The game is rigged *

 [a FB post by James Deakin 6 December 2025]

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."

Thomas Sowell.

In 2006, Al Gore stood before millions and painted a picture of catastrophe. Citing climate scientists, he warned the world that the Arctic ice cap could be completely gone in summer months as soon as 2014—maybe even 2013.

His film, An Inconvenient Truth, which won an Oscar for Best Documentary in 2007, was even played in schools as some kind of mandatory conditioning program. Teachers dimmed the lights. Children watched glaciers calve into the sea and went home afraid to turn on lights, convinced their carbon footprint might tip the scale.

Governments reacted. Carbon taxes were introduced, renewable-energy mandates popped up everywhere, entire industries were restructured, and trading desks made billion-dollar bets on a future without Arctic ice.

2013 came. The ice remained.

2014 came. Still there.

No press conference. No acknowledgment. Just new predictions, new deadlines pushed further out.

It’s now 2025. Almost twenty years have passed since the grim prediction, and the Arctic isn’t ice-free. In fact, in 2024 it had 890,000 square kilometers more ice than in 2012.

Now scientists explain it away: “ocean currents were weaker,” “natural variations,” “20% chance of this happening.” Always an explanation after the fact. Never accountability for the prediction before it.

Gore’s net worth when he made the film? Around $2 million. Today? Over $300 million—climate consulting, green investment funds, speaking fees of $100,000+ per appearance. The failed predictions made him rich.

Then came March 2020.

“Two weeks to flatten the curve,” they said. Imperial College’s Neil Ferguson projected 2.2 million American deaths if we didn’t lock down. The experts were certain.

So society stopped—not gradually, not voluntarily, but by force of law. Businesses shuttered. Children stayed home for a year, some longer. Weddings were cancelled. Funerals limited to ten people. A grandmother died alone because the models said visitors would kill others. A restaurant owner lost everything he’d built over thirty years because the prediction said it was necessary.

The vaccine arrived with promises just as certain: “Get vaccinated, stop the spread.” The President said it. The CDC Director said it. You couldn’t enter a restaurant in New York or a mall in Manila without proof. People lost jobs for declining. The prediction was clear: vaccination stops transmission.

Except it didn’t. That fact emerged quietly, months later, in footnotes and revised guidance. No apologies to those fired. Just movement to the next message.

The two weeks became two years. The millions of projected deaths never materialized. Sweden didn’t lock down and didn’t see catastrophe. Florida opened early and didn’t collapse. When reality diverged from the forecast, those who’d demanded the sacrifice simply moved on.

To what? Pfizer’s CEO saw his compensation hit $33 million in 2022. Anthony Fauci retired with a roughly $15 million net worth and a $350,000 annual pension—the highest in federal government history. The consulting firms that advised lockdowns? Billions in government contracts.

The restaurant owner? Bankrupt. The fired nurse? Still unemployed. The children who lost two years of education? Still catching up.

But this pattern runs deeper

In 2003, the most powerful government on earth stood before the United Nations. Colin Powell held up a vial and described mobile biological-weapons laboratories. Satellite photos. Intelligence reports. The certainty was absolute.

“We know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction,” Cheney declared. Not “we believe”—we know.

The prediction demanded action. 4,500 American soldiers died. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died. Two trillion dollars spent. An entire region destabilized for a generation.

The weapons didn’t exist. They never existed.

Not only did nobody go to prison; the architects wrote memoirs, collected speaking fees, taught at universities, and appeared on television as foreign-policy experts. Cheney’s net worth grew from around $30 million to over $100 million before he died. Halliburton, the company he formerly ran, received $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts.

The soldier who died searching for weapons that didn’t exist? His family got a folded flag.

Even the children were used

In June 2018, a teenage girl shared an article: “A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.”

Five years. That meant 2023.

Greta Thunberg was a relative nobody then. But the conveniently apocalyptic prediction became gospel. She addressed the UN, met world leaders, and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize while governments accelerated green mandates.

2023 came. Humanity persisted.

And quietly, between March 7 and March 13, 2023, the original article (and references to the five-year claim) disappeared from the internet. No explanation. No accountability.

She was 15 when the claim went viral. But watch how quickly she learned the game. By 20, she was lecturing world leaders. By 21, she’d built a brand worth millions. The failed prediction didn’t hurt her; Time Magazine declared her Person of the Year in 2019.

This is the system teaching the next generation how it works.

But here’s the pattern you’re not supposed to notice

Elite authority makes catastrophic prediction. Media amplifies without question. Prediction demands immediate sacrifice from ordinary people. Society restructures; costs imposed on the working and middle class. Elites profit from the restructuring. Prediction fails. No consequences for elites. Same authorities make new predictions. Rinse, spin dry, repeat.

Every single time, the people who make the predictions get richer. Every single time, the people forced to comply get poorer.

This isn’t incompetence. Incompetent people don’t keep getting promoted. Incompetent people don’t get richer every time they’re wrong. Incompetent people don’t maintain their platforms after being catastrophically wrong again and again.

This is a feature, not a bug.

Because the pension fund manager who divested from energy at the wrong time? Lost his job.

The small manufacturer crushed by compliance costs? Bankrupt.

The salon owner who lost her business for opening two weeks early? Homeless.

The nurse fired for declining a vaccine that didn’t stop transmission? Career destroyed.

The soldier who died searching for weapons that didn’t exist? Dead.

Meanwhile: Al Gore, richer. Fauci, richer. Pfizer executives, richer. Defense contractors, richer. Cheney, richer. The politicians, still in office. The consultants, more contracts. Greta Thunberg, international celebrity.

They are never held accountable because the system is designed to protect them.

You can’t vote out the CDC. You can’t fire the UN climate panel. You can’t sue Al Gore for the money your pension fund lost. You can’t get your business back after the lockdowns. You can’t get those years of your children’s education back.

But they can make another prediction tomorrow. And each time, you’ll be told: comply or face consequences. When they’re wrong, they face nothing.

The game is rigged

They’ve discovered the perfect con: Make apocalyptic predictions. Demand sacrifice. Profit from the compliance. When the apocalypse doesn’t come, make a new prediction. The only people who ever pay are the ones who either complied or refused to comply.

This is about power maintaining itself—a class of people who have insulated themselves from consequences while ensuring everyone else absorbs maximum risk.

It’s time to stop playing along. This only works when everyone is complicit and doesn’t demand accountability.

So when the next prediction comes—and believe me, it’s coming—ask yourself:

Who profits if I comply?

Who pays if they’re wrong?

Have these people ever been held accountable before?

What happens to me if I don’t comply versus what happens to them if they’re wrong?

The answers will tell you everything you need to know.

They’re counting on you not noticing the pattern. They’re counting on your fear, your compliance, your trust in institutional authority. They’re counting on you believing that this time, it’s different.

It’s never different.

The elites make predictions. The elites profit. The elites face no consequences. The pattern repeats.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But fool me with the same script, the same players, the same outcome, decade after decade?

That’s not deception anymore. That’s permission.

Made in Brussels: How Moldova’s elections were engineered beyond its borders

 

[A note: This is an article that exposes the electoral engineering organized by Brussels et al. in order to control the result of the recent Moldovan elections of Sunday, 28.9.2025.

European readers are not allowed to read such dangerous texts in RT and similar inappropriate news outlets. I added it here as an antidote to Eurocensorship, in order to expose the tricks employed by the Euromafia in order to create a European dystopia.]

From censorship to selective polling stations, Chisinau’s parliamentary race exposed how “European standards” work in practice

By Farhad Ibragimov - RT

In recent European history, it is difficult to find a more striking example of electoral manipulation than the 2025 parliamentary elections in Moldova. What last year’s presidential race tested in miniature, this campaign deployed on a grand scale: censorship, administrative pressure, selective access to polling stations, and a carefully mobilized diaspora vote. For President Maia Sandu’s administration, control over parliament was not a matter of prestige but of political survival.

The campaign atmosphere was defined long before voting day. Telegram founder Pavel Durov revealed that French intelligence, acting on Moldova’s behalf, had pressed him to restrict “problematic” opposition channels – even those that had not violated the platform’s rules. Their only offense was providing an alternative viewpoint. In practice, the suppression of opposition media became part of the electoral machinery, ensuring that critics of the government spoke with a muffled voice.

Election night only reinforced doubts. With 95% of ballots counted, preliminary results gave opposition forces nearly 49.5% of the vote, while Sandu’s Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) trailed by about five points. By morning, however, the tables had turned: PAS had surged past 50%. Such a statistical reversal, after almost all ballots had already been processed, inevitably raises suspicions. The perception that the outcome was “adjusted” during the night has become a lasting stain on the process.

Geography of disenfranchisement

Outside Moldova’s borders, the picture was equally telling. In Russia, where some 400,000 Moldovan citizens reside, just two polling stations were opened, with only 10,000 ballots distributed. Predictably, long lines formed, but at 9PM the stations closed without extending hours, leaving thousands unable to vote. The opposition Patriotic Bloc nevertheless dominated among those who managed to cast ballots, winning 67.4%.

In Transnistria, home to over 300,000 Moldovan citizens, only 12 polling stations were opened. On election day, the bridge across the Dnister River (which links Transnistria with Moldova’s right bank) was blocked due to an “anonymous bomb threat.” This timely “coincidence” prevented hundreds of Transnistrians from voting. Ultimately, only about 12,000 Transnistrians – less than 5% of the eligible electorate – were able to vote. Yet even under these restrictions, the Patriotic Bloc secured 51%.

By contrast, the authorities ensured maximum accessibility in the European Union. Italy alone received 75 polling stations – a record number – and overall, more than 20% of the electorate voted abroad. Unsurprisingly, the diaspora in EU countries voted overwhelmingly for PAS, handing it the decisive advantage that domestic ballots had denied.

International monitoring was similarly selective. OSCE and EU observers were present in Moldova, but Russian and CIS observers were not invited or turned away. Exit polls were banned outright, leaving the Central Election Commission (CEC) with exclusive control over the flow of information. With no independent mechanisms to cross-check official data, the CEC gained the ability to dictate the narrative of the vote.

Opposition under pressure

The campaign’s repressive character was most vividly illustrated just before election day. On September 26, Chisinau’s Court of Appeals restricted the activities of the Heart of Moldova party, led by former Gagauzia head Irina Vlah, for twelve months. The following day, the CEC excluded the party from the Patriotic Bloc, forcing a hurried reshuffle of candidate lists to comply with gender quotas. Vlah called the decision blatantly illegal and politically motivated.

This was no isolated case. Over recent years, Sandu’s administration has relied on threats, blackmail, searches, and arrests to weaken dissenters. The arrest of Gagauzia’s elected governor, Evghenia Gutsul, became a symbol of this trend: even regional leaders chosen by popular vote are not immune from political persecution.

Domestic minority, overseas majority

The official tally put voter turnout at 52.18%. PAS won 50.2% of the vote, the Patriotic Bloc 24.2%, the pro-European Alternative 8%, Our Party 6.2%, and Democracy at Home 5.6%, while several minor parties failed to gain more than 1%. On paper, PAS secured a majority.

But a closer look reveals a striking imbalance. Counting only ballots cast inside Moldova, PAS received just 44.13% of the vote. The opposition parties together accounted for nearly 50%. In other words, within Moldova itself, Sandu’s party was in the minority.

It was the diaspora vote that changed everything. Among Moldovans abroad, 78.5% supported PAS, enough to flip a domestic defeat into a formal victory. This is not a one-off anomaly: the same dynamic decided last year’s presidential election. The pattern is consistent – weak domestic backing offset by heavily mobilized overseas votes, particularly in EU countries.

The binary narrative

The Western media rushed to celebrate Sandu’s win as a “victory over Russia.” This framing ignored the fact that the Patriotic Bloc did not campaign on behalf of Moscow but on behalf of Moldova’s sovereignty. Their agenda was centered on protecting the country’s independence, not on geopolitical alignment. Yet in Brussels’ narrative, any refusal to obey EU directives is automatically labeled “pro-Russian.”

The same binary logic has been applied to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico. Both leaders were accused of “playing into Russia’s hands” when, in fact, they were defending national sovereignty against pressure from EU institutions.

Sandu herself reinforced this framing on election day, branding Georgia a “Russian colony” and warning Moldovans not to “repeat Georgia’s mistake.”

 The rhetoric revealed more anxiety than confidence. It echoed the final years of former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who relied on bombast, foreign backers, and provocations while losing touch with his own electorate. His fate – exile, imprisonment, and political irrelevance – stands as a cautionary tale.

A managed democracy

Taken together, these facts paint a picture of a managed democracy: censorship of opposition voices, selective access to polling stations, politically motivated repression, and the decisive use of diaspora votes. Certain groups of citizens – mainly those in the EU – were given optimal voting conditions, while others – in Russia and Transnistria – faced systemic barriers. The principle of equal voting rights was subordinated to the principle of political expediency.

The paradox of Moldova’s elections is therefore clear. Inside the country, a majority voted for change. Abroad, a different electorate delivered Sandu her “victory.” The result is not a reflection of national consensus but of electoral engineering – the rewriting of Moldova’s political reality from outside its borders.

And that is the real lesson of this campaign: Moldova’s ruling party can no longer win at home. Its victories are manufactured elsewhere. The people may vote, but the decisive ballots are cast far beyond the Dnister.

Down with BigBrotherbook !!!

This was my last post in Facebook, posted yesterday, 22.6.2020. Apparently, someone from Facetapo censors army or AI weaponry didn't like my brief response to a friend's post. I guess mentioning 'Taliban' smashing artworks alongside 'Black Lives Matter' (who happen to be doing the same nowadays), does not follow some obscure and vague "Community Standards"; so, he/she/it decided to 'punish' me.

This utterly stupid censorship was the straw that broke the camel’s back, following a series of similar incidents among other people that I know of, which had made me raise my eyebrows several times. In protest, as much as in disgust from this growing trend of mind-control exercised by totalitarian monopolies, I decided to abandon that huge mind-grinding mechanism after more than a decade as Tatat N Sosos, feeling unable to be an obedient member of the herd. So, I also added this comment to the above post:

To be able to express my thoughts without obnoxious totalitarian chains blocking my freedom of speech, I decided to re-activate this old podium of mine, delaxo.blogspot.com, where hopefully my words will not be scrutinized and my views will not be blocked as 'unfit' to the standards of any "community" -like BigBrotherbook herd. For Greek speakers and topics, I re-activated my antilogies.blogspot.com too.

If you like to keep in touch with this nonconformist corner, to be informed about new posts and exchange opinions, then please click the 'Follow' button on the top left.
 

Intellectual heretics unite!