Saturday, 14 March 2020

ARTICLE 10 - Part 2: An Outbreak of Terrible Communication & Leadership

Viable Underdogs concerns itself with anything that is a Type 1, or global, issue. You can check an outline of all Viable Underdogs books and materials in this post:

Book Links & Other Viable Underdogs Material


UPDATE: March 18, 2020: Upon doing a bit more research, here's an article written exactly five years ago indicating that our world is vulnerable to epidemics:

Bill Gates: We Are Not Ready for the Next Epidemic

This article was written by Bill Gates. The interesting thing was his suggestion that we "prevent such a catastrophe by building a global warning and response system for epidemics." This is similar to what I suggest in this article. As I have repeated, these solutions are oftentimes already intuitively known. 

This article is a pretty long one, so make sure you've got a bit of time set aside. You can find Parts 1 and 3 here:

Article 10 - Part 3

Although, I still have lots more I could easily expand upon, I’m not an overly fast writer, so it would take too much time. I’m also in the process of writing the 4th book, other articles that are equally important, and I’m also getting ready for my second launch attempt (See: Upcoming article that will outline this in further detail).

Also, if you’re curious about more info regarding the strategy I briefly explore in this article, then check out the references section for more info.


“When the truth offends, we lie and lie until we can no longer remember it is even there, but it is…still there…
…Sooner or later, that debt is paid.”

-From the mini-series, Chernobyl (2019)

Last night, I started watching the HBO mini-series, Chernobyl, that was released last year in 2019. I mention it now not to comment on nuclear power one way or the other (See Episode 5), but to comment on similarities between how that crisis was managed and how our current global crises are being managed. There are many similarities between the Chernobyl Crisis, the current Coronavirus Crisis, and our ongoing Sustainability Crisis.

Here’s an article that explores the accuracy of the Chernobyl mini-series if you’re interested:
(There’s a lot of fact-checking articles on the mini-series. Regardless of the accuracy of the show, it won’t do anything to alter the points being made in this article).

Before I go on any further, I want to mention that this is a ‘Jaded Truth’ Article, similar to the Jaded Truth episodes you will find in the audio recording of the Podcast-Audiobook (on Spotify, Google Play, iTunes, and Podbean - Just search ‘Viable Underdogs’) and the written version of the Podcast-Audiobook, A Type 1 Unfreeze-Chain Letter (Available for free download at the start of this article).

The Jaded Truth series included Episodes 9, 17, and 25, and at the start of each, I mention that these are intended to be a bit more emotionally intense, so if you’re not in the mood for something intense or draining, maybe go check out another article first and come back here when you’re more in the mood for it.


Regardless of the actual events that may or may not have occurred during the Chernobyl Crisis, the mini-series does a terrific job at outlining certain problems that tend to occur during any crisis - the emotions associated with a crisis, including denial - for one. In the Chernobyl mini-series, it’s often repeated by many individuals at different levels in the chain of command that the nuclear plant’s core cannot explode, much like how some individuals on our globe don’t think our global systems can fail and experience a catastrophic failure.

As well, there is clear overlap between the Roles of Government and Roles of Information (though globally, in our current world, the Role of Information is heavily overlapped by the Role of Individuals), and many officials do not initially listen to the concerns raised by the field of professionals (much like has happened in the Coronavirus and Sustainability crises). The consequences of admitting failure also compound these problems as many individuals engage in the types of biases and cognitive fallacies I have explored in Part 4 of Renegades of Disruption.


Much like any person that initially implies the idea that the core has exploded are initially labeled as ‘alarmists’ or ‘engaging in fear-mongering,’ the same can be said for individuals such as myself.

Do you also think I am an alarmist?

Does the tone of my work imply that I am not calm?

Am I not presenting and conducting myself in a mostly level-headed manner?

While I admit that some particular statements and even podcast episodes could be seen as alarmist when taking out of context of my body of work, they are necessary to properly knock people out of apathy and into action.

The stakes have never been higher. If I am correct, then the fate of our civilization depends on my ability to sell these ideas to the world, so I apologize if sometimes that pressure has proved a bit too much, and I have come off as someone who is not in complete control. I have been actively, and exclusively, working on this problem now for years.


The 2008 Economic Crisis and the current Coronavirus Crisis are ‘tremors’ being experienced by our global civilization, our global engine. The ramifications of these types of problems can be quite severe, much like a misfiring cylinder in an engine, and they indicate a larger problem is present. In Renegades of Disruption (See: The Diagnostic Framework - Part 5), I mentioned it was important not to start chasing after symptoms of the problem, like replacing a dying battery in an electrical system that has a faulty charging unit. The 2008 Economic Crisis, the Coronavirus Crisis, and the ongoing Sustainability Crisis are all symptoms of a larger problem. This is why these crises all share similarities on how they are (poorly) managed.

The reason they can all be corrected using the same strategies is that these strategies address the actual problems occurring, and not only the symptoms. These are problems I have outlined like our compromised global communication system. Something that may not make much sense to you if your associative barriers are too high.

Associative Barriers (See Renegades of Disruption)

Lowering your associative barriers is something I repeat throughout a lot of my work, since if your own associative barriers are too high, you will be unable to entertain my claims because the scale of my claims is even larger than what alarmists on the Coronavirus Crisis and the Sustainability Crisis are currently saying. This is similar to the scientists accused of being alarmists that were suggesting the core had exploded in Chernobyl, since they were suggesting a very unwelcomed truth - a worst-case scenario. Not to mention a reminder of just how delicate and fallible our global systems are.

Our planet, our global engine, our global civilization, is massive. All of these types of crises have the ability to start a chain-reaction of the problems present in all of our global systems that will lead to the collapse of modern civilization. I mention this now as a statement of fact based on the evidence I have provided in all my work. Here’s another question I have for you:

“Do you personally think there is any possibility of our global civilization collapsing?”

Regardless of whether you think I am correct or you think I need to have my head examined, in your mind, is it even a possibility?

Because many people do not think it is even possible. They cannot cope with that reality. It’s too much for some people to entertain.

Even if one day, I manage to locate an audience, and the many problems in our systems are corrected, and we successfully transition to a Type 1 civilization, if history is any indication, there will be a number of people who will claim there never was that large a problem. After all, a catastrophic failure that was narrowly avoided is not the same as one that was experienced.

Taiwan & Its Management of the Coronavirus Crisis

To clarify, as always, I am not claiming to be an expert in Crisis Management and Epidemiology. Any organization put in charge of any crisis would have to defer to the collective expertise of fields of professionals, so I would always defer anyone back the expertise of the fields I mention rather than defer to the quick examples I provide. The reason for my examples and analogies is to provide an example of how the handling of a global crisis should look like rather than how it is currently managed. To further clarify, this is not to finger-point anywhere. Based on current global general knowledge on crisis management, no one can really be blamed for how this crisis is being managed. It’s one thing to ignore a better solution, but no one yet understands how to implement these solutions on a global level. If they did, then I would have nothing to write about.

Let’s start by going back in time a bit to explore the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) virus (and avoided global crisis) that occurred in 2002-2003. The numbers from that crisis can be found on Wikipedia:

This global crisis was largely contained, so depending on who you talk to, some might think that there was needless panic during the SARS outbreak. Most countries escaped unscathed. The only countries that experienced a death toll greater than 10 were China (349 deaths), Hong Kong (299 Deaths), Taiwan (73 Deaths), Canada (43 deaths), and Singapore (33 deaths).

Since these countries (or large geographical area for any that make the argument that Taiwan is not officially recognized as a nation) were the worst affected by this problem, it increases the likelihood of them implementing measures to prevent re-occurrence, much like in the fields of Engineering.

Tacoma Narrows Bridge

If you speak to any civil engineer in North America (and possibly also around the globe), then they’re likely very familiar with the collapsing of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge - a catastrophic failure that occurred in 1940, thereby reminding us of how fallible us humans can be - even our engineers.

Luckily, the damage from the bridge failure was a best-case scenario, but it’s easy to imagine that the death toll and associative damages could have been very high. When problems like this occur, fail-safes are subsequently implemented to decrease the likelihood of a similar problem occurring. Engineers are reminded of catastrophic failures such as these to ensure they remain vigilant throughout their professional careers and prevent repeating similar mistakes.

So back to Taiwan, during the SARS Outbreak in 2002-2003, they were one of the nations that was the most impacted, which may explain why despite their proximity to the current Coronavirus Crisis, they appear to be managing it much better than other nations who are further away from the source of the outbreak (Although, in the world of globalization, no nation is all that far from the source of the problem).

Here are articles on Taiwan’s handling of the current Coronavirus Crisis:

If you read the articles, you’ll find many of the same ideas I have often repeated:

From the USA Today article:

“How has Taiwan, a country on China's doorstep, managed to contain COVID-19 when so many countries have failed? One answer is leadership

From the Vox Article:
“We need to educate the public, communicate with the public a lot more, at the moment. Because most people have no idea."
Once again, a call for the need of clear leadership and the need for effective communication.
Are your associative barriers low enough yet for you to see that this problem is occurring everywhere globally? And are your associative barriers also low enough to understand the significance of what this represents? Because I am suggesting that the culmination of these types of problems will eventually lead to a global collapse of our civilization. If my work doesn't evoke a strong sense of urgency on sustainability (similar to the current urgency and perception on coronavirus), then I suggest your associative barriers are still too high.

Back in Part 1, I mentioned that:

-as a species, we know, technically, these problems exist.
-as a species, we know, technically, how to solve them.

A Type 1 Solution to the Coronavirus Crisis

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) updated the wording of the Coronavirus Crisis to a pandemic, so I decided to update Article 10 to explain the problems caused with this style of ‘reactive’ thinking, and how this crisis (much like the ongoing Sustainability Crisis) and many other Type 1 style problems should be getting addressed instead. To clarify, my proposed ‘solutions’ would be far more effective, and far less draconian, than some of the proposed solutions thus far attempted.

First, here’s an article indicating the recent change by the WHO:

Proactive vs. Reactive

Back in Episode 16 of the Podcast-Audiobook (Originally published April 21, 2019), I mentioned the need to start becoming proactive rather than reactive. Here’s an article that expands on this type of idea:

Here’s a quote from the article:

“Meanwhile, the rush to create a vaccine for a new outbreak rather than invest in public health shows that the leaders remain reactive rather than proactive.

The article also stresses the need for transparency and effective communication, so in this update, I’ll instead offer up a proposed strategy on how this crisis (and other ongoing crises like sustainability) should be addressed, rather than repeat the same things I have at some length. Responsible journalists and academics are already mentioning many of the same ideas, such as the need to correct communication. First, let’s list off all the problems that can easily be identified about the Coronavirus Crisis:

-Reactive vs Proactive action

-Lack of transparency

-Lack of effective communication (there is a known problem of misinformation and disinformation / simplicity / reliable data, etc.)

-Lack of clear leadership

-Lack of clear organizational structure

-Lack of clear terminology

-Lack of strategy and crisis management plans

To be clear, this is a 'strategy' I’m whipping up in a matter of hours to show just how terrible the management of this crisis (and our ongoing Sustainability Crisis) has been. There are other factors not included in this list since Crisis Management is not my area of expertise (that’s why the field of Crisis Management exists in the first place). And this entire strategy is more of a rough outline than a detailed plan. As time goes on, I may decide to revisit it in more detail, but as of now, I have to divide my attention to various areas, like continuing to promote these ideas (they don’t do anyone any good if no one knows about them).

The following is merely a suggestion of one possible strategy that could be implemented with the ongoing Coronavirus Crisis and other crises that are very likely to happen again in the near future due to the various problems I have outlined, in some detail, regarding our civilization’s global systems. I add this strategy to provide further evidence of the rampant problems I have already identified and will continue to identify as my Global Diagnostic continues…

Reactive vs Proactive

There are two components to this. The first is that a strategy (a global Type 1 strategy - something that does not currently exist) to deal with Type 1 problems (such as viral outbreaks) needs to be created prior to a crisis such as this occurring. The second is that during the management of the crisis itself, every attempt should be made to proactively deal with any problems before they occur, rather than wait for them to occur and reactively deal with them. This would help alleviate impacts to systems such as health care, mitigate financial impacts (that are now said to at least total in the billions of dollars), and save lives. This idea will become more clear as we explore the following factors.


As stated in the included article, a key component to effectively managing this crisis is transparency. There is already far too much terrible data and conspiracy theories to not maintain complete transparency. To be clear, this transparency is to be expected within whatever organization is in charge of leadership on this crisis. This is a global, Type 1-style, problem. Ideally, all nations would choose to be transparent, but as I have often stated, our world is rarely a source of ideals, so it’s unlikely we will have 100% transparency everywhere on the globe.

My solutions are all created around the idea of an opt-in system. If some nations choose to not have transparency, that is their prerogative, but it is necessary that the organization in charge have complete transparency to reassure the new public forum online - one that represents a worldwide communication system where we all talk to each other. . a lot! (The Internet). It’s not a bad thing. A lot of us are very social animals. 

This transparency includes any mistakes made while handling the crisis. Shit happens, we all make mistakes, but burying these mistakes only compounds the existing problems. This is not a comment directed at anyone on this particular crisis, but a lot of us don’t like to admit when we’ve made mistakes.

The proposed strategy needs to be proactive, as well as transparent, so that everyone understands what to expect. At the end of the article, I will briefly outline what this strategy would look like. All I am aiming to prove is that it’s a better strategy than what the world is currently employing. The current methods do not employ Type 1 thinking. The current methods mostly employ archaic Type 0 style thinking. Like I said at the start of Renegades of Disruption: it’s not that I’m insinuating that I created all the solutions to all these problems. It’s that these solutions already exist. I am challenging you to go look!

Effective Communication

All five Roles of our World’s Organizational Structure (See Renegades of Disruption and the upcoming book, The Paradox of Civilizations, for more info) are required to take part in effectively communicating the crisis to combat the overwhelming saturation of garbage information that currently exists in our 21 Century world.

All five Roles need to repeat the same info as the organization placed in charge of leadership and management of the crisis at a global (Type 1) level. The communication can be tailored to match what the audience of each of the five Roles needs to better manage the crisis. For instance, in the Role of Religion, additional protocols and processes may be required during religious ceremonies (the need for additional sanitation and sterilization, for instance).

All communication should defer back to the organization that is in charge of the crisis.


It should be made very clear which organization will be in charge of the crisis for as long as the crisis exists, or even the threat of the crisis exists. Waiting until the problem worsens would be reactive. As soon as a high possibility of the crisis occurring is known, this needs to occur. In the case of the coronavirus, this should have started in 2019, back when the problem itself was more manageable than it is now. This is a global, Type 1, problem, so even if an official representative is put in charge of the organization itself, it’s the organization as a whole that is in charge of the crisis, not a single individual. There is too much occurring for just one person to manage it all, or worse, micro-manage it all. We need to defer to the collective expertise of entire fields.

Organizational Structure

The most effective organizational structure when a crisis occurs, or is expected to occur, is a Functional structure with one clear organization in charge of the crisis itself, and a clear chain of command (this ensures that anyone looking for info knows who to contact for the info). The organization in charge will be comprised of many experts from fields best suited for managing the type of crisis. This is a temporary structure only intended to remain until the crisis is over, or even better - avoided, and the aftermath of the crisis has been managed enough to return to normal, day-to-day operations (This is similar to what Bill Gates was suggesting five years ago - See link at the start of this article. The decision to make this a permanent or temporary organization is a separate factor, but it's difficult to dispute the necessity of a global, Type 1, organization to address these sorts of problems).

Once the crisis is over, feedback controls should be implemented to assess how well the crisis was handled and if any improvements could be made in the future. This part also requires transparency so as to reassure the general public. Even if mistakes are made, these need to be made public to prevent reoccurence by implementing solutions. It’s not a time for finger-pointing and shifting blame.

To clarify, the coronovirus is more of a short-term crisis than the long-term sustainability crisis. This is why communication and perception (about coronavirus) is not compromised anywhere to the degree as it is on the Sustainability Crisis.


Terminology needs to be simplified so that everyone, regardless of their education or other communication barriers, understands the current severity of the problem and how best they can help manage the problem.

I’d recommend a type of ‘escalating scale,’ rather than the current method of:

“It’s not a crisis.” “It’s not a crisis.”“It’s not a crisis.” “It’s not a crisis.” “It’s not a crisis.” ... 
...It’s a crisis!
This is basically the current process utilized since we only have one term to increase the severity of the crisis. Is it a pandemic or isn’t it?- Once again, this type of communication is reactive rather than proactive.

Yes, this can sometimes spur action, but if this crisis was properly managed in the first place, the need to drive immediate urgency would not be necessary. These types of terms manage the overall public perception of the crisis. Something our species understood during the Cold War with the usage of the symbolic Doomsday Clock (Bever, L. 2019). The Doomsday Clock could be adjusted as necessary to alter the perception, and therefore urgency, of the crisis. Some sort of adjustable ‘scale’ is recommended to better handle urgency and perception, rather than the current method:

Don’t panic….Don’t panic….Don’t panic….Don’t panic….Don’t panic….Don’t panic….Don’t panic….PANIC!!!!!

Strategy (Crisis Management Plan)

Although some may argue it is clear which organization is in charge of this crisis, I’d make the argument that it is not (See the example I provide regarding a link to the WHO from the Government of Canada’s website).

The following is an example of a proposed strategy for outbreaks. Any outbreak has the potential to go global (especially in the world of Globalization). Once again, this type of strategy is something that should be available for global viewing prior to the crisis itself taking place. There should be strategies such as these created for any Type 1 problem that can possibly occur. The strategies themselves need to be periodically reviewed to ensure the plan is up-to-date.

In the case of viral outbreaks, such as the Coronavirus Crisis, here’s a proposed plan:

Type 1 Crisis Management

As always, the first priority is repairing our compromised communication channels, but prior to this occurring, it must be decided which organization will be in charge. My proposal is a temporary international ‘crisis response centre’ that consults with the entity that is the best candidate at leadership. This may be a tad complicated to sell here, so instead, I’ll go the easy route and use the current ‘leader’ as an example - the World Health Organization (WHO).

Once the lead organization is selected, all communication channels must be temporarily updated to reflect this. All channels must have the leader (in this case, the WHO) as the central main entity or hub. All 5 Roles in our World’s Organizational Structure have communication channels that need to communicate the same information to prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation. Here’s a suggestion on how to do this for each of the roles:

The Role of Information

News media would be asked to have a temporary link on their main Internet page that links up to ongoing updates coming from the WHO (or the organization put in charge if it is decided that the WHO is not the organization that should be put in charge). This link would remain on the main page for the duration of the crisis. As a reminder, this is an opt-in system. If an outlet decides they don’t want to participate, this is also their prerogative.

All universities, polytechnics, and schools would also be asked to do the same on their webpages.

All social media outlets would also be asked to do the same. For the record, this is merely a ‘stickied’ type post (or something similar) that can be found on the main page that lasts for the duration of the crisis. That’s all that’s being asked. No censorship is required or even recommended. But the ‘stickied’ post helps stem the flow of known bad info on the crisis (and leaving the channels open to discussion ensures that censorship is not occurring - it is more transparent this way).

While it is unlikely to have 100% adoption of every organization that is asked to do this, if enough choose to do it, it is adequate to resolve the compromised communication channels. The disruption that occurs to these organization’s day-to-day activities is non-existent otherwise. Nothing else at this time is being asked, and if the problem is well-managed, it is unlikely more will be asked of most of them.

The Role of Government

The United Nations will be asked to do the same - something they are already doing for the most part. Different than what is currently being done, this link will direct the audience (individuals all around the globe) to very simplified, streamlined information that is intelligently conveyed. I won’t elaborate too much here, but I will provide an example of ineffective communication to show how not to do this:

For instance, if I go to my own country’s official website to locate info on the Coronavirus Crisis, I can find info on the ‘leader’ of this crisis. Since the page may change in the future, and my example may one day be removed from the site, I’ll post screenshots (You can expand the picture size by clicking on it):

Here’s the main page:

If I click on the link (identified in red), it takes me to a page that has the following drop-down selections:

-Travel Advice
-Being Prepared
-Symptoms and Treatment
-Prevention and Risk
-Canada’s Response

If I click on ‘Being Prepared’ and scroll all the way to the bottom of the page, here’s what I find:

First, it does appear that the Government of Canada acknowledges that the global (Type 1) organization that should be in charge of the crisis is indeed the WHO, but acknowledging it in this haphazard manner makes it unclear who the organization in charge is. Second, if you click on the included PDF, here’s what you’ll see:

If I am a small or medium sized business owner (said to comprise 98% of businesses in Canada (CBC News, 2011) ) and I am vigiliantly seeking information, if I go to my country’s official website, I am, eventually, sent to the WHO, who then directs me back to my country. The harder the information is to retrieve, the more likely it becomes the information obtained is incorrect or incomplete. As well, the more difficult the information is to retrieve, the higher the likelihood that an individual gives up looking for it.

I am suggesting that it is not hard to find examples of unclear leadership and ineffective communication. (Once again, I would like to remind you that there is a known problem about misinformation and disinformation on the Coronavirus Crisis - see Part 1 of this article).

To clarify, while some may consider this example to be a minor communication problem, my claim is that this type of unclear global leadership and ineffective communication is rampant throughout our world. All of these small, incremental mistakes in communication add up and compound one another to create massive communication issues you see on the current management of the crisis.

I’m not trying to pick on my own government. There are far worse examples I could identify in the world. Some nations have no official government page, and others that do have an official page are not posting anything regarding coronavirus.

Every country that has an official webpage will also be asked to do the same on their website - one is a link that goes to the central organization’s info (in this scenario- the WHO), the other pertains to info specific to that nation (every nation has to manage different challenges). Every city, state, province, etc, that has an official page will also be asked to the same.

Once again, it’s not necessary to have 100% every nation on board (ideally, they would all choose cooperate), but once again, this is an opt-in system. 100% adoption is not necessary to address the majority of the miscommunication and discommunication present. My suggestions will already dramatically yield improvements if they are chosen to be implemented by enough parties.

It is strongly recommended that every nation have an official online presence. What they choose to post on their site is their prerogative. The only thing I am advising (consulting) is the implementation of a temporary link back to the international organization in charge of the crisis. If any nation wants to send their own representative to the organization in charge to oversee what is occurring (for the sake of transparency), this should be encouraged. However, it must be made clear that this is simply to observe. As well, it is likely this nation will already have a presence in this international organization. This is a global crisis and therefore requires input from any and all all nations that choose to participate in Type 1 management of the crisis.

I am assuming there are people and organizations who will entertain the idea of attempting a different strategy than what is being used at present. As I have often repeated, while there are no perfect solutions, there are certainly better solutions. 

The Role of Business

Any business that has a website is also encouraged to link back to the organizations in charge in the same manner as already indicated. As a reminder, this is an opt-in system. For a terrific example of an organization already doing so, check out the references section. If the crisis is still presently ongoing, then simply check out the website (They don't currently clarify Leadership, but then they represent an organization in the Role of business, so I wouldn't expect them to at this time).

The Role of Religion

Any organized religion that has an online presence is encouraged to do the same by having the same link to the centralized information. As an example the Vatican has a news site and they already cover the story of the Coronavirus Crisis. Here’s one such article:

The Role of Individuals

Any popular online individuals (influencers) and organizations would be asked to do the same - link back to the organization in charge of managing (leading) the crisis. This Type 1 Communication Strategy ensures one single fact-checked source of information that has been verified by collective fields of experts.

Once again, 100% participation should not be expected. Our world is rarely a source of ideals, but 100% participation is not necessary. If major players in all five Roles are communicating the same message, it repairs much of the communication breakdown occurring.

Ensuring Transparency

For this reason, the organization in charge needs to be clear and effective in everything they say and do. A team of Crisis Managers, Crisis Communicators, and Epidemiologists will be brought on to consult on how best to communicate and manage this problem. These will be invited from enough nations to decrease the likelihood of appearing like the organization is not adhering to global neutrality. See Game Theory: 

Article 6 - Game Theory

Public Feedback and Input

A system needs to be in place that allows for feedback and input from the general public. I do have a strategy on how to do this, but explaining it here is also very time consuming, so I will elaborate on it at a later date. But encouragement of public input is important to ensure there exists mutual trust.

The management of the crisis must consider factors directly and indirectly related to the various disruptions that may occur. These include disruptions to school, healthcare, supply chains, transportation, energy generation, businesses, and others. Although, if you do your own research, you’ll likely notice that this is being done to some degree, there is no strategy or consistency to this whatsoever. The best course of action is to defer to the collective expertise of entire fields and effectively communicate the best strategies to the general public. Once again, I will have to elaborate on this at a later date, but if you watch the mini-series, Chernobyl, I referenced earlier, you’ll notice expert input is initially (and continually) dismissed. As my books demonstrate, this is a global problem that all of us are susceptible to, so I’m not trying to focus on the management of the Chernobyl Crisis.

Global Cooperation

If you believe that organizations will not cooperate and participate in the plan I have included, then I defer you to part 4 of the book, Uncage Human Ingenuity - Global Cooperation, for my arguments on why many organizations would likely choose to cooperate and address this global concern. After all, they all stand to lose a fair bit - our systems are very interconnected. Here’s an article from Harvard Business Review outlining what to expect on global supply chains:

The Similarities of the Crises - (More 'Tremors' on the Way)

It’s possible that the Coronavirus Crisis will still be contained (although, it is really starting to look less and less likely), and it breaks my heart that these strategies, that I claim already exist, could be mitigating the impacts of the coronavirus outbreak.

And what I want you to remember is that this type of global problem (not just epidemics, but other problems that I have outlined on my books) will only increase in severity and frequency until one day our global systems can no longer absorb the impacts a particular crisis and it causes a chain reaction that creates a catastrophic failure throughout our global civilization.

Back in Episode 3, I mentioned that I can never tell you WHEN this will occur, but I can tell you, with a great deal of certainty, that it WILL happen. The piss-poor global management of this Coronavirus Crisis is further evidence of this. I hope I will one day locate an audience willing to hire me for my Type 1 Global Consulting services.

My ‘Global Crisis Message’ (A Type 1 Unfreeze-Chain Letter) began over a year ago. Even though coronavirus is currently at the forefront of our communication systems, I can assure you that there are worse problems coming down the pipeline. I also claim to be able to address them all.

So the question I have is: 
Have I provided adequate evidence to sell you on my services? 
Everything I have produced (books, articles, videos, podcast, etc.) are sales brochures that outline what the information in my books can do. It’s all there for free.

This is your world and your decision. All of the material I have currently produced is free. The only thing I am currently charging for is my consulting services. The fee is the same as I have mentioned before. 1 penny for each individual on the globe that I have carried on my conscience for the last few years. That is lowest currency that can be attached to a human life, and it is far less money than what some are trying to throw at these types of problems (Samuel, S., 2020).

My solutions are realistic, timely, and often profitable. They are often based on opt-in systems.

If my consulting services were requested today on the Coronavirus Crisis, while I don’t claim to now be able to effectively manage the entire crisis this far in (since we are currently globally in reactive territory, not proactive territory), I’d still be able to repair the communication systems, clarify leadership, and possibly create a blueprint copy (See: Part 8 of Uncage Human Ingenuity) of the best strategies currently being utilized to manage the crisis in time to reap the blueprint’s benefits. This blueprint copy would then be available for any nation or region that would want to implement it (again, it’s an opt-in system). These types of plans would still require Bottom-Up (See Episode 26 and the upcoming book, The Paradox of Civilizations) input to account for different factors and challenges that pose every single nation, region, and culture.

I could also create an effective strategy to overcome problems such as these:

Some airlines need to run ‘ghost flights’ that have no passengers on them. Not only does this carry an economic impact (in lost revenue for all stakeholders in the airlines), it also carries an environmental impact that adds to a separate problem - the ongoing Sustainability Crisis. I have Bottom-Up strategies that can help address the complexities of problems such as this. Again, this will have to be explored at a later date.

I’d imagine that there is even adequate material already present in all of my books for an incentivized individual to laterally apply the info I have presented on addressing the Sustainability Crisis to the Coronavirus Crisis.

What exactly do you think this article is? It’s a lateral shift on strategies for one crisis (sustainability) applied to another crisis (coronavirus).

The Sustainability Crisis is, in actuality, currently at the same level of urgency as the Coronavirus Crisis. Immediate global change is necessary to prevent the catastrophic failure - the collapse of modern global civilization. The change needs to start soon (ideally, it would have started in August, 2019, when I initially launched these ideas) or the success rate of these strategies drops considerably.

If what I present in these articles, books, podcasts, and videos makes any sort of sense to you, then I urge you to help these ideas spread so that together, we can prevent the collapse of our civilization and the possible extinction of our species.

I am not trying to be an alarmist, or needlessly promote fear. I am trying to generate action and change. This Coronavirus Crisis is merely a symptom of a greater problem. The strategies present in my books will address the underlying problem, but I first need to correct our compromised communication systems.

But I require YOUR help to do this.

These ideas and this change cannot work unless you ‘buy’ into the strategies and I have your informed consent. If I have your informed consent, then all I ask of you is to help spread these ideas on social media, news media, and other networks you belong to both online and offline. This is all you need to do. The change will immediately follow. I assure you.

Are your associative barriers low enough?

Are you buying what I’m selling?

More Chernobyl Quotes

“To be a scientist is to be naive. We are so focused on our search for truth, we fail to consider how few actually want us to find it.

But it is always there, whether we see it or not, whether we choose to or not.
The truth doesn’t care about our needs or wants.

It doesn’t care about our governments, our idealogies, our religions.

It will lie in wait for all time.”

-From the end of the mini-series, ‘Chernobyl’

The question is: Are you buying the truth in all my work?




If you would like to learn more about crisis communications, then I highly recommend the book:

“Crisis Communciations: The Definitive Guide to Managing the Message” by Steven Fink. Here’s the author’s website:

(I haven’t yet had a chance to read Fink’s Crisis Management book, but if his book on communications is any indication, I’d imagine you would be able to spot even more problems on the global handling of this coronavirus crisis, based on Fink’s expert advice).

As well, I have mentioned the Management Consulting company, McKinsey & Company, before. If you want a good example of an organization (as part of the Role of Business) effectively communicating this crisis, then I highly suggest checking out their website ( Here’s their report on the current crisis:

For starters, by having one post that gets updated (instead of new posts being frequently posted), it eliminates the problem that many older posts stick around online much longer (See my upcoming article on Social Media Amplification).

As well, you’ll notice how McKinsey explores all scenarios (best, worst, and somewhere in the middle).
The post length would be too long for the general public, but the information provided is useful for businesses who have a greater incentive to perform additional research to minimize the impacts the crisis has on their business. I'd also encourage you to check out this short article written by Bill Gates:

Gates, B., (2015). Gates Notes. We're not ready for the next epidemic.

Barry, C., Leicester, J., & Winfield, N., (2020). CTV News. COVID-19 is a pandemic: World Health Organization.

Bever, L., (2019). The Washington Post. The Doomsday Clock is stuck at 2 minutes to ‘midnight,’ the symbolic hour of the apocalypse.

(And I just realized I didn’t include this reference in Renegades of Disruption. It was included in Uncage Human Ingenuity. This questionably literate mechanic desperately needs the assistance of an editor, and maybe someone with a better idea on how to sell these batshit insane claims in my work).

CBC News. (2011). CBC News. 10 surprising stats about small business in Canada. Editors. (2019). History. Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapses.

The Holy See Press Office. (2020). Vatican News. Coronavirus: Vatican Dicasteries to remain open.

Piper, K., (2020). Vox. Taiwan has millions of visitors from China and only 45 coronavirus cases. Here’s how.

Robitzski, D., (2020). Futurism. In the coronavirus, historians see echoes of past pandemics.
Samuel, S., (2020). Vox. Donating $10 Billion isn’t the best way for Jeff Bezos to fight climate change.

Simchi-Levi, D., & Haren, P., (2020). Harvard Business Review. How coronavirus could impact the global supply chain by mid-March.

Sternberg, S., (2020). U.S. News. What the U.S. can learn from Taiwan’s response to coronavirus.

Wendorf, M., (2019). Interesting Engineering. How accurate is the “Chernobyl” mini series?

Solving the Global Communication Crisis

Prior to reading: The following article references material included in other books. Check out for a list of all books. It may be...