is an issue and the idea of weaponized bonds is decently new, it came after the settings that these foundations are based on and as the bottom line is now marketed for the needs of the investors, we might not know in time what needs to be done. Will it be done in time? I have no idea, the people in charge of the information have their own game to play and usually it is for the betterment of themselves, not the audience at large.
I reckon that the tariff war set a few cogs in motion. Did the current administration consider this when they named the Golf of America and cast Canada into hostile party by calling it the 51st state? Did they consider the impact of a possible annexation of Greenland? It pissed off Europe and the Commonwealth and now their actual enemies is seeing the optional setting of selling off a huge part of the bonds and as such America sinks under their own debts, no actual war required. Didn’t the Art of War teach us (approximately 500BC) that “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles” I wonder, how clever it was to set a chicken stage of tariffs when these people wrote this book over 2500 years ago, seems folly to me. The best the west has to offer in contemplation is On War by Carl von Clausewitz (1820), which is called a decidingly lesser work 2300 years later. Isn’t that the opposite of evolution? Both books on the philosophy of war, but called “a lesser setting”, so what is the stage and what is missing? Both miss out of the war setting of economies. There was a setting of economic in the application of logistics in WW2, but a rather slimline one. Now there is a need on the war on the economics of any enemy and when as deeply in debt as America is, they are quite literally fighting against the edge of an abyss and that abyss does not give way to anything, it is not the premise of an abyss.
I have no idea what comes next, or what could be done next. This requires clear and reliable data and we do not have any, or aren’t given even the indication of clear data. That is the result of a media that is no longer to be trusted. So how bad is the news? It is dependent on the actual amount of bonds being sold off, because that is the hard setting of the decreased revenue that America faces in 2025 (and 2026).
So this is one day that I don’t go for the casual ‘have a great day’ but a much larger setting of make sure your families are safe, because when the dollars stay away there will be a price to pay.





X to the power of sneaky
I was honestly a little surprised this morning when I saw the news pass by. The BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67137773) gives us ‘Twitter glitch allows CIA informant channel to be hijacked’. To be honest, I have no idea why they would take this road, but part of me gets it. Perhaps in the stream of all those messages, a few messages might never be noticed. The best way to hide a needly is to drop it in a haystack. Yet the article gives us “But Kevin McSheehan was able to redirect potential CIA contacts to his own Telegram channel” giving us a very different setting to the next course of a meal they cannot afford. So when we are given “At some point after 27 September, the CIA had added to its X profile page a link – https://t.me/securelycontactingcia – to its Telegram channel containing information about contacting the organisation on the dark net and through other secretive means”, most of us will overlook the very setting that we see here and it took me hours to trip over myself and take a walk on the previous street to reconsider this. So when we are given “a flaw in how X displays some links meant the full web address had been truncated to https://t.me/securelycont – an unused Telegram username” the danger becomes a lot more visible. And my first thought was that a civilian named McSheehan saw this and the NSA did not? How come the NSA missed this? I think that checking its own intelligence systems is a number one is stopping foreign powers to succeed there and that was either not done, or the failing is a lot bigger then just Twitter. So even as the article ends with “The CIA did not reply to a BBC News request for comment – but within an hour of the request, the mistake had been corrected” we should see the beginning not the end of something. So, it was a set of bungles that starts with the CIA IT department, that goes straight into the NSA servers, Defence Cyber command and optionally the FBI cyber routines as well. You see, the origin I grasp at is “Installation of your defences against enemy retaliation” and it is not new, It goes back to Julius Caesar around 52BC (yes, more then two millennia ago). If I remember it correctly he wrote about it in Commentarii de Bello Gallico. Make sure your defences are secure before you lash out is a more up to date setting and here American intelligence seemingly failed.
Now, we get it mistakes will be made, that happens. But for the IT department of several intelligence departments to miss it and for a civilian in Maine to pick it up is a bit drastic an error and that needs to be said. This is not some Common Cyber Sense setting, this is a simple mistake, one that any joker could make, I get that. My issue is that the larger collection of intelligence departments missed it too and now we have a new clambake.
Yes, the CIA can spin this however they want, but the quote “within an hour of the request, the mistake had been corrected” implies that they had not seen this and optionally have made marked targets of whomever has linked their allegiance to the CIA. That is not a good thing and it is a setting where (according to Sun Tzu) dead spies are created. Yet they are now no longer in service of America, but they are optionally in service of the enemies of the USA and I cannot recall a setting where that ever was a good thing. You see, there was a stage that resembles this. In 942 the Germans instigated Englandspiel. A setting where “the Abwehr (German military intelligence) from 1942 to 1944 during World War II. German forces captured Allied resistance agents operating in the Netherlands and used the agents’ codes to dupe the United Kingdom’s clandestine organisation, the Special Operations Executive (SOE), into continuing to infiltrate agents, weapons, and supplies into the Netherlands. The Germans captured nearly all the agents and weapons sent by the United Kingdom” For two years the Germans had the upper hand, for two years the SOE got the short end of that stick and this might not be the same, but there is a setting where this could end up being the same and I cannot see that being a good thing for anyone (except the enemies of America). Now, I will not speculate on the possible damage and I cannot speculate on the danger optional new informants face or the value of their intelligence. Yet at this point I think that America needs to take a hard look at the setting that they played debutante too. I get it, it is not clear water, with any intelligence operation it never is. Yet having a long conversation with the other cyber units is not the worst idea to have. You see, there is a chance someone copied the CIA idea and did EXACTLY the same thing somewhere else. As such how much danger is the intelligence apparatus in? Come to think of it, if Palantir systems monitor certain server actions, how did they miss it too? This is not an accusation, it is not up to Palantir to patrol the CIA, but these systems are used to monitor social media and no one picked up on this?
Just a thought to have on the middle of this week.
Leave a comment
Filed under IT, Military
Tagged as Abwehr, BBC, CIA, Commentarii de Bello Gallico, Common Cyber Sense, DoD, Englandspiel, FBI, Julius Caesar, Kevin McSheehan, Maine, NSA, Palantir, SOE, Special Operations Executive, Sun Tzu, Twitter