5/2024 Through 6/2025

5/1/2024

I came to Cincinnati because a customer’s daughter had a decent amount of landscaping to be done and wanted me to provide an estimate. I went to the estimate and the work was fairly substantial. Most of it is the disbursement of 13 yards of mulch to areas in all reaches of the property . Additional tasks included pulling weeds front and back, there’s a bush that needs to be dug up, there’s brush in the areas where mulch needs to be spread, and preen needs to be applied to all the areas before mulch. I quoted her 650. I think it’s a fair price, and probably lower than anyone else would do it for.

I was also very upfront and candid about things and this may have cost me the job. At one point she said something to the effect that she wasn’t trying to bring up anything later. I mentioned somewhat jokingly but in reference to actual experience that her dad was good for that. I don’t know if she was offended, or felt like I was talking shit, but it could impact her decision. I made the comment since we were on the subject, and I felt like that was kind of a funny but defining characteristic of my professional relationship with him. It seemed like he was always pushing for a little bit more and I already felt like I under bid all the jobs.

She also wanted the bushes trimmed. It seems easy enough but I haven’t done it before, so I don’t want to pretend to be capable, and end up making her yard look ridiculous because of some bush trimming technique I need to know. This was probably why I didn’t or will not get the job. I told her I haven’t cut bushes before and I didn’t want to potentially mess up her bushes. She seems like she has enough money to find someone to do the whole job including the bushes.

Just to make sure I don’t get the job, I told her she needs to provide the scoop shovel and wheelbarrow. 😂. I told her I would bring the scoop shovel and wheelbarrow but if I did I was going to mark it up and charge her for it. If I have to rearrange my car to put a wheelbarrow in it that’s not something I want to do. I’m going to charge for that because it’s something I don’t want to do. If I buy a wheelbarrow and have to bring it there I’m going to charge you $50 and hope that $50 is worth more to you than buying a wheelbarrow, and you’ll just buy the wheelbarrow. Otherwise, for $50, I guess I’ll pick it up. 😂

I couldn’t have possibly put more work on her if I tried. But I was just being honest. Spreading a lot of mulch is rough work. On the mulch I actually charged her less than her dad or her husband’s dad because he had 8 yards and I charged him $300. She has 13 and I offered $450 to spread the mulch. Charged 1.5x for more than 1.5x the work.

She may be trying to do the bushes or have someone do the bushes first or may be getting other estimates. She initially seemed eager to get started, she mentioned as early as next week. I told her my earliest availability was Tuesday. I sent her the quote this morning about 10 and haven’t heard back from her. I shouldn’t really be surprised, I basically said if you want me to do the work here are my demands, as opposed to here’s what I can do to get this done for you.

Hopefully I don’t regret missing this money. I’m on Airtaskers looking for somewhere to go. Also tweaked my back leg pressing. Trying to get a deep stretch on my quads. Probably should have had back rest in the upright position. This makes everything worse now.

I finished rereading The Florida Ordeal. There wasn’t much that required editing. Outside of that I haven’t done anything, and I have things I need to be doing. Feel not good as a result . A lot of this was driving to do the trampoline in TX. Then not finding anything in TX and wanting to get out of TX. My free time was occupied with the exchange on heredity that seemed intent on wasting my time or getting enough information out of me to steal my thesis that inherited values are more determinative of inherited intelligence than any innate aptitude towards intelligence. I explained this in the previous entry. It’s a huge contest that has implications for so many other things.

I want to get this next sollicitation out to see if I can sell some books and make some money because creating the heritability paper may take some time. I can probably write it in a day or two but it relies on establishing basic facts of ASC that begin with perception. The problem is I don’t sleep well in OH because the rest areas are so near to the road. I don’t feel good because I saved up money to have time to work on this shit and a lot of that money went to fuel in pursuit of other jobs and time has gone to driving and this exchange. I don’t want to be in Ohio only coming here because I thought I could set up work for next week to make $400 to $600 which would carry me forward. I’m just extremely uncomfortable, pain in back, I have about $500, fucked up the job, tired, and just the general dissatisfaction I have with the area I’m in based on past experience. Frustrating because I was in Oklahoma and was going to head west to NM and probably up to Denver, working on material as I went and then looking for work as my money got low in Denver. Instead I received the text from the customer’s daughter and decided to drive here thinking I could provide the estimate, have work for next week, and then have 4 to 5 stress free days to get this done. I felt so good before yesterday, and now my mood and motivation is 180 degrees the opposite.

—

Back is about 70 percent better after a day so that’s not a big deal. Although I haven’t felt 100 percent in the lower left portion of my back since I deadlifted the 365 for 4 reps. That’s not much for my weight as DLs go, but it was heavier than I lifted previously. Before I only went to 335 that I could get 4 to 6. It was also a 50lb jump in weight as my previous set was 315 that I probably did 10x. I was very sore after that, and some discomfort that hasn’t completely went away since that lift. I’ve been doing less weight for more reps not going past 315 until everything feels better. I began working out for the mood enhancement properties that have probably been essential to my survival over the last year and a half, but in doing so, I’ve become interested in progress.

As I was writing this I had a thought about beginning a new article on ASC, mainly that the conscious experience begins with perception, impressions consisting of objects and the assignments made based on the experience and in consideration of previous assignments and previous points of attention. Then objects are organized by the subconscious according to those assignments (cause and effect potential of objects and value) to create objectives that will produce positive feelings. That led to me working on a new ASC article over the last two days that flowed and transformed how I felt. But this boost in mood is short lived because no matter how precise I am in what I’m describing, I don’t know if it will be understood. I may see if I can teach the person I’m having the heritability discussion with to see what barriers exist to understanding the concepts and the implications.

I found an AT job for tomorrow, but I’m still waiting for the address. I may have another job the following day.

I need to prioritize this solicitation and what’s required to send it. I may fast track those requirements since if the solicitation is not successful then those tasks do not need to be prioritized.

I’ve been sitting on some version of this entry for the last few days and oddly didn’t cover the topic I originally intended to discuss. It’s been discussed in other places just had a new point of application that seems less worth investing time in now than it did then. I haven’t posted this because of the quality of the content in the second half of the previous entry, and didn’t want to cover that up.

—

I didn’t post this. I guess I didn’t write in the last paragraph that I was but I intended to and then didn’t. I did an AT job today, it was only $125 after fees but it’s something instead of nothing. The person I did an estimate for said they were going to go with me for the job. She hasn’t scheduled the mulch delivery so I don’t know how solid that is. I don’t plan on waiting around for that if I can find something. That’ll be $650 if it goes through but it is a lot of mulch to spread. It’s hard to imagine that much mulch.

I fucked up the bolts on the basketball hoop assembly today. I thought the bolts and threads were strong enough to pull the rim to the backboard. I was wrong. I had to go to the hardware store and match the bolts. I only mention this because it’s the second occurrence of being slow to understand something. There was a fitness video that I interpreted wrong. Someone commented that I missed the point. I rewatched the video and I did miss the point. I was able to provide an explanation of why I missed the point, based on what was said and what it implied, but what was implied isn’t really implied in consideration of the other elements of the video. It was a minute long clip. The rim was worse because the way I was trying to do it was much more difficult than doing it the right way. If I flip the backboard and rim over it sits where I need it to be. It was comically stupid how I was trying to do it, initially pushing up on the base of the rim while holding the wrench on the nut with one hand, while using my other hand to turn the bolt with my impact.

I think about the causes of these poor organizations. Sleep, marijuana use, bias (watches video remembered rim in that position but not the other), or a lack of attention? Maybe different combinations in different situations. Although I initially thought that piece that only stays in from that direction, a u shaped bolt and metal bracket, had to be in place when I attached the rim. By the time I considered otherwise I already fucked up the bolts.

The other one was a video that begins with an analogy that if you have enough food to feed 20 orphans, you’re not going to have more food for the orphans by adding 10 more orphans. The parallel being that you have a finite ability to adapt and recover from training, adding more training especially more muscle groups, is going to reduce your overall ability to recover and get gains. Essentially, if you’re training at the maximum capacity of your ability to recover, training more muscle groups intensely is going to decrease the gains from your prioritized muscles. Then he says after saying if you don’t train calves and forearms you can train your calves and forearms at maintenance to boost your recovery in other areas. What he meant at the end is if you don’t want to lose muscle while prioritizing recovery for other muscle groups, you can train those muscles at maintenance and still increase recovery and growth of prioritized muscles.

My initial interpretation was by training muscles you don’t train at maintenance, you increase your overall systemic recovery. This error comes from a bias of conclusion, that could be influenced by a bias for that conclusion. In that I interpreted the end as an answer to the problem of the limit on systemic recovery, it seemed like he was solving the problem by increasing overall recovery ability, by training muscles that you don’t train at maintenance, and then inferring the effect that training a new muscle increases overall recovery, because he said training at maintenance you’ll increase your recovery for prioritized muscles. Prior to that he said if you don’t train your forearms and calves, but that was separate from train at maintenance, one was in reference if you don’t train them you’ll recover other muscles, and the train at maintenance was if you don’t want to stop training a muscle altogether and risk losing muscle to help the recovery and growth of prioritized muscles.

This began as a concern. My initial suspicion was a lack of sleep. I obviously don’t usually sleep particularly well, but the last week and while I was working the Veryable job in MO over the past month my sleep has been poorer than usual, in quality and duration. Although last night was an exception at least in quality. Takes a certain depth of sleep to wake up with your dick hard. You at least know you got some REM. The suspicion, or just maybe my overall exhaustion, led to understanding those errors. Interestingly, in my analysis I began incorrectly, initially thinking the specific cause of the misinterpretation was concluding the first idea, and not applying the context to the second idea. Essentially not assigning cause as an extension of the previous sequence. As I began writing that I remembered feeling glad and upset that I didn’t train my forearms and calves because now I would have to train forearms and calves to increase my overall systemic recovery. I initially commented Goddamnit, now I have to start training calves and forearms. I remembered the feelings, and recognized a presence of bias, in wanting the video to be something that would have utility to my ambiguous fitness goals. More importantly, I remember that the first and second idea fit together based on limited systemic recovery, and seeing the video, possibly influenced by what I wanted the video to be, as being the solution to increasing the body’s overall ability to recover.

Why did I think the wrong thing when I was trying to understand specifically why I misinterpreted the video? I begin with what happened, the sequences, and in doing so I’m organizing these objects and sequences in an effort to understand the incorrect organization. In doing so I recognized a plausible explanation based on the nature of the misinterpretation. When I did, I remembered my thoughts and feelings at the time, because the new sequence created to explain the misinterpretation contradicted previously known sequences pertaining to the event.

The objective to examine the events comes from the need to resolve uncertainty. That is a question of ASC, in how much of organization is motivated by desire to reduce uncertainty, and how much if any is related to the creation of consistency? The question is whether there is a general objective of the mind to create consistency, or if efforts to arrive at consistency and reconcile contradiction is a byproduct of reducing uncertainty. Like I’ve written before, I prefer the latter as the explanation because uncertainty is responsible for most fear, which means the resolution of uncertainty through objectives intent on producing consistency can be thought of as in line with the general motivation of the subconscious mind to create objectives intent on producing positive feelings. Otherwise, there’s a natural value in creating consistency to enable people to have an accurate understanding of their environment to better accomplish their objectives. I prefer the idea that the objective to resolve contradiction in the organization of objects is to reduce uncertainty, but I lean towards it being a natural value or mechanism to organize objects.

This largely insignificant controversy arose in the analysis of doubt suppression. A doubt arises because the subconscious mind identifies contradiction or inconsistency that it is trying to resolve, but then in the question that represents the doubt a person experiences a negative feeling due to the impact the doubt has on their value structure. To avoid the negative feeling and the threat to their value structure they turn their attention from the question, possibly using a previously used but inadequate justification to suppress the doubt. The question becomes why does the subconscious produce the doubt or question, only to suppress the doubt or question when the question enters conscious awareness. It’s either an objective created that has inherent value in the creation of consistency or reduction of uncertainty versus the value of the objects that consistency has consequences for, or it’s separate in the natural propensity to organize objects and when the objective is created the values it has consequences for are compared to the perceived benefit of consistency and the objective to produce consistency is suppressed by the objective to preserve value.

This was definitely motivated by the need to resolve uncertainty because these things stood out to me, and have some subtly negative feelings attached to them, in not knowing why I’ve been fucking up lately, thinking man I been fucking up lately. As far as the fuck ups themselves it’s not a big deal to me. I know what I know profoundly, these small follys have no bearing on that.

Interesting in the heritability argument, he says how do we know that my IQ has increased over the last decade? First I think it’s irrelevant because IQ is only measuring a person’s knowledge of how objects can be sequenced. What motion you’re able to perceive to a certain extent. For example, if you know how to add, quantity is symbolized by numbers, to symbolize is to create a cause and effect relationship; 2 represent 2 because that is the symbol that represents that quantity. Numbers are objects and the effects of putting numbers together is the production of other numbers that represent the total quantity. If IQ is testing for the ability to add, this represents familiarity with objects and the effects these objects can produce. Whatever else IQ tests test for is nothing more than the objects an individual is aware of, and the different effects or motion these objects can produce. The main implication of conscious recognition of ASC is that all knowledge reduces to the identification of objects organized in cause and effect sequencing, which means intelligence cannot be more than identification of objects and cause and effect arrangements. This is all that can occur because we exist in a reality that consists of objects in motion within space and time. Nothing else can be perceived as taking place. Human intelligence is a product of the capacity for language, which allows objects to be defined and sequenced, and anything innate pertaining to different levels of intelligence is based on values, directing attention and perceiving utility in information to accomplish valued objectives.

What’s interesting about his statement is that I think I took an IQ test a long time ago. It was through CL, offering some compensation and administered at Froedtert hospital. Significant if it occurred before 2011, still significant if it occurred 2012 to 2014, but less so for a few different reasons. It was probably around 2011 when a change in interest produced the consumption of information that led to the collapse of perspective and values. Our perspectives are based on a lot of beliefs and presumptions that we’re often not aware of. Everything else is stacked on these ideas so to speak, or everything is perceived and ordered based on these broad ideas being true. When a person discovers they’re not true, everything else collapses. A sea of objects with questionable assignments. Maybe 2012 to 2015 was spent putting things back together again. This represented a time of learning myself in and out of different things. After this period is represented more by occasional replacement, discovering something is wrong and correcting it, with occasions growing further and further apart as the years go on.

2011 could be significant because it may represent a time of general ignorance. Post 2011 would represent the birth of my intelligence and I’m not sure what kind of impact that could have on an IQ test score. If the score was low and I test now and it’s high, it would be evidence of changing values leading to increase in intelligence. If it has decreased then it shows the futility of IQ tests, since what I know or understand today is exponentially greater than in 2011 or post 2011 to 2014. If my IQ is low overall, that would speak to the widespread effectiveness of ASC, in the sense that if you can understand everything, it doesn’t matter what your IQ is, and IQ is a measure of experience in exposure to objects and organization, not a measure of capacity or ability. My IQ could be pretty average, there are a lot of things I don’t know or study because it has no utility to my objectives. Physics or chemistry is important and the study helps advance human interests, but me understanding the nature of atoms has no practical application to my objectives. There’s things like that, where the study of those subjects would probably expose me to concepts that would apply to IQ exercises, but I don’t know them because they have no perceived utility to my objectives. .

I was just thinking about the comment, and the implications of comparative IQ scores and a low or high IQ score. To me it doesn’t matter, but I do recognize how various outcomes can impact my interests and arguments. Basically, if anyone understood this and it was relevant, an IQ test compared to the previous test a decade or more ago can help or not matter. Of course the benefit from an improvement would have to be fairly substantial to account for natural increases typically observed in aging from roughly age 30 to 40. By that I mean a 5 to 10 point increase is probably an increase that occurs through age, so I would need to exceed the average age increase for it to be meaningful.

I have a few additions to Racial Perceptions. RP was a short book addressing misconceptions pertaining to racial disadvantages. There was an incident of excessive force in policing that is a little over a year ago that presents an interesting element pertaining to the use of force, and recently I developed a theory of cultural differences that may lead one group to disproportionately engage in crime and violence over another. I’m going to work on that today, since rereading my books is a prerequisite to creating the upcoming sollicitation. I have to review COVID 19 media project, Racial Perceptions, Understanding Political Function, and ASC. ASC I may just add a new intro, update moral function as a standard and standards as comparison of value, and leave the rest which although primitive is not incorrect as a chronicling of previous explanations, and the opportunity to create reference and understanding through those explanations. I’ve taken down The Survival. At some point I may revise the script.

I have so much to do and I’m exhausted.

5/11/24

I finished reading through Racial Perceptions, Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History, and Covid 19 Media Report. Minimal expansion and contraction.

In UPFTRPH I had to extend a chapter in the book I was tempted to remove pertaining to the lesser of two evils. My position is you have two parties who serve the interests of their donors, with one justifying its existence by claiming there are problems that are not problems and trying to implement changes to address these manufactured problems that directly harm the public to give themselves credibility. When these pretextual problems are addressed they’re addressed by rewarding their donors marketed as legislation that serves a popular interest. In the meantime there are problems that need to be addressed and the other party is selling a story that the nation was founded on intents so pure they were implanted by their deity, and everyone is where they are because of how hard they work and how smart they are. This is of course a very broad generalization, but it’s generally true. In light of democrats legitimizing themselves to the radical elements they’ve absorbed over the last decade through the policies and rhetoric implemented, I had to acknowledge that on the municipal and state level there are quality of life differences between democrats and republicans. Even to say that one party is less harmful than the other is to many, to claim association with the other party. I’m not doing that, I’m saying you have a choice between one party that will hurt you and one party that won’t help you, and both serve the interests of their donors. If you believe anything they say, including the analysis and opinion of the business party pundits, your perception of the world is too distorted to truly understand anything I’m talking about. You cannot both understand political function, and not recognize that elected representatives are putting on a show. You cannot become a politician without first being selected by money.

I don’t vote because I cannot support either party, and what minimals difference it actually has if negative, then the worse things get perhaps the more people become are inclined to abandon their false beliefs and become concerned with improvement, instead of bias reinforcement. Carlin brilliantly pointed out that if I didn’t vote for it, I have every right to complain and you have no right because you voted for it. I prefer not to participate because I don’t want to legitimize the differences, because they’re small, and for the most part they don’t concern the public. The real difference is for industry, which industries interests will be prioritized in public policy. This depends on how these industries split their money between the parties, and then which party is elected. Then politicians keep your mind focused on Trump trials, Hillary’s emails, Hunter’s drug habit or laptop, the funny mistake that the sitting senile puppet made, or any number of things that have no impact on your interests. They’ll sell you a problem that isn’t a problem and solve that problem through programs that enrich their industrial donors. Or they’ll address a manufactured issue and create problems to legitimize themselves. Everything that happens is viewed through a lens of how they can position themselves to it, to improve their image before the public. Meanwhile 6 trillion dollars is being spent, and the public watches a show made real through their biases, and rarely pertaining to their actual interests.

I also added a paragraph updating the chapter climate change 101 about the study that shows the last time there was this much of a natural methane increase observed there was a glacial termination event. Growing methane emissions from expanding wetlands, due to the changing of rainfall patterns, caused by a warmer climate, and the increase in methane is succeeded by a rapid increase in the global average temperature. Other than that there was a word here or there that I wanted to change for precision or fluidity. I still need to upload the updated version to the website, when I do I may change the layout. I may also take out the lesser of two evils chapter. It’s very general. It’s after the chapter on campaign contributions based on Ferguson’s papers. It’s kind of intent on what’s the difference between the parties after the chapter that shows the parties are the same, in respect to the amount of money they have to raise to be competitive, who that money has to be raised from, and how those interests must be served to raise enough money to stay in office. The lesser of two evils chapter kind of expresses some general distinctions.

The issue is I feel like the material begins difficult and becomes easier as the book proceeds. I’ll do that either tonight or tomorrow, reread the lesser of two evils and decide whether or not to change the layout.

C19MR as I read through it could have included more examples, but the examples included represent different genres of risk exaggeration where additional examples represent just different stories implying the same things. There were a few points I expanded on and after reading through added to the conclusion summarizing the points made. Examples aside, the point of the book was to show that Covid didn’t qualify as a threat to public safety because it posed no risk of death to 98.94% of the population, and those who would die are the very sick and very elderly who would probably have been among the 1.75 million people who die of natural causes in a years time if not for Covid. It didn’t qualify as a threat to public safety because it wasn’t randomly deadly, and that was a universal feature in the exaggeration of the danger. It was implied that it was randomly deadly through the maintenance of ambiguity about who was dying. The secondary point is that hysteria was produced through the exaggeration of the danger, represented in the examples. In the conclusion I added a portion showing that with a 100 percent infection rate 98.94 percent of the population would have survived based on the year and a half of data dated to 9/21 collected by the CDC. This was calculated by using the mortality rate of healthy people by age group and counting the total based on population by age group. The number of people who have serious underlying conditions, hospitalization rate, and death rate of those hospitalized and counting the total. 3.5 million people could have died but for the rest of the population sickness and recovery.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts is the precedent for using police powers and the SCOTUS ruled that the community has a right to protect itself against an infectious disease that threatens the safety of its members. That was small pox, with a 30 percent mortality rate and anyone infected could die or become blind. It’s not important that the mortality rate was as high as 30 percent, what was important was that it could kill anyone, so the risk applies to 100 percent of people representing the public. Whereas COVID, could kill maybe 10 percent of people and would kill no more than 1.06 percent with a 100 percent rate of infection. The public has to be represented by greater than 1 percent within a given area for something to be considered a danger to public safety.

I’m dreading this job. The woman for the mulch job has procured the mulch and I’m going to begin the job tomorrow. Hopefully finish by Tuesday night. It may be easier than her father’s job because I should be able to dump wheel barrels. On her father’s job I had to shovel it in and mostly shovel it out because it had to be thrown beneath trees. He also had a plastic wheelbarrow that was cracked in the front so I couldn’t dump it until it was nearly empty. I presume she bought a traditional wheelbarrow for the job which will allow me to load and dump. I will say the plastic wheel barrow was very easy to move. I didn’t really get sore after moving 7 yards with it. She says she has 13, but it doesn’t seem like she has that much more area. I feel like I’m going to end up putting like 6 inches down.

I still have assignments sequencing and comparison to edit. This isn’t going to just be a read through because there have been developments. I may just make it private, and create and send the sollicitation to see if the targeted audience is receptive to the pitch to buy books to advance their professional interest. I finish this job and probably get a hotel somewhere for a week near a planet fitness. Then I’ll edit ASC, and maybe try to write a paper introducing ASC and showing how IQ heredity conclusions are undermined by how genetic value dispositions direct attention and contentment, what people tend to like and what they tend to do, and these things have more to do with the genetic observations on IQ than does any innate advantage in IQ. There’s a more thorough explanation I believe in the entry before the last, but if we imagine a person who likes carpentry, becomes a carpenter, has a wife and children, belief in a deity, and is generally happy with his life, for him to obtain the things that make him happy is only going to require a certain level of IQ development. A genetic line that is predisposed to liking certain things is going to develop similar IQs based on the things they like and what level of IQ is required in obtaining them. Especially in twin studies which is the foundation of IQ heredity research, because there’s no way to separate how values shape the development of IQ, and how much is some natural propensity to develop the processes tested for in IQ.

The implications being that IQ potential isn’t genetically limited. As in people are not genetically limited in the development of intelligence. ASC is necessary because it shows why this is. Nothing consists of more than the identification of objects and the organization of objects in cause and effect sequencing. That’s all our reality consists of is objects in motion within space and time, and the feelings motion produces within conscious beings. Everything you know, every equation, every event, and literally everything is objects arranged in cause and effect sequencing. If there are genetic limitations on intelligence it has to do with the ability to sequence, which perhaps can be improved. I also recognize that the greatest general limitations on human intelligence comes from self deception in the maintaining of their value structure.

5/15/2024

The job fell through, so now there’s no hotel, just sollicitation. Arrived at the job and the customer wasn’t there. This was an issue because although I remembered the general scope of the job I wanted to walk through to get clarification on a few things. Instead I had to text her each question and she wasn’t responding towards the end. The second reason her not being there was a problem was because she didn’t leave the bags out which was the first thing I needed to begin the weeding. Neither of these things was a big deal except in how it impacted my mood and my perception of the customer.

Visually 13 yards of mulch was much more than I expected. I began the weeding and did not remember so many of the tree-like weeds that were there. Each of these takes significantly more effort than other weeds and much more time. When we walked through I didn’t think those plants were weeds which is why I itemized the weed removal at such a low cost. That low cost itemization played a role in leaving the job in itself because as the energy was being spent and the time was passing I thought about how little I was making for the time and effort on that item. After about 3 hours of weeding and completing about 40 percent of the weeding, I had to reevaluate the job.

I underbid the weeding either because she didn’t mention, or I didn’t understand that the tree like plants were weeds designated for removal. I did try to contextualize it. Overall I bid 650 for the job, 100 for weeding, 50 for the application of preen, and 50 for removal of other debris in the mulch area and digging out a metal wire from what was probably a structure used to support some plant at some point. If I had 8 to 10 hours for these tasks make $200 on the day although typically not worth the effort, it was acceptable.

I expected to complete the weeding and applying the preen in about 2 to 4 hours and begin spreading the mulch, having in the neighborhood of 8 to 10 hours to spread mulch on day 1. Day 2 would be about 12 hours and should bring me pretty close to being done. Estimated about 20 to 25 hours for the whole job, and 2 days, and maybe part of a 3rd day to complete it.

In 3 hours I completed about 40 percent of the weeding. It was going to take me about the whole first day to complete the weeding and applying preen. Then I considered that I probably underestimated the amount of time it would take to spread the mulch. It took me about 17 hours to spread 8 yards at the last job. I thought this may be faster because I I didn’t think she was going to get her dad’s semi broken plastic wheelbarrow that requires the mulch to be shoveled out. A regular wheelbarrow I shovel in, but then I can dump and spread it. Using that wheelbarrow robbed me of time and effort I thought I would save. The yard is topographically different, and certain areas may have posed problems in distribution that were not present at her father’s property.

I was 3 hours into it, evaluating what I got myself into and it was much different than I anticipated. What I believed to be 2 to 2.5 days of strenuous work was going to conservatively be 3.5 to 5 days of strenuous work and over 40 hours. While many people may feel like $650 for about 40 hours of work is a fair price, there is an enormous difference between my pace and the effort that goes into this job and the effort involved with work that pays $650 for 40 hours.

Add to this she did non consult with me or the weather prior to having the mulch delivered. I began on Monday knowing there were going to be scattered thunderstorms throughout the day on Tuesday and Wednesday. Thursday was supposed to be sunny, and although probably not accurate this far out, it was supposed to rain Friday and Saturday. Not only am I thinking about all of these other things I mentioned, I’m thinking about additional challenges caused by the rain, and the prospect of this project potentially dragging out for 10 days having to take days off for rain.

Based on the three jobs I did for her dad, I felt taken advantage of on each one of them. Spreading mulch was the only one that was about what I expected and even that he got an application of preen out of me for free. The first job was through Airtaskers and he misrepresented the job but I was obligated through AT. After we established the scope and details of the job he tried to add other things at the end, some of which I refused. The second job I grossly underestimated what raking and bagging leaves entails. He also said he had a rake and didn’t have a rake and I had to go buy a rake, but I charged him for the rake and my time to get it.

None of that directly applies to her except in as much as feeling taken advantage of by her father, and perceiving a general lack of respect and appreciation. In some cases, given most of these exact circumstances, including degree of difficulty, I would have completed the job and put myself in perhaps a better position than I am in now. And there are some very small things that could have happened, or things that did happen and had they not happened, I would have done the job.

Obviously, the money wasn’t worth the time and energy to do the job. Second, in terms of inconvenience, where now she has to pay market value to have the job done, versus what I will have to endure physically and emotionally to do the job given the litany of unexpected circumstances, its right of me to spare myself that burden, because the act imposes no meaningful burden on her. She can afford $1500 to $2000 to have the job done by someone else. She has a rich person problem. Or since the two have been made synonymous, white people problems. Had to add that given the irony that I’m white, they’re Indian, and I can’t have such a problem being that I haven’t had $2000 at one time since about February 2023. Canceling the job hurts, feels like the wrong decision because $650 goes a long way for me, but I have to maintain my well being through the maintenance of self worth, which would suffer in doing the job within those circumstances.

I did work at Tire Hub on Tuesday and Wednesday, that’s just a trailer unload for $70 a day, usually takes 2 to 2.5 hours.

I’m having a little bit of difficulty putting together this solicitation. It’s difficult in that I’m trying to open with substance, but in doing so the solicitation becomes a series of lectures that probably won’t be understood. Today I will hopefully finish a version that is acceptable to begin sending tomorrow. I’m going to be ambiguous enough to raise some red flags that will hopefully lead to the purchase of books. A paragraph or two about general intents and essentially how my success advances this groups interests, and then a paragraph about each of the books. At this point, and based on all previous experience, the expectation is silence, or that the solicitation will be ignored.

Looking for an AT job to take me away from this location.

5/24/24

I saw a clip in my YouTube feed that was a woman stating that conservatives have less anxiety than liberals, implying that one set of false beliefs produces less anxiety than the other. The very nature of the distinction implies a difference in circumstances that contribute to feelings of anxiety. The underlying functional difference is a conservative believes things are pretty good, and they believe this either because things are going good for them, or based on a nationalist and/or religious indoctrination that produces contentment with undesirable circumstances; and the liberal tends to come from undesirable circumstances and believe changes are required to achieve a more just society. The desire for change implies dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction predisposes to anxiety.

Democrats have more support from people in lower income groupings. . (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/partisanship-by-family-income-home-ownership-union-membership-and-veteran-status/)

What impact does low income have on anxiety? Research has shown lower income people compared to higher income people are 1.5x to 3x more likely to have anxiety. If you compare a group consisting of more lower income people compared to more higher income people, there is going to be a disparity in reported anxiety that has nothing to do with their political ideology. This is the same thing liberals do with race, compare two groups, one consisting of more high income people and the other consisting of a greater proportion of low income people, and claim racial disparities, when the most universally causative element in a negative outcomes is income. (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay0214)

Secondly, liberals are much more responsive to mental health marketing than conservatives. A liberal is more likely to identify through feelings of anxiety than conservatives are. If a person experiences anxiety it’s usually due to the expectation of a negative result, caused by some experience where the circumstances (or objects within one’s field of attention) were similar to the moment where they’re experiencing anxiety. This is addressed by discovering what the expectation is, and the consequences of that expectation either being devalued, or acceptable. This is followed by repeated exposure to the circumstances that produce anxiety and those circumstances not producing the feared outcomes. New assignments of value (feelings produced during the experience) and new assignments of cause and effect within that organization of objects. That isn’t psychology’s approach because the field doesn’t understand the mind at the subconscious perceptual level. So they refer you to a psychiatrist and treat it like a medical condition and write you a prescription. Pharma gets paid, psychiatrist gets paid, psychologist gets paid, and people gain identity and an excuse for behavior through the diagnosis. Liberals are more susceptible to mental health marketing and will report more anxiety. I googled the difference in liberals and conservatives to seek out mental health and there was no answer. Just article after article reporting the same research probably cited from the person on the podcast. The link below makes the same point by comparing the tendency of conservatives versus liberals to stigmatize mental health. Conservatives are more likely to stigmatize mental health, so they’ll report it less frequently, are less likely to identify through it, and this will also reduce the proportion of conservatives who report having anxiety. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6600024/).

I didn’t research this beforehand. These are inferences made based on what I understand about what would produce a disparity in reported anxiety. I checked to see if I was correct. The difference between myself and others, as is evident by the comments, is that I don’t immediately assume that one political leaning or the other is the difference in reported anxiety. I think about what produces anxiety and the difference in exposure between the two groups, because I have no stake in either brand of ignorance appearing superior to the other. The final contributing factor of the disparity is geographical, a greater proportion of liberals living in metropolitan areas compared to a greater proportion of conservatives in smaller towns and rural areas, and I suspect there is less reported anxiety in small towns and rural areas. That’s a little bit circular in the sense that there is already differences in income, contentment, and mental health stigma between liberals and conservatives, making more conservatives living in rural areas being causative of lower anxiety in rural areas. This could be controlled for by comparing the reported anxiety by liberals in rural areas to liberals in metropolitan areas. I suspect a rural or small town setting has anxiety reducing benefits in itself compared to metropolitan areas.

I worked two days as a forklift operator. Job wasn’t bad. In the beginning I did get a run down of probably everything I encountered in those two days but I have all of about 15 minutes on a forklift and never worked in this capacity. Most of the people were cool, some definitely seemed like they were on some BS. The lead I worked under the first day asked me if I got any popcorn? I told him I didn’t and wasn’t interested. He said if you want something you can open up the box, and then said they sell boxes for $2, you just bring the box to the office.

The next time I worked I was on the other side I saw at the desk there was a sign explicitly stating not to open up boxes and it’s considered stealing. As I was walking with him there was a box he said was a box of popcorn on a pallet and he said here’s one right here. The second piece of deception could be hazing, and if I worked there and saw someone bring a box in the office they intended to buy for $2 that would be hilarious. No harm in that effort.

The first one is something that could either get me sent home or possibly prosecuted. If I was a person who wanted to take advantage of the situation and believed I could have the products, perhaps when I leave I put a pallet of boxes by the door, pull my car up, and take as many boxes as I can fit in my car, probably all of about $50 worth of shit. Then maybe he tells them he told me I can have stuff from the free box.

There is a free box of products probably from boxes that were partially destroyed. He didn’t point the box out to me and that wasn’t what he was referencing, evident by him picking up a box of popcorn and trying to see if I’d take it and pull a bag of popcorn out.

Up until that point there was very little to develop a negative opinion about me based on interaction. Of course it could be to see if I was gullible and then a conflation of trust with stupidity. If he’s stupid enough to believe it I don’t want to work with him. Otherwise there’s something he doesn’t like, maybe my website, was wearing an L&T shirt and hat, or something else.

Interestingly, I had an order that required a full pallet, and the first location I was supposed to pick from had a full pallet but only called for me to take like 36 boxes, and then there was a second location to pick up 12 boxes. I asked him why there were two locations if this pallet was already full. He said because they were stupid. I asked can I just use this pallet and put the PIM for this pallet on both picks and he said yes. The second day I had the same situation so I did the same thing. When I left I couldn’t believe that a company as large as this one would have such an embedded inefficiency. Later it became obvious to me being that this is a food distribution center that the older product has to be moved first.

Looking back on that, the lead on that side definitely had some prejudice. MFer I don’t want to be there anymore than you don’t want me to be there, but I need to get this money.

Other than that my performance was pretty good. The first day I pulled the wrong pallet because the person training me wasn’t inputting the picks he was taking, so I looked at the level of the order he was picking at the location I was picking.

Second day I mentioned while waiting for assignment that I was there for a few days, trying to maintain myself while I figure out a way to attract attention to my material. He asked me if I knew who Noam Chomsky was and I responded that I did. He said he saw a Netflix documentary and commented that 3 percent of the population possesses 80 percent of the wealth and how corporations insert something derogatory. I was thinking about what he said and the implications of those statements when someone from the office called me over and gave me my assignment.

His statistics aren’t accurate, but maybe the documentary is citing financial wealth which is more concentrated than overall wealth, and also more indicative of means to create opportunity. If given the opportunity my response should have been that the wealth others possess isn’t the problem, the problem is that 35 percent of the country has negative wealth, or more debts than assets, and many people above that don’t have liquidatable wealth in the little they do have. Many people who have weàlth of any meaning, have wealth in the difference between their home’s market value and what they owe on it, which isn’t always accessible.

To increase human capital to move into a profession of one’s choosing requires time and money. To start a business requires time and money. People without money first need to survive and many unskilled workers will work for an amount that allows them to survive. Companies pay the rate that people are shown they’re willing to work for for any particular job in any particular area. When people’s incomes only suffice for their expenses and require most of their time they are trapped in those circumstances. I couldn’t challenge the validity of his statistic because I don’t remember the top of the distribution because I don’t use it. I typically only use wealth and income numbers from about the median down.

As I wrote addressing the anti-capitalist bias in The Supremacy of Bias, what we seek to achieve is income adequacy. It doesn’t matter how many billionaires there are so long as the people who do the jobs to produce the products and services demanded by the public are adequately compensated. Income adequacy means a person has enough money to provide for their basic needs, a reasonable amount of discretionary spending, and still has money left over to save. Qualifications for inadequacy and the impediments to achieving higher income for lower income people are explained in the American Prosperity Proposals. For a quick qualification, the adult median income share is about 30k per year, meaning half the adults in this country have an annual income share of 30k or less. How many people could afford to live alone on 30k per year? How much money can a person with a 30k per year income save on an annual basis?

As for corporations, the country operates the same today as it was intended to operate, as a forum for the wealth of the nation to decide public policy to advance their interests, while providing enough concessions to the public to maintain consent for the system. It’s also a model that probably cannot be improved on, and any elected government is going to be influenced by the wealth of the nation as money is the vehicle used to disseminate information good or bad to influence people to support the candidates that best represents money’s interests. There are ways to achieve popular legislation, the OPL strategy is one, Centers for Economic Planning is another, increasing the amount of representatives and senators is another. More are conceivable, but there has to be a substantive end attached to any effort. Industry is going direct public policy generally, with their overall power checked by competing industrial interests, and these competing interests investing differently between parties, and the difference in parties being a difference of priority for different industrial interests. The problem is the people and value protective denial, their propensity to seek out bias reinforcement, and how their perception and understanding is controlled through the supply of bias reinforcement. Otherwise things could be different among a less self deceptive population.

The final notable experience was a guy on my second day who was helping me with putting my line together. I was resistant at certain points but let him know I appreciated his help, but I didn’t know if what he was telling me was priority, or if I should continue picking orders. He was non-specific with some of what he was telling me. Leave these pallets out, or move these to the back, when I don’t know where out is or where the back is.

One operator who was also putting pallets on my line said he was like 70 years old and needs to hang it up, don’t listen to him. Another operator said he was retarded. I explained to that point he was just explaining not to put full pallets on top of partials, and something else. The operator who said he needs to hang it up is the one who put the full pallet on top of the partial.

Maybe they thought I was angry with him and said that thinking it would diffuse any potential situation. Or to see how I would respond in taking their position or seeing if it would impact my treatment of him. Otherwise, he probably has more pride in his work, and knows how things are supposed to be done and does them right. The others may do their jobs to adequacy and are annoyed by his attention to detail. I appreciated him helping me out after I understood he wasn’t just fucking with me. When he told me about not stacking heavier products on lighter products I was putting identical quantity and product on top of another. I did ask what do you mean this is the same product and joked about the appearance of what he was telling me. He was talking about a different pallet.

I’m headed to the gym and I’ll be sending out this first list of solicitations.

5/24/24 Add On

I’ve been agitated the last few days after a fairly long period of time feeling generally good. Some of this may be the deterioration of circumstances, money running low needing to find work, also not feeling good about deciding not to do the landscaping job, despite generally feeling like it was the right decision. Still some negative feelings, self worth like I wasn’t up to the challenge of it, creating a minor inconvenience for the woman, missing the money itself, which is overcome by comparing that to how I would be feeling having done the job within those circumstances. It’s a choice between bad or worse, where my mood is still impacted by the negative perceptions and emotions associated with the decision, but it’s a net positive emotionally in avoiding the anticipation of worse feelings caused by doing the job.

This is a point of occurrence or decision that negatively impacted my mood, and the negative emotions associated with that decision influence general well being and seep into the cycle of mood. Negative emotions influencing perception and the production of thoughts which influences the production of feelings and so on and so forth. That’s an element, my circumstances generally are an element, and then a significant element was when I was in Cape Girardeau going to Walmart after using the Planet Fitness. I turn down the street and a woman starts pulling out from the gas station parking lot. I beep at her to stop, I pass her and she starts yelling and beeping at me. Which pissed me the fuck off. Bitch, I’m on the fucking street, you’re trying to cross my lane of traffic to enter the street I’m on going in the opposite direction. Even if you don’t know the traffic laws, where would it make sense that someone on the street would stop to let a car onto the street coming from a parking lot? It’s infuriating, not only that she’s wrong, but that she’s wrong and not only won’t admit it, but wants to claim that I was wrong because she thinks street traffic should yield to cars entering the street when that car is hers. That incident was significant, leading to some geographical stereotyping, fuck Cape Girardeau, rationalized by the people in the area being in part responsible for producing such a person. I don’t really think that, but in the moment and I’m frustrated by some willed stupidity, I think that. Then I go into Walmart and a woman is apologetic about being in my way, I see children, and I don’t consider the driver’s actions representative of the whole area.

The anger from the incident still becomes incorporated in my cycle of mood, impacting my potential for well being moving forward. I also had to compile and send this solicitation. There was a little bit of stress involved in that.

I compiled a list of 689 emails. Out of the 689 14 didn’t go through, so 675 for this profession in OH. I’m thinking about modifying the solicitation because it’s 15 pages long. It doesn’t feel like 15 pages reading it but it is. At the same time, as someone who is trying to sell books it makes sense to give a decent sample and provide some substance in the sollicitation.

I need to revise ASC, and create a paper addressing IQ heredity. Also begin compiling a list for the next state for this sollicitation since I’ll continue sending these solicitations if they prove effective. Need to find some work this week as well.

6/6/2024

As I may have mentioned in the previous entry I finished the first state soliciting a profession that would benefit from understanding my material, and would benefit through my success. Both of which should create some interest in purchasing books. There are a few things mentioned that I probably should not have mentioned. I used an example of something I saw in passing and had only minimal details of, and admitted it. Reviewed more for the purpose of showing how the public viewed the incident than in showing that the action was right. I volunteered some personal information to allude to a time when my perspective was biased against this profession. I’m going to modify the solicitation, compile a list, and solicit the next state. It may generate questions. Feel not great about including these things but if they attract attention one way or the other it’s fine, so long as they don’t prevent more attention than they generate. I probably also sent these solicitations at the worst time, Friday night on a holiday weekend.

There’s a seemingly endless supply of emails. I don’t know how long I’ll focus on this group, but this is all I can really do for the time being. Work a few days per week and hope to sell some books and attract attention through sollicitation.

—

I began this entry 2 days ago, writing those paragraphs then deciding I didn’t feel like journaling. Interesting and souring development in that effort. After the first day where there was a spike in traffic, there was no additional traffic, and the initial traffic was at most about 30 views. I wondered if my email was being sent to the junk folder. I sent the email from my website email to my Gmail account and received no notification. I checked my spam folder and there it was. I’d already begun to rework the solicitation and began compiling the list for the next state. I sent the academic sollicitation to my email and it went through. I’m still being ignored by academia, but this new group probably didn’t receive the sollicitation because nobody checks their spam folder. I can’t solicit by email.

I will not be shopping at Dollar Tree Family Dollar anymore. Anti- 2A corporation who employs people who use their position to advance an ignorant nonsense agenda. Sometimes I find work through an app called Veryable where I’ve completed over 60 jobs and have a 4.9 star rating. This morning I was scheduled to work at the Dollar Tree Family Dollar warehouse in Warrensburg, MO.

When I checked in I was told that I couldn’t wear the shirt I was wearing because the company had a policy against promoting violence in the workplace. The shirt I was wearing reads no one should suffer imposition due to the inability to resist a threat of force and features a picture of an M4 rifle. The shirt that is featured on my website.

I explained what should be quite obvious, I read the shirt and said if people have the means to defend themselves, they are less likely to be the victims of violence, the shirt is an anti-violence shirt. Then he claimed the image itself is the promotion of violence and goes against their anti-workplace violence policy.

He offered to give me a dollar tree shirt so I could work the shift. Unfortunately I had to decline the offer because doing so is acknowledgement that 1: that guns promote violence. 2: that an image of a gun violates a policy against workplace violence. 3: That the message that people should have the means to protect their person and property promotes workplace violence. If I change my shirt I’m acknowledging that the shirt violates the policy and it does not.

As I left I did call him an ignorant piece of shit which is fairly obvious since my shirt and workplace violence have nothing to do with one another. He would know this if not for an anti-gun bias that isn’t rooted in fact or sound reasoning. I thought after I left that maybe I should have taken the charge and beat the shit of him. Showing that his ignorance has promoted and created workplace violence and ask him while kicking his ass if he wishes he had something to defend himself with? lol In hindsight, although I’d be wrong for doing it, if I recorded it, it would probably attract a lot of attention, be a good teacher of a lesson, and be wildly entertaining.

In this situation he’s trying to force me to accept something that fundamentally isn’t true, that guns produce violence, but also that an image of a gun with a message promoting peace violates a policy against workplace violence. If someone wore a rainbow shirt promoting freedom of sexual orientation, I doubt such a shirt would violate any policy against sex in the workplace. The difference being that one message is supported by this individual and the company who employs him and the other is not.

The kicker is I am a felon who cannot legally possess a firearm and who does not own any firearms. It’s important to me that people can defend themselves against those who threaten them. I have no stake in the outcome, whether guns can or cannot be owned legally because I cannot possess a gun legally. It would be in my immediate interest if no one could own firearms since I cannot own firearms, but not in my general interest in seeing people more frequently become the subjects of others will, and knowing it is right that people have the means to defend their persons and their property. Theft is enslavement. When you steal from someone or you destroy their property you’re taking the time and effort they put into acquiring said thing. If an object has a value of $2000 and a person takes or destroys it, if it took them 100 hours of work they essentially worked so you can have what you took from them. Something I mention since many states lag behind in the use of deadly force in the protection of property. It isn’t that a person’s life isn’t worth the value of the object, it’s that no person should attempt to enslave anyone else. It is retroactive enslavement.

It’s also an example of these shitty nonsense work environments that decrease the quality of people’s lives across the country. Forcing people to comply with rules and policy that doesn’t make sense. Any rule or policy that doesn’t advance the interests of production or safety are rules that exist solely to impose unnecessary authority. 3 examples in the last week.

At PLZ I was inhaling from my vape but wasn’t exhaling any vapor. If you pull lightly your lungs can absorb all the vapor. Someone saw me and told the lead on the line that I was vaping. The line lead asked me if I was vaping on the line, she said someone saw me and made a motion like bringing one’s hand to their mouth. She said maybe I was putting on chapstick. I told her I was inhaling from my vape but didn’t think it was a problem because I wasn’t exhaling anything. She said because it’s electronic and there are chemicals in the warehouse. Which is complete BS because there are computers and other electronics, including huge fans with hot motors. I agreed that I wouldn’t vape but it’s a policy that serves no purpose. Even if I and others were actually vaping, because vaping leaves no lasting odor or residue, and the space is open and well ventilated, it creates no problem. Many puppets would think I’m wrong for no other reason than companies typically don’t allow vaping at work indoors, but there is no direct impact on production, safety, or property through the prohibition. It advances no company interest, except maybe conditioning to authority. I have no problem with the lead enforcing the rule, she has an interest in enforcing the rule because I’m sure someone would mindlessly create problems for her if it was known that she was notified that I was vaping on the line, and didn’t say anything to me. Clearly, people are snitching for no benefit to anyone other than the feelings they derive from the act.

Just as important as an everyday example of how bereft this species is of thought, what benefit is there for the person who told on me? The desire to control, to prevent someone from doing what they want to be doing, and the mindless enforcement of a rule that serves no purpose. Both of which are motivated through feelings that come from an increase in self worth as seeing oneself as powerful through the control of another person, generally through the creation of a desired result(stopping me from vaping), and as seeing oneself as good for enforcing a rule. Lacking the awareness to see the harm in feeling good through the control of others, and the common sense to understand what the rule and its enforcement actually accomplishes. Which is nothing other than what the snitch feels for what they did.

8Two days later I worked a job at NLP or NLI group. Stacking boxes unloaded from a truck onto their designated pallet. We finished about an hour early. They had us take a break, and walk around for a half hour before letting us go. What is the point of having us waste another 30 minutes before letting us leave? There’s no benefit for anyone in that situation. Stupid shit.

Then today the Dollar Tree/Family Dollar warehouse, where an image of a gun and a positive message is alleged to be in violation of a policy against violence in the workplace. Some empirical evidence is I’ve worn the shirt on many veryable jobs, and no workplace violence occurred, and no evidence that there was any sense that violence in the workplace was being promoted through the shirt. No one ever said your shirt makes me feel like engaging in work place violence, or don’t you think your shirt promotes workplace violence?

So fck’n stupid.

I was at Walmart yesterday. As things tend to go, I had several items I intended to buy and then as I’m shopping I think about other things I need. I have two arms full of products, and there are several customers behind me When the register opens up, one of the workers before I can get to it goes to the register and begins wiping it down, taking his sweet ass time. I’ve been having a bad past few days including some incidents that negatively impacted my mood so I commented: good time to wipe down the register when I have a bunch of shit in my hands and there’s a line full of customers. And said something to the effect that he should think about what he’s doing. He didn’t say anything, just put the cleaning supplies down and walked to the other side of the self checkout.

I definitely don’t make it a habit of disparaging people who help provide me with the goods and services I consume, I’m generally, genuinely appreciative of their work. The difference between how I see things and most others see them, is I’m not thinking about just the inconvenience created for myself and others, I’m thinking about the kind of thinking that goes into the act. How does a person proceed with an action without any consideration for how their actions impact others, and what the purpose of the act is? One register open and a line full of customers with the next customer in line holding roughly 15 items including somewhat large items, box of cereal, half gallon of milk, 2 liter of Pepsi, box of crackers, and then a bunch of smaller items cheese, packs of tuna, 4 pack greek yogurt, hand sanitizer, among other things. I look like I was trying to break the record for the most midsize and small items carried to check out. If it were my responsibility I first see the guy who needs to check out and I’m going to wait until there’s less of a line or more registers open. Second, you’re wiping down the self checkout to improve the shopping experience of the customers. It doesn’t make sense to perform a task to improve the customers experience when that task is creating more of a negative experience. Like the person telling on that job doesn’t understand what she’s doing. Operates out of a mode of understanding that the rules are good and she should make sure they’re enforced, but has no understanding of what, if anything the rule accomplished, or if there’s actually any benefit.

This is the reason I was able to work with Mark from Premier, because anything we could or could not do had valid reasoning in production, efficiency, or some other common interest.

Now what’s the difference between the dollar tree warehouse and these other two job examples? In the dollar tree example he claimed a policy was violated that was not violated, and the implications of me accepting the dollar tree shirt is an admission that the shirt violates the policy, and the implications being that people having the means to defend themselves is the promotion of violence. It feels like an endorsement of his warped and inaccurate perception of reality.

As for PLZ, not allowing vaping, especially when I’m not blowing anything out doesn’t make sense, and doesn’t advance any actual interest of the company, but it is the company’s property and if I want to make the money to provide services I have to respect that irrational rule. The difference with the Dollar Tree is he is claiming I’m violating a policy I’m not violating by conflating self defense to deter violence as the promotion of violence in the workplace. The NLP group or whatever it was, I agreed to provide services until 430pm. They let us go about 4 even though we were done at 330. If those services are for us to walk around the warehouse after completing the job I suppose that is part of the agreement.

—

I worked at PLZ again. Once again the line was down for probably about 4 hours out of the day. Makes no sense that people can’t have an ear bud in to listen to music, listen to a show, movie, comedy etc., but earplugs are mandatory. They’ll claim safety, or communication, but there’s no difference between an earbud and an ear plug in that regard. When I was at BCI, Lisa, the second shift manager allowed people to do pretty much whatever they wanted to do so long as it didn’t compromise safety and performance. The women who put the labels on the bottles were often seated because they could do their job seated and wanted to be seated. Why wouldn’t they be allowed to sit? The first shift supervisor didn’t allow people to work seated. I put the boxes into the folder, I had my phone on the table, and I watched movies, TV shows, stand up comedy the entire shift. And why not, it didn’t interfere with my ability to do the job well. The line never stopped because I couldn’t make enough boxes, except my first or second day but I wasn’t watching TV at that time. It’s so unfortunate that many employers of unskilled labor, and many employers generally for that matter do not place very high, if any value on the well being of their employees which is evident by rules that don’t actually advance any company interest that limit the well being of their employees.

This isn’t anything about PLZ, everybody was cool as far as I could tell, except the person telling about putting my vape to my lips. The environment overall was pretty smooth. I would have worked tomorrow had they let me.

—

That all changed working a PLZ shift during the week. Different line, different staff. First two hours were good. Did some rework for the first hour or so, consisted of emptying boxes of products onto line, taping the boxes after the code is applied, and stacking the boxes on a pallet. We finished the 1st pallet in about a half hour. I only saw one more pallet that we probably would have finished in about an hour, since the first pallet wasn’t full. I suspect that the lead maybe wanted to drag that out so we were moved to a line to relieve a supervisor and someone else. There we put 24 cans of some product into trays as the cans came and the trays moved down the rollers.

After break we (the other guy I was working with) relieved two people to go to break where we put boxes onto pallets. There was another group of two people putting boxes onto pallets. After the people working the line came back from break we went to another line and began hand making boxes. Afterwhile we were waiting to palletize when one of the supervisors came and took the guy I was working with somewhere else. The original idea was there was supposed to be two people palletizing on this line.

I palletized by myself on pac 2, but this line compared to pac 4 (a line I worked a different day) moves somewhere in the neighborhood of about 5x as fast. The boxes are arranged on the pallet 7×7 across one end, and then 5x5x5x3x5 perpendicular to the 7. The boxes contain 6 roughly 15 inch tall cans of carpet cleaner. This line has a very shitty fan, probably because this line typically isn’t hand palletized. They have a machine that usually automatically palletizers for this line but the machine was down. Eventually, to keep up with the machine, I’m grabbing 7 boxes, 7 boxes, then 5 boxes at a time. For the first few hours I’m good, but somewhere around hour 5 I’m beginning to get pissed off for a variety of reasons. Most significantly, because I feel like I’m doing the work of two people for the price of 1. While I was relieved at break and moved for the last two hours while someone else took that spot, it’s different to do it for 15 minutes or a half hour, and to do it for about 5 hours. The last part of the day the machine was running more intermittently, I was loading the boxes. The second part about it is I haven’t seen anyone in the warehouse have to put forth anywhere near the amount of effort that was required to keep up with that machine. If there’s two people it’s a steady pace of grabbing 2 or 3 boxes. If it’s one person, think about how many boxes are coming by considering the time it takes to turn 7 boxes, pick them up and set them down, and then do it again, and still have 5 boxes to pick up 3x after that.

I’m becoming more aware and irritated by their policies that serve no purpose. My knee is hurting because they require steel toed shoes. But there is nothing in the warehouse that creates a serious risk to one’s toes. In some rare instance a (4 to 8lb) box could fall on someone’s foot, but even in that rare and unlikely scenario, there’s little chance that any serious injury would occur. Advise of the potential hazard and allow those who want to take the risk to take the risk. Safety glasses in a hot environment hold heat onto the face. I cleaned and fake cleaned my safety glasses throughout the day and thought about how much better the job would be if not for the safety glasses. Why the fuck are we required to wear safety glasses when the environment doesn’t consist of any projectile hazards? My legs are chaffing, I could be wearing shorts which are much cooler and would have prevented this condition. Why are pants required? There is no risk of the skin on your legs coming into contact with anything that it wouldn’t come in contact with in any other environment. I’ll return to these things in a minute.

The last 45 minutes or so I was on this machine I said fuck it, I’m grabbing two boxes at a time and that’s it. So that’s what I did and periodically the line lead came over to help out. Near the end of the day maybe she saw the outline of my phone in my pocket, but she asked if I had my phone in my pocket and I said that I did. She told me to put it in the break room. I told her I’m not doing that. She said there’s no phones allowed on the floor. I agreed to put it in my car. That was the point where I decided I wouldn’t be back. I periodically check the time on my phone which isn’t excessive and doesn’t interfere with production. They may have some other invalid reason related to equipment (I had my phone in my pocket for two other days I worked there), as I was told fire hazard, proprietary secrets etc, but it’s ultimately some short sighted effort to control the environment in the false belief that it benefits production.

You consider how prevalent these work environments are and the general impact it has on the way huge portions of this country feels on a day to day basis. Most are not going to recognize that they suffer essentially because the company has decided they must suffer. But they suffer nonetheless, when they could avoid that suffering. I thought about all the stupid regulations on a job I was working with Premier in Allentown, PA. It was interesting that efforts to improve working conditions, creations of regulatory bodies like OSHA have significantly decreased the quality of conditions. Anything that applies to the assumption of individual risk without creating risk for others should be left up to the discretion of the worker. For many people, the risk is worth not being subjected to discomfort on a daily basis, and no one’s quality of life should regularly suffer through what they do to contribute a product or service to the market. Nothing can be done legislatively to prevent companies from creating policies that don’t advance company or worker interest because it’s their private property. Maybe something could be done to allow workers to opt out of safety requirements. Something that only seems regressive to people who don’t work in heavily regulated fields.

I was going to work at PLZ again but withdrew my offer after that experience. If every other person at a job is working at one pace, and you’re put in a position where you’re working minimally twice as hard as everyone else, that’s some BS, and they should have another person there to split the workload. Presumably based on the phone incident I was given a 3 star rating. Ridiculous. All of my sub-5 ratings have came in the same south of St. Louis general area. Walker Products, Gilster Mary Lee, and this one from PLZ (had 5s on weekend work there). Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, considering I have 59 5 star ratings and worked the same in those locations as I did in others.

–

I changed the solicitation and intended to send some physical copies of the sollicitation with QR codes to the product pages. In doing so I sent a new version of the solicitation to my other email and it went through. I don’t know if I’m still going to send the physical versions. I don’t know if this is going to lead to any book sales, so it’s hard to invest in sending physical sollicitations. It is time consuming because to avoid having my emails blocked as spam I’m sending the sollicitations one at a time.

I’m soliciting law enforcement because I believe we have common interests and my material should be of interest to people in that profession. I interpret the actions of law enforcement based on the law and recognize how the media misleads the public concerning the actions of law enforcement to support viewer bias to increase ratings. This creates a distraction from actual issues and divides people who would otherwise be united to advance common interests, most notably, increases in income for the bottom 50% of income earners. Secondly, the solutions being proposed and implemented have reduced the ability of law enforcement to enforce the law, and decreased the law from deterring crime to protect the public.

The law exists to protect the public from imposition, reducing the effectiveness of the law causes people to be less free. It is important to have an accurate perception of law enforcement, because the quality of life, the freedom of a people depends on how effectively laws are enforced within a framework allowing for officer discretion to advance public interest in enforcement.

The number of serious controversies surrounding misconduct including the use of force are far too small to represent a systemic problem in policing. When you have a few controversial incidents, that are often public misinterpretation, versus 60 million annual contacts, over 8 million arrests, it doesn’t represent a systemic problem. Even if we include all incidents of misconduct where an allegation was sustained we’re still talking about 1,000s out of millions, and within those 1,000s the actual impact of those mistakes on the lives of anybody is not existent or only minimally impactful. When it is existent officers are disciplined and prosecuted. Meaning normative policing represents law enforcement officers acting within their lawful sworn capacity, and when they do not, they face consequences, which means there’s nothing systemically supporting misconduct by law enforcement or the misapplication of law. Something I’ve been writing about for the last 4 years.

As far as an interest in my material, law is enforced morality. Laws exist to prevent imposition and the public gains freedom by agreeing not to engage in imposing behavior. Laws should prevent more imposition than they impose. We perceive law through net liberty. The law isn’t perfect, made less so by the delegation of legislation that typically takes shape around industrial interests that are distinct from the interests of the public, but the public does have ways to influence the creation of law.

Anyway, the point is, people who have decided to become moral enforcers as a living, should be interested in material on the subject. They should also be interested in material that provides them a better understanding of the political landscape they’re enforcing law within, and ideas to improve income opportunities since income is the most predictive element of producing criminals. They should be interested in assignment, sequencing, and comparison and developing an understanding of the systems of perception and organization that produce human behavior. As well as other material I have, the Florida Ordeal applies the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct and the Florida Code of Judicial conduct to the actions of the public defender and judge which is the same as applying law. Racial perceptions addresses misconceptions that contribute to racial divide as well as a review of controversial uses of force by law enforcement. Covid-19 Media Project informs on the actual risk versus the projected risk of covid. The Supremacy of Bias evidences the deepest human problem which is avoidance, ignoring, and rejection of information that challenges beliefs.

All of this is beneficial to all people, some of it is particularly beneficial to law enforcement, and based on how my success generally will benefit the law enforcement profession it seems like a good prospect for solicitation. If none of them read the sollicitation, understand it, or recognize their benefit in what I’m doing and trying to do, then there should be some concern. The material itself should be investigated to ensure there is nothing in the content that poses a danger to the public. No plans of attack or anything of that nature. I went into this thinking that if I appear as a domestic terrorist I should be able to sell at least one set of books per department, which would position me to hire personnel to accomplish my goals.

I will still break laws that are not morally wrong, when it serves my interest and the consequence is perceived as being low in terms of probability of having to face it, and severity if caught. I’m also not trying to “work with the police” so to speak, as in I’m not trying to help the police solve crime or reporting crime. I do have respect for the profession, especially in the idea of what they’re doing, but also for what they do and how they do it. Overall, I recognize them as a group who benefits from my success and should contribute to that success by purchasing my material, and who may benefit more than other professions in consuming the contents of my material. I’ve solicited other groups who based on interests should be as motivated to purchase material or acknowledge my material as law enforcement, and the people contacted failed to identify and act on their own best interests. How can I be surprised if I experience the same human produced result?

I finished the Phoenix police department, contacting all the emails available for officers on the precinct websites. I started with Phoenix because as I was looking for officer names to send physical solicitations to at different stations this department had about 80 total officers emails on the websites easily accessible. I think I’ll probably do better to solicit midsize departments, suburbs, with populations of 30 thousand to 80 thousand people. I’ll be putting the remainder of today and the next few in sending those sollicitations. I also need to find work.

6/8/2024

The following are comments and exchanges addressing Christianity that seemed worth posting.

There was a UFC fighter talking about becoming a Christian and the idiocy of the statements he made is almost painful, but also created the opportunity to address the main evidentiary feature of deities to their subjects. As for the idiocy he describes receiving the holy spirit as enlightenment, and immediately follows this up with how confused he was. The two ideas are incompatible, enlightenment consists of clarity in seeing things based on an accurate understanding of them. He’s confused because he’s internalized beliefs that feel good in idea but do not make sense, and feels enlightened because he’s comprehended an element or elements of the doctrine. This is a small thing.

The bigger thing and the thing that serves as the evidence for the believer is assigning internally produced feelings external causes. He mentions something to the effect that he felt the holy ghost. That’s him thinking about ideas pertaining to the doctrine, those ideas producing a feeling, and then perceiving those feelings coming from him interacting with the spirit from the deity, no doubt while thinking that’s what is occuring, and thinking it based off of ideas that this happens from the new testament. All the evidence for deities comes from internally produced feelings that people assign an external or supernatural origin, or from assigning happenings that have natural causes supernatural causes, i.e believing god intervened to provide you some outcome that came about through your environment produced by others or chance.

The initial comment I summarized why deity worship fails to advance any interest. After he responded I addressed the portions of his comment that were relevant to the controversy and expanded on the two original points that the deity doesn’t help in life, and doesn’t help if consciousness survives death.

weknowhisvoice9296:

Turn to Jesus people, he died for your sins. Repent of what the New testament describes as sin. Believe the gospel get baptized and obey the teachings of Jesus. The gospel and the teachings of Jesus are documented in Matthew Mark Luke and John. Jesus is the only way to be saved, if you have faith in Jesus through your faith you will live by his teachings. God bless

OrionSimerl6539

There’s no evidence of any result on this planet being produced by supernatural forces, so Jesus doesn’t help you in life.

Secondly, morality is a determinant of conscious motion that is either objective or subjective based on the constant of desire. Objectively, so long as an act doesn’t impose on anyone else the act is right and if it does impose it is wrong. The duality is created by the fact that any act that one claims is wrong that is unimposing is the imposition of a subjective preference, and obviously any act claimed to be right that imposes is imposition. The justification for imposition is to prevent and neutralize imposition.

If consciousness survives death there must be separate spaces to accommodate different modes of morality, because the propensity of the objectively moral to prevent and remove imposition is in conflict with the subjectively moral to impose. Therefore spatial assignments of consciousness should consciousness survive death is based on understanding and moral application. Jesus doesn’t get to choose who goes where based on who says they’ll be his friend because it would create eternal conflict. In short, Jesus doesn’t help you on earth and doesn’t help you if consciousness survives death.

@weknowhisvoice9296

all observable history concerning my position supports my position. All actual science not conspiracy theories opinions and so-called educated guess supports my position. Can you name me one scientist based on the research that has went from a creationist to a evolutionist? You can’t give me one. But there is endless amount of scientists who went from evolutionists to creationists based on the research. Not only did they become creationists they became Christian specifically. You have no clue what Christ has done in my life. But here’s my question for you? Since you’re so strong and mighty about your false position that makes zero sense. Can you give me one example of something coming into being without pre-existing material? I’m only asking for one observable example which is a necessity for your belief system to be a belief system worth entertaining. If you can’t give me an example which you cannot I will not reply to you anymore. It will be a waste of time to reply back.

Orion Simerl6539

So as stated, you 1: cannot show one result that was produced by a supernatural cause. Whether or not a scientist believes something and has or has not changed his mind is not evidence of a result that was produced through supernatural means. Secondly, just because you’re incapable of comprehending something, likely due to value protective denial, doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense.

Morality is a set of values pertaining to ideas of right and wrong. These are standards, and in perception and decision making moral and non-moral standards influence the value of objectives. Acting consistently with your moral standards allows you to see yourself as something you like, increasing self worth and producing positive feelings. Violating your morality causes you to see yourself as something you understand to be bad and do not like, reducing self worth and producing negative feelings. Morality is prohibitive of behavior, but can be motivating in supplying value (positive feelings) when an act is perceived as righting a wrong. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, this is a fact of the human psyche, and a fact of any consciousness capable of understanding morality. Morality is a determinant of conscious motion.

People like yourself involved in deity worship have an extra step, because you perceive yourself based on your idea of how the deity perceives you. For example, this evangelical comment of yours, while it may be motivated in part by the delusion that you’re helping people, it’s also motivated by the idea that you’re doing the will of the deity which causes you to believe that the deity is pleased with these acts, which feels good. That’s why your subconscious produces these objectives because it’s motivated by these positive feelings from the perception that you’re helping, and or your perception that it improves the deity’s opinion of you which improves self worth.

The tempting and degree of application of morality is another lesson entirely that isn’t relevant to this controversy. Every person has morality, and if they don’t have morality they have non-moral standards that function the same way, seeing themselves as better or worse based on consistency or inconsistency with those standards.

What is right and wrong? Desire is ever present within the conscious experience, all people want to fulfill their desires. So long as the actions of one do not interfere with the actions of others, all people can do as they please which is ideal. Right and wrong is determined by whether or not an act is imposing, because the absence of imposition serves the underlying universal interest to do as one pleases. There are 6 categories of imposition that address deception, self deception and means and opportunities, including the creation of individual circumstances. Every other conceivable moral code is the imposition of subjective preference, insert something that doesn’t impose that is claimed to be wrong or prohibited, or insert something claimed to be right that is imposing.

In a space consisting of beings who are objectively moral all beings do as they please without interfering with one another. In a space of moral tyranny right and wrong is determined by the most powerful being or beings, or everyone imposes on one another as they are able to. You believe only tyranny exists and are hedging your bet on pledging yourself to your idea of the greatest tyrant. Your deity, if anything, is the very devil that the deity describes. Jews are your deity’s chosen people because the deity made a covenant with Abraham. Why? He counted Abraham as righteous because he was willing to kill for the deity. Killing is something that is wrong even to the deity but it is an objectively moral imposition to the highest degree because the injured party cannot be made whole. If the deity’s highest value was doing the right thing, he wouldn’t have counted Abraham as righteous because it’s wrong to kill, especially a child, especially your own child based on the command from an alleged disembodied voice. Since Abraham was counted as righteous for unquestioning obedience, your deity’s highest value is the obedience of others. Which is your fundamental belief about the nature of existence.

You believe that your deity has created existence and human beings with one option, to worship him or be tormented forever. It’s two different sides of the same coin, eternal servitude or eternal torment, either way you don’t get to do as you please. In essence the deity created human beings for the reinforcement of his self worth, and to fulfill his desire to control and torment others.

Lastly, imposition is correct in the prevention and neutralization of imposition. So again, if consciousness survives death there are separate spaces to accommodate different applications of morality, because it determines the potential for individual motion in a space. And no deity can put a subjectively moral consciousness with objectively moral consciousness because it would produce eternal conflict. The objectively moral preventing and neutralizing the imposition of the subjectively moral. So, your deity doesn’t help you here, (no evidence of any supernatural intervention in human affairs) and he doesn’t help you if consciousness survives death. Well maybe, since I imagine any being that had control over the space of tyranny would probably value obedience and submission. You may find yourself in a better hell (space of tyranny) than others.

Nothing’s changed. You still believe in something that doesn’t advance your interests or the interests of others, outside the ideas supplying positive feelings for things you do in your life, and whatever other social relationships or lifestyle stimulus the false doctrine supplies.

And Vacuum Fluctuations is the observation of particles coming into existence from non-existent material. You’re also wrong that I could not supply an answer to your question that is largely irrelevant and also has no consequence to my beliefs that you think you know but do not.

6/15/24

Mid and high 90s for the foreseeable future, which really isn’t the problem, the problem is when the low is 75. I’m looking for places I can go that’ll be a little bit cooler, but pretty much everywhere is going to be hot. It’s a rough summer ahead. Sleep deprivation is the worst of it, and so much of mood is dependent upon sleep. Today it was 95 but the low is supposed to be under 70 so I should be alright tonight.

Since I have income opportunities in the area people may think I should procure some kind of shelter. An extended stay costs about $300 to $400 per week. Which means shelter costs me 3 to 4 days of work per week, and then I need to work another day to cover expenses, food, fuel, nicotine, marijuana, phenibut, phone,and gym. Then I’ll need to work another day to have anything to save for the week. This is fine if A: I don’t have anything else to contribute to the market. B: if I enjoy doing the work. C: if the work sustains a lifestyle that I enjoy. D: if it puts me in a position to save money to do what I want to do.

A: I have things to contribute to the market that are more valuable than performing repetitive tasks to produce the products or provide the services these companies provide. I’ve just been ignored.

B: I do not enjoy doing the work.

C: The work does not sustain a lifestyle that I enjoy.

D: I’d realistically be able to save about $100 to $200 per week. If I need $20,000 to do anything that means I’ll have to work this job 5 to 6 days per week for 2 to 4 years to save 20k, and probably longer through the replacement of other necessities like shoes, my car, etc, and emotional upkeep spending.

It isn’t that I suffer because I refuse to work. I suffer first and foremost because I’m ignored and cannot sell products that contribute very important things to human understanding. Second, I recognize how the procurement of housing has the potential to trap me. Becoming accustomed to the comfort of housing, I become committed to a minimum of 4 days, perhaps 5 days of work per week to sustain that comfort. It also becomes more difficult to save due to emotional upkeep, where spending time doing something I don’t like to do for most of my waking life, is going to lead to additional expenses as I’m more prone to buying things to improve my well being. The promotion or proliferation of Liberty and Truth is over. I won’t have time, and as I’ve stated previously, I usually need a day or two away from work not only to recover physically, but also to recover mentally, in my ambition and the associated subjects being in the forefront of my attention. I trade my time, and the last vestige of any prospect for happiness for a space to live and sleep in. If I’m going to do that, I might as well kill myself because I’ve assured my misery going forward. I don’t understand the purpose of waking up everyday and living a life that has more pain than enjoyment without the prospect of improvement.

Without the cost of housing I can survive on maybe 10 to 15 days of work per month depending on the quality of jobs I can find, and then although my chances are still slim to none that I’ll ever crack any popular biases to any meaningful degree, the prospect at least motivates living, however slight that prospect may be. My life essentially consists of working to sustain myself and what has proven over the last decade to be ineffective efforts to promote my material, with no sustained objections to anything I’ve observed or proposed. I don’t anticipate any success, but it’s a hard check out when the ceiling is so high for the impact my success would have on this species, no matter how remote the possibility is that I ever get any traction.

–

I worked for a company called challenge manufacturing, it was an assembly line job putting parts into machines that assembled subframes. The first day I was putting the core pieces into a machine that grabbed it and placed it on another machine for other parts to be fastened to it. For an assembly line job, at least the ones I worked on, this was probably the best assembly line job. It was steady but you had time in between setting pieces on the machine. About once every 18 to 20 minutes you’d have to change the crate.

The second day I worked there I was fastening pieces to the subframe on the other side. First step insert 4 nuts into locking slots, and align a bar on the pins of the machine. Then the machine locks the bar into place. Once locked into place we insert the control arms. Then the machine moves the bar and other pieces into position to be bolted. I insert 4 bolts and tighten them with an air ratchet. Then there are 4 more bolts that I screw in a few turns that are probably machine tightened because they’re torque specific, possibly torque to yield (stretch) because torque specs were printed on the heads of the bolts. That wasn’t bad either, probably better than any other assembly job I did other than the first day there.

There were nuts that were inserted towards the bottom of the machine, and no fewer than 4 times did I bend down too fast and smashed my head on the machine hand. That shit hurt, have cuts and lumps on the top of my head from that.

Very cool environment, everybody seemed to do their job, got along well, and were helpful. The first day, when the supervisor showed me how to do the job there was a piece already on the machine so he took one out the crate, put it on the floor, and showed me where to mark it. I thought that was how you did the job. Later a man told me I can put it on the machine and mark it up there. Had I not realized this on my own, and had he not told me, I would have been pretty fucked up from something that is an easy job. My back was already getting tired when he told me. I appreciate that. It’s 3x as much work to do it how I was doing it. He and some others gave me some pointers about the equipment, and it seemed like a place full of people who are trying to prosper and see others prosper, and I like that in em. Had to wear safety glasses, but at least it makes sense because there’s a legitimate hazard to people’s eyes as the automated welding booths have sparks that shoot over the sides of the booth on occasion. I noticed myself being particularly frustrated on 3 or 4 occasions when I inserted the bar incorrectly into the machine. There are two holes in different spots that fit the pin, one aligns the bar with the top of the mounting point, and another about 2.5 inches above that. That was a stupid mistake, quickly and easily correctable, it was just irritating to have done it more than once.

That was Monday and Tuesday. Sunday and Thursday I worked at Hub Group, is what it’s listed as in my history on the app, but not when they post, it says something else. It’s warehouse full of different appliances, refrigerators, microwaves, dishwashers, washers, dryers, and stoves. Each brand awaiting shipment has an isle. There’s a miscellaneous isle that is used to store any crated appliances temporarily. Then there is a section for haul aways and customer returns, haul aways being a customer’s old appliances that are taken away when their purchase is delivered.

There is another area separated by brand for customer returns.

There are aisle for routes, which is a staging area to load trucks for delivery.

We unload trucks of new appliances. The new appliances are scanned and either go to a route isle if they’re scheduled for delivery the following day, or they go to brand isles.

Once this is completed we pull customer returns. In all the areas except for routes there are appliances that have brightly colored return information on them. We put these appliances in their designated return area.

Then there are route orders for the following day that need to be pulled. I only did route pulling briefly and initially I didn’t understand it. Combination of mishearing what he was saying, maybe offering more information than I needed to know, and the other guy asking a question about something. There’s a MSUS number, I don’t know what it is, but I thought he told me to match that number on the sheet to the number on the product, and if that number matches check the name and that’s the product for the route. There’s a different number, actually letters that identifies the product and then you check for the name. The MSUS number on the sheet isn’t the same as the MSUS number on the product. I wasn’t able to find the products, but if given the opportunity I could now understanding what was misunderstood.

There was a situation that had moral implications. I was seated by the dock waiting for something to do. Basically on break after consolidating all the aisles (moving product from the branded isles closer to the dock). There was a pair of drivers. I heard one comment to the other this is a nice one presumably in reference to the dolly he was looking at. Shortly after I saw him enter the truck with the dolly and he returned without it.

I was thinking in the moment that this pair of drivers was stealing the dolly from the warehouse. Shortly after, I saw Mike who is a supervisor walking with the men and I remember seeing him look in the truck as he walked past.

Interestingly enough, I was wearing my shirt stating evil’s greatest assets are ignorance, indifference, and bias. The shirt both is and is not applicable to this situation, but morality is always applicable. Not applicable because the shirt primarily refers to self deception, in the pursuit of reinforcing information and the avoidance of challenging information represented by bias, which produces ignorance in the direction of attention, and produces indifference as a person cannot be concerned about things they are ignorant of. Communication cannot take place as people are committed to their preferred opinion or belief, and cannot establish fact, to identify and solve problems related to the creation of undesirable individual circumstances. The root of happiness is liberty, which requires the absence of imposition, including imposing circumstances since the capacity to do, requires opportunities to acquire time, money, and know-how. That’s what the shirt refers to, value protective denial and all the evil it produces.

I mention that because it could appear that I was indifferent to what was taking place because I didn’t put more effort into understanding if the company’s property was being taken, and to notify the company or prevent them from taking the dolly.

There were three components of my ignorance and indifference to this act. First I don’t know the nature of the relationship between the drivers and the company. First in whether they’re allowed to take or borrow the dolly since they’ll obviously be returning the next time they pick up deliveries. Second, I don’t know if the act is an act of justice based on the history between the two parties.

The second component is I was not instructed to prevent the taking of dollies by drivers, nor was I advised that theft should be expected.

Third, relative to the company’s resources and ability to conduct operations, it’s very weak imposition, and to investigate the matter creates the appearance of an effort to gain the company’s approval, and I don’t like the idea of appearing that way. Ultimately, I didn’t anticipate a level of satisfaction in preventing this imposition that was worth the investment of energy, and the negative feelings resulting from the appearance that I was seeking company approval.

At the end of the night Marcus commented to Mike that someone stole a dolly. So my suspicions were correct and the moral analysis applicable.

This company has a very relaxed work environment, an attitude that as long as things get done that need to be done they’re not too concerned with what you’re doing. How it should be for people who have been retained to perform warehouse labor services.

In 2015 or 2016 I had an MRI on my right knee revealing a very badly damaged meniscus.. I didn’t receive any treatment and needless to say working jobs that require me to stand or walk for long periods of time produce swelling, pain, and limit my ability to flex my knee. After Wednesday I was off Thursday and intended not to schedule any work for 4 to 5 days. Usually after I sleep I wake up the following day and don’t have lasting pain. Thursday I go to the gym and I’m scheduled to train back and hamstrings. I got through pull ups, bent over rows, lat prayers for back, then I did deadlifts which is primarily back, hams, and glutes, and I finished with ham curls. I experienced some discomfort on DLs but nothing that was preventive. When I got to hamstring curls I had severe pain in completing the movement and stopped after only a few reps.

Friday I accepted a job at ITF which is relatively easy money. It’s the company I complained kept us an extra half hour for no apparent reason. This time we would have finished roughly an hour and a half early, but were held an extra half hour still leaving an hour early. One of my coworkers told me the supervisor said to stay looking busy during the half hour we were staying. I surmise the reason that he had us stay longer is so he can justify paying us more. If every time there’s a truck he says he needs 8 guys for 6 hours but it’s always finished under 4, the company is going to start retaining less people, or the same amount for fewer hours. This can be a problem in getting trucks unloaded because some people who work well may not be interested in coming in for $64 instead of $104, and then maybe the truck isn’t unloaded in time.

I felt compelled to mention these positive experiences in contrast to the negative experiences at Dollar tree/Family Dollar warehouse, PLZ, and Gilster Mary Lee.

—

I plan on taking a few days to get things done. Editing and adding to ASC, reworking my LE sollicitation, and sending about 750 more solicitations. 1000 sent, it’s safe to assume that this profession is no less subscribed to the idea that Brawndos got what plants crave than any others. Maybe renewing my academic solicitation campaign, maybe creating a religious solicitation, and possibly some other groups. Weather is horrible. Makes it difficult to focus when you’re constantly uncomfortable.

6/26/24

I was at a rest area when a man in a red truck drove through with cardboard on his rear windows, with messages that say why pray when you can worry. I thought out loud why pray when there’s no evidence that any result on this planet has been produced through supernatural means, and worry leads to the acceptance of outcomes.

Among a variety of other benefits. I am rewriting ASC and strong evidence of ASC is the explanation of all possible thoughts through ASC. Positive feelings is a catch all to some extent, but the essence of the explanation is the mind can be shown to produce only about a dozen varieties of thoughts.

Worry begins with the probability of an undesirable outcome, and efforts are made to consider the circumstances to affect the outcome (shuffling the objects the circumstances consist of to produce the motion that represents the desired outcome). Motivation is achieving a positive feeling through the removal of the negative feeling created by the anticipation of the negative outcome, if you figure out a way to prevent it.

Some worry consists of repeating the sequences leading to the negative outcome, and this worry is an effort to create acceptance of the outcome. Acceptance of the outcome not only alleviates the negative feeling from the fear, but then creates the opportunity for new objectives proceeding from the negative outcome, which produces positive feelings in thinking and creating these outcomes.

Fear is represented by uncertainty and the inability to accept an outcome. Worry is a subconscious objective to affect an outcome, to gain certainty, or gain acceptance, to overcome fear and the negative feelings, apparent or underlying, that are produced by it.

The man’s message is correct in its literal meaning, that it doesn’t make sense to pray because praying serves no purpose, whereas worry does serve purposes as explained. Can also produce the changing of values. I interpreted the message as being pro prayer, a rhetorical question centered on the idea that it feels bad to worry but good to pray. Praying also negative in the sense that a person is more inclined to believe that a positive outcome occur, and in all likelihood it is not.

—

I worked at a new company, BMF, which probably stands for something metal fabrication. I was drawn to the company because they advertised air-conditioned shop. The first hour or two I was sanding grind marks and weld spader from metal parts. Once that was finished I asked the other guy if there were more parts and he directed me to a guy who put me in a non-air conditioned part of the warehouse to punch out metal parts cut into flat sheets of metal.

A few funny parts. I was a little warm working in the ac part of the shop and thought the AC claim was a little over sold in the listing. Then I went to the other area and felt very wrong for thinking that. I also thought that they bait switched me for a minute, but more to the effect that it was funny. In the 2 hours I was there everybody was cool, if they needed these things done I was willing to do that for them. It wasn’t like I had 4 AC jobs to pick from and I chose their job. I wanted to work that day and anywhere else I would be working wouldn’t have been in an air-conditioned environment.

They acknowledged that I was supposed to be in the ac on several occasions, the person who assigned me to that task said he didn’t know that was in the ad having been told by the guy who did, and later the poster of the ad apologized about it, wanting me to understand that that’s not typically how they did things. It seemed sincere but wasn’t really a big deal, although I did appreciate the acknowledgement that could have disputed the work on the basis that they misrepresented the work environment per our agreement.

I did cut my finger decently. It bled a lot but wasn’t real bad. On some of these pieces of metal the areas that needed to come out from the sheet were stuck, maybe the laser or press didn’t penetrate far enough in these areas or something to that effect. They had an adjustable wrench to grip the sides and bend it up and down to break it off. My hand slipped off and my middle knuckle joint was cut on a piece of metal underneath it. Before I had a chance to look at it blood was dropping on the floor. I pressed the finger into my jeans to limit the amount of blood I got all over the place. I was looking around for something I could use to stop the bleeding but didn’t immediately see anything. After a moment another guy working in the area was grabbing paper towels. Asked me if I was alright and said yeah it’s just bleeding a lot. I didn’t really know because I hadn’t seen it, but it didn’t feel like it was bad. I received two bandaids that leaked at some point because there were two fingers of my gloves that later blood showed through, but it was good enough to allow me to finish the shift. Most of which was in the AC shop.

I didn’t work the following day, but went to Hub Group the day after. At Hub Group the cut started bleeding again and I didn’t notice it right away. There was a trail of blood drops about every 6 feet across about a 30 yard distance. When I noticed I walked to the bathroom to get some paper towels, and then went to my car to get a bandaid. Meanwhile, people working saw the blood trail and didn’t know what happened. Kind of funny because if you just see the blood trail and the blood on my hand truck it looks like someone may have been seriously injured. When I came back supervisors were approaching me asking me if I was alright and I had to explain a few times that it was just cut sustained previously that opened back up.

—

I decided to leave the area for a few days, mainly to avoid the excessive heat where I was and be more comfortable, intending to work on material and begin some new solicitation campaigns. I began rewriting ASC. Then I returned to the previous version to extract some examples so I didn’t have to create new ones. I realized, that the points I was now expanding on, may have been easier to understand through the previous version. The only issue with the previous version is the inclusion of non-moral standards in the moral standards comparison. Non-moral standards were previously represented as competing values. They’re obviously different because like moral standards, non-moral standards influence behavior through self perception adjusting self worth and the feelings produced by a more favorable or less favorable view of one’s self.

Given the seeming hopelessness of my situation I fall into holes that I eventually climb out of. It’s usually beneficial, because it is the pervasion of a negative feeling resulting in a net positive if/when I come out of it. Net positive in the sense that if there was a number line of feelings and I’m stuck at a -5 in mood, which leaves me unmotivated and unproductive, wasting time distracting myself, if I begin a spiral of thoughts contributing to deeper negative feelings, with the feelings in turn contributing to negative thoughts, and drop into -80, when I return to 0, it’s not 0, it’s a +80 increase that propels me into a high positive and encourages motivation, and the production of productive thoughts and actions.

I began writing about an odd day at the gym where there were several notable experiences. After writing about most of the experiences I decided not to include them in this entry. Most of what this entry consisted of has been withheld, since as mentioned, I’ve been in a hole, and the content while interesting and revealing has the potential to be misunderstood and be detrimental to my purposes should I ever emerge.

The following are two otherwise insignificant interactions that happened to mirror one another that I’ve included to serve as an example of ASC.

I go to the gym. I head to the smith machine and there’s a guy there right before I get there. I look at him and he looks at me and asks if I was going to use it. I said yeah but he was there first. He said he had something else he could do and let me take the machine. Which I appreciated because otherwise I’d have had to do chest with dumbbells. I didn’t notice this until I was half way through my sets and it no longer impacted my interests, but there was a guy using one machine who had his stuff on the bench of the machine next to it, so there was another smith machine open.

Later I went to do flyes with dumbbells and set my phone on a bench as I went to get the weights. When I returned there was a man standing near the bench who was previously talking with a guy on a bench to the right of the bench I was about to use. I asked him if he wanted the bench because the bench I was going to use had an adjustable back I didn’t need, and the only other bench was a flat bench which works for me, but may not work for him. He said no, but I explained that I can use the flat bench because I don’t need an incline and he accepted. The act is undertaken based on the prospect of subtle feelings that come from facilitating his desire, for an insignificant amount of energy, and without interfering with what I want to do.

Within ASC I have the sequence of information of the man standing behind the bench, after seeing him talking with a man briefly near and on route to the bench, and fill in the sequence that the man intended to use the bench had I not reached it first. My presumption of the sequence of events is that the man was headed to the bench, recognized a familiar face that created an opportunity for conversation that delayed the objective of completing his next exercise. I noticed the flat bench open, and knowing he was nearer to the flat bench than he was the bench I was going to use I presumed he needed a bench with an incline, while knowing my movement only required a flat bench.

These are the circumstances perceived within my subconscious, and my subconscious knowing that it feels good to facilitate the desires of a neutral person, produces the objective to offer him the bench he needs, for a very small amount of energy, and without interference in my objective. I write that the subconscious mind perceives reality through objects organized through assignments of cause and effect and value, searching for opportunities to create objectives to produce positive feelings, but no one understands what this means, as if it’s a guess, speculation, or a hypothesis, when it is not, these are mechanisms that have been observed. Thoughts, feelings, and behavior experienced and being able to understand the causes retrospectively. This example being fairly superficial and primitive compared to other observations and mechanisms within ASC.

I see ASC in everything, in others often through acts without being able to know specifically what the value is, but unless the act and circumstances are manufactured, the value can often be reduced to possibilities. The more you know about a person through their words and actions the better you’ll become in knowing their values and being able to identify the value motivating specific acts. The first guy who offered me the smith machine for the most part did the same thing I did, but I wouldn’t assume that he’s operating out of the same reasoning that I’m operating out of, only that some idea was enough to produce some degree of positive feeling that was greater than the feeling he’d have experienced for using the machine. I have no information about him outside of this interaction so any effort to identify the value would be speculation based on at most stereotypes associated with his appearance and location, in what beliefs are popular among people who look like him and live in his area.

The difficulty is people lack the honesty with self to be able to see the things I’m talking about, and lack the awareness to see the moments in their lives that produce their thoughts, feelings, and behavior, and how every moment proceeds from the previous. Honesty with self is essential to understanding self while most people’s lives consist of false interpretations of their actions to maintain the illusion of consistency with standards to maintain self worth. So many people live in a reality where everything is just happening and are unable to follow what is going on around them, much less within them. This is why I become unmotivated when I’m working on ASC because I begin writing what is essentially the base functions of the mind with precision, only to revisit what I’ve written and recognizing that it is unlikely anyone will first have the interest, and second have the self honesty and awareness to understand it.

With requisite interest and attention I would at least have questions that allow me to build the bridge to what isn’t understood but I don’t have that. To my knowledge there is no field that approaches the study of the mind in understanding what it is and what it does. Psychology is for the most part the categorization of experience and tendency, and then often inaccurately assigning correlation and causation to behaviors and values based on experience and tendencies, and most of it is BS. ASC proposes challenges to the field, as most of my material creates challenges to a lot of fields, and instead of confronting it, it’s just as effective to ignore. The same as the general population and other interests who can continue on in BS by ignoring information that challenges their BS.

I operate differently, where I welcome challenge and when confronted I will explain the deficiencies of other people’s positions, so long as the exchange consists of a good faith effort to communicate. I’ll ignore after I see that the conversation doesn’t consist of efforts to establish fact and function, but otherwise I relish the opportunity to show people where they’re wrong when they’re wrong, and also welcome the opportunity to improve my understanding when I’m wrong about something. Except in sports which is where I like to argue subjective value and maximize interpretative abilities to make a case for my subjective preferences.

I took a job for today. End of the month is drawing near and I only have about $300. Hopefully I can find something for Thursday and Friday as well and then I can take a week to rewrite ASC. Go through journal entries and pull examples for ASC.

7/1/24

Beautiful weather the last few days but tomorrow the heat returns. I worked 3 days last week at BMF, and worked today for a guy I mounted some security cameras for. He had a table gutter covers that needed to be installed. I had to wait for some of the covers to arrive but I didn’t mind. I went to a historical site about a mile away, parked and put in headings for a tee shirt summary I might use as the basis for a solicitation to churches. He also had a table to assemble, there were no instructions but it was a fairly obvious assembly.

I didn’t like the way I left. After he paid me he said he appreciated me and I said yep as I walked off. A yep with inflection like you’re welcome, but still a yep. The truth was I was very appreciative of the opportunities to make money, on both occasions which was good money for a very little effort. I didn’t like that I didn’t express that appreciation. I was going to text him as much, but it seemed unnecessary, and I didn’t like the way I might perceive myself as being perceived to explain that. The standard is based on the value of feeling good about the idea of letting someone know they have helped me out when they have helped me out. The value comes from believing it makes the other person feel good. The standard is to express appreciation when someone has done something for me, and violating that standard produces a negative feeling because I don’t like to see myself as someone who takes people granted. I wrote about it not because it’s important, just because it’s an example ASC. Obviously, in the moment I neglected to express appreciation, because in that moment it was more important to me to leave. The focus on that objective prevented the production of the objective to express appreciation. Shortly afterwards I understood what I did. Again, subtle, and something I’ll probably only think about because I used it as an ASC example, otherwise I’d have forgotten it.

The new shirt reads National Symbol of Ignorance and Stupidity, and has a crucifix below it. It’s under Its Just To Avoid Useless Sacrifices Tee, replacing that shirt because it’s ambiguous and feel like it would be interpreted as the opposite of how it was intended. I need to change the pic on the home page and I need to change the word arrangement on the shirt top line is national symbol, middle line is of, bottom line is willed ignorance and stupidity. I want to move of up and have the word willed om the stand alone line. I’ll do that in the morning. The following is the shirts description.

The National Symbol of Willed Ignorance and Stupidity.

Obedience for Reward

Deity worship begins with the idea that tyranny is all that exists. The adherent agrees to obey the deity for what the deity can provide him, which he believes is all things.

No Evidence of Any Supernatural Intervention

This is categorically false because there’s no evidence that any result on this planet was ever produced through a supernatural cause.

Purpose of Creation Servitude or Torment

The monotheist believes their deity created human beings to worship the deity or to be tormented by the deity. What values motivate the act of creation? The deity values the control of others and the torment of others, since those are the purposes of the creation, obedience or torment. Since those who believe and obey the deity go to heaven to be subjects within his eternal kingdom, and those who do not believe or obey are sent to be eternally tormented, then those are the purposes of existence motivated by the deity’s desire to control others and witness the suffering of the disobedient.

The Deity’s Conception of Righteousness

In the Old testament Abraham was counted as righteous by the deity after he did what? Prepared to murder his own child by the command of the deity. The deity doesn’t value right, because it is wrong to murder a child. If the deity valued right and Abraham refused to do evil even for the alleged most powerful deity in existence, then the deity would say he’s righteous. Instead the deity called him righteous because he was obedient unto evil against someone that he loved. Righteousness in the eyes of the deity equals obedience. Obedience is the deity’s highest value, motivated by the desire to control for whatever satisfaction the control of others supplies.

The Deity’s Hypocrisy

The greatest commandment is to love the deity with all your mind, heart, body, and spirit, and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. Yet the deity does not love you as he commands you to love him, and does not love you as he loves himself. This is evident by the fact that the deity would not want to be created for eternal servitude or eternal torment; and that is evident by the nature of the deity’s relationship with human beings, where he cannot both not mind existing in eternal servitude, and have the desire to control others and be content.

Objective Morality

We know what is right and what is wrong, because the human constant is desire. In fact the universal constant for any conscious being is desire. All people want to do what they want to do at all times. All people can do as they please so long as the actions of one do not interfere with the actions of others, and all people have adequate opportunities to have time, money, and know-how. The basis for right and wrong is whether an act is unimposing or imposing, including systemic functions that determine the circumstances of others. The justification for imposition is to prevent or neutralize imposition, or in justice as a means of restoring an injured party.

By prohibiting only acts that impose on others all people are free to do as they please, which is ideal. Ideal not only for human beings, but ideal in any area, setting, or space consisting of multiple beings. This produces the maximum amount of subjective expression, because subjective expression isn’t limited by the subjective preferences of one being or a group of beings.

Moral Duality

Anyone who claims an unimposing act is wrong is imposing a subjective preference onto others, and any act that is imposing that one claims to be right is obviously imposition. This is the moral duality, objective liberty based morality, or subjective tyranny based morality.

Moral Function

Morality isn’t only ideas of right and wrong but it is a determinant of conscious motion. Morality is a standard which is a value that a person sees themself through. Violating one’s morality causes people to see themself as something they don’t like which produces a loss of self worth and negative feelings. Subconsciously a person rarely has objectives that violate morality because the subconscious aims to create objectives that produce positive feelings. This is also why objectives can be created that violate moral standards because the feelings derived from an objective may be worth the loss of self worth.

There’s various factors that determine the influence of morality on behavior, and obviously different moral rules carry different weight and influence. The point is in establishing that morality is a determinant of conscious motion.

How Deity Worship Contaminates Moral Application

Deity worshippers’ morality functions slightly differently than non-deity worshippers. The difference is the deity worshiper’s self worth is determined by how they perceive the deity perceiving them, which serves as the basis for how they see themselves. This typically degrades moral application because the believer doesn’t feel bad for committing morally wrong acts that they believe the deity forgives. The act doesn’t change the deity’s opinion of the believer in the believers mind and consequently doesn’t change the believers opinion of himself, so there is no negative feeling from a loss of self worth attached to the act to prevent it, or the feeling is so fleeting as to not be a deterrent to the act. To put it another way, the pleasure derived from an act believed to be morally wrong will always be worth a small, fleeting, or non-existent loss of self worth that comes from ideas that the deity understands and forgives. More importantly, since the deity is a construction of the believers mind the believer sees the deity as understanding what they do, and sees the deity as forgiving of their wrong doing.

Forgiveness

The central tenet of Christianity is that an inept deity created a species that couldn’t live up to his standards so he sent his son to be sacrificed for these inherent shortcomings and whoever believes in him lives in a paradise of eternal servitude, and whoever does not is tormented for eternity.

If consciousness survives death there are likely separate spaces for consciousness to survive to, to ensure 1: all beings get what they want, and 2: to accommodate different modes of moral operation. In 1: no being had a choice in whether or not to exist, and so those who desire to impose on others should be able to continue to exist in an environment where all beings have the opportunity to impose on one another, and those who prefer not to impose on others and not be imposed on should be able to exist in a such an environment. 2: The propensity of the morally objective to prevent and neutralize imposition is in conflict with the propensity of the subjectively moral to impose on others to advance their interests.

The deity’s forgiveness based on acknowledgement is a recipe to mix the objectively and subjectively moral in the same space which produces eternal conflict. Nevermind that one thing had nothing to do with the other, in that Jesus being crucified for interfering with and lying to a population under foreign occupation has nothing to do with the wrong perpetrated by those who came before him and after him.

Nobody Is Perfect

The idea is that nobody is perfect so people need redeeming because the deity is perfect. While it is true nobody is perfect, perfect moral application is achievable in the sense that a person does not intend to impose on others, which isn’t to say that they may not impose inadvertently, or that circumstances cannot be created around the individual to provoke imposing intent, but it isn’t difficult to intend no imposition which is the basis for moral right

Justice Negates Forgiveness

Forgiveness isn’t required and often only serves a purpose to the forgiver based on the feelings they’ve derived from ideas about forgiveness. If a person imposes on someone else and they recognize that they’ve done wrong, the perpetrator will make efforts to restore the victim to whole. This is justice, and in justice, when a wrong act has been made right, there is nothing to forgive.

Growth Negates Forgiveness

Second, when a person commits a wrong act they are acting based on a specific set of circumstances and the understanding that they possess in that moment. If they’re no longer operating out of that understanding and would no longer act the same way if confronted with those circumstances they are essentially a different person, notwithstanding fluctuations in mood. If someone says something a child doesn’t like when they’re 7 years old and they hit the person who said it, 20 years later they’re no longer the person who hits people that says things to them that they don’t like. So there’s no need for forgiveness, because they’re functionally not the same person.

How Forgiveness Limits Moral Growth,

Among the Christian deity worshippers as previously mentioned the idea that the deity forgives prevents the moral growth of the individual. When a person loses self worth from committing an act they believe is wrong, that self worth is restored through analysis of the incident. Sometimes through justification, where there are circumstances that cause a wrong act to be right. More often through false justification where the individual interprets the circumstances in a way that creates a justification for their actions. Self worth can be restored through justice, in making the wrong act right. Or by understanding why they did what they did to respond differently in the future.

Forgiveness by an Unaffected Party Harms the Victim

In addition to forgiveness if consciousness survives death producing eternal conflict, there is no need for forgiveness when the victim has been restored, there is no need for forgiveness when a person operates out of a different understanding than the understanding that produced the imposition, forgiveness produces the retardation of moral development, and forgiveness also seeks to deprive victims of justice. If person A harms person B the deity has suffered nothing to forgive. Forgiving person A for confessing a belief that a man was sacrificed for that harm, denied person B justice and excuses the evil perpetrated against him, which also harms person B further in excusing what he suffered. Imagine your child is murdered by someone, you attend the court date and the judge says I’m forgiving the defendant and all charges are dismissed. This is what deity worshippers believe their deity does, forgives people for harm they’ve perpetrated against others.

Conditioning to Tyranny

What scraps there are for living from the Christian deity is conditioning to tyranny, which is why even the most devout followers do not apply these things in their own lives. Turn the other cheek, to give your tunic to someone who wants to take your cloak, or to go two miles with someone who compels you to go one mile with them are teachings that advise followers to submit their will to the will of others. Fundamentally misunderstanding the mode of operation of the tyrant commanding that his followers forgive in order to be forgiven. The tyrant will impose on others when it serves his interest to do so, so long as the victim cannot resist and so long as there isn’t a consequence that harms the tyrant more than the act of imposition benefits the tyrant. Forgiving a tyrant merely creates more opportunities for the tyrant to impose.

Responsibility for Ignorance

The Christian deity encourages ignorance through such false statements as all things done in ignorance will be forgiven. Again, we’re not talking about offense and punishment in regard to the hereafter, we’re talking about understanding and application of morality, because morality is a determinant of conscious motion, those who impose and those who do not. Secondly, what a person is ignorant of is determined by their values, what they like, determining where they direct their attention and what they become interested in. Lastly, but most importantly, what a person is ignorant of is determined by their willingness to deceive themselves to maintain beliefs that produce positive feelings. This is the root of all human problems, the refusal to accept information that challenges beliefs, and it contributes to what a person is ignorant of, as challenging information is avoided, ignored, and rejected.

A Thorough Examination of the Christian Doctrine

In Liberty the Definitive Moral Truth the gospels are more thoroughly evaluated, but the essence of the Christian message is submission to tyranny.

The Deity and the Devil, and the Worship of Power

Your devil is your deity. The deity describes the qualities and desires of the devil then proceeds to express these qualities through acts and commands. The devil wants everyone to worship him, and Jesus wants everyone to worship him. it’s the same thing, they both want to be worshiped and obeyed by others. The theif comes not but lie, steal, and destroy. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, but commands Joshua to commit genocide and steal people’s land. Murders the whole world (flood) because they refused to be obedient to him. Thou shalt not commit adultery, but the deity pardons David for killing Uriah to take his wife, because David is obedient to the deity. There’s no difference between what your deity describes the devil as being and wants, and what your deity is and wants, the only difference is in who you believe is more powerful. That is what you worship, power.

Ultimate Power is Righteous

What you fail to realize is that ultimate power is righteous, because righteousness serves individual interest. Which means a creator would not be evil because he understands it to interfere in his own interests. Something I’ll explain more thoroughly as we proceed.

You don’t know what righteousness is because you’ve pledged obedience to the subjective, unideal, and contradictory dictates of a tyrant deity.

Assigning External Causes to Internally Produced Effects

The only evidence you have for the deity is the assignment of internally produced feelings to external sources. Thinking about ideas of the deity and stories surrounding the deity produce positive feelings that people believe represents evidence of the deity. I remember a pentecostal preacher who used to say people could change his mind but not his heart. Essentially saying no matter what anyone told him he knew his deity was real because of what he felt. Of course what he felt was based on feelings generated by what he believed, and what he believed isn’t true. He walks around in a false blissful bubble that cannot be penetrated because his beliefs must remain intact to feel the way he feels and do things in life he enjoys doing.

Consequences of Self Deception

This has consequences for his intelligence as he cannot learn things that challenge his beliefs, and his attention is directed by values built on these false beliefs, and their reinforcement. It is detrimental to public interests for people to be less intelligent, in respect to the maximization of individual liberty, ability to produce, and identify and address problems that lead to inadequate opportunity for others.

More importantly, any belief, deity based or otherwise, that people will not allow to be challenged, obstructs communication, precluding the establishment of fact, which prevents the identification and address of problems producing undesirable circumstances across the nation, and the world.

It’s willed ignorance and stupidity because people choose the feeling produced by things that are not true, over the truth, which has negative consequences to the person and the public. Christian identification is the advertisement of ignorance and stupidity.

Implications of Deity Worship

The nature of existence is unknowable, but the problem isn’t that religious people are forming a belief about existence, the problem is that religious people believe in something that is fundamentally flawed and evil, and it influences behavior and has consequences to the public. There are deeper implications of the belief, in a perception of the world that is controlled by magic, and not the actions of the people on this planet. Ideas that the deity blesses and curses, that people’s misfortunes are the product of efforts to teach divine lessons, or punishment, and energy is spent on people imagining they are talking to a deity who can effect an outcome, despite there being no evidence of any result on this planet being produced supernaturally. The point being people believe in something that they should know to be false. That’s why religious symbolism, or subscription to religious beliefs is synonymous with willed ignorance. I reiterate that to say that’s why people are willfully ignorant and stupid.

My Beliefs, Most Probable.

The following can be disagreed with and that is not evidence of willed ignorance or stupidity, because the following isn’t proveable, but it also isn’t in conflict with observations from the universe, consciousness ideal, and is not internally contradictory. It’s a summary of the most probable explanation for existence based on how the universe operates and what it has produced, the problem faced by any eternal being or beings, the conscious experience, and ideal. Since I’m criticizing what people believe, it seems appropriate to share my own beliefs pertaining to existence.

The Universe

The universe began as hydrogen, and through the four natural forces stars were created. During the lifetime of these stars other elements formed, and upon the expiration of these stars more elements formed. As star creation and expiration took place more elements formed that led to the formation of more complex structures in planets. On at least one of these planets conditions were conducive to the development of life.

Random Generator of Objects and Life

Fundamentally, the universe exists to increase complexity, and the most complex thing the universe has produced is us. Distinguished from all other life through language, which I believe is the basis for higher intelligence through development of the ability to sequence at length. A different lecture. The universe exists to increase complexity, that’s what it does, and the most complex thing it has produced is intelligent life. The process is essentially random, in that you’re beginning with energy that is spread out from the source and with inflation, beginning as one element, and when conditions became appropriate, gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces mix the pot producing random complexity with the potential to randomly generate life.

The Problem Faced by Eternal Beings

What purpose does it serve to create something that is the random generator of objects and life? Eternity is a very long time. Never ending in fact. Imagine the earth and everything on it was all that existed, and every person was capable of manifesting their desires, to create and experience at will. How long would it take before everyone was sick of doing everything, because they’ve done it all so many times that existence was a burden? It doesn’t matter how long because eventually familiarity will dull existence. Existence becomes stale for conscious beings whose knowledge of objects are limited, and whose duration of being is infinite.

If any being or beings exist who are eternal then they have this problem. The solution to this problem is something that can randomly generate objects. This problem 1: exists for any conception of an eternal being, and 2: is solved through exactly what the universe does.

Objects Observed Can Be Reproduced

If such eternal beings exist and created the universe, or even if they can observe the universe, they have the information detailing everything the universe has ever produced. A source of energy that can be atomically manipulated, possibly through consciousness, and anything that has ever existed can be created by configuring the atoms of the energy to assume the object that’s desired. Not saying that I think this is how it works, just that the objects that the universe produces could be reproduced by eternal beings observing the universe.

Survival of Consciousness After Death

As far as consciousness surviving death, I see it as probable for a number of reasons. The first is because it is morally wrong to cause a conscious being to come into existence, who does not want to cease to exist, and then to cause them to stop existing. It’s murder. It’s also something that an eternal being doesn’t want for itself, to stop existing, making it unlikely it would create something for purposes it would not want to exist for.

Survival of Consciousness Advances Interests of Eternal Beings

The second reason I believe consciousness survives death is because it serves the purpose of creation and experience for eternal beings, to add creative beings with different experiences to enrich the space for creation and experience. It seems like a great waste of novelty, when the eternal struggle is essentially the production of novelty. It especially makes sense for a tyrant space since the tyrant seeks to control others, and I imagine new beings and more beings are probably more satisfying to control than the same beings moment after moment.

Consciousness Survives to Morally Appropriate Spaces

Moral understanding and application determines which space is appropriate for which surviving consciousness. There is no soul saving mission attached to this. Human beings fulfill their purpose whether they consist of people who are morally objective or morally subjective, because their experiences and what they produce still benefit these spaces, even if an entire species prefers tyranny. I don’t care, and the creators don’t care what space any species chooses to survive to. Although it is probably preferable in the maximization of novelty and including the perpetuation of the species for a species to be morally objective. My purposes for promoting this isn’t to lead people to moral objectivity so they survive to a morally objective space, my purpose for the promotion of moral objectivity is to benefit human beings on earth.

Speculation About a Space of Liberty

I have other ideas about what is possible in a space of liberty. I mention experiences because I think it’s possible for something like a consciousness overlay, for consciousness to experience what any other being experienced in a particular moment. Same mechanism: all the atomic information from a particular moment launches time from that moment and a being can experience through that information what the person felt in that moment while still being separate. Same idea would apply to exploring timeline possibilities, reconstituting the atomic configuration of a particular moment and influencing different decisions to produce different outcomes from that moment. If Tyson never met Don King, if the Nazis won WWII, if Kennedy wasn’t assassinated (probably not much difference) etc.

Replacing Myths

Atheists may have a problem with this belief and think it’s the exchanging of one myth for another, but belief in this doesn’t harm human interests, and commands no belief through consequence. Objective morality is ideal regardless of whether eternal beings exist, if the universe is the solution to the eternal problem, and whether or not consciousness survives death.

Tyranny is Against the Interest of a Creator or Creators.

There is no god as described by the deities of human beings. Any creator recognizes that it is against his interests to subordinate creatures to his subjective preferences. Imposing subjective preferences limits subjective expression which reduces the potential for creation and experience, and limits the objects that could be created and be useful to a creator or creators. Secondly, the creation and creator(s) have a relationship that consists of mutual benefit.

Creators and Creation Exist for Mutual Benefit

The creator(s) benefit from everything produced by the creation, furnishing objects and experience required to perpetuate eternal creation and experience. The creation benefits from existing and presumably joining a population where they can create and experience in an environment absent imposition, or in an environment where they can impose on one another. This is a relationship that can extend infinitely upwards so to speak. That is to say, an eternal space of liberty and tyranny benefits from the random generation of objects and life produced by the universe, and if anything exists beyond the eternal spaces of liberty and tyranny, it will benefit from what is produced by those spaces. Anything existing beyond that benefits from what is produced below it.

7/3/24

NBC reported a study showing construction worker suicides increased from one year to the next, but only showing that there were over 6000 suicides among construction workers while creating a narrative that a toxic masculine environment was leading to a disproportionate amount of constructions workers commiting suicide. Followed by working conditions.

First I needed to know how many construction workers there are. There are 8 million construction workers and 6000 suicides. This means in a year, 1 out of about 1300 construction workers commits suicide. The national suicide rate for males is 22.8 per 100,000 which is about 1 in 4300. Suicide is about 3x more prelevant among construction workers than it is the general population.

There’s a question here. Does the profession of construction cause people to be more likely to kill themselves, or are people who are more likely to kill themselves drawn to the profession?

Having worked construction, it’s a profession that is a draw for people who have problems. I have 2 felony convictions and several misdemeanor convictions. When we were working in Allentown, PA, the general contractor contracted with a temp agency for elevator operators who were in a state work release facility. The installers I worked with were alcoholics, went to the bar and drank every night, two of them had cocaine habits. The one joked that alcohol wasn’t ruining his life, he just wasn’t doing enough cocaine. Other companies had a decent amount of people who look like they have things going on in their lives, and if you talk to them you find out about it. If we’re including day laborers, the guys hired to move stuff around or clean up, these guys are usually making the state minimum wage, often have drug habits and generally unstable lives.

Construction is a field that typically pays well, and companies will accept anyone who shows up to work, and can become proficient in a few basic skills. Not a lot of other places where a person with a poor work history, HS education or less, criminal record, can go to work typically earning $20 plus an hour, and in 6 months probably be making $30 plus depending on how they work and what they’ve learned.

People who want to blame working conditions and toxic masculinity will say construction workers have a higher suicide rate because they work construction. They of course haven’t hung a headboard, microwave, grab bar, set a sink or countertop, installed a shower surround or shower door, hung a mirror, framed a linear foot, wired a building, installed plumbing, hung a sheet of drywall or spent any time working on a construction site. I have, as well as performed a variety of other unskilled and semi-skilled work. There’s nothing about construction that is encouraging of suicide, other than a substantial portion of the workforce consisting of people trying to make their way out of difficult circumstances and still have lingering aspects or are still involved in questionable lifestyles.

Formerly incarcerated people make up 27.2 percent of suicides. There were 49,500 suicides in 2022. 13,464 formerly incarcerated people (27.2% of 49,500) who committed suicide. A study estimates that 5 percent of people will be incarcerated in their lifetime. 5 percent of 250 million adults is about 12 million. Minus about a million people currently incarcerated, there’s an estimated 11 million formerly incarcerated people. 13,464 represents 1 out of 817 formerly incarcerated people will kill themselves in a given year. Construction hires a disproportionate amount of formerly incarcerated people which causes construction workers to have a higher rate of suicide than the general population.

I would also add that regulation of the industry contributed to daily dissatisfaction where regulation is strictly enforced. Workers not having the freedom to assume their own risk, and regulations that burden the workers in situations where there’s no benefit. Companies having to enforce rules or risk being fined, which opens doors for supervisors to say things to the workers which is usually a stressor.

It’s a misassignment of a cause to a result, claiming that working construction, the job and the environment causes people to be more likely to kill themselves. The cause of a higher suicide rate among construction workers is a workforce consisting of people who have a higher rate of suicide based on circumstances unrelated to the work they do. Their solution is to regulate the industry further, to make the work environment less enjoyable.

—

There was a story from ABC discussing states who are considering capping or banning property taxes. I commented that it has more to do with saving real estate investors millions than it does saving homeowners thousands. There was a man who said he shouldn’t have to pay property taxes because how does he own his property if he has to pay every year for it? I replied that he wants to pass his tax burden on to poor people, as other taxes like sales tax have to be increased to make up for that lost revenue. I mentioned how causing poor people to be poorer negatively impacts his interests since the greatest indicator of career criminality is the household income a male is born into, along with implications of that, like less productivity.

He responded that he wouldn’t mind a tax on the sale of houses to make up for the money. Ridiculous, and I showed him. In North Carolina there are 75 houses sold per 100,000 people. That’s a lot compared to other states, SC sells the most houses at 77 per 100,000 people. The average annual property tax bill is about $3,000 nationally. This means, in any city, the city receives about 30 million dollars from property tax per 100,000 people. If the city has 75 house sales per year, to make up 30 million dollars means the city has to attach a sales tax of $400,000 per house. Houses would be unaffordable. If you still want to get rid of property tax, then go through the city budget and cut 30 million dollars in spending per 100,000 people. These people think schools, police and fire departments, traffic lights, street lights, water and sewage, waste management, etc, are just things that are there. If you’d rather save a few thousand dollars per year then have the aforementioned that’s your prerogative. Convince other property owners that they’re better off without the services the city provides, then vote in a mayor and a city council who will destroy the city so property owners don’t have to pay property taxes. Or come up with a way to make up for the lost revenue, spread it across the population who doesn’t own property, which is indicative of disadvantage, and suffer the consequences not only as people beginning difficult circumstances made more difficult are more likely to resort to crime, but can also be exploited by politicians to legalize lawless behavior, and pass other imposing legislation as they pander to voters to pass legislation for their investors.

I don’t understand how people can be interested in subjects and for things, but be completely oblivious to the functioning of those subjects and the consequences of what they’re for. In this case, not understanding how much city revenue comes from property tax, and what it is they’re paying for that benefits their lives on a daily basis.

More evidence that they’re the same as the corporations and political investors they claim to hate so much. College graduates vote for debt forgiveness. College graduates are advantaged relative to huge portions of the population who are poor and unskilled. Advantaged first in respect to their degrees on average leading to higher incomes, and second, in their degrees creating an opportunity for them to work in a chosen profession. When they had the opportunity to prioritize their interests ahead of poor people they did it. The same as industry who has more direct avenues for their interests to be prioritized in public policy, prioritize their interests over the interests of disadvantaged people in this country. People with college debt did the same thing when they voted for debt forgiveness. This issue on property taxes is the same thing, people prioritizing their interests over the interests of disadvantaged people, by essentially hoping to pass their property tax burden onto people who do not own property.

People will often look at what people do as an indication of their character and it is. But they look at the severity of what they do whereas I look at motivation. A person who will impose on others, either through disregard of how their actions impact others, or through a desire to control, even though they only do it in small ways, it’s reasonable to believe they would do it in bigger ways if they had the ability to. This is also why I believe an eternal space of tyranny is appropriate because the will to impose on others is limited by opportunity, ability, and duration. People who impose in small ways would impose in larger ways if they had the ability, or did not fear consequence, and would continue to impose forever, if ability didn’t diminish with age or they didn’t die. Anyway, the aforementioned students and property owners represent how the American people act the same as their corporate owners do, trying to use the government to advance their own interests at a detriment to the interests of poor people in this country. If they had the ability of the corporate entity they would do the same thing.

—

Strange day at Walmart, maybe more people than usual or maybe because I had a cart, just seemed like a lot of inadvertent in the way people looking for items or picking items off the shelf, etc. but everyone acknowledged one anothers inconvenience, not morally required but a practice that improves the general public’s well being in showing respect to one another, and regret that circumstances forced the mutual minor inconvenience.

I wouldn’t have mentioned this if not for something that was done near the door that really pissed me off, and has the potential to create serious problems for me. There is a line extending out of money services across the isle but there’s a gap to allow exiting customers to pass. There was a customer about 15 feet in front of me, and the money services line moved and this bitch pulls out into the isle for no fucking reason other than to make it more difficult for me to get through. If there wouldn’t have been enough space I was prepared to hit the cart with my cart, or push the cart with my hand. In fact I was thinking about pushing the cart anyway as I was passing through, but I didn’t. I turned towards her and stared at her for a few moments, and she turned away. She was older, and it wouldn’t have been a good look, especially since there was enough room for me to pass through, and I don’t want to be seen as bullying, probably a 60 year old lady. As I got my ice out of the cooler I said

“Only person in the fucking store huh?”.

To say there’s no need to leave an opening because she thinks she’s the only person in the fucking store.

First, moving her cart into the isle and making the gap smaller and more difficult to navigate does not improve her access to service. Whether she’s so many feet closer to the cashier doesn’t change her spot in line. She presumably knows nothing about me, yet something motivated her to move her cart into the space I need to get through which she should know will make it more difficult to get through. Maybe she’s racist and that’s why she left the gap for the woman, but tried to close the gap on me. Otherwise, and what I always leans towards when there’s nothing overt to suggest the previous explanation, that she’s just inconsiderate, sees the line move and mindlessly begins moving even though she’s going to block the exit. She thinks she’s the only person in the fucking store, she’s unconcerned with how her actions impact others. But even when she saw me approaching, she didn’t have the decency to back her cart up to make sure I had enough room to get through. It was questionable because a cart is wider towards the back, and I feel like I only had inches on each side.

That could have been very bad, because there’s a chance she didn’t know what she was doing. Unlikely though, because not thinking about others when they’re not in your field of vision is not the same as watching someone approach an obstacle you created, and not acting to remove that obstacle. When I looked at her she was kind of leaning on the cart. Had I pushed the cart, and I was going to push the cart before I realized she was older and leaning on the cart, she might have fell to the ground. That may have looked like a guy just pushed a lady’s cart and she fell to the ground. I’d probably have to fight somebody about that and would have ended up with charges. It’s a little scary, because I was about 50 percent in on pushing the cart. I have a pretty good gauge of when I’m about to act on anger, so it makes the possibility real to me, knowing there was serious consideration. The only perceivable benefit in the moment was the difficulty she was creating for me in potentially blocking my path. Intentionally it means she derives pleasure from controlling others, in her effort to prevent me for whatever reason she wanted to prevent me, and if unintentionally, it represents extreme indifference to the interests of others.

—

I’m a little embarrassed about my law enforcement sollicitations. Two reasons, the first in overestimating how working in law enforcement should lead to better comprehension and understanding through the practice of seeing life through points of action, having to be cognizant of motivation, intent, actions, and results, and applying the law to the actions of others. I think I overestimate officers in that respect, where most are probably thinking about LE as rules they’re enforcing, rules they have to follow, but still compartmentalizing the mental processes within the profession.

The second reason really only applies to the first sollicitation, most of which went to spam folders where I was more open about what law enforcement is. If we have an environment where opportunities for time, money, and know-how are adequate for all people, and we have laws that reflect moral objectivity, then enforcement of the law is the assurance of liberty and the maintaining of ideal. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for that. I also think very few LEOs understand themselves to be that, and obviously we don’t have adequate opportunities for many people in this country, and there are many laws that are objectively immoral. Objectively immoral in the sense that they prohibit or impose while not preventing imposition, or imposing more imposition than they prevent.

There’s some embarrassment concerning those elements of those sollicitations. Ultimately, it was an effort where I saw mutual benefit. For 4 to 5 years I’ve written about LE being portrayed in a negative light by the media for acts that are consistent with the law. I don’t view LE through a biased lens, because ultimately, I’m concerned with how effective LE is in enforcing the law which includes acting within it, and using discretion when able to in the interest of public benefit. It just seemed first, like my material would be of interest to LE, and second that LE may purchase material since the more resources I have, the more people I can reach, and they would benefit from an objective analysis of their actions in controversy reaching more people and improving the public’s perception. But, they clearly didn’t see it that way because none of them bought books or responded.

I’ve been fck’n off too much over the last few days. Need to finish ASC.

7/9/24

What I if told you

You the read first line wrong?

Same the with second line

And also the third…

If you’re reading a sentence that contains all or most of the words of a familiar sentence your mind will read it as if it is correct. The mind organizes objects according to sequence (cause and effect assignments to objects), and these sequences become objects. When these objects (the words in the sentence) are seen in the familiar arrangement it is interpreted as the known object.

This is evidence of subconscious assignments of cause and effect to objects, and how objects are identified through sequencing. Letters are objects that when arranged in different sequences produce words which are objects that represent their definition. Language is sequencing in the definition of the word is the cause that produces the effect of the word. When words are sequenced with other words this produces other objects in sentences.

What if I told you is an object that represents the sequence of those words. Seeing what I if told you contains all the objects just in a slightly different order that appears to be the familiar object what if I told you.

—

Marijuana puts me in the moment by allowing me to focus. I’ve written something similar to this in the past, commenting how it relieves the immediate stress which allows for objective creation that isn’t prioritized by influencing outcomes related to that stress. The subconscious creates objectives aimed at producing positive feelings, and when stress is present, reducing or eliminating stress is an opportunity to experience a positive feeling, through the elimination of the negative feeling. The stress is a product of threats to anchoring objectives, or intermediate, long term, or recurring objectives. This produces analysis of circumstances (objects and potential motion), to consider opportunities to influence a desired outcome.

Yesterday, my intermediate objective was to work for this company through Veryable, I’d make $450 total, which would take me comfortably into next week giving me time to finish ASC and maybe prepare and send some new sollicitations to new groups. It’s 4pm to 2am. When I arrive I’m greeted by an older gentleman who is vibrant, friendly, and enthusiastic and gives me a brief tour of the area and introduces me to the supervisor. I’m assigned to a machine that requires me to load and align polyurethane foam mats with the lines on a table. Then I press F1, followed by F2, the machine builds some kind of pressure, and then I press the green button and the machine begins cutting a shape out of the material. When it is finished I stack the piece on a pallet and load an uncut piece onto the table.

There’s probably 2 minutes from the time the machine begins cutting to the time that it completes. While the machine is operating I started by going through my journal for ASC related content to incorporate into the revised version. I grabbed a handful of examples while I was working but these were examples that I had a good idea of where they were, whereas just reading the journal became irritating due to the interruption of having to work. Recently, on a different machine at BMF where I had a similar amount of time I was passing time playing an old Nintendo game on my phone emulator. It was a game I played as a child and there are different combinations of starting characters, so although I’ve beat the game, if I’m trying to pass time I can play the game with a different combination of characters and it’s still entertaining. After a while I switched to playing the game to pass time in between the machines program. It was very effective.

When the pallet of mats reached a height that made it a comfortable seat, I sat on the mats, but I was always at the machine as soon as it completed operation. Playing the game and sitting had no impact on production. I did this for probably 4 hours or more. At around 11:30, the supervisor asked me to not sit so much. I asked what difference it made since I’m at the machine as soon as it stops, it’s not impacting production? He says it looks bad. I asked how it looks bad and he says that everybody else is standing. I say they’re not running this machine (as in their jobs require them to stand), and how does me standing benefit them? I made some other comments that it was arbitrary authority, that he was saying something to me just to say something to me. Asked if he would cancel my next two days and he walked off. What looked bad to him is I was performing the job well while I was also not appearing to be working very hard. He has no actual explanation as to why I shouldn’t sit, so the directive comes from a desire to control in order to satisfy consistency with a subjective standard i.e someone shouldn’t be sitting while they’re working.

I also don’t have a problem standing. My desire to sit through most of the shift isn’t an issue. In fact, had he said don’t sit on the product I would have said okay and proceeded with the shift, because although me sitting on the product isn’t going to harm the product, I respect that it is the company’s property and I won’t sit on it if they don’t want it sat on. I also don’t have a problem with respecting the supervisor and taking direction. I was going to change out the box used for scraps, but he told me it can be fuller than it was when I was going to change it. He also reminded me that the mats should be placed on the machine with a particular side facing a particular direction which I made sure I complied with. The problem I have is I cannot accept commands where the only purpose served is to make my day harder, and whatever satisfaction is derived from a supervisor for doing it. Again, even if it was to not sit on the product at least there is a pretextual purpose that had the appearance of legitimacy and I can accept that even if I don’t agree with it.

I contacted Veryable, explained the incident, and told them I would not be showing up for the following two nights. I thought I was going to take a 10 percent reliability hit for the two days, or maybe have my account suspended, but to my surprise, I woke up to discover that the following days were canceled. Either by Veryable or the company, and my reliability only dropped by 1 percent.

To return to the opening paragraph of this entry. My objectives prior to 11:30 the previous night was to work for 3 days and have money to finish ASC and some sollicitations over the next week. Now everything has changed and I move into analysis of my immediate circumstances. I have about $175, and $150 coming from working the night before. There’s a job I can work on Saturday for the guy in Cahokia, but that’s only going to be between $50 and $100. (Confirmed it. It’s for $80. The work usually isn’t more than simple things and hasn’t lasted more than 2 hours on either occasion. I feel he’s helping me more than I’m helping him). I’m on Veryable, Craigslist, and Airtaskers looking for work.

I’m also thinking about where I’m going to go. This shouldn’t be an issue, but I’ve been rotating around the same 3 rest areas for 3 to 4 months. I haven’t identified the value that produces the discomfort, and it’s minimal, but enough to prefer to be elsewhere. I’ve also lost an area due to the interaction with the Wright City police. In the sense that I know the officer knows my vehicle, if he sees me, sees my plates are still Texas plates, he knows he can pull me over and if he’s having a bad day, or feels like I’m not making an effort to do what I said I was going to do, he could make my life more difficult.

After doing what I can do I begin fucking off on YouTube. I recognize myself fucking off and decide to smoke some weed. After doing so, these things I’m concerned with that I cannot do more to influence fade from my mind, and through the chemical dissipation of the stress there are changes in my immediate objectives. If the stress isn’t present, the subconscious is free to prioritize other objectives not related to stress relief. Stress relief objectives pertain to finding a way to influence outcomes related to the stress, in this situation that is having enough money to have security in the intermediate future (week of expenses plus a cushion), and then the YouTube objective is a temporary suspension of stress through the entertainment provided by watching videos and comments.

Interestingly, the time I spent fucking off on YouTube this morning was incredibly valuable. I’ve known that the mind will often autocorrect words and sentences that are out of order, or contain most of the letters to form a familiar word, or most of the words that contain a familiar sentence but I’ve never given much thought to what is occurring. The opening exercise comes from a YouTube meme I saw which is evidence for subconscious sequencing of objects. Maybe I would have seen this even if I didn’t decide not to continue working for this company the following two days, but if not, $300 is a small price to pay for bringing this back to my attention and having the chance to explain what is occurring through ASC.

After smoking the weed my objectives became this entry, writing my daughter some advice about a trip she plans on taking with her boyfriend, and working on ASC and I’ll replenish my funds when opportunities become available. I do need to get ahead in the coming weeks because I need to purchase contacts but hopefully the ones I have don’t tear before I’m able to purchase new ones.

I would like to qualify that my marijuana use is very minimal despite how often I mention it in these journals. I may smoke a bowl in the morning some days to improve focus, but most often if I smoke it’ll be in the evening often to gain focus, otherwise I smoke before I go to work or if I’m beginning a long car ride to stimulate productive thoughts. The overall amount is very low. My last purchase was June 21st, where I purchased 3.5grams. Today is July 10th and I still have about 2 grams left. I mention this and have probably mentioned it previously, just because I understand that mentioning marijuana use could create an inaccurate perception of me.

7/13/24

That’s an iconic political ad. As stupid as most people are, left, right, and center, and politically indifferent, Trump capitalizing on the moment by standing up and pumping his fist will sway a lot of voters. Not to mention conspiracy theories, where people will claim that Trump represents good and that’s why “they” tried to kill him. Good for him, the industries he represents, and the people who like to hear him talk.

The Democrats have absorbed very radical elements who over the last 10 years on the municipal, state, and federal levels have implemented policies that create meaningful reductions in people’s quality of life. Democrats have no problem implementing radical policies for votes to carry forward the agenda of the industries they represent. The Republicans have no problem marketing and acting on their BS to carry forward the agenda of industries that invest with them exclusively or who invest with them more than Democrats. At the end of the day that’s what elections are about, which industries interests will be prioritized and which industries interests will be served through concession. Then primarily social legislation and tabloid controversy for the public, to pretend to be civically involved through opinions they’ve adopted concerning whatever they’ve been told is important but do not understand.

I obviously don’t support republicans, because I don’t extend my support based on the least amount of harm caused. To do so is to legitimize BS that creates the problems that republicans produce, in nationalism, Christianity, the myth of meritocracy, and ideas that labor markets don’t exist to name a few things.

It’s a great time to have a Trump following because Trump, surrounded by secret service, bleeding from the ear, with his fist raised, maybe gray scaled with red white and blue letters, is going to sell a lot of shirts for those people.

7/21/24

There was a DN post on YouTube claiming Israel is using water as a weapon citing Gaza’s water supplies plummeting by 94 percent. What’s interesting is that only 11 percent of Gazans had piped water prior to the invasion, the remaining 89 percent get water pumped from wells and other sources. Even the 11 percent who have piped water only had it for 8 hours once every three days. Even if Israel cut off their piped water, the sources of water used by the remaining population are not really subject to Israeli oversight. Maybe this is in reference to those wells and water sources, but if this is true then this is a problem they were experiencing right before the invasion, and maybe that’s why they chose to jeopardize the health and safety of their population by invading Israel, because they were on the verge of running out of water?

Who would have thought that entering Israel and killing 1300 people and taking hostages would result in retaliation? That’s like a big 9/11 for Israel in terms of casualties within their border and proportion of the population. When 3500 people were killed in the US, millions were killed and governments were overthrown. Which should teach the lesson that when a more powerful nation has citizens killed by a foreign power within its borders, the response will be grossly disproportionate. The superior power seeks to create a deterrent to future attacks. With that known, what did Hamas expect was going to happen?

If I punch a lion in the mouth and he tears me to pieces nobody is upset at the lion, they think I’m deserving of the consequence I knew would occur. Hamas decided that the satisfaction they would experience by invading Israel and killing and taking their citizens hostage was worth the deaths of 10s of thousands of people, and reducing their people’s infrastructure to rubble. And possibly being expelled from Gaza and not to the West Bank. Yes Israel is probably committing war crimes (I haven’t been following it) based on their willingness to commit them in previous conflicts. So they knew that would happen as well, and still decided it was worth it to kill their own people, have their infrastructure destroyed, and risk the lives of international aid workers to kill Israelis and take hostages. There’s no way to both be a Palestinian in Gaza, having lived through previous invasions or been told about previous invasions and to not know that Israel would invade and retaliate with an unprecedented level of destruction. If Trump is elected I think the US will collaborate with Israel to expel the Palestinians from Gaza, if it isn’t believed to create too great of a perceived security risk. The dispersion of around 800,000 people who do not want to be dispersed could become a lot of unmonitored people who are willing to sacrifice their lives to take revenge on the people whose government dispersed them. I imagine if nothing else that buffer zone is going to greatly increase in size.

You have activists in the states and elsewhere who are not just pro-palestinian, but pro Hamas which seems to be incompatible. Incompatible because how can you support a group who knowingly provokes the death of their population and the destruction of the infrastructure for an effort that will produce no benefits outside of the fleeting satisfaction that comes from a small act of retribution?

I’m certainly not ignorant of the history. The fact that in the 19th century somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 percent of the population was Jewish. The Zionist movement encouraged the migration of Jews to Palestine which was aided by the rise of Nazis in Germany. The support of the British in suppressing Palestinian resistance to the British Mandate period. Lobbying the British government for the creation of the state of Israel. Awarding the best land and a majority of the land to Israel despite Jews being a minority of the population and owning much less land than the Palestinians. The murder, rape, and expulsion of Palestians from land within the new Israeli border. The expansion of borders through conflict. The various occupation and conflict periods. Culminating in what we’ve had for about the last 30 years in expansion of settlements into the West Bank, occupation of the West Bank, and the siege of Gaza. Israel controlling access to the outside world by the Palestinian Territories. Preventing development, opportunities for a decent quality of life, and denying statehood. And the devil is really in the details of this summary.

I was very sympathetic to the cause of the Palestinians for a very long time, recognizing that they were hopelessly trapped without any recourse. But a two state solution isn’t possible because the US and Israel have no interest in the creation of a hostile state. A one state settlement also isn’t acceptable because you cannot have Palestinians with representatives in a Jewish state. Instead of holding a sign for an outcome that was unrealizable I looked at the circumstances to consider a solution that would be acceptable to Israel and the US that would profoundly improve the quality of Palestinian life.

I recognized that Israel in settlement expansion had a long term strategy to absorb the West Bank. The West Bank cannot be absorbed into Israel with a substantial population of Palestinians, but building settlements, removing Palestinians from the area, and creating an area that is continuous to the Israeli border creates an area that can eventually be absorbed. 50 years from now if 40 percent of the West Bank is occupied by Israelis, it doesn’t make sense for that area to not be absorbed by Israel even if the expansion into the West Bank was illegal. Gaza has been unlivable by most people’s standards for a long time. I don’t know what the plan was for Gaza but presumably, it was slow expulsion where the humanitarian crisis would become so deep that eventually they would be expelled through conditions. Now they may be expelled through the attack. The point being is over time the Palestinians are going to lose the land.

I proposed the option about 5 years ago because I cared about these people. The option was for the Palestinians to sell the land to Israel and disperse the money directly to the Palestinians on the condition that they take up citizenship in other countries. The option is a chapter in understanding political function through recent political history 2019-2020. The original amount was 120 billion dollars which breaks down to about 28k per head or $176,000 per family. Just a place to begin negotiations and Israel could raise the money through investors and support from the US. The program consisted of pledges from nations and a process for the dispersion of funds coinciding with people leaving the country. Giving Palestinians all the rights, protections, autonomy, and opportunity afforded the citizens of whatever countries they were to migrate to.

The option fell on deaf ears. No one was interested in it. No one would respond to it. I stopped caring. The situation would remain as it was. They were unconcerned with how Palestinians are going to lose the land anyway, and how they’re going to suffer in that land while they occupy it. Then Hamas crossed the border, killed civilians and took hostages, confirming the allegations they had been denying for decades that a Palestinian state would use whatever development would occur to attack Israel, and inviting the wrath of a superior power upon its population. I obviously don’t support Israel’s destruction of Gaza and the murder of close to 40,000 people, but it is a response that can be anticipated by invading Israel, when Hamas killed civilians and took hostages. Who supports a group who would take action that they know is going to elicit that response?

Another DN video in my feed was covering protests in Milwaukee against the police for a lawful use of deadly force in protection of a black man from another black man, and a man who died during an altercation with hotel security. It amazes me that you could get hundreds of people together to protest the police and no one among them is capable of pointing out that neither of these incidents represent a problem with policing.

Samuel Sharpe was observed about 15 feet away from another man with 2 knives in his hands yelling at the man. Police on bikes saw the altercation and ran towards the suspect yelling at him to drop the knives. Sharpe began to run at the potential victim with the knives at which time the officers shot him. Deadly force is lawful when a suspect is a threat to life or great bodily harm. A suspect charging towards someone with knives in his hands is exactly a threat to life or great bodily harm. There’s no controversy and yet they’re protesting for justice? If the police don’t shoot him then they don’t care about black people for allowing the victim to be stabbed and possibly killed. Absolute insanity.

The other incident involved a man who entered a hotel and created a disturbance by using the women’s bathroom, and then fought with security when they tried to remove him. The security guards held him to the ground once outside waiting for police to arrive. Once the police responded they found the man unresponsive and rendered aid. Even if you have a problem with the force used by security, this has nothing to do with the police who were not responsible for the force used and rendered aid as soon as they arrived on scene. Complete insanity. This is all about the organizers and the social opportunities for the rank and file. There’s no way to look at these incidents and say there is a problem with policing. These are people who are seeking opportunities to reinforce their beliefs by falsely interpreting events as things they are not. Irrational and unreasonable people.

Found myself in an emotional catch 22 situation at the gym. Circumstances that were going to leave me disappointed in my actions no matter what actions I chose.

I come back from my shower and this POS has his items strewn about the bench, probably 7 linear feet in total in front of the lockers, including my own. He sees me coming back from the shower and begin to unlock my lock. So I unlocked my locker and open the locker fast enough to knock his shit on the floor and further down the bench. I’m very angry, and ready for a physical confrontation. He looks at me and I turn and look at him, waiting to see what he wants to do. He just says my bad and I don’t say anything to him.

I finished getting dressed and getting my shit together and then drove to Walmart. As I drove to Walmart I was pissed off for how I acted. Morally not wrong. Yes I moved his property with the locker door. We can call that imposition but it is justified because his property was imposing on my time, and spatially preventing me from getting to my property. Imposition is justified to neutralize imposition, so yes, it was his bad. Even so it was inconsistent with subjective standards, because I don’t like to treat people like that. I yelled fuck while I was driving away in disappointment.

The catch 22 is, had I said excuse me I need to get into my locker I would have left and still been disappointed in my actions. I would have thought I should have just opened the locker and knocked his shit on the floor for being a POS and not being considerate of other people, and ignoring that his items were blocking me. In this situation there was nothing I could do to not have a problem with my course of action. It’s hard to say which course of action would make me feel better, probably saying excuse me and asking him to move his items.

I’ve been stuck in this area too long. There’s work here that I can use to maintain myself. Going some place where I don’t have guaranteed income opportunities adds another significant source of stress. At the same time I need to GTFOH.

7/27/24

As mentioned previously I needed to leave the surrounding St. Louis area to gather myself. I took a trampoline assembly in Colorado Springs. The job was for 250 but I only keep 200 of that. Still, it’s enough to finance a drive there and back.

Interestingly, as it pertains to one of the last few posts I mistook the address 8086 for 8068. Just an example of mistaking a similar object for another object. All the same objects just with a slightly different sequence.

Dumb ass Colorado Springs banned recreational dispensaries. There are still 90 medical dispensaries. What’s the goal with that? What are you trying to accomplish? Marijuana is a drug that does not promote behavior that influences crime. The act of more people smoking marijuana has 0 impact on the citizens quality of life. Second, to get a medical marijuana card all you need to do is show up for the appointment, so we’re not even limiting the amount of people smoking marijuana, we’re just creating business for doctors. Second, we’re missing tourist money. Why in the fuck would you want to miss out on money from people from out of town?

Right next to CO Springs, is Manitou Springs. I was on the other side of CO Springs and didn’t want to spend an hour driving there and back to begin my 100 mile trip to the rest area I was trying to get to, but there’s 2 recreational dispensaries in Manitou Springs. After that it’s Pueblo or Denver. Manitou Springs and those 2 dispensaries must be making a killing next to a city of 400,000 people and they’re the only rec dispensaries that are not an hour and a half away. It makes you wonder if those dispensaries funneled money to organizations to promote the ban on rec dispensaries, then lobbied to make it difficult to open up new dispensaries in Manitou Springs. They probably didn’t have a hand in it, just the benefactors of the ignorance of CO Springs conservatives, but there are a lot of outdoor attractions out there, and they’re the only rec- dispensaries within over 100 miles.

The tyrant conservative voting block prevented me from purchasing a product I wanted to purchase, for no benefit to anyone other than doctors, and the dispensaries in Manitou Springs.

Weather was great out there. I forgot about dry heat, when 90 feels good at 11 percent humidity, and the night time temperatures drop to the low 60s. I would have stayed out there and finished up material and worried about money next week, but their rest areas are far from cities and planet fitness.

The trip was worth it. Allowed me to organize my thoughts as I’m revising ASC. I have the full scope of organization, moving into the final phases. I committed to 4 days of work this week, should hold me over for about 10 days. Finish ASC and some new sollicitations out.

People are so fucking irrational. I read an article about a researcher who discovered that manganese nodules, essentially balls of metal on the ocean floor can produce enough of an electrical charge to knock oxygen atoms off water to produce oxygen in the deep ocean. Significant because it was previously unknown how there was oxygen since most oxygen in the ocean comes from plants and algae, and photosynthesis cannot take place in depths that receive no sunlight.

There are about 5500 different species sustained by this oxygen. Mining some of these areas means the life migrates to adjoining areas that are not being mined or they die off, since what’s mined won’t remain to produce the oxygen. These species serve no human purposes and can still be studied in other areas that are not mined. Even in the absolute, whether they exist or do not exist has no bearing on anyone’s life.

Secondly, the marine life that exists at these depths is exclusive to these depths and marine life from other depths do not venture to these depths. It’s an isolated ecosystem, meaning disturbing it isn’t going to have any impact on the ecosystems in shallower depths.

In probably 5 exchanges that maybe I’ll post later people were arguing against mining in the interest of saving creatures that advance no human interest, and unidentified repercussions of disturbing the environment. There’s 6x as much cobalt on the ocean floor as there is land reserves. Do you know what people go through to mine cobalt? Regulation cannot be enforced because there isn’t an adequate alternative supply. Even outside of cobalt specifically, what can be mined in these areas advances human interests, and the outright prohibition of mining harms human interests. I break these things down, and people’s biases concerning mining, and preserving nature are so strong they refuse to acknowledge when they’re taking a position to harm instead of advance human interests.

I mentioned in the previous entry about people protesting the lawful use of force against Samuel Sharpe who was shot by officers while running at another man with knives in both hands, and a man who died due to force used by hotel security. They’re both completely ridiculous, but in the second the police had nothing to do with it, how can the use of force by hotel security be the responsibility of the police? There is a new controversial use of force that is controversial.

Sonya Masse was shot in her home by deputy Sean Grayson.

She called the Sheriff Department and officers knocked on her door and rang her door bell 8 times. This isn’t the behavior of a person who calls the sheriff because they’re concerned about a prowler. When she responded she asked who was there and didn’t come to the door until after 4 minutes from the initial knock.

The officer asked if this was her car on the side of her house.

She says please god, please god, please, na ah.

The officers stated that they looked around and didn’t see anything. She says please god again and then says she needs help.

The officer asks what she needs help with and she says nothing, please god, please god, please god, I just don’t know what to do?

The officer responds do about what?

Sonya says, nothing. I just wanted to see if y’all could help me.

LE: What do you want help with?

SM: Huh?

LE What do you want help with?

SM Huh. I heard somebody outside.

LE: Yeah we checked your house, we checked your backyard. I walked through all these backyards, we checked your front yard. We didn’t see nobody. Nobody’s out here.

SM: You didn’t see anybody? No we checked the whole area. What took you so long to answer the door?

SM: I was trying to put on some cloths sir.

LE I got ya. Alright. Is there anything more we can do for you?

SM: Huh?

LE: Is there anything more I can do for you?

SM: No sir.

LE Are you doing alright mentally?

SM Yes.

LE Are you sure?

SM Yes, thank you, I love you all.

LE That’s not your black car though?

SM No.

LE That’s not your black SUV, someone just parked it in your driveway?

SM: They brought it to my driveway.

LE: Just left it?

SM: mmhmm.

LE: Let’s run that. (Vehicle Plates).

The officers are inquiring about the vehicle because there is a substantial amount of damage to it. The window is smashed and it looks vandalized, and Sonya claims the car isn’t hers.

LE Does anyone else live here with you. You live here by yourself? Do you have a name, an ID?

The other officer is running the plate.

Masse let’s the officer in her house presumably so she can find her ID and the other officer joins them shortly after.

Masse calls the sheriff department while the deputies are in her house, and informs the dispatch that the deputies are there. The dispatcher tells her to talk to them and she tells him to hold on one second and begins going through a bag. She tells the officers she has some paperwork. She says can you grab that Bible please.

The officer obliges her and hands her the Bible and says hey, I just need your name so we can get out of here.

The other officer asks was there any damage previous to the car.

SM: Yeah there was some damage.

LE: What was the damage?

SM: A dent I believe?

LE: What about windows?

SM: Oh yeah that was something that happened earlier.

LE: Okay. Perfect. What’s your last name?

SM: Ahhh.

LE: It’s okay you’re not in trouble.

SM: Masse

The officer has trouble hearing her and doesn’t appear to want to go through her spelling it out and asks do you have ID? That’ll make things so much easier and then I’ll be out of your hair.

SM: (Sigh) Jesus. I want to show y’all some paperwork.

LE: Well just get your ID.

Other LE: What paperwork?

LE: Well just get your ID for me and then we’ll get to the paperwork, one task at a time.

She begins going through a bag saying Okay. Uh huh. Okay. Let me find it.

LE: Grab your ID for me.

SM: I don’t know where my ID is.

Officer points and says is it in that stack right there maybe?

SM: One second.

She says let me get this and begins walking to the stove. There’s a pot of boiling water on the stove.

The officer comments we don’t need a fire while we’re here.

She shuts off the stove. Then grabs a towel and picks up the pot.

The officers back away from her a little bit.

She says where you going?

The officer says away from your hot steaming water, laughing while he says it.

She says away from my hot steaming water?

She says I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.

The officer says what?

She says I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.

The officer says you better not I swear to God I’ll fucking shoot you in the fucking face right now and draws his weapon.

She says okay I’m sorry and ducks behind the counter still holding the pot.

The officers tell her three times to drop the fucking pot and then shoot her.

When I initially saw the video which was a news edited version the act seemed potentially negligent. While Masse possesses a potential weapon in the pot of boiling water that has the potential to cause death or great bodily harm, without the context from the entire incident it is unclear if it is reasonable to believe she possessed the intent. Before watching the full video it appeared to me to be an accidental discharge because the news edit only showed one shot fired, and only one command to drop the pot. It appeared that the officer drew his weapon in response to Masse becoming a threat of great bodily harm or death (people have died from being scalded with boiling water), but she wasn’t an imminent threat because the potential intent could not be inferred from the circumstances. Meaning the officer was justified in drawing his weapon, but not necessarily justified in shooting the woman.

After watching the full video Masse was irrational, disoriented, and seemingly delusional throughout the interaction. I’ll break that down momentarily, but I also want to comment on the apparent interpretation of Masse saying I rebuke you in the name of Jesus. The officer saying you better not clearly isn’t a response to Masse’s deity’s rebuke, because that has already occurred twice. You better not is in reference to the belief that Sonya may throw the boiling water on him.

Looking at what happened throughout the interaction Sonya seems like a credible threat.

If you believe someone is outside your house, hear a knock on your door, see officers outside shining flashlights it shouldn’t take 4 minutes to come to the door. This is abnormal behavior for someone who is reporting a crime and is concerned about their safety.

If law enforcement is on their way to your home after you called them why do start boiling water? Not saying she intended to throw water on officers, that can be ruled out based on their being no initial intent to lure the officers into the house or retrieve the pot while they were outside, but it is peculiar behavior.

Not coming to the door for 4 minutes and claiming you had to find some clothes to come to the door in. She called the deputies, she knew they were coming, why would she wait until they were at the door to put some clothes on. It’s peculiar behavior if taken at face value, and its suspicious because it doesn’t seem like the actual reason why it took her 4 minutes to answer the door.

She says the car in her driveway isn’t hers.

She gives almost no straightforward answers, he pretends not to hear what officers are saying to think of a response to questions that she has no reason to lie about.

She can’t provide her name.

She calls the Sheriff’s Department while the deputies are in her house, trying to ID her and leave.

After all of this suspicious and seemingly impaired or mentally disturbed behavior she tells them to wait a second. I need to get something.

She goes to the stove, shuts it off, and grabs the pot of boiling water. The officers move back saying they want to get away from her steaming hot water. She says I rebuke you in the name of Jesus twice while holding the pot. Then she’s told to drop the pot 3x before she is shot.

With the pot of boiling water in her hand she is an imminent threat of great bodily harm because at any moment she chooses to fling the water at an officer great bodily harm will result. Based on her behavior throughout the interactions, and what she said before grabbing the pot she is capable of anything given her state of mind. The law says that deadly force is lawful when a suspect is an imminent threat to life or great bodily harm which she was. I can understand not wanting to walk around the rest of your life looking a ghoul from fallout, and Sonya in that moment was a threat to produce that effect.

The media coverage is ridiculous. As little as 40 seconds of the interaction. The Springfield Police Chief who had nothing to do with the event makes a statement on the city governments behalf condemning the incident providing no legal context to the event. That’s essentially what a police chief is in most municipalities, appointed by the mayor or city council, he’s a PR guy in a LE uniform. Every Chief should be nominated by officers and voted on by the public.

It’s completely lost on most people, that immediately prior to the incident, she is asked for her ID which she has avoided providing and she says hold on a second I need to get something. Then she gets up, you think she’s shutting off the stove, but she grabs a lot of boiling water, then asks why you’re backing up, and makes statements that could be interpreted as a threat. She was told 3x to drop the pot, instead she crouched down, and appeared to be getting up when the officers moved closer to the counter to see her. The law is what the law is. I’m certainly sympathetic that a woman had serious mental issues or drug induced problems and died because of it, but whether you think the officer was wrong, she made herself an imminent threat of great bodily harm. Picked up a pot of boiling water. Was making statements that could be interpreted as threatening, was in range to create great bodily harm with the boiling water, was given three commands to drop the pot, was in an upward motion at the moment she was shot. That represents an imminent threat of great bodily harm.

The full incident isn’t being covered, an explanation of the law, whether a reasonable officer would believe based on the totality of those circumstances, that the suspect could be an imminent threat of great bodily harm. Of course no one who has an opinion has seriously asked themselves what they would do if they were in the same situation, would you be willing to risk looking like Freddie Krueger for the rest of your life, and make that assessment based on the officers complete interaction with this woman, including the final sequence of events: need an ID and they’re gone. Hold on a second, grab a pot of boiling water, makes threatening statements.. crouches down, then begins getting up with the pot in hand once you come into view. She’s an imminent threat of great bodily harm.

USA Today ran an article I only saw the headline that read “Sonya Masse is why black women are afraid of the police”. There is 9 fucking minutes of irrational interaction, followed by the interruption of the ID process so she can retrieve a lot of boiling water and make threatening statements. They pretend that the officers entered her home and shot her. Most articles also claim she was unarmed, which also is not true. A bunch of people will post a 1 minute clip with a caption and they’ll never watch the whole video. They’ll never know what the general standard for the use of deadly force is, and they’ll never apply that standard to incidents they promote as racist and or injustice.

This is what LE wants. If there is any controversy in the use of force the entire country is turned against you. And the actions of one officer are representative of all officers, racism, and normative policing. In this instance, based on objective reasonableness, the use of force is lawful, the suspect refused to drop the pot of boiling water that qualified her as an imminent threat of great bodily harm. But LE wants things to remain that way. Idk. I sent the MFers sollicitations to buy books and they didn’t buy shit. 😂.

8/6/24

I worked the 4 days at Hub Group through Veryable and found myself embroiled in multiple controversies with Veryable. The essence of the initial controversy was I understood the job to be a fixed payment for a certain amount of work or the guarantee of 10 hours of service towards its end. When we finished the job an hour and 45 minutes before reaching 10 hours, we expected full payment. The next day we were paid for the hours we were there and not the completion of the work.

This led me to consider all the parallels I’ve observed in working for labor service providers and working for Veryable. I mentioned as much to operator support. I made a report showing that Veryable is neither a labor broker, nor a market place, but a provider of labor services who has automated aspects of the business through the app to circumvent classifying their employees as employees. Denying their employees the benefits due to employees under the law. In function, Veryable workers are employees according to the criteria established in Real v. Driscoll. Real v. Driscoll enters the picture as soon as it’s understood that they’ve automated processes of a labor services provider to create the illusion of a market place. I won’t go into the details since I’ve filed a whistleblower claim with the IRS.

Now that I’ve finished that I may contact an attorney to see about a whistleblower retaliation suit. Prior to me leaving to Colorado (7/24), and I probably already wrote this (previous entry), there was a day I didn’t clock in through the app. I sent Veryable customer service an email, they called the company, and I was paid shortly after.

When I returned that Monday I was short on pay as I mentioned, believing I completed 100 percent of the work so I was entitled to 100 percent of the pay. Tuesday I was exchanging emails while I was at work and went to the Veryable app several times to review the agreement. As I did I must have clocked out. Consequently, the following day I was paid $17.85 and I was there all day. This began a second round of email exchanges with Veryable. Only this time, operator support was not willing to call the company and correct the mistake made by their app. I was able to get the client supervisor to text the guy who managed the company’s Veryable account, and he created a job I didn’t have to attend to send me the remainder of the money I was owed.

What has changed since last week? Last week I wasn’t paid, I contacted Veryable, they confirmed I was there and I received my money. What changed is I told them I believed they misclassified their employees, and if they wanted to treat me like an employee (paying me an hourly wage for an agreement where I expected all the money bid, for doing all of the work available) I would contact the appropriate agencies and see if they agreed. I revealed my suspicions and revealed my intent to blow the whistle on those suspicions.

Two days later, and I believe after I had already responded to a request for feedback or ignored the request for feedback on customer service, I received a request for feedback on the service I received two days prior. I was in the middle of writing the report and mentioned what I was doing was largely a product of the customer service I received.

I received a response telling me I could stop using the app. Very provocational. I was upset by it and spelled it out to him. I stated if his comprehension skills prevented him from understanding the content, maybe he should forward it to someone who doesn’t have those deficiencies so he doesn’t become a liability to the company.

Briefly afterwards my account was suspended. I contacted customer support to ask why my account was suspended? He was the one who responded and said because of my behavior. I asked what about my behavior to which I was given another response that didn’t elaborate on behavior and I stated what specifically? Eventually he quoted the above mentioned portion. I first pointed out that it denotes a question not an assertion, but also explained that as an assertion it is evident by the fact that he didn’t comprehend there’s a difference between a question and an assertion, that he isn’t comprehending what I’m telling him.

He threatened me with a permanent suspension of my account. I copied the operator support abuse policy and showed that nothing I did qualified as operator abuse contained in the outline and nothing I wrote or did could be considered operator support abuse.

I tried to send an email to operator support that this person must have had access to titled Arbitrary Suspension of Account. He said the case was closed and this message would be added to the ticket.

I left it alone figuring I’d resume trying to find support oversight later on. Later that day my account was restored but what was the actual intent? Perhaps to treat me unfairly to make me angry and reveal more about my suspicions, to make a threat, or in my anger to make statements to reduce my credibility or to attack my character?

It sure seems like attempts at whistleblower retaliation.

—

After writing the previous portion of the entry I prepared a report and sent it to a lawyer to see if I had a case. Initially requesting an email because the character limit on the message box precluded me from entering all the details. After I received an email from the firm I submitted a PDF containing the details of what transpired and attached the screenshots to the document. It lays out and establishes all the facts, so the attorney can know if the case is worthwhile. I received a response to fill out an intake form and I’ve completed that part of the process, but I’m already irritated with the process. I mean read the PDF and tell me whether or not I have a case. I don’t know if anything will come of this, but I may begin shopping it to other attorneys.

The actual report I sent to the IRS is extremely solid in showing Veryable to be a labor services provider, who automated processes through the app to create the appearance of a marketplace or labor broker, to misclassify employees as independent contractors. This allows them to avoid paying taxes, denying employees benefits and legally mandated protections, as well as providing Veryable an unfair advantage in the industry of labor services providers, because they don’t have to pay payroll tax on the labor they supply.

This is the last day of heat before it cools down. There are swarms of hover flies who are attracted to human sweat. I cannot sit in my car and write with the windows down because as soon as you roll the windows down you have dozens plus of these little bee looking insects in your car and flying around you. You cannot go to a picnic table or pavilion because then you’ll have dozens flying around and landing on you. I’ve been spending a lot of money on fuel idling with the air on. After today it’s going to cool down but I’ll still have the issue of these hover flies. I should probably take a drive but in a week I’ll probably need to be back in this area for Veryable jobs. There’s an alternator replacement in Lexington, but it’s on a 05 Nissan Maxima and it’s kind of a bitch.

I need to get back to finishing ASC. Should only take a few days if I’m comfortable.

There was a video featuring a man who eventually shot people who were burglarizing his neighbors home. He called 911, and the.operstor told him not to go outside with his weapon, that property was not worth people’s lives. That’s a popular idea that is irrelevant to the use of force to defend property. We begin with a citizen’s right to his property. The 5th and 14th amendment are not the right of citizens to be secure in their property and not be deprived of property without due process from only the government, but to not be deprived of it from other citizens as well. A citizen has the right to defend their property because no one has the right to take it without due process of law.

If someone is taking another person’s property the first defense of property is to tell the person you cannot take my property. This is something they already know but if they don’t comply the next step is the use of force. If the victim has no experience fighting or applying force then he will need a weapon otherwise he cannot defend his rights. If the victim threatens use of the weapon and the perpetrator still refuses to relinquish his property, the only recourse the victim has is to use the weapon. This isn’t about the value of the property and the value of the perpetrators life, this about one having a right to his property, and therefore having a right to protect his property, and the perpetrator having no right to anyone else’s property, and risking his life for that property. The issue isn’t that property isn’t worth a person’s life, it’s first that one has the right to property and the right to defend it, and no person has a right to anyone else’s property. Second, it isn’t the victim who has decided the person’s life is less valuable than the property, the perpetrator has made this appraisal by risking their life to take someone’s property.

There was a case in MN that is either reinforcing a MN law or it is creating a precedent for what they’re calling a duty to retreat. What’s dangerous about this ruling is in this specific instance the ruling is correct but the implications are far reaching and incorrect.

In the case after a verbal altercation with a woman, a man known to the woman pulled a knife on the man and threatened to kill him with the knife. The man pulled out a machete which caused the other man to put the knife away and the man and woman to put space between the two parties. If the man with the machete leaves here, he’s simply deterred a threat. He didn’t leave, he yelled and reportedly swung the machete at the perpetrators for about a minute after the man put the knife away. He began as the victim and became the aggressor and now both parties should be guilty of threats with a deadly weapon, which I believe in MN is called assault through fear with a deadly weapon.

Within their ruling on his appeals the MN supreme court stated he had a duty to retreat. I haven’t looked that deeply into the law, MN, or the twin cities that have the most influence in the state that is a shit hole full of ignorance and willed stupidity, so I enjoy seeing the harm they bring upon themselves, and consequently I’m not that concerned with their laws and policies. A duty to retreat is also in conflict with the 5th and 14th amendment, because citizens have a right to life and a right to liberty, not only in seizure by the government, but in no one being able to force you to do something when you’re in a public place and are not breaking the law. If someone is threatening me I can’t be forced to try to get away, because I have a right to my liberty and no one has the right to take it from me by threatening my person or property. You cannot force a person to leave a space because someone is threatening them, because they have the right to be there.

Now we have this case serving as an example of something it is not. The court said he had an opportunity to get away, and I agree that he did, but that isn’t the essence of what he did wrong. What he did wrong was gained the upper hand and became the aggressor. Once he’s neutralized the threat, he did to them what they tried to do to him. Morally appropriate, but not legally appropriate. Neutralize the threat and then proceed as you intended to proceed.

In different situations, say a man is being aggressive and another man has a gun. The man with the gun doesn’t have to run if he can. He can let the aggressive man know that if he attempts to impose on him he’s going to shoot him to prevent that imposition. Because he has a right to be there and nobody has the right to take that right from him. So he cannot be required to run because someone threatens him. These things have to be decided in the supreme court. A duty to retreat is in conflict with the 5th and 14th amendments.

8/24/24

I finished the revision of ASC, which for the most part was a rewriting, followed by the discard of pretty much everything in the original. Explaining mechanisms, using journal entries as a section on application, and then using the exchange on IQ heredity to more completely articulate the idea that values are a major determinant of intelligence, and anybody who is not mentally handicapped can understand anything because all knowledge consists of objects in cause and effect sequencing, and all people are capable of identifying and sequencing objects. The previous version consisted of several outlines and misc material describing mechanisms. There is some good stuff in there and I’ll probably put it out at another time. There isn’t much rush since there’s no demand for the material.

This version is structured much better, although the previous version is more illustrative but also repetitive. I struggled to write a conclusion for this version. To itemize everything that has been covered and discuss the implications. One reason it is difficult is because I cannot show how ASC addresses problems without discussing morality. I didn’t want to bring morality into ASC. I’m sure that’s another novelty, my understanding of morality as a standard, and knowing exactly how it functions within the decision making process, which is also novel. These things are not known otherwise they’d be commonly known among the public who has been successfully marketed to through the mental health industry. Those who seek to establish identity through disorder or the classification of personality through the categorization of feelings and behavior. ASC provides conscious understanding of the subconscious, and I believe it has the ability to unlock intelligence by reducing complexity to objects and motion. But getting there requires a person to value free will, intelligence, or not harming others to overcome self deception. Otherwise you’re going to believe what you want to believe (feels good) and that bias is going to limit intelligence. Not only in being incapable of learning things that challenge your beliefs, but also in how everything you perceive is influenced by your desire for things to be as you want them to be as opposed to what they are.

My conclusion was only a paragraph, but I’m going back today to finish the conclusion. One last update.

The concluding paragraph is:

Reality consists of objects in motion within space and time, and the feelings produced by motion within conscious beings. All motion is preceded by a cause. A conscious being is motivated by desires to experience positive feelings. The mind organizes objects through assignments of cause and effect, true and false to sequences, and value determined by feelings associated with the object through experience. Prioritization of value is determined through comparison. All the core functions of consciousness are understood through Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison.

It’s essentially the introductory paragraph. Interestingly, when I wrote that I intended to replace the introductory paragraph but when I went to do it, it already said this just a little less thoroughly. I’ll finally be done with this.

I realized there was nothing to the potential whistleblower retaliation because I haven’t suffered any damages, I was hoping there was punitive damages for the effort but that doesn’t appear to be the case. As for the claim itself I’m still waiting to hear back from the IRS but that will take years before I could potentially see anything from that.

I had two FB interactions recently. A while back I joined FB groups to observe and identify value protective denial or to promote material. The first was the anticipated result based on understanding how human beings respond to information that challenges their beliefs, and the second being the possibility of anomalyous individuals whose biases didn’t preclude the comprehension of challenging information. There was only the former. The groups largely consist of people who refuse or are precluded by bias from understanding information that challenges their beliefs. They comprehend at the margins and make arguments that don’t apply to any controversy, and it’s self worth reinforcing because it causes them to believe that they’re smarter than others. It also allows them to establish social relationships with people who reinforce their self worth through similar opinions. It is not a forum for worthwhile discussion or people interested in learning anything beyond what they think they know.

I no longer participate, but I still get notifications, usually friend recommendations from spam model accounts and I’ll sometimes go to the pages to look at the pictures. Then I might look through the feed. On one occasion I responded to a post promoting Native American victimhood and the white oppressor narrative. The second interaction was a group chat of an epistemology group asking for topic ideas.

I explained the functioning of morality, moral duality, and an outline of liberty, the definitive moral truth. I also had some comments that probably appeared condescending until of course there were responses that confirmed the accuracy of those condescending assertions.

If you understand the concepts there are only a few different arguments that are valid. You can argue that morality doesn’t function how I’ve described it, you can argue that objective morality isn’t objective, or you can argue that objective morality isn’t ideal.

That isn’t what happens. You have people who don’t understand what’s being stated, comprehending at the margin of good and bad is objectively knowable and they prefer a reality where it is not.

A person says morality is subjective. That’s an opinion that doesn’t represent an understanding of the content. Since part of the explanation is that morality is objective or subjective, yes morality can be subjective. But to claim that it cannot be objective, which is the implications of the statement, requires that you understand what objective morality is and show that it is not actually objective.

Objective morality is objective, because all conscious beings have desire. Not just humans, but every conscious being at all times desires to do something. This means if action doesn’t interfere with the desires of others all people can do as they please which is ideal, and all non imposing acts are right. Since no one wants to be imposed upon all imposing acts, direct and indirect are wrong. There’s nothing subjective about it, because it simultaneously advances the common interest of all beings. He demonstrated his bias creating a barrier between himself and the information further when he said that I’m promoting a subjective belief and calling others moral beliefs subjective, but could not provide an example since the explanation doesn’t promote any subjective value.

Any moral code that claims an act that does not impose is morally wrong is the imposition of a subjective preference, because there’s no other reason a person should be prohibited from an act that doesn’t impose on others outside of a person or groups personal dislike of the act or some benefit they derive through its prohibition.

There is objective morality, which produces an environment absent imposition allowing all people to do as they please, and there is subjective morality where an individual or group decides what is right and wrong based on personal benefit, including pleasure derived through the control of others. Of course within objective morality there are mechanisms of application making it 100 percent applicable to all possible acts and 100 percent correct in the facilitation of desire, which is universally constant. Imposition is right, when it prevents or neutralizes imposition. To do, requires opportunities for time, money, and know-how and circumstances are a collective production so we recognize indirect sources of imposition through the collective contribution to individual circumstances. Just to mention a few components that are not immediately ascertainable from the most general and simplistic description. Obviously more in the book Liberty the Definitive Moral Truth.

Instead of attempting to understand the concept so he could attempt an argument he makes non-applicable comments. “What about a psychopath”? “What about the Vikings”? The existence of a group with subjective moral standards does nothing to argue against what is objectively good or bad. In my very limited knowledge of Vikings, one moral standard they had was courage in battle. This was a moral standard because they not only saw themselves as wrong if they displayed cowardice in battle but thought others to be wrong for it as well, and had deities who they believed would punish those who violated the standard. Objectively there is nothing morally wrong about being cowardly in battle, although most have a negative opinion of those who are, which is a non-moral value. For Vikings, who were a people who were dedicated to conquest, it is a moral rule that advances their individual interests short term producing a more courageous fighting force leading to success in battle. But being a culture who believed it to be morally right to impose on the liberty of others ultimately led to their destruction surviving to small areas by abandoning their objectively wrong moral behavior.

We can also look at those who resisted and pushed them back. Their morality was also subjective and largey deity based, and they resisted and drove them out based on their interests to protect their lives, land, and property. They don’t need to know it’s wrong to know it’s wrong because the Vikings are imposing on their liberty. When those who resisted them resisted we know that’s a morally right act because it is right to neutralize imposition, because all people want to do as they please which they can do in the absence of imposition. To drive them out or efforts to destroy them are also morally right to prevent future imposition and in justice (restoring their victims).

The point being is objective morality exists whether it is understood or not understood, believed or not believed, and applied or not applied. So what about a psychopath? What about the Vikings? Those statements have no bearing on how morality functions, or whether right and wrong is objectively knowable. He doesn’t understand what’s being stated, he just knows I’m asserting that right and wrong is objectively knowable and he doesn’t want that to be true. He doesn’t even understand the argument for the existence of objective morality or even what morality is or how it functions.

I explained the functioning of morality. I asked him what morality is and he supplied a dictionary definition, that revealed he didn’t have a functional understanding of morality, of its tangible qualities in the feelings it creates, how those feelings are produced, and how it is a determiner of conscious motion. This was important in showing he didn’t comprehend what was written because I explained point by point the functioning of morality.

Then there was other stupid shit like people saying “can someone summarize this”?. It cannot be summarized because each statement is a component of function, not an opinion to be agreed or disagreed with based on how it reinforces or challenges beliefs.

I left the chat after maybe 10 minutes of realizing people’s bias precluded understanding and communication. It’s a microcosm of general human tendency. Which is why I am where I am.

Among a species of willed ignorance and stupidity.

I responded to a FB post that was promoting Native American victimhood. A shirt that read if your ancestors didn’t look like this (Native Americans) you’re an immigrant. There was no nation, no policy put in place to protect their common interests, and no united force in place to enforce the policies they didn’t have. Why were they conquered? Because nature worship is a false belief that inhibits scientific development, and the natives were committed to these false beliefs. Many still are.

They were conquered by a people whose lie was less detrimental to their development. Less detrimental to science and less detrimental to social development, the uniting of people through institutions that protect and advance the interests of its members. How much development occurred within Native American tribes in the 10,000 years preceding the arrival of Europeans? They added some agriculture, probably had some improvements in shelter and weapons manufacturing, but they were still a stone age culture. If they remained in the stone age for the preceding 10,000 years, what reason is there to believe they would be anywhere different today?

This isn’t a knock on Native Americans as people, it just happens to be to where their values and experiences led them. They fell into the social evolutionary trap of nature worship. Many uncontacted tribes around the world persist as they have for 1000s of years within similar beliefs traps.

Native Americans today are certainly better off being born into the United States, than they’d be if the United States was still inhabited by their stone age ancestors. Fundamentally, the conscious experience is driven by the will to create and experience, and a Native American has more opportunities to create and experience today than they did 500 years ago, and without europeans settling the land there’s no reason to believe their lives would be any different today than it was 500 years ago.

Someone asked in a comment how I would feel if someone came into my house, killed my family and took my house? This is false victimhood, evident by his refusal to respond to the question who do you know who has experienced that? The second question he refused to answer was more important, which is what opportunities he believes that I have today that he does not? Instead of being appreciative of what his ancestors experienced, so he could have the opportunities he has today, he pretends that he suffers with them so he can sell t shirts.

Who did this? This idea that someone is responsible for the actions of their distant ancestors against another person’s distant ancestors is ridiculous. It’s even more ridiculous when we consider that most white people in this country are descended from people who were not even in the fck’n county. 35 percent of white people in the country today are descended from people who were here during colonial times. Most white people’s ancestors did nothing to your ancestors, not even support of policy.

He helps advance an agenda that doesn’t benefit the interests of his people on multiple fronts. First it doesn’t benefit poor Native Americans to spend public funds on illegal immigrants. However hard it is for poor Native Americans to receive money from the government, whether individually or tribal, it doesn’t become easier when government begins to prioritize people who are not supposed to be here. In times past this wasn’t a huge concern because the population was controlled, ICE and CBP were able to apprehend and expeditiously deport. Now, the left in rhetoric and policy encouraged illegal immigration and refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement has led to a multi billion dollar industry. Donors to the Democratic party are now making billions of dollars to house, feed, and provide other free services to illegal immigrants.

The second reason the guy pandering to divide harms the interest of Native Americans is because of the divide itself. As long as black, brown, red, and yellow people hate white people, economic stratification will continue. A people who are divided by ignorance cannot accomplish class goals. Most of the poor people in this country are white. We live in a society where race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexuality, does not limit opportunities, where opportunities represents employment, housing, education, equal protection under the law, and access to services public or private. If any of those things do play a determining role in any of those opportunities there is legal recourse through the protections under the law enjoyed by all. The only thing that is really relevant on an individual basis is opportunities for individuals to have time and money, because through time and money a person can acquire know how to do what they want to do. Which is why a political system designed to allow industrial interests to direct public policy produces theater that ensures people hate each other based on bs that they refuse to critically examine.

That’s why we’re here. The same as the commitment to false beliefs prevented the development of Native Americans from developing scientifically and socially, is the same as the false beliefs today create the problems that are recurring in this nation, and the world over, and will lead to the premature destruction of this species and likely have other implications pertaining to existence as a whole.

I had two things that I wrote. One was going to be commentary on gender identity in ASC. Instead I’m throwing a paragraph in the conclusions section, just to explain what it is, through subconscious function. What I began writing is here but shortened up a little bit from what was originally intended.

The second bit of writing I did was in response to some ignorant child at the gym wearing a shirt that says Jesus Won. I wrote a little bit about that culminating with a point I’ve made in implications, but not as directly as I’ve thought it: people’s conception of god cannot exist. I’m starting with that one. I like to alternate between the ignorance I’m addressing, where many people who would support the preceding and the portion on gender identity, will probably hate the following. Not because it is any less true than the preceding and the explanation of gender, but because they want to believe the things they are wrong about as much as the things they are right about. Conversely, those who will like the following will probably hate the preceding and the explanation of gender and gender identity for the same reason as the others. The things they believe make them feel good and support a broader structure of values, and information that challenges those beliefs feel bad as a threat to the value structure supported by those beliefs. .

What did Jesus win? At most, reign over a space of tyranny and subjects who were sold on the idea that they had debt that he could forgive. That’s the interesting thing about Christianity, is you have to be sold on the idea that you have debt in order for the religion to be appealing. If you were told you had a hole in your wall and there was only one person who could fix it, and you give your existence to fix something that doesn’t even exist, or doesn’t exist for your benefit.

I believe in the possibility of a devil because if consciousness survives death there would have to be separate spaces to accommodate different motion based on different modes of moral operation. Otherwise there is eternal conflict because the tyrant seeks to impose and the libertee seeks to prevent and neutralize imposition. If there was one space for both modes of moral operation the universe likely doesn’t exist because eternity is consumed by eternal conflict. The reason I believe in the possibility of a devil is within a space where tyranny is the moral mode of operation, there will have to be one being or group of beings who are the most powerful in that space who can impose their subjective preferences and control the others. There’s a possibility that there is one being, even as the head of a group of beings who are all powerful in that space, and the nature of tyranny is forced compliance, the ease of which is facilitated through a doctrine pledging oneself to another, and that teaches people not to resist imposition.

The nature of liberty is the absence of imposition, for the creation and experience of each individual as they choose. This is why none of you who claim to know god can know god. Because any good god cannot be as you conceive it to be. The very idea that a good god would impose subjective preferences onto his creation, violates his nature and harms his interest. Fundamentally, a creator cannot both be good and derive pleasure through the control of others.

On the subject of harming his interests, is why the devil’s existence is not preferable to the existence of the libertee. From the devil’s point of view his liberty is greatest because he exercises command over his own will and the will of all others within his domain. The problem with eternity is quality of life is determined by knowledge of objects. Imposing subjective preferences on others limits the diversity of subjective expression and reduces objects created and experiences experienced. Of course eternal boredom can be contented through eternal torment of others if a being derives pleasure from such activities. We’re still fundamentally talking about different values, which is of course the second reason why a separate space of tyranny should exist to accommodate the motion of that moral choice and those values. Tyrants should have the opportunity to contend for control of one another within an eternal space. More on that in LTDMT.

God is irrelevant as an entity. God wants to freely create and experience and recognizes how his interests are served through others being able to freely create and experience having created creation for that purpose. The purpose is evident through the problem that he has. Which means god doesn’t impose on others. He doesn’t use magic to change results on the planet and he doesn’t put you in morally inappropriate spaces because he likes you, or because you praised him. You having a beginning, can never know if you’re in the presence of god or something in between. If you ever encounter an entity claiming to be god, if you suddenly lose consciousness (die) and regain consciousness in a foreign space, you know where you’re at.

God is irrelevant. If I enter a space and some entity says I’m the 1st, so what. I’m the 11 trillionth, 867 billionth, 327 millionth, 456 thousandth, 320th, what are we having a dick measuring contest based on seniority of existence? I ask the first, do you have anything going on that interests me? He might say how the fuck would I know what interests you, I haven’t watched everyone’s life, I’m doing cool shit. Then I’d ask him about what cool shit he was doing, and if I didn’t think it was cool I might make fun of him and we’d part ways. Going to do our separate subjective conceptions of cool shit.

I subscribe to the Russian dolls theory of existence. The eternal problem is finite knowledge and infinite time, the universe is the random generator of complexity culminating in the evolution of intelligent life capable of creating objects and having experiences that are observed and available to the preceding eternal space. Where did this eternal space come from? Could be the product of a preceding eternal space that has access to the objects and experiences taking place in that space which is constantly increasing in objects through the objects produced by the universe and its creatures, and possibly the incorporation of consciousness morally appropriate for that space. More on that in LTDMT.

Anyway, every time I see a person promoting or paying respect to a deity referred to as god, it’s insane to me because god does not exist as you conceive it to be. Your conception of god is evil and nearly an entire species doesn’t even know it, because the contentment produced through their false beliefs precludes the critical examination of those beliefs.

—

The following is an outtake from ASC revisions.

Gender identity

Gender identity is an individual’s assignment of gender to values, and identifying based on whether more of their values are masculine or feminine. These are conscious assignments. Something I mention because the assignments in ASC are subconscious assignments, evident by how information is perceived and organized through cause and effect, and the feelings experienced during a moment and how those feelings serve as your disposition towards objects. Whereas gender is an object, consisting of characteristics, and observing the characteristics in other objects can lead to assigning gender to those objects.

Gender is the distinction between the reproductive characteristics of one member of a species and another member of that species. Outside of certain genetic anomalies, no one member has the ability to reproduce. Gender represents what element of reproduction a member has the ability to contribute. Male and female gender distinctions are made across species based on their reproductive roles. A female praying mantis isn’t a female because it puts on make up, acts feminine, and likes things that are associated with females, it’s female because it is capable of female reproductive roles.

Over the course of human history according to genes and circumstances, the behavior of males and females diverged. Men and women tended towards different likes and dislikes and different manners and different associated behavior. This led to assignments of cause and effect to the behavior of women producing their behavior and behavior of men producing their behavior.

I don’t know when it began or where it came from, but at some point it was promoted that a person could be the opposite gender based on whether key or more values were associated with the opposite sex. This is fundamentally how gender identity is established, through values that have been associated with the opposite sex. A man likes men, talking in a feminine way, moving in a feminine way, feminine dress, accessories, and feminine roles, and he establishes his identity through the assignment of femininity to most of his values. It doesn’t change his gender, it is just what he likes.

There’s nothing wrong with anyone liking and expressing any values they want to express so long as the expression of those values don’t interfere with the liberty of others, but your gender doesn’t change. Then so much is made over what gender a person feels like. A woman who likes things that are typically associated with men, may say she feels like a man. There’s no basis for a man claiming to feel like a woman or a woman claiming to feel like a man, because neither has the ability to know what the opposite gender feels like.

The goal of social psychology is the acceptance of social norms that reduces negative impressions on a group by group basis in an effort to maximize well being. Academia generally is also looking to conduct research that advances public biases, where research that supports popular narratives will receive media coverage and the conclusions will be parroted by those who have an interest in promoting the bias reinforcing research. I don’t know the order of things but I believe it was decided that if these people with gender dysmorphia were able to live and be treated as their chosen gender this would improve their quality of life. Efforts were made to force the population to believe that these people are the opposite gender as opposed to just liking things associated with the opposite gender. The latter is true and the former is not.

These ideas and arguments were refined and promoted to advance a political agenda. If your opponents are primarily straight Christians who have values and moral standards that are in conflict with a person choosing to live as the opposite gender, then educating children to believe gender identity is important and that their gender is a choice increases your political support. People being things that are in conflict with other people’s moral and subjective standards is not an indication of intolerance, just an indication of abstinence from the behavior and believing the people who engage in it are wrong. In the same respect, I see the Christian Doctrine as inherently harmful and morally wrong, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe they shouldn’t be able to practice it in a manner that doesn’t interfere with others.

The problem is 1st teaching something to children that is not true, and creating importance around something that is not important. It isn’t true that a person born one gender can be another gender because gender distinguishes between reproductive capabilities, and at least at this point, functional reproductive equipment cannot be transferred from one gender to another. The second element of this is there are no genetic components. There are no genes that cause a person to be more likely to be trans. I had an exchange with a trans activist who claims that brain scans of trans women, more closely resemble that of cis women than cis men. This is a common misconception and a growing problem in the field of psychology, claiming a physical characteristic is responsible for behavior instead of recognizing how the physical characteristic is caused by the behavior.

In people who report symptoms of depression brain scans often reveal a disproportionately small hypocampus. A small hypocampus can be associated with a person having depression. Often through mood enhancing medication changes in patterns of thoughts, feelings, experience, and perception cause the hypocampus to increase in size. Physical differences in the brain not due to genetic defects or trauma, are determined by the patterns of thoughts and feelings a person experiences. If the activist was citing actual research, it should be expected that the brains of people with similar values (cis women and trans women) would have similar thoughts seeking the same things within a similar environment. The ultimate point being, the brain takes shape through the patterns of thoughts and feelings produced through interaction with the environment, and perception of an individual’s circumstances including perceived opportunities.

This obviously doesn’t apply to actual brain diseases, but many termed disorders that have physical signatures come through the patterns of thoughts and feelings experienced over time, not the spontaneous development of these characteristics creating a change in the pattern of thoughts and feelings that describe the symptoms. Whether it is true or false that trans women have brains more similar to cis women than straight men is irrelevant to the idea that they’re actually women, because the similarities in physical appearance is a byproduct of similar values within a similar environment.

Supplementary, I saw a video that the part of Einstein’s brain responsible for language and math processing was significantly larger than the average person’s. This implies the wrong causation, as if Einstein was smart because his brain was physically larger, when in fact Einstein’s brain was physically larger because his interests led to greater use of that portion of his brain resulting in increased size. Again, outside of trauma, disease, or genetic abnormality (down syndrome), the brain takes shape according to the thoughts and feelings experienced, which is determined by values and understanding.

Typical children crave attention, social opportunities, and are looking for things to define themselves through to establish identity. Choosing a gender identity that is not one’s born gender is a way to gain attention, create social opportunities through group belonging, and the establishment of identity. Which means in some cases a child is inclined to pursue the valuation of the opposite gender’s values, to gain the aforementioned benefits. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with the development and expression of these values, and whether learned through studies or learned through observed behavior and imitation producing positive feelings, trans values like other values are developed.

This may be interesting to some in consideration of the previous controversy where I argued that values have at least partially genetic origins, but because there is no genetic consistency between trans people, these values are developed. There may be genetic tendencies that could influence becoming trans, if for example there’s a genetic disposition to the overvaluing of social interaction, a child may pursue trans values based on the perceived opportunities for social interaction. That’s a way trans values may develop artificially, but natural development of trans values is in response to some set of circumstances that cause the values to develop.

As I mentioned the first issue is creating importance around an idea that is not important. This impacts a child’s development short and potentially long term as the child is focused on irrelevant things, who approves, who’s transphobic, trans rights, among a variety of other things that orbit this meaningless identity. A young woman on Tinder a few years ago (mid-20s) who identified as non-binary, said it was fun to talk about gender after not being able to defend her positions on the subject. It is meaningless, because all we’re talking about is someone who has more or key values that are associated with the opposite gender than their born gender. The general explanation as to why someone is trans comes down to they do things associated with the opposite sex, and why do they do those things, because they like those things.

There are older studies that show children develop values associated with the opposite sex and then often grow out of them. This is the danger of the gender identity lie and a contributor to the elevated rate of trans suicides. The essence of which is it is easier to say I used to like things that I don’t like any more, than it is to move forward having to admit your identity is bs. Either way, you are what you do, and what you or others perceive your gender to be or what others perceive it to be is wholly irrelevant. Trans rights come down to people having the right to do as they please so long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else. People having a problem with the teaching and promotion of gender identity is not denial of the rights of people doing what they want to do, and expressing themselves as they want to express themselves. It’s having a problem with the teaching and promotion of lies that do interfere with others, including the development of children.

Lastly, and I think I covered this in a previous entry I don’t know how long ago, but based on a meta analysis of older research, gender identity is not important. We know it isn’t important and is a recent social innovation because throughout human history no one claimed to be the opposite gender. They may have expressed values associated with the other gender but none believed they were the opposite gender. People will endure all manners of social stigma and alienation for important beliefs or truth. The fact that although there may have been groups who had values associated with the opposite sex but didn’t claim to be the opposite sex shows that gender identity is a: unimportant, and b: is a learned identity, a classification according to assignments of gender to their values.

Finishing the last few updates to ASC, and then figuring out sollicitation. Probably play some poker tomorrow. I worked at BMF the last three days and yesterday was all big pieces of metal that needed folds on the brake press. Brutal and I was exhausted having to wake up early each day and not sleeping very well. It’s a good work environment, all cool people from what I can tell but I’m not sure how long I can keep this up.

9/5/24

I’ve finished an academic sollicitation I’ll begin sending it out Tuesday. I’m already not feeling good about it. I’ve conducted similar campaigns and have the impressions of the feelings experienced after I send out a few hundred and a week and a half later it’s pretty clear that there will be no response, no book sales, no donations, interest, etc. In thinking about sending these sollicitations, I feel the anticipated feelings associated with the effort. It does not feel good.

I started this entry a few days ago, just the paragraph above and a few others that I deleted upon returning to it. I began to delete the opening paragraph but it was an important observation. Interesting to me that in the previous campaign to solicit law enforcement, there were intermittent scenarios considered that generated positive feelings and boosted my mood. Now, before I solicit I begin feeling how I would feel after soliciting and some time passes. I only sent 33 to 2 universities. Will send more to different places, but they make it very difficult on these websites to find the people you’re looking for. I get it.

I need two tires and a wheel bearing. Also need tie rod ends but not priority. I want to leave this area. These things are also influencing my mood. It brings the reality of my circumstances to the forefront. The reality is that my circumstances cannot improve. I won’t explain further, the explanations exist throughout the journal and if I recover to a more favorable state I’ll regret expressing my displeasure. Violates non-moral standards, content I perceive to be an expression of weakness. Non-moral in that it applies to me but not to others.

This entry is just to record a moral analysis. There was a man from Spain who was exploring a cave in Peru and became stuck. The Peruvian government initially refused to help with the rescue and then maybe a day later agreed to help. The man was eventually rescued.

I commented

Orion Simerl

I like the initial response from the government. If you want to risk your life going into caves that’s fine, but don’t expect us to dedicate resources to extract you when you win the stupid prize for playing a stupid game.

Johnny Cash101

I don’t. That’s a slippery slope – then people will start to say that when people get hurt on hikes, bikes or going to the beach. That and the cave had significance with historic items and such, a possible cultural contribution that otherwise wouldn’t be possible.

Orion Simerl

Slippery slopes are brought up when the argument against the specific thing (caving) cannot sustain the argument so you recruit other activities in an effort to make the argument more compelling. I’m not actually advocating leaving cavers trapped, just that I understand the sentiment of saying F him for doing that dumb shit.

Johnny Cash101

But you are because you’re advocating for not utilizing available resources simply because someone attempted a risky form of recreation. Do you say “f” the swimmer who got caught in a riptide, the boater who got lost, the hiker who’s bag ripped and ran out of water, the hunter bit by a poisonous snake? You insult the risk taker from the comfort of your phone, ironically demonstrating his actions are valuable by being entertained by his experiences.

Orion Simerl

I’m not. That’s why I said I’m not advocating leaving cavers trapped but understand the sentiment of not wanting to dedicate resources to saving them from their dangerous behavior. The essence of risk and being able to take risks in a free society is you can put yourself in peril for the thrill of that peril or whatever benefit you see that’s worth the peril. You don’t have the right to put others in peril, neither their property nor their persons. So I understand a government saying go F yourself seeking a stupid thrill, it’s no one else’s responsibility to help. At the same time I’m not advocating that cavers or anyone else is left to die if they can be saved.

Johnny Cash101

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth by saying you are advocating for leaving cavers trapped. The reason I am saying that is because the resources to perform the rescue is readily available and the risk of a group of experienced cavers voluntarily going in to extract an alive and injured person is minimal. Therefore to not perform the rescue is a level of negligence, I would say, that holds the government partially responsible for his death. The government was probably afraid of the embarrassment of getting involved and encountering failure, not appreciating the likelihood of that was low. I believe you contradict yourself. Rescuers are voluntarily interested in going into the cave to rescue them. Isn’t that the “essence of risk” as you say to let them go in and try?

Orion Simerl

There isn’t a government cave rescue agency. You’re talking about volunteers and experienced cavers, if they want to go get him, the government wasn’t prohibiting anyone from going to get him. As far as minimal resources that’s a subjective opinion that the resources are minimal not based on any knowledge of what or how much is required for a rescue effort. If there are any resources it still isn’t the responsibility of the public to assume his risk. As I understand it, he isn’t even from Peru. That aside, there is no contradiction in my position. Hearing that the government initially refused him help produced a subtly positive feeling based on the idea that he assumes the risk of his own actions, and no one else is responsible for his situation. At the same time I’m sympathetic to someone being trapped in a cave and would want them to be saved. Morally, there’s nothing wrong with leaving him, but as a matter of subjective value, through empathy and imagining that fate, as well as through imagining how he would feel after being rescued I would prefer that he and other cavers would be saved. Morally, there is no obligation, but there is also no moral prohibition, so I both like the idea that he was initially refused help on sound moral reasoning, and that he was ultimately saved.

DithanBeatz

No matter how poor the country is, the cost of a rescue operation is absolutely negligible to its budget.

Orion Simerl

Are you serious? People in rural Peru don’t have enough food to eat, don’t have electricity or running water, 50 percent of the rural population. They did nothing to produce the circumstances that he needs to be rescued from. Imagine if helicopter, tools, man power etc even costs $2000, that buys a lot of comfort for people who don’t have enough to eat. He doesn’t have the right to take their resources and apply them to the peril he put himself in. These are simple things you can’t understand because you’re committed to the idea that people are obligated to do things for others, and cannot recognize that that constitutes forcing someone to do something. Universal interest is desire, and all people can do as they please so long as no one imposes on anyone else. This is ideal because at all times all people want to do what they want to do. Unless another person is responsible for the circumstances that a person needs help from, it isn’t wrong not to help because you cannot force people to act on your value. You want to force people to act on your value and make sacrifices in time, energy, and resources on that value. That’s wrong. Most people feel good for helping others, so help is usually available even if it isn’t morally obligated. That doesn’t mean a person is good, it means the feeling obtained through the sacrifice was worth whatever was sacrificed to experience it. You help because it feels good, the same way you’re not good for eating a piece of cake, you eat it, because it feels good.

Mattskov2917

The government has a responsibility to protect others who would risk their lives trying to help. Only the government has the authority and resources to organize a rescue.

—

For whatever reason, my response to this comment is no longer visible and it contained the most worthwhile content that I wanted to recreate and share here. I included the previous comment exchange because it established some of the principle basis for the following, and allowed me to express how consistency is maintained within the position of liking the initial response of the government, and also liking that the caver was saved.

The government has a responsibility to fulfill the obligations within its charter and execute the will of the public. The responsibility to protect others is not inherent in government, unless the people of that jurisdiction have established that responsibility through constitution or law. In this situation, either an elected person, a person appointed by an elected person, or someone hired by the administration of an elected person initially decided whatever resources were required were better reserved for use by the Peruvian people. This represents people making a collective decision that they don’t want to assume his risk and burden their resources.

A people funding emergency services makes sense because individually they all assume risk in their daily lives and insure that risk by funding services. The caver has taken an exceptional risk and has not contributed to funding emergency services. He assumes his own risk and cannot impose that risk on others. The people of Peru have no interest in helping him, it costs time, money, and possibly puts people in danger, and doesn’t benefit them because once freed, he isn’t going to contribute anything to Peru. They’re not wrong for not helping him because they did nothing to contribute to the circumstances of him becoming trapped. They eventually help him because not helping feels worse than helping him. It’s not a moral obligation, it’s a subjective value. Just because a person likes the idea of a person who needs help receiving help doesn’t mean that there is any moral responsibility to help.

The only time a responsibility to help exists is when a person has contributed to the circumstances that a person needs help with. Which is why it is morally incumbent upon a collective to ensure that people have adequate opportunities for time, money, and know how, because they benefit, consent to, and participate in a system that produces the individual circumstances of others.

I think that’s difficult for people to accept about objective morality. The absence of a moral compulsion to help. It’s pretty inconsequential because most people feel good for helping others, and this common subjective value has been legislated in most states in the US. On serious matters, for example if you’re with someone and know they’re having a heart attack and leave them to die, in many states you can be charged for failure to seek aid. In a state where policy was a reflection of the will of the people, we’d say the legislation of a requirement of a citizen to contact emergency services if a person is having an emergency, would reflect the interest of individual citizens who want to insure that if someone is around when they’re having an emergency that they receive help.

Police were trying to charge 3 of my friends with failure to seek aid (Adam Kamish, Matt Zivic, and Dustin Przybylski). Or they may have charged them and the DA dropped the charges. One of their girlfriends had a heart condition. She (Jesse Berry) was complaining of chest and breathing issues as they were ready to part company with her. She did this whenever he wanted to part company with her so they didn’t believe her, and thought it was a ploy to keep him with her. Unfortunately she passed away. The case hinged on whether you could prove they knew she was actually having an emergency or should have known based on the circumstances. This was 25 years ago give or take a year. I was incarcerated. Two of the three are dead, the third was just released after serving 15 years for an armed robbery.

Had another acquaintance die last week (Lee Spade) Don’t know what the cause of death was, either an OD or maybe damage he did to his body. He went to sleep on a couch and never woke up. Presumable OD because he just got out after serving 2 or 3 years, meaning his body had a break. I say just got out but he had probably been out for about 6 months. I hadn’t seen him since 2017. The person who told me knew somebody who went to his funeral and said nobody was there. She commented who’s left? Both his parents had passed, his brother (Martin) and closest friend (Jeremy Cunningham) had long since passed, but I might have expected his children and their mom would have went. I’d prefer such a funeral, rather than a bunch of people acting out social expectations.

In an exchange on assignment sequencing and comparison, to demonstrate how intelligence is limited by values I mentioned a friend of mine (Luke Kamish) I’ve known since I was 8 he was probably 6 or 7. (I’m 42). His life consists of running low level con games to get money, to buy heroin and crack, and get high with women. Always has money, drugs, and women. I argue that he’s living his best life and transitioning to some honest work without drugs would probably produce a decreased quality of life. He’s in a situation where he possesses the intelligence required to do the things he wants to do, so he doesn’t have opportunities to increase his intelligence because there is no utility according to his values. Second, any changes he makes not rooted in a serious adjustment of understanding and better opportunities that are currently not available to him will probably produce a decrease in his quality of life; qualified by the positive feelings he experiences versus negative experiences now, compared to the same after lifestyle changes. Which is to say, through the measurement of well-being, it’s intelligent for him to keep doing as he’s doing. Morally his lifestyle is wrong and he’ll see how that plays out for him if consciousness survives death. He’s also limited to what he is and what he understands since this has been his life. Doing a life sentence on layaway, in and out of prison. Recently went back on a new felony fleeing and eluding, while he was absconding on parole for a felony fleeing and eluding. He’ll probably be locked for the next 4 years. Both his parents and his brother are dead (Joanne, Kevin, and Adam).

The greatest foundation of happiness is contributing something (work) to the market that you enjoy doing. The second is to earn enough money and to have enough time to do what you want to do when you’re not working. The second speaks to my plight, because outside of trying to produce a more tolerable world, I have no contentment through the entertainment money can buy. It’s the twilight zone, living among a population that is incapable of the most basic critical thinking, supplying the demand for deception, which is supplied to manipulate them through their biases and advance interests that are not their own.

For many of the people I’ve known dead, alive, or in prison, it’s a different priority of value. Values that developed (for Adam and Luke) being born to a single mom on AFDC, who eventually spent her life working at hotels and spending what little extra income she had on slots at the casino. A father who was in and out of jail and prison on similar things as Luke. Like Chapelle said about the guy who played Kramer on Seinfeld, sometimes you just have a cake. Less applicable to the comedian in the sense that an over the top rant using racial slurs doesn’t necessarily denote racism, but more in the sense with a lot of people who have lived a certain way for a long time. You no longer have ingredients, you have a cake, and you cannot disassemble the cake into flour, eggs, sugar, and whatever else to make something new. You have what you have. Which isn’t to say people cannot change, but many are trapped in their values. Changes can always be created through self worth. In tying things to how people see themselves. There is no more powerful force in the human mind than perception of self for behavioral modification. Social norms function through self worth, among those who derive self worth from their perception of the opinions of others.

—

I was at the gym when I learned about the latest mass shooting in GA. Initial reports indicated that a 14 year old killed 4 people and injured 9. Since it was an MSNBC broadcast at the end of the segment the anchor says I wonder if GA ranking 46th in gun law leniency had anything to do with it? When there are mass shootings in CA, does she ask, I wonder if CA ranking number 1 on gun safety laws had anything to do with it?

It doesn’t. He’s 14, and a 14 year old cannot legally purchase a firearm anywhere. As I’ve stated in previous similar incidents the United States social systems produce people who want to kill others indiscriminately. Obviously alienation plays a big role, but that alienation and discontent stems from an environment of deception, demanded to reinforce false beliefs. People growing up in sea of bullshit, religion, nationalism, gender identity, false claims of disadvantages based on race, gender, and sexuality, the mental health industrial complex, false gun control narratives, among other issues that produce grown children subscribing to beliefs, seeking their reinforcement, and lacking the ability to qualify anything as fact beyond the feelings associated with what they prefer to be true.

It’s been 25 years since Columbine. The academic community, the naive PhDs who typically come from very basic life experiences and build an understanding based on biased and flawed research conducted by the naive before them, have no answers. They cannot see past their own biases and discover their own fictions and understand how their attempts at social engineering produce what we have in this country. I can’t be specific here because the problem is broad and general but it’s rooted in an environment of deception. Just to say, what you see in this country isn’t because people see the world and understand what I understand, it’s because people see the world and understand it as all of you understand, and the supremacy of bias prevents people’s understanding and improvements.

This isn’t the first and will not be the last. The United States will continue to produce people who want to kill others indiscriminately. That’s the price of willed ignorance and stupidity. For people to maintain their false beliefs that they derive joy from, children will periodically be killed by classmates, you may be robbed, killed, sexually assaulted, have your property destroyed, battered, etc. You can ban every conceivable weapon, but those who are driven to kill others indiscriminately will find a way to kill others indiscriminately. The nation will watch and feel bad which will cause them to feel good by seeing themself as someone who is compassionate. The Sheriff makes the cliche statement that the child is “pure evil”. That’s the explanation? Every 1 out of so many people is evil, and some are pure evil that’s why people commit egregious acts. It’s a byproduct of political, economic, and social organization, it is what the people of this country produce, not some anomalous defect, or spiritual influence that your deity protects some from but not others.

9/15/24

I was about to go to the gym and noticed my tire was flat. It had a slow leak for awhile and was worn badly but it seemed like nobody wanted to sell me a used tire. I called three places and went to one. I’ve never had this issue before, it’s a common sized tire.

I had to put on the spare and go to Walmart. When I was initially given the price I was told $18 for mounting. Later I noticed on the board it said $11 for mounting and I wanted to save that $7. I was told that since I purchased it from them I had to get the balancing and rotation for $18. As I was complaining, the guy said people carry in tires, and he meant from other sellers and that’s the $11 price, although it also said $11 for mounting not carry in. I played stupid and said that’s what I did, I carried it in (in reference to my rim and old tire).

She was nice enough to remove the fee so I didn’t have to pay $11 or $18. What I believe she did wrong was wrote it up as being installed on a vehicle. What she probably should have done is two transactions. One, selling me the tire for carry out, and another for mounting a carry in tire. $18 versus $11, and I believe it is her mistake based on what I told her I wanted. Didn’t realize this until after I left or I’d have suggested as much. If I would have had to pay the extra it wouldn’t have been that big a deal but I feel better having saved the money.

I did say I know it’s only $7, but I mean if it’s only $7 and doesn’t mean anything either of you can pay it. Other than that I was preparing to pay $111, but appreciate only paying $96. This has happened the last 3x buying tires from Walmart where I end up getting it mounted and balanced but only pay for the tire. Most people notice a tire is getting bad and get another one before it goes. I’m always pushing the limits because I’d hate to get rid of a tire that still has 3000 to 10000 miles on it. That’s less of an example of me being cheap as it is an example of how much I don’t like the work available to me to make money. Disputing the $7 is much less about the $7, and much more about being over charged.

What I say about the work available is nothing personal about the people or the companies, and I do have some choice in the matter through the apps I use to find work. Those I work with provide the best environment and the best work available relative to other companies. My values are different. For most, working provides them with money that they spend on things that make the work worth the effort. I do not have that same motivational structure, where I can be maintained emotionally through the things I can buy being worth that effort.

Emotional upkeep is a real thing. I coined the term in the American Prosperity Proposals and it describes the amount of spending that is required to produce enough positive feelings to support a person’s well being within a particular set of circumstances. If a person is within a set of circumstances they have to derive enough pleasure from those circumstances to continue on within them. Should a particular set of circumstances fail to support a minimum level of well being, they’ll change something. When a person works a job, stopping for coffee or breakfast before work, maybe a weekend event, spending on their children, marijuana, alcohol, etc, these may be required purchases, where without this stimulation, without the injection of these small doses of pleasure to maintain well being within their circumstances, they wouldn’t be able to maintain their jobs and have their income. In the book I mention this mechanism in refutation of economists claiming that Americans can save money by doing things like not eating out, or making coffee at home. Some of these things cannot be cut out, because they’re an emotional investment required to maintain their income.

The last two times I worked regularly for a company, for about 6 months on two separate occasions, both of these periods were maintained by the prospect of saving money to promote my material. The first time I had to leave short of my goal based on an altercation I had outside of work that created the need to leave. Saved about 6k. The second time I saved about 12k and realized just how uninterested many people are in advancing their own interests. In both situations I bought pretty much nothing for myself outside of necessities, and instead I invested in efforts to reach the zombies. My only regret was not hiring people to learn the material. Emotional upkeep during those periods was maintained through the idea that when I was finished I’d be in a position to execute a strategy to proliferate common sense. There was too much outside of my control, mainly in inaccessible people and entities and my inability to connect through reinforcement of common bull shit to access an audience. You cannot just explain to people exactly what it is you’re trying to do and who it benefits and how it will be accomplished. People don’t want that. They want rhetoric that makes them feel good. Not substance to understand.

I fuck off a lot of time in my present condition that I recognize as emotional upkeep. There’s nothing I can do to improve my circumstances in either acquiring enough resources to hire people, or to market material that is supremely valuable that no one is interested in understanding.

I did get a response from the IRS that my 211 form has been received and assigned a case number and investigator. That could put me in a position to accomplish everything. That’s probably 3 to 5 years down the line if that happens. Potentially massive as the company averages sending out 17k laborers per day. They’ve been operating for 7 years. Conservatively, starting from 0 we consider an annual average of 8000 employees per day, maybe half meet the definition in Real v. Driscoll, that’s 4,000 per day, 300 days a year, * 7 years that’s 8.4 million days worked. Conservatively if the average pay was $100, that’s 840 million dollars worth of wages the company didn’t pay taxes for through the misclassification of employees as independent contractors. Payroll tax is about 7.5 percent. 7.5 percent of 840 million is 63 million dollars. If my interpretation of the app not being a market place but the automation of tasks associated with a labor services provider is correct, the IRS will collect that 63 million, and I’ll be entitled to 15 to 30 percent of that, or 9 to 18 million dollars. That is a background possibility, not an expectation. If I survive long enough for it to come to fruition the world will become a different place.

I’ve been sending sollicitations for the last few days to faculty members of universities in the fields of psychology and philosophy. In this latest exercise of futility I at least know the emails are going through based on automatic responses and one person who replied asking if I intended to send the sollicitation to him. Whether or not it will be read or understood enough to create interest is something else altogether.

I’m thinking about cutting psychology from the sollicitations. ASC is exactly psychology, the interpretative processes of organizing information and creating objectives based on a running organization of accessible objects. Every thought, feeling, and decision is a product of these mechanisms. But most psychology is categorization and classification. The identification of common values and reasoning, and identification of tendencies common within groupings, often consisting of false causation for values and behavior. I don’t know how well the study of most psychology translates to understanding ASC.

—

I don’t have to consider whether or not to cut psychology from the sollicitation because after about 1000 my email was blocked. I only sent blocks of 10 to avoid that but I suspect after about the 20 universities where my emails went through they probably have some network spam blocker collaboration. I sent about 150 before I realized I was blocked. I’d receive delivery failures for emails that no longer existed. Eventually I received one on every group, seemed like a strange 10 percent of emails weren’t updated. Then I checked one of the messages and I was blocked. Could have saved myself some time had I checked sooner. About 1000 through. No responses other than automated responses and none were expected.

That’s fine. I know where I’m at and didn’t expect anything different. This is the same academic community who has presided over a decline in the average IQ of the country, and is responsible for most of the problems we observe in this country.

I hurt myself the other day but today is the first day I’m really feeling it. I worked at BMF the last few days and I bought a wheel hub for my car because one of them was bad. Sometimes when your bearing is going it can sound like it’s coming from the opposite side. It sounded like it was coming from the driver’s side the slow rwu rwu rwu sound that is louder and faster as you gain speed that indicates your bearing is bad.

I was tired. After working at BMF I picked up the wheel hub from the Amazon locker. I went to the rest area and installed it on the driver’s side. I noticed that the hub I removed didn’t seem bad, spun about the same as the new one, maybe a little freer. I wanted to get the old part out of my car, so even knowing there was a good probability that I changed the wrong hub I threw the old one away that was probably good. This decision was a product of being fatigued and not being willing to spend any more energy on the matter. Comparison is essentially between energy in the moment versus the probability of future energy required in the procurement of $45 to purchase another wheel hub, or effort in the moment versus what I would have purchased with that $45.

Second, the following morning I left the rest area to go to work and learned as soon as I picked up speed that the passenger wheel bearing was the one that was bad. I give myself 15 to 20 minutes of extra time to get there for just such contingencies. Instead of getting off at the next exit and turning around I said fuck it. Energy comparison in turning around.

I’m hurt today because now I have to pay the piper. At first all I can think about is how fucking easy it would have been and how much sense it would have made to put the fck’n wheel hub in my trunk. Violates a performance standard, and I don’t feel good about having to see myself as making a stupid decision. That produces pain and I have to understand why I did it, to prevent it in the future or to know if it was stupid. To understand why and making plans to behave differently separates my present understanding from the understanding I was previously operating under when I did the stupid thing. Restores self worth. Obviously if the thing wasn’t stupid self worth is restored through assignment to the act being right according to performance standards.

Sure seems stupid now that I have to spend $45 to buy another one. Looking back on it, that was how my values were organized based on those circumstances. I spent $45 so I could play poker and send or compile sollicitations. That’s what he wanted to do. He spent that same $45 again to not have to exit the interstate, re enter the interstate, exit the interstate, and reenter the interstate to retrieve the wheel hub from the trash. I know this is what happened because I remember enough of my thoughts and feelings and meaning in the moments. I experienced a negative feeling picturing the exit and entry when I thought about turning around. This is a value comparison, and the negative feeling in the moment was produced by the objective to retrieve the good part. The feeling of having the part in the moment was not greater than the negative feeling (energy comparison) of turning around.

I feel better, self worth restoration in understanding that decision.

This morning I went into the rest area to use the bathroom. There are two separate bathroom areas next to one another, a T shaped little hallway. I went to the right and a man informed me that the stalls were full. I went to the other side and saw there was a stall open. Instead of using the stall I went to the other side and let the man know there was a stall open since he was there first. Not a big deal and I don’t mention it to applaud myself for making an insignificant sacrifice for the sake of right. I do these things all the time and don’t write about them unless they are relevant to some point.

Later I did perceive myself as being right and felt good about it. More along the line of the absence of thought or deliberation that went into the decision. The subconscious creates the objective to tell him about the stall because it’s understood as being right and consistent with my standards which improves or maintains well being. If I had taken the stall, at some point later I probably would have thought about it. The same as I thought about the decision to throw away the old wheel hub.

I have probably another 3 days of work out here to fix my car, and then I think I’m getting out of this area. Area being the roughly 100 mile radius of rest areas, planet fitnesses, and people and companies I sometimes work for.

Was supposed to hook up with this chick on Saturday but for some reason or another she blew that up. First time I talked to her she seemed crazy but manageable for social and sexual purposes. Then on Friday she started sending me crazy messages that implied games I wasn’t interested in playing. That failed expectation also impacted my mood.

9/22/24

In the previous entry I provided a preliminary conservative estimate as to how much my whistleblower claim will be worth. That estimate was based on what I believe is an average of 17,000 ops filled daily from their website, presuming on an annual average of 8500 ops filled per day over the 7 year life of the company. A better estimate is based on their annual revenue. They receive 35 percent on top of what the Veryable Operator is paid. Overall wages paid in 2023 represent roughly 3x the annual revenue.

Their annual revenue according to grojo (https://growjo.com/company/Veryable) was 96 million dollars; it means Veryable operators were paid 273 million dollars. Beginning at 0 in 2017 average annual wages paid per year should be about 135 million dollars. Over 7 years that’s 940 million dollars in wages paid through Veryable. This figure is probably higher because 2024 is presumably above or around the 2023 figure which would increase the average.

This still puts us at the same place. Initially I thought that Veryable would only be liable for payroll tax on the operators who met all elements of the criteria in Real v. Driscoll. Meaning the few who work one day and don’t work again, or those that work a day or two per week wouldn’t qualify as employees. It introduces an element of speculation, but this is not correct. We’re defining the nature of the relationship between Veryable and the operators. The majority of ops are filled by Veryable operators who rely on Veryable for their primary source of income. There’s no skills required, they don’t provide their own tools, there are no managerial components where an operator has the prospect of loss or gain, and Veryable controls how the job is to be performed through the threat of suspension, temporary or permanent based on internal policies that often pertain to the satisfaction of the client. Meaning the companies dictate to the veryable operators and should the Veryable operators deviate too far from what the company dictates, veryable will suspend temporary or permanently the operator from the app. The same as any company providing labor services will suspend or fire employees that do not adequately comply with the dictates of their clients. All operators who have completed ops through Veryable qualify as Veryable employees.

If Veryable stopped misclassifying their employees today, they’d be looking at 7.5 percent in back payroll tax on about a billion dollars of wages which is 75 million dollars. 15 to 30 percent means I would receive between 11 and 22 million dollars.

This is something that is going to take years to materialize. My current thinking is I’m going to prepare a pitch for promissory notes, and try to sell 100 promissory notes at $10,000 each, that will pay the owner back $20,000 either within 8 years from the date of issuance, or when the debt is collected and my whistle blower claim is paid. To secure a million dollars now and pay back 2 million dollars later. The risk essentially comes down to whether a person believes that Veryable is not a broker of labor services but a labor services provider, and as such, their independent contractors are actually employees according to Real v. Driscoll. Any person who believes that will recognize there is an opportunity to double anywhere between 10,000 up to a million dollars in probably the next 5 years or sooner.

The promissory notes are secured by the whistleblower claim. The money will be applied to founding SALT, The School for the Advancement of Liberty and Truth. I need to put together the vision, strategy, and curriculum for SALT, since the success of SALT is the insurance on the security. Even if the whistleblower claim doesn’t materialize, I’ll be able to pay back the promissory notes through the profits of SALT.

I’ve worked the last 7 out of 10 days. Have some money saved to give me time to complete these things, but at the conclusion, it will just be another proposal for which there is no outlet. The pieces of shit I solicited have been successful in having my email account banned across probably all email servers. I sent an email to my Gmail account and received a failure to deliver rejected by the server. Which is pretty crazy considering there is a history of emails back and forth between the two emails. Which means this is the product of reporting by someone affiliated with one of the recipients of a solicitation having my email blacklisted on a level that certainly isn’t warranted by my use of the email. Proving my point. Ignore and suppress what you cannot argue against.

I’m not too bent out of shape about the email blacklisting. I’ve contacted Microsoft to see if there is anything that can be done. If I knew who I’d make a new email and spam those faculty members and make them change their email addresses and remove them from their website. I’ll screenshot the email list I sent to maintain the record that these people have received the information so if these unenlightened, life experience lacking, humanity harming social engineering pieces of shit try to use my content I have that record. Then I’ll just make a new email.

There was more to this entry. There’s no need to post more of the general disdain I have for this species.

10/1/24

I finished my pitch for the promissory notes. It consists of an introduction, my whistleblower claim details, and a brief outline of SALT. Over the next few days I may use LinkedIn to try to find investors and maybe post the notes on an angel investor website.

—

I wrote that probably 2 days ago and haven’t done much but play poker since. I intended to pick up on it the following day and begin promotional research but instead I started playing poker and ended up cashing out about $140. Not much, but I’m playing on a deposit of about $20 that I already withdrew about $100 on. It’s a little less than a day’s labor. Today I’m withdrawing another $125 keeping $30 on the account. Not much, but sustaining. Could be more if I played a little better. More patience and better control of my emotions. Emotions in the sense of wanting to confront somebody who is full of shit and loose with their chips. Seeing such play can bait me into bad decisions against such players. There was a very satisfying moment today. A player preflop raised and called my preflop raise and jammed on me probably with nothing, but I wasn’t about to call on an ace king high that late in the tournament, while I was still top 20 percent in chips. There was a hand where something like 4 of us limped in and then 2 of us called a 3 bet. I had an A4 of clubs, and got into the hand because it looked like it was going to play for the blind. Because of who raised it, I called the bet thinking I may have the only ace. If someone would have bet before that I probably would have folded the hand. The average player had about 10 to 15 big blinds, I had about 50 to 60, but at that point I look at any 3 bet being A10 or better. A low might jam to try and steal a blind, but I don’t like entering a hand with an A out kicked.

The flop is an ace, and I don’t remember the other cards but I think 1 may have been a jack and they were both clubs or one was a club. He raised it after the flop I think it may have been 2 or 3 big blinds. The other guy folded and I called. At the turn he raised it again either half or a third of the pot. I either already had the two clubs or the turn was a club. I felt good about my ace because he clearly thought I was the one who was going to call him down and fold to a jam. I was calling either way with the ace no kicker. This is where I run into trouble, because it’s no longer about success in the tournament, it’s about letting that mother fucker know you’re not going to keep doing me like that. One of us is going to lose a lot of chips if you keep playing with me, and when I’m patient, it’s you, but the interactions can sometimes compromise my patience.

Now that I think about it, I think the turn was the club. Which was great for me because he had no reason to suspect I was now also on a club flush draw. The river hit and it was a club so I no longer had to worry about not having a kicker. He immediately jammed after the river, probably hoping I would think he hit the flush. I wasn’t going to think that, but it was satisfying to take him out with the assurance that he was done. Maybe I would have been beat on the ace if the flush didn’t hit. I went out 6th in the tournament on a really stupid decision. Won about $90. First place was $400 and 3rd was about $200.

There were 3 of us who had 7 to 10 million chips each, and there were 3 of us who had 2 to 2.5 million chips each and blinds were 125k 250k, ante 25k. At this point we’re jamming on ace low from the button or small blind to steal blinds or with nothing to steal blinds when you’re desperate. It’s my big blind, the small blind is another low guy, and the button is the other low guy. The chip leaders all fold. The button does a 1 bet which still represents about 20 percent of his chips. We have about the same amount of chips, he had me covered by maybe a hundred thousand.

Either he’s trying to steal without risking his stack, or he has a high pocket pair he’s trying to get some value out of it. I had ace 5 of diamonds, and decided I was going to call if anyone jammed to take my blind. When he raised I interpreted that as a safe way to steal a blind. I contemplated jamming on him preflop, but didn’t want to be dominated if he had an ace he was trying to steal a blind with. The flop came up 9 2 4. I checked to him and he raised 500k. The pot is about 1.5M with the small blind and antes. I thought he might have been on an ace with a face trying to get me to fold so I jammed on him. I figured he’d have thought I called him on nothing and hit the 9 or something. He had aces and the 3 didn’t come.

Two examples, one of emotion that was controlled but sometimes isn’t, and the second one costing myself money due to a lack of patience. I should have folded after missing the flop.

My strategy is to play sit and go tournaments to make money. These tournaments are $1, 6 players, paying $2 to second $4 to first, or $5 6 player double up tournaments that pay $10 to top 3, or $5 9 player tournaments that pay 22.50, 13.50, and $9 to the top 3. These tournaments keep my balance up. While I’m playing these tournaments I play satellite tournaments for $1 to $5 to get tickets ranging from $10 to $30. Then I use those tickets to play the multi table tournaments that I place in and sometimes win. I’m typically never wagering more than $5. Winning potential is about $100 to $500 on multi table tournaments, sometimes as much as $2000 for 1st place larger tournaments. Most I won on a single tournament was about $600 years ago.

I don’t play cash games because I don’t trust the software. I don’t believe the random number generator is actually random. It may just be that there are so many hands generated that it seems like it isn’t random but it seems like 1 out of 5 or less occurrences happen much more frequently than 1 out of 5 times. Of course the nature of randomness does mean that a 1 in 5 chance could happen 20x in a row, it seems embedded in the software. It also seems like some players know what’s coming before it comes. They make calls that don’t make any sense and then end up winning hands on extremely unlikely outcomes. I can’t play a cash game and potentially lose a bunch of money on a hand on an unlikely runner runner on the turn and river. I’m able to win despite what seems like a semi rigged game because I usually can get out of the way and I play a lot of Omaha high low where you can have certainty about a hand at different points and better probability preflop.

The last cash game I played was at a Casino in Oklahoma off 75 I went to with Mark from Premier. It was like .50/$1 blinds no limit hold ’em. I sat down with $60 and made about $200 in maybe 2 hours. Every hand I won due to my online playing experience I thought I was going to lose. My biggest weakness is I often play winning hands poorly. When I’m ahead in a hand I want to get my chips out and sometimes I bet too aggressively when I should be trying to extract more value. I’m always worried the next card no matter how improbable is going to lose me the hand.

Impatience, emotions, and sometimes not getting maximum value out of hands I’m ahead in are my biggest poker weaknesses.

I have this presentation finished. I went on a few angel investor websites and went on LinkedIn and I really don’t know what to do with this. So I’ve been playing poker. Isn’t really helping me figure it out but it has been keeping my money at a relatively comfortable level. I began working on the first SALT lesson.

In the coming days I’ll think more about what I’m doing. Such a waste of my time wasting my time. There’s a Megadeth lyric “time has a way of taking time” that I think about as I waste this time with no real outlet to do anything. If you don’t know anybody you can’t do anything. When all the people who you’ve known are dead, incarcerated, or are not interested in what is important to you, you don’t know anybody. And when you live on a planet with a species whose reality is built on false assumptions they’re committed to through conscious and subconscious self deception, you cannot meet people for any meaningful purpose. A situation that is further complicated by the stigma of my circumstances and the inability of people to understand why I’m living within these circumstances, and how my situation is unique and different from others living within similar circumstances. Factor in my general confidence which is probably perceived as arrogance, and my general disinterest or lack of enthusiasm for establishing relationships. Any relationship I have with anyone has to have mutually beneficial purposes attached to it, and due to the popular false assumptions people’s reality is built on, although varying, everything is superficial. This situation isn’t anything that I lament in and of itself, except in as much as it is a barrier to ambition.

Other than poker and a few videos I haven’t been doing much. There was one video I saw that is so defining of so many people and a brief comment exchange. Some cunt in an area that was mostly destroyed by hurricane Helene was spared and was still running the coffee shop out of her house. When asked if she felt lucky she said she wasn’t lucky she was blessed. What does that mean about everyone else who lost everything including their lives? This bitch thinks her deity spared her because he likes her and killed and destroyed everyone else’s property because the deity didn’t like them as much? That’s the implication of her ridiculous statement.

I returned to comments on a weather YouTube channel I follow to taunt people who said they were praying for people in the path of the hurricane before it made landfall. Just basically saying it looks like it didn’t work. Someone responded about sin and gods wrath and it’s so hard to imagine that people are so primitive as to think that a deity who cannot be credibly sourced as producing one fucking result on this planet, is credited with producing a naturally produced weather event because people didn’t do the things he wants them to do. Love and control are incompatible. Of course if you go even further to the margins there are people who believe government controls the weather and so on and so forth. Just about anything that happens, religious, secular, right, left, politically indifferent, all levels of education, and so on and so forth believe shit that doesn’t make sense and for which there is mountains of evidence against.

I’m just here until I’m not.

10/4/25

Sometimes I watch this YouTube channel Jordan Cash, which while being true in content exaggerates the problems in NYC to reinforce right wing biases. This isn’t to say NYC isn’t really fucked up, but he’ll reference old stories, use images from past events to exaggerate the frequency and impact of the state sanctioned illegal behavior. The vast majority of people living in NYC probably go about their day uninterrupted by the stupidity their willful ignorance has brought into being. I of course find the content entertaining because I like to see willful ignorance reap it’s rewards. Not only that of the left, but the right, as well as the politically indifferent and the clearly false beliefs and misconceptions that they cannot be moved from.

I mention the channel because he reported about protests concerning the use of deadly force by law enforcement. The incident is textbook lawful, suspect charging towards officers with a knife is an imminent threat to life or great bodily harm, but the controversy is that bystanders were also hit by gun fire. The anti-law faction is criticizing the officers because he was initially being pursued over transit fare, and second, its implied that they believe the officers should have let him go once trains arrived at the station, despite being armed and despite refusing to comply with lawful commands to disarm and the reasonable belief he was a danger to the public.

Those positions are foolish and the first inaccurate. It isn’t over a fare, it begins through fare evasion, then when he refuses to stop and runs it’s fare evasion, obstruction, and resisting, when the weapon is noticed it’s also disorderly conduct and represents a danger to the public. It’s not about a $2.90 fare. We have laws that we believe represent our best interests and these laws must be enforced. We have delegated the enforcement of law to the people who work in law enforcement agencies and these men and women have a duty to the public, to their country, to enforce law in accordance with public interest. To let someone go even for fare evasion is to nullify the ordinance that prohibits not paying a fare, and is a failure to fulfill their duty to enforce the law. This isn’t to say that everyone must receive charge or citation, but a person must respect the law and submit to investigative detention based on reasonable suspicion or in this case probable cause.

In some situations bystanders may be injured in the enforcement of law and that result is unavoidable. I do not believe this incident was unavoidable. By that I do believe there was actions the officer could have taken to prevent the injury to the bystanders, however, the action that they should have taken has been discouraged through the contamination of law enforcement practices by the people in that city.

At some point, ignorant people promoted the idea that officers are required to de-escalate. There is no responsibility to de-escalate, a law enforcement officer’s job is to enforce the law which includes the use of force if the use of persuasion fails. More importantly, de-escalation creates danger for the public, for the suspect, and for the officers.

If you’ve ever witnessed or ever been in a physical altercation action usually doesn’t come until one party has revealed weakness. Officers who attempt to de-escalate embolden suspects through the display of weakness. That is how de-escalation tactics are perceived by criminals.

I remember Marco Simonetti 27 year vet of the Chicago PD was fired because his Taser accidentally discharged while the suspect may or may not have been trying to comply after pulling away, running, and pretending to comply before abandoning the effort. The relevant portion of the event is the suspect ran but stopped when he realized he was in range of the Taser and continued to try to negotiate with the officer after obstructing the investigation and then resisting arrest on the obstruction. He began going to the ground and then went back to his feet. He took a few more steps away still trying to to negotiate and then began the same motion he abandoned moments before and the Taser deployed. As soon as the suspect got up after pretending to go to the ground he should have been tased. Then the officer doesn’t lose his job, there’s no media edit footage and lie to the public campaign about the incident, and it is a lawful use of force based on the suspect’s non-compliance.

There’s many examples of how de-escalation leads to suspects fleeing or causing harm to themselves, officers, and others. This recent situation in NYC is one of them. The officers should not be repeating commands over and over hoping the next time he will comply or hoping they can say something to him to get him to drop the weapon. Deploy non-lethal with lethal cover. If non lethal is ineffective (which is was when they eventually used it) tell him he is about to be shot if continues not to comply, and if he does not comply shoot him and take him into custody. That should have happened before the train ever arrived. With a knife in his hand and his refusal to comply with commands to drop the knife he is an imminent threat to life or great bodily harm even if he isn’t positioning himself to use it. He’s in striking distance of the officers and threatened to kill the officers. Second, he has broken the law, he is a threat to public safety, he must be taken into custody, and if he possesses a deadly weapon that is preventing the officers from taking him into custody, the officers have to use force to separate him from that weapon and take him into custody. This is only a game because suspects know officers won’t do anything in that situation.

I wonder how much of this is martyrdom. This wasn’t a guy who was trying to evade fare with a knife because he had somewhere to be. He went to a staffed turnstile and jumped it in front of the officers. He was kicked out and then returned to the same entry point and ran through the exit door in front of the same officers.

It would be an interesting study to go through police footage and show how de-escalation has harmed the suspect, officers, and the public. But I’m not getting paid for it and have no audience for it so I just watch the circus. That’s why I watch that channel.

Noncompliance should include repeating the command, a warning of impending force, repeating the command, and use of force. A lot of controversy and danger for all parties involved could be avoided.

10/11/24

I’m able to win not enough money consistently playing poker for an enormous expenditure of time. lol

The time is inconsequential because apparently I enjoy playing the game, and anything I’d prefer to be doing more serves no purpose because it will not be acknowledged. Add to that my perception of existence overall, and it really doesn’t matter to me if this species continues on in tyranny, harming itself, harming the quality of life of its members, maintaining division through self deception, whose members maintain self worth through the image they believe they project to others, who are contented by beliefs that are verifiably false, whose ideas are spawned from opinions about subjects that they do not understand, and who exist in false realities. It matters in the sense that I exist within this shit.

I’ve been on hiatus playing poker not because there isn’t things i’d rather be doing, but because the things I’d rather be doing have no outlet. No doubt my circumstances contribute to the hindrance of some of my objectives, but address of those circumstances through present opportunities also isn’t feasible. Secondly, when I cash $100 to $150 I recognize that that’s the equivalent of having to work one of these jobs for a day.

What I’m saying is it’s a very poor use of my time, and it doesn’t provide me enough money to have time or money to sustain myself, but it is momentarily entertaining, and feels like an FYM to this species. I joined some LinkedIn investor groups, I should probably be trying to establish contact with members from the group. There’s no elevator pitch for this.

I cannot sustain myself through poker, which is not something I believed I could do. I made $450 last week, but in the past 3 days only $70, although I did make $1500 to $1800 for a month back in 2022. I plan on seeing my daughter within about a week or so, so I need money for that and had to work a Veryable job. I have another scheduled and the upcoming week I’ll try to schedule work for 3 to 4 days.

I worked for a Challenge Manufacturing in the St. Louis area, and they have a location that uses Veryable labor in the area I’m in now. Brutally repetitive and the environment at this location is more concerned about dictating what risks people working there may take than I remembered in St. Louis.

I may have written this previously or something similar to it, but it’s ironic how something that was originally intended to benefit workers ultimately became a daily source of stress. I’m talking about safety regulations. The federal government should not be able to dictate what risks a worker can take in performing their job.

One unnecessary requirement, at least where I was working were sleeves and gloves, and probably even the safety glasses. There’s a cylinder that descends onto a nut and welds the nut to a piece of formed metal. There’s some sparks but they rapidly cool and pose no legitimate danger to exposed skin. Most of the day I had the sleeves pulled down until some probably needless supervisor told me the sleeves needed to be pulled up.

For me it’s whatever, I need the money for the day and it isn’t a big deal. If I did that for 40 hours a week, week after week I would hate having to endure unnecessary discomfort. This is mild, and for most it just is what it is. I’ll also say that this is mild, but across all industries, especially construction, there are unnecessary recurring aggravants produced through compliance with unnecessary safety regulation.

If a person decides mitigating risk is not worth discomfort, or they’re willing to risk whatever the danger is they should be able to take that risk. Any risk a person chooses to take that does not create risk for others should be allowed. In FF&E there were hotels we did where they wanted us to harness in to enter the box. A hotel typically has large windows on either end of the hallways and before the windows are installed we bring in all the furniture using a skid steer with about 10×6 foot wooden box. There’s no danger of falling out of the box, and if the equipment is properly inspected and maintained by the rental company the lift isn’t going to fail. It’s happened, but it is anomalous. There’s countless unnecessary requirements in different jobs and fields that should be left up to the worker to decide what they want to risk.

We’re not living in the 1930s where you could give a guy a pair of potatoes, a pack of cigarettes and force him to work barefoot in a foundry for 14 hours a day, and force him to tell people it was his idea to do it. Which I mention because people who are for excessive safety regulations will say that companies will not protect workers and claim the workers wanted to assume risk. That isn’t something that would happen in this day and age.

At this particular job it might not be a big deal, but I think across all industries it is recurring stress that need not exist among the workforce.

I thought to myself while working that job that if it were up to me to be part of the process of producing cars we wouldn’t have them. Something I say to express my appreciation to those who do that work everyday, to ensure auto manufacturers have the parts they require to produce cars. This extends to everyone who is involved in the process of bringing us all the things we enjoy on a day to day basis. I think there’s a disconnect that stems from the inability of people to recognize what they and others do. I remember writing about this a few times, both for services that exceeded expectations and service that seemed below acceptable standards. There are no walmart store associates, there are people who are part of a process of ensuring that we live in a world where people can go purchase the things we want. That’s what they do, but they think they work at Walmart.

I’m not romanticizing everyday life, just sharing an overlooked observation, or what is often a failure of many to perceive the importance of what they do, and how what they do for money is in service to humanity, and everything that’s produced.

People who provide us with everything we have shouldn’t have to worry about shit. Not time, not money, not crime, or anything else. You’re producing something that improves people’s quality of life. Even the begger on the median is providing a service, giving passers by an opportunity to feel good about themselves either through charity, or in someone they see beneath them that they can feel good about through comparative success.

It’s interesting to me how people on the right fail to recognize the importance of what other people do. In the supremacy of bias I had an exchange I used as an example of nationalist bias producing denial, and I identified the points that were ignored or rejected and the values that were protected. I mention it because at one point in the conversation he introduced the rightwing talking point that people who work low paying and or low skilled jobs should improve their skills to improve their income. Take retail and fast food for example, which employs about 25 million people across the country. Claiming the people who work these jobs don’t want to improve their skills to get better jobs fails to acknowledge the reality that we as a people demand these services, and someone has to do these jobs. You cannot want to have the things that people produce but not believe they should be adequately compensated. That sector could be improved through the round up service charge, but that’s just another idea that goes unacknowledged.

I think any kind of assembly work should be paid by the piece. It won’t be but it should be, and could be done in a way that would benefit all interested parties in most cases. The marginal increase in labor costs will likely be eclipsed by a marginal increase in productivity as workers have an interest in maximizing their individual output. I think from a place of well being it is much better to go into a job thinking the more of these things I can press out the more money I make as opposed to I’m going to be standing in front of this machine for 8 hours.

I usually perform very well in the different work that I do. This last job I was extremely tired. I hate to have to wake up before I’m ready to wake up, and the impending obligation often makes it difficult to fall asleep. I fell asleep about 11:30, woke up at 2:30 and couldn’t fall back to sleep having to be up at 4:30. In the morning I fucked up a bunch and each time I did I had to get the maintenance man to reset the machine. Simple shit. He was cool and understanding and I expressed my frustration with myself. I don’t care too much how it reflects on me in the sense that I’m not trying to impress anyone to secure favor within the company or looking for a long term job opportunity, but it is performance that falls below my personal standards, in making the same mistake several times. Placing the part on the machine and activating it before putting the nuts on the part.

To compound the situation I was instructed to hold the nuts in my hand but initially refused. For about the first hour I was good. I had a process but I changed the process to reduce the monotony. There’s a tray in front of the machine that can be loaded with the parts, but the parts are already in bins within reaching distance. I was initially taking the parts from the bins and placing them on the machine, grabbing the nuts, activating the machine, moving the part, grabbing 2 more nuts and activating the machine. I changed it to load up the trays and pull the parts from the trays because loading the trays is a break from putting parts into the machine. This caused me to forget to put nuts on the parts before activating the machine. This was remedied by keeping nuts in my hand, something I initially did not want to do because I thought it would interfere with me putting the parts on the machine. I like my hands being unencumbered, but the anticipation was worse than the experience, really wasn’t a problem.

I was invited back but declined the offer. Maybe I’ll give em a day or two next week depending on what’s going on, because I do need to make some money.

I haven’t done shit in the past week other than play poker, only making about $500 in the last 10 days, and enjoyed the feeling that comes from perceiving myself as wasting my time, as opposed to feeling productive creating material for which there is no outlet. In other words, it feels good to waste my time as opposed to it being wasted by the world. When I come out of it I do not feel good, so I need to get back to the illusion of productivity. Create SALT lessons from material.

There was a video I saw on Tom Brady taking much less money than what he was worth to ensure the Patriots could afford better players. He quoted the sentiment of my thoughts on sports contracts, taking 10 million a year for 6 years, saying if I can’t live the rest of my life on 60 million dollars I have a problem. That’s often what I think about with players especially in the NBA who have 150 million dollar contracts but go somewhere else that they’re less likely to win with for an additional 30 million. Such a player could spend 2 million dollars per year living for the next 75 years, not including money he’ll make through investments. There just doesn’t seem to be any real quality of life difference between someone who made 100 million dollars in their career and someone who has made 200 million dollars in their career. In both situations, depending on the depth of luxury spending, each will be able to afford everything they want for the rest of their lives. Only Tom Brady has won 7 SBs. I may sound like an old man, but you really cannot compare modern players to players in previous eras when we’re talking about basketball and football, because the pride isn’t there. Modern players are subservient to money. They’re not cutting off digits like Ronnie Lott, playing with a broken thumb on their throwing hand, playing with a torn bicep tendon like Brett Favre, playing with a torn ligament on their shooting hand like Kobe, and they’re not taking salary cuts like Tom Brady.

Less about a lack of love for or pride in the game, more about how insignificant money is after a certain point. Not to say it isn’t important to some people, who improve their self worth projecting an image of extravagance, perceiving others having a higher opinion of them based on that image which improves self worth, or self worth improvement through performance, where their ability to afford luxury validates how much better they are than others and improves self worth. Others who just feel good through external stimulation of being able to do all the things they want to do, and pretending that the things that they do have met or exceed expectations in regard to entertainment. After a certain point more money is inconsequential, except in the ability to wield power through it. Taking it back to the context of athletes, they, and most others are 1: not interested in wielding power, and are in fact wielded by others based on the influence and audience that they have. And 2: couldn’t really wield power if they wanted to, in the sense that they have nothing of substance to create influence for.

I left a comment expressing my admiration of Tom for putting greatness above excessive income. Excessive because in all likelihood it’s money he’d never spend. I also expressed as I did here my disdain for players who put money over their opportunity to win championships. Someone replied to the comment saying “like you wouldn’t try to get the bag if you had the chance”.

Obviously based on what I stated above, the difference between 50 million dollars and anything else is for the most part inconsequential. In the athletic context I definitely wouldn’t “try to get the bag”.

Outside of that context my interest in money is for marginal circumstantial improvement, and after that there isn’t much I’m interested in spending money on. If I made 200k per year it would be the same as making 200 million a year in the sense that I don’t have things to spend more than that on per year, and even 200k would be difficult to spend. Which is to say, in the general sense, I’m not interested in compromising accomplishments for money. Any money I could generate beyond that would be for the purpose of advancing liberty and truth.

I put together a pitch to sell promissory notes. I have no outlet for it but it consists of a summary, the whistleblower report, and how I would spend the million dollars raised to found The School for the Advancement of Liberty and Truth. Here’s a link to that pitch.

10/27/24

A post office claimed a policy that undermined the service they were supposed to be providing, that led to an animated argument with a postal worker, who wasn’t even involved with providing me service.

I use general delivery where available to receive packages for items I need to order. About 10 days ago I ordered Phenibut to general delivery at the Liberty, MO post office and it was immediately return to sender. General delivery is commonly used by people who are traveling or people who are homeless that allows such a person to have mail and packages sent to a post office for pickup within 30 days. I’ve used it numerous times in Wentzville, MO, O’fallon IL, and Newport, KY, probably about 10x. Each time I was able to address it to general delivery and I would give my name and receive my package.

With the exception of the second time in Wentzville, MO where the person who gave me my package mentioned that I had to be on their list, but he was giving me my package so I wasn’t too concerned, just made a note not to send anything to this Post Office, but at least they had the decency to hold my package and let me know.

When my package was return to sender I filed a complaint not really having any other recourse. I contacted the seller and asked if he could resend it to a different post office. He said he would resend it.

Yesterday 10/23/24 I received a call from someone at the post office, but I asked her to call me back in 45 minutes because I was driving. I didn’t hear the call back, went to the gym, and then went to a job from 3pm to 11:30pm. I didn’t really think much of it because I thought the package was going to be sent to a different post office.

I wake up this morning (10/24/24) and check the tracking on the package to see if it was re-sent or received. The tracking showed arrived at Kansas City distribution center last night. This means it’s on its way to the Liberty post office today or tomorrow. I listened to the message and the woman mentioned a list so they can know who’s getting mail. Ridiculous explanation, you know because it’s addressed to general delivery, you’ll know who’s getting mail based on the mail you receive marked general delivery. General delivery on the USPS website states you don’t have to sign up for general delivery something I’ll get back to later

I drove to the post office.

I talked to a woman who wrote down my name and brought it back to the woman who handles post office boxes and general delivery. She returned and told me I had to fill out a change of address form. Which wasn’t what I was doing and isn’t the same as receiving general delivery as a non-permanent resident, but I briefly considered filling out the form until she told me it is a two week process.

This upset me 1st because my package would be arriving today or tomorrow, but also because it undermined one of the central purposes of general delivery, to allow people to receive mail and packages while they are traveling, RVers, campers, transients, etc. To have a policy that requires a two week process for a person to receive a package essentially prevents people from receiving mail who have no permanent address, and who do not intend on staying in an area long term. It makes no sense and I said as much, where 1: a transient isn’t staying in the area long term where a two week process to receive general delivery requires them to be in the area for around 3 weeks to receive mail, and 2: a change of address means future mail will be sent there after they leave the area which is something that the traveler or transient may not want since they may not intend to return there. The policy undermines the central purpose of general delivery, allowing people without a permanent address to receive mail to avoid being disenfranchised from mailing services due to lifestyle in the case of RVers, and income in the case of the transients.

I was venting my frustration with such a ridiculous policy that undermined not only a central purpose of general delivery, but also the general purpose of the post office itself. The woman asked if I wanted to talk to the supervisor and I did. She told me to meet him in a room that was next to the first teller.

The first teller interjected something about don’t tell us how to do our job, and I reiterated the post office locations where I’ve received general delivery without these problems. She accused me of coming in to start trouble which is wrong, because I came in to ensure I’d be able to pick up my package, and the trouble is they want to deny me a service that I paid for. At one point she told me to go in the room or leave. I stood there to deny her the satisfaction of making me do something, albeit aware of the fact that I risked being trespassed. She walked away shortly after she stated they did things by the book, and I stated mindless authority (based thinking).

She thinks she is an employee of the post office. She actually is a part of a process of ensuring people can send and receive parcels and packages. That’s her product, her purpose, what she contributes to society. But that isn’t what she does because she sees herself as the tasks her job consists of that she performs for money. Her support of a policy is mindless, because she doesn’t know what the benefit of the policy is, and how it undermines the purpose of the service it applies to (general delivery), how it undermines her general purposes as a postal worker, how it undermines the interests of the post office, and how it denies me access to mailing services.

The USPS explanation of general delivery is as follows:

“General Delivery is a mail service for those without a permanent address, often used as a temporary mailing address. General Delivery is intended to be used for:

Post Office™ locations without city carrier delivery service.
Non-city delivery offices for those who prefer not to use Post Office Box service and for whom use of Post Office box, Caller Service, or delivery by letter carrier, would be an unreasonable inconvenience.
A participating Post Office to serve transients (people who travel extensively) and those without a permanent address.
Anyone who wants Post Office box service when Post Office boxes are unavailable.”

It goes on to state

“No application is required for General Delivery.…”

“How do I address a mail piece sent to general delivery?

NAME

GENERAL DELIVERY

CITY STATE ZIP”.

The caveat is “a participating post office to serve transients”. This is the authority that allows a post office to offer general delivery service for people who are local without a permanent address but deny service to transients. We have a federal agency that allows its offices to deny people access to mailing services who are in perpetual travel as RVers, campers, those who travel for work, etc.

I presumed I was going to talk to the supervisor and he was going to tell me there’s nothing he can do. But to my surprise he was very kind, courteous, and professional. He told me he would tell the woman who handles general delivery to add me to the list and that I can receive mail there while I’m in the area. I was very appreciative of this and very surprised.

Initially I didn’t intend to file a complaint concerning the teller’s behavior because I thought I was going to receive my package, which is all I wanted. However, upon checking the tracking on the package, my package was at the KCMO distribution center and was then sent to the KCKS distribution center, where it has no business going and the tracking hasn’t updated in 3 days. It has no business going to the KCKS distribution center because it goes from KCMO to the Liberty, MO post office, or it goes from the KCMO distribution center back to Washington. Interestingly it went to Washington, was never updated to returned, and then the next update was KCMO distribution center. This is another issue altogether that customer service could not provide any clarification for, but ultimately caused by people and policy that has no benefit and denies transients mailing services.

I’ll likely share this information on my original complaint feedback, including the teller who spoke to me when I hadn’t spoken to her, only criticized the policy and how a change of address isn’t required for general delivery. She raised her voice and was pointing her finger at me all of which probably violates some standard of professionality and protocol on dealing with a dissatisfied customer. I doubt the protocol is to provoke, attempt to escalate, and engage someone who is dissatisfied and who has not addressed you.

I’m going to put this portion of this entry in an article that may interest some homeless advocacy groups, or other leftists media. I despise the left because their willful stupidity is much more harmful than the willful stupidity on the right, and is much more divisive along superficial lines, fragmenting the underclasses and putting class goals further out of reach. When I’m talking about class goals, I’m talking about better opportunities for people to have time and money, among the bottom 50 percent of the income distribution.

—

I worked at Challenge Manufacturing in Kansas City on Wednesday. Only notable because I worked in an area where the machines had a timed alarm that I perceived as being an inhumane driver of production. Once the machine has completed it’s cycle there is a clock that counts back from 21 and if the clock reaches 1 before the machine is cleared, reloaded, and started there’s an alarm that sounds similar to a red alert on Star Trek, varying slightly among my machine, the one to the left of me and the one to the right of me.

The sound is an irritant that a person will seek to avoid by trying to work faster than the timer. Principly it’s no different than a person standing behind you with a cattle prod and zapping you every time you didn’t or couldn’t complete the action in under 20 seconds. Both are implements used to produce stress that a person will try to avoid by working faster. To make matters worse there are times when you have to refill your parts tray where you cannot complete the cycle in the allotted time. Even when you become proficient there is a lot of chance involved in completing the cycle within 20 seconds, where sometimes the part that has to be placed in the quality control area doesn’t sit right which requires some time, or the part requires some finagling to set in the machine, or to properly align the bolts with holes on the machine and the part. No matter how much effort you put forth you’re going to get the prod. It was just something I noticed since I didn’t like the sound of the alarm, figured others probably didn’t as well, and recognized how people would typically put forth more effort to try to avoid the sound, and the negative feeling produced by the sound even if it’s subtle.

The alarms serve no other purpose than to prod more effort from the operators. First, supervisors are not monitoring the machines with alarms. The alarms go off successively or intermittently depending on the operator and the part and in the 9 and a half hours I was there with my own and others alarms going off supervisors never came over or made any operator changes. Second, the amount of alarms going off from one machine or another isn’t required to understand production and efficiency, because each machine counts how many parts have been produced. The alarms are purely used to stress workers into greater production.

—

It isn’t really a noteworthy incident, but I’m writing about it just as a matter of documenting my correctness in this incident and the irrationality of people. There is a 4 way stop sign. The person heading towards me has the right away, the person to the left is after him, and I am after the person to my left in the order we arrived. The person to my left has to yield to the right of way of the person across from me. Since the path of the driver who has the right of way and my path does not cross I can proceed on his right away. It may vary by state or municipality, but a general rule is cars at a stop sign who do not cross paths can proceed at the same time.

But moving past that is the general principle behind what happens. Once I saw that the car was proceeding straight I drove across the intersection. I made this decision because I knew I would pass the car to my left before the car across from me would pass the car on the left, which means I’m not holding up the car on the left and my actions are of no consequence to him. As I pass the MFER beeps, which pisses me off because I just made a decision ensuring that his interests are protected and he’s got a problem for no reason. I stick my arm out the window and flip him off, he shouts some things at me and I shout some things back at him. Not a big deal, but infuriating. Coming on the heels of several incidents of irritation during the job I worked.

—

Had more to this entry but didn’t post.

11/7/24

On the state and municipal levels elections have come to have meaningful differences since the democrats absorbed the radical left and enacted policy that leads to direct decreases in quality of life. The encouragement of crime through the removal of deterrents by refusing to adequately enforce law and prosecute crime. Coupled with laws that restrict the means that citizens have to defend themselves and limit the rights of a citizen to defend themselves. Democrats have effectively created a loophole to their constituents’ right to life, liberty, and property. Criminals in certain cities can impose on life in the context of physical harm, and property in destruction and theft of other citizens property because these cities refuse to properly prosecute crime.

Many of these cities have welcomed illegal immigrants and used the money of their constituents to provide services for illegal immigrants while their constituents struggle to keep their heads above water.

Educational curriculum promoting and prioritizing false gender identity constructs to their children. The promotion of an inaccurate view of the United States through the lens that human problems pertain to race, gender, and sexuality, and that these things represent advantage or disadvantage when they do not.

Other inconvenience and imposition, the banning of convenience items, or as was the case with COVID restrictions, serious imposition preventing production from taking place and free movement and gathering that had substantial social and economic consequences.

There are serious direct consequences of elections at the state and local level. The adverse from the right locally is banning abortion largely because they believe preventing a fetus from being born denies the will of their deity, they promote their deity in education, and their perception is skewed through nationalism. In either case, even on the state and municipal levels the lives of most people are unaffected by policies.

The point I’m working up to is elections mean much less on the federal level.

Due to COVID there were some significant differences, but those differences and their consequences were actually a bipartisan effort not just by party leadership, but by the rank and file, the public, all of you.

One difference for a small portion of the population was the vaccine mandate, or granting employers the right to fire employees who refused the vaccine. Trump wouldn’t have taken this action and so that is a difference in federal policy that undeniably impacted the lives of some people in this country, forcing them to sacrifice dignity or income. Interestingly, this has its origins in how Trump handled COVID to begin with.

We can’t lay inflation at the feet of the Biden administration alone, because Trump passed the first COVID Stimulus which was necessitated by his handling of COVID that led to the widespread panic and shut down of the economy at the state and local levels. How? It was clear from the data early on that COVID only posed a risk of severe outcomes to a small percentage of the population, those who due to medical condition or age were due to die within the coming years. Trump didn’t have an adequate understanding of COVID to inform the American people statistically of the general risk of a healthy person contracting COVID, and how that risk failed to qualify as a threat to public safety to be used to impose on the rights of citizens. This failure to inform contributed as much as anything else to the consequences of the response to COVID, in inflation through the suppression of production combined with the rapid increase of the supply of money, and all subsequent policy pertaining to COVID based on popular misconceptions.

Another difference is illegal immigration, where the number of illegal immigrants entering the country through the southern border has dramatically increased and this has had consequences for Americans, although this too has more to do with local government than it does federal government. Local government in where they go and who is impacted. The Biden administration’s rhetoric and policies encouraged migration through the obstruction of detainment, apprehension, and deportation of illegal immigrants from the southern border.

What’s interesting is the encouragement of illegal immigration by the Democrats at the federal level didn’t begin until Trump’s 2016 campaign. Illegal immigration wasn’t a problem in 2016, Trump campaigned that it was, rank and file Republicans were too willfully stupid to see that it wasn’t, and this radicalized the Democrats position on illegal immigration in response to Trump. This radicalization was the aforementioned rhetoric and policies of the Biden administration that encouraged and aided illegal immigration. This radicalization did not exist on the federal level prior to Trump’s 2016 campaign as Obama was very aggressive and effective in the capture and deportation of illegal immigrants and securing the border. Reducing the illegal immigrant population from the southern border by over a million people during his presidency, and halving average annual encounters compared to the previous decade before he took office. Yes, illegal immigration has become a problem, that is a difference in federal policy between Biden and Trump, but it was a problem that was created by Trump and the willed ignorance of the public, both democrats and republicans. If republicans knew there was no immigration problem in 2016 Trump doesn’t run on illegal immigration, and democrats don’t take the extreme opposite position at the federal level inviting illegal immigrants through rhetoric and policy.

I prefer Trump to Harris, but not because it has any real meaningful effects on my own life. More so for the benefit it has in reducing the false and divisive narrative on the left of race, gender, and sexuality as the determiners of disadvantage. Outside of that whether it has been W Bush or Obama, Obama or Trump, Trump or Biden, my life and opportunities are unchanged by who is elected president, or which party controls the house and the Senate. It’s essentially putting two groups in front of you who will decide how to distribute a pot of gold between other people. People vote for the group who tells them the things they believe are good are good and the things they believe are bad are bad. But they’re not involved in the distribution of benefit in any meaningful way.

There is a reason why candidates are first selected by money before they have a legitimate chance of getting into office. Beyond the meaningless narratives that dominate the public’s perception of politics there’s 6 trillion dollars being spent and policy that advantages or disadvantages industry. This spending and policy is determined by which industries invest more or exclusively with each party and which party wins elections. That’s the real difference in federal politics and it has nothing to do with the people who vote.

The public participates in a story they’ve bought into. For the public an election is more like a sporting event where the real benefit is in the fact that your team won and their team lost, but the win and the loss has no other real impact on your life. Now the losers continue the narrative with the disaster that is to come, and the winners pretend as if life is now going to be great, when the reality is their lives are unaffected or only minimally affected by the outcome. In the next four years people will obsess about what politicians are saying and what it means, and state propaganda will change from one network to the other. I’ve described it elsewhere as the changing of the radio station, where the last 4 years the left got to hear more of what they wanted to hear, and now for the next 4 years the right gets to hear more of what they want to hear. But their lives will be unchanged.

One of Trump’s big promises is to end federal income tax through the implementation of tariffs. First, the ending of federal income tax harms roughly 50 percent of the population who has an annual income of $30,000 per year or less, because people who earn less than 30k per year have negative effective tax rates. Paying no federal income tax is more than receiving federal tax credits that exceed what they pay in federal income tax.

Second, replacing federal income tax with tariffs requires new tarrifs to exceed 2.2 trillion dollars which is the amount collected in federal income tax. The total value of imported goods into the US is 3.8 trillion dollars. While one would look at this and say tariffs would have to exceed 50 percent, it’s actually substantially more than that. 86 percent of imports are American companies manufacturing products abroad and importing them into the country. Add to it free trade agreements that would have to be changed through Congress and you’re going to try to get 2.2 trillion dollars out of less than a trillion dollars of imported goods. Either the American consumer pays 4 times more for certain imported goods, or the goods are priced out of the market and not imported, and consequently you have no revenue to cover the lost income tax revenue.

That’s not going to happen because it doesn’t work but Americans are too willfully stupid to take the 5 minutes that’s required to know that.

On immigration, while it’s impactful for a portion of the population, it is unlikely to change under Trump for the population whose lives are affected. Those who are affected are affected because of the policies of their state and municipal governments. While Trump will curb the inflow of new migrants, and maybe enforce law in the areas that cooperate with federal enforcement who probably do not have problems, the areas that do have problems will continue not to cooperate with federal enforcement and will aid illegal migrants to the detriment of their constituents. (Rereading this portion for archive. I was wrong about this. I did not anticipate he’d send the military to protect ICE in enforcement of immigration law in sanctuary cities)

Ending taxes on tips and overtime would be significant, but this could be a promise tied to tariffs to cover income tax which doesn’t work, and if not, it’s only something that should be done if you have a way to make up that lost revenue. (This is of limited significance but some significance. Tips capped out at 25,000k are deductible from income, and overtime 12.5 K. Some will receive a few thousand dollars in a tax refund, although some may not see anything from it if their overall income doesn’t leave them with any tax liability. It’s better than nothing)

Trump has been good on foreign policy but this is largely because the United States has accomplished all of its foreign policy goals that could be accomplished through force. Biden also didn’t foment any coups or invade any countries. I think the election of Trump may allow Israel to exile the Palestinians from Gaza which is little more than an accelerated inevitably.

Overall, nothing has changed, nobody has won anything and nobody has lost anything as it pertains to the general public. The only thing that has changed is the potential for the stories that people follow, but the lives and opportunities for most will be exactly the same under Trump as they would have been under Harris. The difference in election outcomes matters to the selectors of candidates, not the electors of candidates.

11/12/24

For some the world is about to end, and for others we’re about to enter a utopian era in American history because Trump was elected. I covered this in the last entry that the actual impact on an overwhelming majority of people in this country is going to amount to nothing. People’s perception of the world is based on what they’ve chosen to believe, not what they see, experience, and understand.

It’s comical in a sense. There was coverage of Trump talking about education. He said here are 10 ideas which were not really ideas in the sense of this is how to better teach children. He mentions prayer in school, teaching children to love their country, firing bad teachers, and other nonsense to give his dumbass supporters something they can talk to each other about “Trump’s bringing back prayer in school, going to fire the bad teachers”, or some stupid shit along those lines. For the left to say Trump is going to indoctrinate religion and nationalism through the schools.

What’s so funny about this and seeing these stupid mother fuckers comment to each other is the last thing he said. Even if you are that intellectually depraved that you equate someone making a series of statements with said things happening, in this particular situation, he says these things and effectively says he’s not doing any of it.

His 10th idea is to eliminate the department of education and leave education to states and municipalities as IT ALREADY IS. The federal government provides funding for public education, maybe creates testing but isn’t very involved in curriculum and policies. Trump says here are 10 things he thinks are good for education, and the 10th thing is the elimination of the federal government’s involvement in education essentially saying he isn’t doing the 9 vague things he stated previously. I truly wonder how many people see these things and laugh their asses off that the general population is so fucking stupid that they can support or resist someone saying here’s 9 things we need to do for education and here’s the 10th that says we’re not doing the first 9. 😂. You can’t make this shit up.

The department of education isn’t going anywhere and although they’d like to cut funding for education it’ll be very difficult to do that, because congress decides how money will be spent and they don’t want to lose money for their states, democrat or republican. (Trump did pause funding appropriated by congress to schools for certain programs. There are lawsuits being filed. In his bill he cut federal funds for education by 15%. Republicans had higher priority spending and tax cuts within the bill. They wern’t going to die on a the hill of education when they were getting so much more for their investors in the bill)

—

A man was filming Jason Kelce with his phone appearing to be talking shit about his brother’s relationship with Taylor Swift. Jason responded by smashing his phone. People’s response and the moral and subconscious implications of the incident is what is interesting to me.

Many people, including Cam Newton felt like it was appropriate for Jason to break the man’s phone who appeared to be looking for a response to attract attention to his content.

Cam stated “sometimes you have to remind these folks who they’re fucking with. It ain’t nothing wrong with that. I hate when people will provoke something and play the victim when you match that energy.”

Top comments

@masonjones3780

“110% Facts. Why would you think it’s cool to get up in his face and do that? He shouldn’t apologize for jack.”

@ExploringTheSmoke

“As Tyson said, social media has made too many people comfortable with disrespecting others and not getting punched in the mouth.”

@dwoolf 7019

“People always want to poke the bear, then play victim when they get mauled by the bear.”

Mike G737

“The only thing Kelce did wrong was apologizing”

@bardrop4347-Id ago

“I’m glad Kelce did that, that dude was beyond out of pocket”

There are many other comments that are more aggressively and colorfully supporting Jason but the point is to establish the position. It was also reported that among the general population there appeared to be more in support of Jason than there were those condemning.

Morally, Jason is completely wrong because he destroyed someone’s property because he did not like what they were saying. Speech is inherently unimposing despite subjective interpretation and the feelings produced through that interpretation. Destruction of property is imposition since you have just deprived someone of their means to do something. More important than the moral judgment is the implications of the popular judgement. Condoning the use of force based on something that someone said (outside of a threat) is the belief that it is ideal for stronger people to control what weaker people can say. If they believe Jason is right, that is what they believe.

For half or most of them, they don’t have any moral principles. They actually believe Jason is right because they like him, or they like Cam, or they dislike people who use celebrities to create income. For example, if someone was talking shit to an off duty cop, and the officer smashed the person’s phone, then they probably adopt the position that it’s wrong to destroy people’s property because they don’t like police.

In either situation, where morality is determined by bias or morality is determined by strength, it’s a tyrannical mode of operation. People who people like can do things that are wrong and it’s right because they like them i.e right action is the action of the people who they like. Or right action is the stronger controlling the weaker through force. Fundamentally, destroying someone’s property for something they said is rooted in a desire to control others, to control what they may say.

I’m not worried about saying anything to anyone, I just recognize the futility of trying to communicate with people whose positions are rooted in feeling and cannot be moved through fact. People whose minds require no consistency, where contradiction need not result in the dismissal of the false point, and where people cannot recognize the implications of their belief. See the above example, where people clearly don’t see the implications of believing Jason was right is that stronger people should be able to control what weaker people say. Or how that is detrimental to their own interests, where they are only able to speak freely in the presence of weaker people. I mention that I don’t feel encumbered by potential harm for something I say, to address an assumption that my position comes from an interest in the subject. It comes from understanding the nature and duality of morality based on human ideal and as a determinant of conscious motion. Destruction of property is imposition and speech is not, except for threats and deception.

—

There was an incident in Florida that commenters were referring to as a man being stopped for walking while black, and a bunch of other claims that the stop was racially motivated.

A man was walking in the street for roughly 50 yards before reaching a squad car that was parked in a lot that was obstructing the sidewalk. I mention the location of the squad car because commenters were claiming that the officers obstructed the sidewalk and then stopped him for walking around the car but that doesn’t change the fact that he walked in the street for roughly 50 yards before he was stopped probably 15 yards away from the squad car. The top comments are

“8 pigs to arrest a guy that literally was doing NOTHING”

“These two officers are dangerous to the public”

“The police created a trap by blocking the sidewalk, they should be fired”.

“They don’t go for tough criminals. They go for innocent citizens minding their own business and committing no crimes”.

These opinions are obviously a product of bias and demonstrate how bias impacts people’s interpretation of reality, because these opinions are unequivocally invalidated by the facts. I left a comment that no one responded to and replied to other comments but as is consistent with value protective denial no point was acknowledged.

Florida 316.130(3). “Where sidewalks are provided, no pedestrian shall, unless required by other circumstances, walk along and upon the portion of a roadway paved for vehicular traffic.”

The suspect was walking upon a paved road way intended for vehicular traffic and the circumstances of the squad car blocking the sidewalk about 100 yards from where he began walking in the road did not require him to walk in the road. Furthermore, the car was parked halfway in a lot, meaning had the suspect walked on the sidewalk until he reached the squad car he still did not have to enter the road because he could have walked around the front of the car through the lot. That’s irrelevant because there were no circumstances requiring him to walk in the road for the 50 to 70 yards before he was stopped.

The suspect called a woman and told her to come to where he was at. Officers told him if she comes she’s going to be arrested. People had a problem with this but if the woman is coming to the scene she’s there for no other reason than to obstruct the investigation. When she arrived the officers did not arrest her but gave her a distance she must keep to not obstruct the investigation.

The officers told the man they would let him off with a warning as soon as they established his identity. This detail is relevant to commenters who said citizens who haven’t committed crimes don’t have to ID, and another who just made up that cops can’t ask you for your SS#. They asked for his social to try to establish his identity because he provided a fake name. When he refused to supply it they went to detain him and he ran because he had a warrant.

This is just another example of how bias impedes people’s ability to learn, skews their perception, and leaves them with an inaccurate perception of the world. That’s one of the main reasons I often write about incidents with law enforcement because the examples are so clear and people are so committed to faulty interpretations to maintain the belief that law enforcement is bad.

Lastly, and this pertains to both of these happenings, the commenters are providing opinions that are in line with the opinions of the people covering these events. As for the comments selected as top comments it is near unanimity in the conclusion, there isn’t a bunch of other comments that argue against the popular opinions. Nearly all the people in each channel have supported wrong positions. That’s the species I have been doomed to be a part of.

11/17/24

As I played a poker tournament on my phone I had YouTube picture in picture going on that was auto playing videos. Among the videos was the Joe Rogan and JD Vance, and Joe Rogan and Trump episodes. I took 3rd in the tournament for about $130, lasted about 5 and a half hours, so I listened to the episodes in their entirety. I’ve been moderately sick the last few days so I’ve been playing poker. Took first in an Omaha yesterday for $150, just to brag on the accomplishment.

I don’t consume political propaganda so I don’t hear them talk very often. Listening to the podcast reinforced the general ideas I had about both of them. Trump is a bullshitter, and Vance has a firm understanding of an ideology that he promoted to take advantage of his opportunities. I don’t think he really believes these things, but understands them and uses them to sell the interests of industry to the public and to benefit himself through that role. Or he may have internalized these things, and believes them because the beliefs provide him justification for what he does and what he promotes. Based on a few things stated and observing him in conversation, I lean towards Vance using ideology as a means to accomplishing his goals. He mentions that 10 years ago he was far more radical but has become more moderate. Like his conversion to Christianity, his extremism was probably advantageous at that time, and moderacy is probably more advantageous today. His beliefs follow whatever it is that benefits him, it isn’t grounded by any set of principles.

As I said before, I did prefer Trump and Vance over Harris, but the preference was largely a product of Trump being better for the social fabric of the country. Doesn’t do away with the irrational and divisive narrative of the left, but at least it isn’t supported and promoted through the federal government. Other than that, the federal government conducts business that doesn’t noticeably affect my opportunities. It matters to industry, it doesn’t matter to everyone else.

One thing that stood out to me is Vance said he was a Christian, then he was an atheist, and then he reverted to Christianity, more specifically, Catholicism. I suspect that his reversion is 100 percent career motivated, knowing that you’ll do much better as a Republican candidate as a Christian than as an atheist.

He was honest when they discussed abortion pointing out that it is a matter of the courts and the states. That was something that was particularly striking to me in seeing some of the liberal responses to Trump’s victory and before hand warnings; ignorant people claiming Trump’s victory meant the end of reproductive rights. It exposes the vanity of their interest in the cause. Interest in the cause leads to research. Any person interested in the cause knows that abortion is regulated by the states after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which previously produced some federal oversight through the right of privacy implied by the 14th amendment. Most liberals are not interested in women having the right to have an abortion, they’re interested in the idea that Trump and Republicans are attacking their rights, so they consume propaganda that reinforces that idea, and then they’re making tictoc videos about the horrors to come that they’ve convinced themselves are imminent. Trump has also said he would veto any national abortion ban legislation, which means Trump represents pro-choice interests as president.

Vance states that abortion is between the value of autonomy and the value of life. This was in response to Rogan rightfully stating that the pro life position is largely a Christian cause. Rogan is correct, it’s pretty evident especially when you drive through small towns and rural areas and the prolife advertising becomes fairly extensive. These areas are Christian dominated. Joe doesn’t know the reason, but it isn’t a general value of life. Christians have a problem with abortion because they believe it obstructs the will of their deity. Where their deity knows a person before they were born, but then they’re never born. You killed what the deity was forming in the womb, effectively denying the will of the deity.

As far as Vance’s proposition, autonomy and life, it’s a very easy problem to solve. Individual autonomy ends where it interferes with the autonomy of others. The act of a woman having an abortion does not interfere with anyone else’s autonomy. As a matter of imposition, a fetus is not conscious, has no experience, no likes or dislikes, and has no will to be denied through the act of never having been. It doesn’t matter if it’s elective or necessary, it’s a harmless act, except for those who believe the earth is governed by the will of a deity, and not the will of human beings. There’s only evidence for one.

Vance probably doesn’t care one way or the other, being pro life for him is the same as his christianity, it’s advantageous as a republican. He states somewhat enthusiastically that he thinks people should have that discussion. No one who is really pro life wants to entertain autonomy, which tells me he doesn’t really care, but knows he’s ideologically bound to the pro life position. It’s also good for the general interests of wealth and industry, in creating responsibilities to motivate labor.

It doesn’t matter, for the foreseeable future, abortion will be a state issue since we’re very far away from a constitutional amendment given the disposition of the states.

I was surprised that Rogan began to talk about global warming not happening and global cooling being a problem we need to worry about. Less surprised that Vance was supportive of the false narrative. I didn’t think these positions still existed, and was especially surprised to hear them from Rogan, who clearly just listens to what people tell him to form his opinions. Climate change is not difficult to substantiate. We have direct measurements of the global average temperature from preindustrial times to the present. During that period the global average temperature has risen by a little over 1 degree Celsius. We have direct measurements of CO2 since the 50s. We have secondary measurements of CO2 from ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years. In the last century or so we’ve more than doubled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. (Around the turn of the century I think we were around 225 ppm, a few years ago we were above 450ppm. Haven’t looked at the material in awhile that’s from memory. I usually research a subject answering pertinent questions to answer general questions, and remember the functional details and not always the specific details like numbers, names, places, etc.)

Yes, a rise in temperature can produce an increase in CO2, but the effect requires 100s of years. You would have a rise in the global average temperature, and then a few hundred years after the increase in temperature CO2 levels begin to increase. That isn’t what we see, we see a rise in the global average temperature that coincides with a rise in CO2. A rapid CO2 increase produces a steadily rising temperature.

It also isn’t the sun because the temperature has increased over the last 100 years steadily, irrespective of solar output. When I added a summary of a recent study on methane emissions in Understanding Political Function 2019-2020, I thought the chapter Climate Change 101 was obsolete. The chapter explains basic concepts of climate change, addresses what were popular denier arguments, cites data from the historical trend, and projects that data at the previous 50 year average rate of growth to the end of the century. Then adds CO2 from permafrost melt citing the latest research at that time. I did the projection, because it’s something that is easily understood. This is what has happened, if it continues, the math says this is where we’ll be. This is the amount of degrees that that concentration of CO2 is expected to produce and this is what that means to habitability in the most populous areas of the planet. I thought the chapter is obsolete, but apparently Joe Rogan, the most successful podcaster in human history, doesn’t believe the planet is warming. That kind of goes back to the activist who isn’t interested in the things they claim interest in. Does he not trust thermometers?

What’s alarming is what we may have already set in motion. My first entry on this journal section refers to the following summarized study. Climate change has impacted air currents and changed patterns of precipitation bringing more rain to certain areas. This increase in rain and heat has led to wetland expansion and microbial activity that releases methane. Over the last 15 years there has been an estimated increase in methane that has only been observed in this magnitude 7 other times in earth’s history. The 7 previous times were glacial termination events where all the ice on the planet melts. In previous events there’s a large release of methane over a relatively short period of time followed by a dramatic increase in the global average temperature, 3 to 10 degrees C over decades instead of 1 to 3 more degrees over a century as we anticipate on our current trajectory. The upper end of that warming was in an event that was preceded by a period of climate much colder than today. Just to say that if we are entering a glacial termination period spurred by changes in air currents, the rapid increase will probably be closer to 3 degrees C than 10 but equally catastrophic. We may have already set this in motion. Glacial termination events may be caused by increases in CO2 that impact air currents and ramp up wetland expansion and microbial activity, and the release of methane from these changes produces rapid warming of the planet. It’s also worth noting that we don’t know this yet, but may know more as data is collected and published in the coming years.

Otherwise, if carbon emissions continue to rise at the same rate we should be around 800 to 1000ppm by the end of the century which should produce a rise in temperature of 3 to 4 degrees C. This will render most of the places including about the entire United States unlivable, either through drought, desertification, or the frequency of natural disaster. Everything from the northern US down to about the lower part of Brazil, all the way around the globe, with a few exceptions within that band of latitude will be uninhabitable.

Rogan says and Vance agrees, that people will just move from the uninhabitable places to the habitable places. The problem is most of the people live in areas that are habitable today and may not be habitable very long after the turn of the century, and the places that remain habitable are within the borders of other countries. At that point, it will be WWIII and a nuclear apocalypse. What do you think will happen in a scenario where China has to move 2 billion people into Russia? If the fate of your people depends on victory or defeat there is nothing to prevent you from using nuclear weapons, because either way it’s the end of your people.

Rogan asked Trump about deep sea drilling, and Trump said he was a proponent of drilling. I’m also a proponent because demand for oil must be satisfied to facilitate production and distribution. I don’t believe in harming American prosperity, more specifically the American consumers, to make symbolic gestures.

Everything the Democrats have proposed in the name of climate change has made no significant contribution to averting catastrophe or buying additional time. Their efforts have went to funnel public funds to the industries who invest with them and to punish the industries who do not invest with them. When I say no significant contribution, I’m sure there are metric tons of emissions saved through this subsidy or this regulation but those numbers are meaningless. All the efforts of all the countries including the United States with the exception of 2020 during the scamdemic have not reduced annual global emissions. We’ve reduced the growth of emissions, but haven’t actually reduced emissions. The measures will not avert catastrophe from the current trajectory, it’s used to pedal the interests of their donors to the public.

I am for reducing carbon emissions, but we will not avert climate catastrophe through emission reduction. Human beings will either a: develop technology to reduce the temperature of the planet, b: evolve socially for the peaceful redistribution of people from inhabitable to habitable areas, or c: will destroy themselves through wars over habitable territory. They will not reduce emissions to the degree required to prevent a 3 degree increase in the global average temperature from preindustrial times to preserve our current climate.

Trump as well as Kamala highlight how poor the information processing faculties are of the public. There’s no substance to anything they say. Trump made claims that if he were in office he could have prevented Putin from invading Ukraine but he can’t tell you what he would say. Ridiculous shit. Most of the interview was casual conversion and Trump on some Steven Seagal shit, I sent the smartest people to make a deal and they couldn’t make a deal so I went myself and we got the deal done.

He talks about tariffs, and claims he could do away with income tax through tariffs but doesn’t explain how tariffs actually work. Tariffs don’t work the way he says he wants to use them. As I mentioned previously, 87 percent of about 4 trillion dollars in imports are from US companies manufacturing abroad. About $500 billion dollars of imports are foreign companies exporting products into the US. Trump threatens a 100 percent tariff if countries don’t do what he wants which would produce about $500 billion dollars in revenue not nearly enough to cover 2.2 trillion in federal income tax. Second, if the American consumers spend $500 billion on imports but the price of imports doubles, now they’re only buying $250 billion of products because 250 now costs 500. You have $250 billion dollars to cover 2.2 trillion. 3rd, if you place a 100 percent tariff on products being imported from other countries they do the same thing which means American companies lose 50 percent of their exports as these countries purchase half as many products as they otherwise would. 4th, tariffs are ultimately paid by the consumer, so while tariffs raise the price of goods, the company exporting still must maintain its profit margin so it passes the cost onto the importing consumer. Tariffs on foreign goods are paid by the American consumers. Fifth, tariffs are harmful to the businesses of both countries, and the economy of both countries as it ultimately means that companies produce fewer products, require fewer employees, and make less profit to be spent or reinvested, and consumers purchase fewer products because they’re spending more money on imported products. Essentially, tariffs take money out of the economy and put it in the government.

What are tariffs used for? Tariffs are used to create an advantage for domestic manufacturers. For example, Canadian timber is heavily subsidized which may cause it to sell for less than US timber in the US. To allow American timber to be competitive the US could put a tariff on Canadian timber, then Canadian timber companies would pass the cost on to the American consumers which will drive up the price. Tariffs are used to ensure domestic industries can compete with foreign industries in the domestic market. The better idea is to deregulate the industry to reduce production costs and perhaps a roundabout subsidy that benefits portions of the public, to drive down the cost of US production, so US timber prices can compete with Canadian timber in the domestic market.

There wasn’t much substance in either of the interviews. Vance did provide an explanation of the immigration bill that the Harris campaign claimed would have secured the border that Republicans did not pass. The essence of it was it codified catch and release, or any claim of asylum made by someone illegally entering the country allowed them to remain in the country until they went to court, which is a process that can take years.

They are who I thought they were, and nothing improves, everything stays the same. Average annual income share of an adult in the United States is about 30k per year. Half the country. That’s meaningful to quality of life, the rest is BS to keep people engaged in a political soap opera.

11/27/24

I saw an interesting story that highlighted how private equity firms had been buying up mobile home parks. It included a seminar excerpt where a man was saying that mobile home parks are a gold mine because lot fees are low and the residents are very resilient to increases. No doubt. Mobile homes are owned assets. If lot prices increase the owner has to pay the lot fee because unlike renters, if they do not pay they lose their home, whereas a renter can pack up and leave if rent becomes too high and they lose nothing.

The story centered on a park in Michigan and a group of mobile home owners contacted state representatives and had a bill drafted to address some of their grievances. Mainly the bill required justification for lot fee increases and maintenance standards. The bill passed the state house, but upon passing the house a PAC received about $400,000, withdrew support from the bill, and the bill was struck down in the state Senate. Public policy is decided by political investment.

The story highlighted how mobile home owners were being exploited and preyed on. I’m somewhat sympathetic to these people’s plight, but I look at how wealth and industry view the general population, and I definitely get it. They understand how stupid the general population is. How the general population is persuaded by BS, require no fact, evidence, or logic to support belief. The exploiters believe that the exploited are deserving of their struggles, trapping, and exploitation. While I wouldn’t agree that they are deserving, I would agree that they are responsible. It speaks to the great reduction in general empathy I’ve underwent in the last 10 years or so of my life. The irony is my intellectual development was largely motivated by empathy, and then by understanding why things are as they are, I realized that the underlying basis of all human problems is self deception. People believing things because they feel good and refusing to be moved by observation, evidence, and logic. The world we have is a collective product, and the exploited are just as much at fault as the exploiters who take advantage of underclass circumstances that persist due to willed ignorance and stupidity. The difference between myself, the exploiters, and puppet masters is I understand that the general population is willfully stupid, not innately stupid, whereas the predators justify their actions through the belief that the general population is innately inferior.

—

I worked for about 5 days at a company overhearing their conversations. Some of the conversations included deity and astrology. This sign does this, or I’m this sign and you know we’re like this. There’s no way to communicate with a person who wants to believe that the time of year they were born determines their tendency towards behavior. These things content such people, and then they hold conflicting magical ideas about the devil and their deity influencing behavior and the happenings around them. It’s impossible to persuade people through evidence or revelation of contradiction, when clearly evidence isn’t required to substantiate their beliefs, and contradiction between beliefs doesn’t disqualify belief.

There was one woman who was particularly annoying. Constantly telling stories that were at least partially false or complete fabrication, coupled with how tough she was walking around at about 5’02, and bottom teeth looking busted out. Clearly aloof to the fact that nobody really takes anything she says seriously, but recognize that there’s no benefit in arguing with her. Motivation is apparently rooted in her value of the content, and belief that others share the value, and that the stories she tells improves others opinion of her; which in turn increases self worth through that perception. Otherwise, there’s no reason to recklessly run her mouth the way she does. A secondary motivator but less likely is security, where telling her stories and pretending to be gangster causes her to feel like she’s projecting an image that will deter people from treating her in a way she doesn’t want to be treated. A third possible motivator is to create conflict for whatever pleasure she derives from that conflict.

Any argument with her isn’t going to result in any communication or resolution to controversy. It’ll just be ad hominem supported by fantasy in an effort for her to try to elevate herself above you and interpretative opinion to push her opponent below her. Essentially you’re just going to piss yourself off by engaging her. I realized this very early on. Another man on the second and third day took the bait and confirmed my analysis. The more heated of the two exchanges came when he was talking to his friend about completing more boxes. Just friendly at work shit talking as us guys sometimes do to entertain ourselves and pass the time. The bitch chimes in with it’s not a competition. He says I’m not talking to you.

He’s right in that if he and his friend want to have fun and talk shit that has nothing to do with her. She responds that she can respond to it because she can hear it, but she’s responding to something that doesn’t concern her. They’re working and having dialogue that is helping them get through their work day. Of course the argument quickly moved into talking about each other and the man was fairly angry towards the conclusion and the woman was saying oh you’re mad, so emotional, etc. Seemed like the goal was to make him mad.

It’s ridiculous to claim superiority or others inferiority, because no one at that place is doing substantially better than anyone else based on the fact that we’re all there doing the same shit for $130. Ultimately, she was attempting to control what the man was saying, or to provoke conflict for her perceived victory in that conflict. Self worth reinforcement through her own perception that she wins the argument by making him angry, or in content, or her perception that others feel like she has won the argument.

I largely ignored her. Engaged her in a brief conversation when she came back from Mc Donald’s late from lunch and probably fabricated a story about her food smelling like perfume. The issue with her food may have been more of an excuse for being late than it was an actual problem, or it was just something she could talk about to appear tough. I should have suspected it was BS but took the story at face value and used it as an opportunity to talk with her. The goal in case the story was true was to help her realize that if there was something wrong with her food it probably wasn’t intentional. I was honest but tried to infuse humor and perspective into the situation. She said they should have refunded her money and made her order over. I mentioned it sounded like she was trying to get some free food and that’s how it probably appeared to the manager. She said she knew another manager and was going to get someone fired. Towards the end I mentioned that people like her were the reason I couldn’t work in fast food. Shortly afterwards she started talking about how she had a land auditor license and people talk shit until their land gets audited. And she fights men and women big and small. Not overtly directed at me, but following our conversation recently enough to suggest that she was offended and was making veiled threats. I didn’t really care, and while most of everything she said was irritating in as much as it was senseless BS, it was at times entertaining and really of no consequence.

—

A few days passed. I needed to travel south because the temperature was dropping in KC. I was going to leave Friday but I couldn’t decide on a location. I intended to leave Sunday, but recognizing work opportunities will be limited due to thanksgiving, and the end of the month approaching (bills) I decided to stay to work on Tuesday. After working Tuesday I saw they had another op for Wednesday, and figured I’d work one more day and start heading south after I finished. Unfortunately (maybe), while I did head out after I was finished, I was kicked off the job for aggressive behavior. I’ve done very well by myself for a fairly long time, but today there was a series of what seemed like overt attempts to antagonize me. So I thought I’d see if that’s what someone wanted, because his behavior implied it.

The job is very simple. There’s a pallet of boxes containing Cerbelly baby food. During manufacturing one of the machines left a hazard on the pouches and those pouches must be separated from the pouches that do not have the hazard. On the pouches there is either an L or an R on the label printed on the pouch. The Ls are put in boxes to be destroyed, and the Rs are repackaged for distribution 40 to a box.

There is a large table next to a smaller table. There were 3 people working on the large table and I was working on the smaller table. The Ls are packed into a box that we tape. There was a tape gun accessible to all on the large table and I had a tape gun. (1) At some point one of the men working on the other table grabbed the tape gun I was using. Company property, not a big deal, I just need to retrieve it next time I need it. (2) I go to get 2 more boxes off of the pallet to sort and I look up and notice the guy staring at me in what may be interpreted as an unfriendly manner. (3) Despite having a tape gun in his reach, he walked down and grabbed my tape gun for a second time. Before I was able to take the tape gun back, the guy on the other table to the left of me set the other tape gun next to me. (4). The guy who had taken the tape gun twice, walks past my table and again is looking at me. (5) At some point he comes over and grabs Ls out of my box for Ls. If not for the other behavior I don’t have an issue with it because it’s just fewer Ls I need to box but it doesn’t make any sense. (6) The woman working next to him comes over to my table and is about to start taking Rs out of my counted box which makes no sense because there are still boxes on the pallet. If there are no boxes left on the pallet, but other people have product, then you’ll go get product from them to complete your boxes. Otherwise, if you need more product you open another box. I asked her why she didn’t just open another box, and she said never mind forget it and walked away. (7) She goes over to the pallet of product talking to the other dude and then dude starts trying to mean mug me again. Mind you, with each minor incident I’m growing increasingly irritated but internally I’m talking myself out of it, like the dude is retarded don’t let this shit bother you. But then each time I’m calming myself down he does something else that causes me to resume my initial perception of an intent to antagonize. I’m not irritated by the acts, I’m irritated by the idea that what is being done is intended to irritate me, and I have done nothing to this dude or anyone else there. All of this occurred within a span of 45 minutes to an hour.

When he’s mugging me the last time after she comes over to take Rs out of my counted box for no fucking reason, I look at him and say what the fuck are you looking at? You got a problem? He says you’re not talking me. When I hear him say that, that to me implies that he wants to fight. I’m clearly talking to him, if someone says you’re not talking to me it implies that I’m not talking to him because he’ll do something to me if I were to say what I said to him. So I walk over to him, let him know that I am talking to him and tell him to meet me in the bathroom. In certain dorm style facilities I’ve been incarcerated in we’d go to the bathroom to fight to not be seen by COs and cameras. Applicable here to not be seen by witnesses and cameras, and secondly, to see if this is what he wanted.

Clearly not what he wanted, apparently just an effort to antagonize and shortly thereafter I was kicked off the job. I don’t feel great about how I responded but also know my response was not wrong. I was still heated at the time the supervisors asked me to the side to talk about it so I didn’t state my case very well. He said something to the effect that it was no reason to respond how I did but it definitely was a good reason to respond how I did. 7 incidents within about 45 minutes, which means on average every 6.5 minutes I was being harassed, and the 8th was essentially a threat when he said “you’re not talking to me”. It’s appropriate to respond to a threat of force with a threat of force. I won $130 the night before playing poker, so I wasn’t too upset about losing $100 over the remaining 6 hours of work I missed.

As I stated originally, there is still a minor self worth hit based on performance, where I don’t like how I see my behavior in those moments. Yet, retrospectively, it may have been the lowest hit I could have taken given those circumstances. If I say nothing and allow it to persist for the 7 scheduled hours, if that is even possible each incident is going to produce a negative feeling and at the end of the day I’m going to a: be upset that I allowed these people to fuck with me for a whole shift, and b: all those negative feelings cumulatively will negatively affect my well being, put me in a bad mood moving forward. I have negative feelings from the accumulation of incidents, these negative feelings influence the kind of thoughts I have, and how I perceive what’s going on around me. Ignoring it results in far greater damage than addressing it how I did.

A third option, to ask why they’re doing what they’re doing has other consequences. As was observed with the woman when I asked why she didn’t grab another box from the pallet. She gets mad and walks away, probably talking shit with the bitch boy who’s playing games, because the only explanation is they’re doing what they’re doing in an effort to antagonize me. If I go this route while it may become an effective deterrent, it’s going to hurt me on two different fronts. First in how I perceive others perceiving me as being petty making an issue out of everything that people are doing, and creating the appearance that I’m trying to control how other people are working. I’m going to feel equally bad about that perception of me, as I feel about venting my interpretation that people are fucking with me. I’m not one who puts too much emphasis on the opinion of others, based largely on knowledge that their opinions are based on a faulty understanding of most things they believe, when it’s an interpretation that I would have observing someone else doing the same thing, it has a subtle but noticeable impact on self worth. Some of that is present here, where the impact surrounding the incident to self-worth is mostly in becoming angry and the expression of that anger, but partially in how others may interpret it as having bullied the man, even though the actual intent was in response to him and her trying to bully me so to speak.

The point being is based on these circumstances there was no course of action I could have taken and made it out of this situation emotionally unscathed.

I have about 120 jobs worked through Veryable, this is the only problem I had with another worker. I worked at this job about 7x and no one has done the things that they were doing that morning. I mention that because perhaps reading this summary it seems like everything that happened was all interpretative error on my part. If that were the case, that interpretative error would be evident in other experiences, and there haven’t been any other incidents in previous experiences.

1/2/25

My absence from this journal stems from dealing with a tragedy, the details of which will be made available in a project that is occupying the vast majority of my time. I was back in Milwaukee for about 2 and a half weeks helping out a friend, and I’ve been back on the road for about 5 days. Have a few things on my mind.

I’m headed south due to inclement weather. I am considering returning to Milwaukee to finish this book. The reason being is I’m very sensitive to my environment. Not sensitive in the sense that I’m impacted by things I shouldn’t be impacted by, although there is some of that, but more so that I’m much more aware of what is going on and potentially going on than other people. When it is a situation where I’m overly responsive to something, that response is largely a product of circumstances. If my circumstances were not as they are, and haven’t persisted as long as they’ve persisted, I’m less responsive emotionally. Many people are knowingly or unknowingly pieces of shit, and small acts or my perception of their intentions produces anger which influences thoughts, and will ultimately influence the content of this project. I can’t really do anything else until this book is finished, I’m thinking about a week, maybe two, to finish. I also don’t want to be in Milwaukee, but another week if it improves the product is fine, and I know Holly desires the company. Asking me the day before how to find someone who can be in her house with her but not talk to her. She also called me on another day and her mood and the content was concerning. I was inclined to return on the strength of my general concern but that isn’t how I make decisions.

The question is, which is the better product? The product that is created influenced by my anger in response to my environment, or the product that is produced without the anger? It isn’t as simple as is the project better angry or not angry, because the anger stimulates thoughts, not all of which express the anger. Although cumulatively mood will steer it in that direction generally. Add to it there is Holly’s social presence, where when I am out here although my well being is sustained in the activity of the project the lack of social interaction changes my perception of the public, which will influence the content. I’m generally cold in thought even after I’m hot or when I’m hot, but typically the colder the better. By coldness I mean input and output, the assembly of objects not influenced by emotions. It’s a difficult decision, and relative comfort could also decrease the quality of the product.

There was one incident that’ll describe an auditory stimulus that has the potential to produce stress. I’m not going to mention it, there’s always plausible deniability, and if I mention it it creates the potential for someone to read this and then repeat it. I don’t want to do something that could obstruct my objectives. That pissed me off and so I repeated the act with slightly more emphasis. Typically restoration of well being but not completely. There isn’t a positive feeling that overwhelms the previous feeling, and there is uncertainty because there is no way to know if the act was intentional. That negative feeling influences the cycle of mood moving forward, whereas other times if retribution is sufficient and morality is certain, there are positive feelings that elevate mood moving forward.

The second source of irritation was a Jesus Loves You hoodie. It’s so aggravating that people aim to remind you of their willed ignorance and stupidity. What does Jesus love? Jesus loves obedience. We know this because if you agree to submit yourself to him he loves you and you will be his servant for eternity. If you do not he promises you eternal physical torment. Alledgey the same deity who revealed obedience to be his highest value by counting Abraham’s willingness to do evil (murdering an innocent child) at his command as righteousness.

You’re stupid because the deity provides you no benefit. The deity doesn’t benefit you in this life. No evidence that any result on this planet has been produced through supernatural means. The deity doesn’t benefit you if consciousness survives death. You would know this if you understood morality.

Morality is what is good and bad, which for those who worship power is determined by their idea of the most powerful deity. Objectively it is determined by benefit. Objectively, not only the human constant, but the constant of any conscious being is desire. At all times all people want to do something. What they want to do is experience a positive feeling based on opportunities provided by the perception of their environment. All people can do as they please so long as what they do does not interfere with the liberty of others. The nature of right and wrong is based on whether an act is objectively imposing. Objective categories are physical imposition, imposition on property, deception including self deception, threats, time, and circumstantial imposition, not limited to, but including inadequate opportunities for individuals to have time, money, and acquisition of know-how.

Morality itself is a product of self perception. Committing an act that is understood to be wrong will cause you to see yourself as something you don’t like. Which reduces self worth, which produces a negative feeling, which causes you to not create objectives for those acts. However, the mind is always set to produce the highest net feeling. Net feeling being in consideration of energy which is a negative, in consideration of consequence which is a potential negative, and in consideration of morality and other self worth affecting standards. Which is to say if the anticipated positive feeling of the act is perceived as being potentially greater than the negative feeling from the loss of self worth, your mind will create objectives to commit immoral acts. Even at that point you will experience a threat response to compare as your subconscious recognizes the potential loss of self worth should you proceed with the act.

Morality is real, but more importantly morality is a determinant of conscious motion. There are only two categories of morality, objective morality and subjective morality. Objective morality prohibits imposition, except where justified to prevent or neutralize imposition or in the administration of justice to restore an injured party. By prohibiting acts that impose on others, all people are free to do as they please which is ideal. Any act that does not impose that anyone would morally prohibit is the imposition of a subjective preference. Essentially, you want to force people to like what you like, because if the act does not impose there’s no reason why you shouldn’t do it. Conversely, any act claimed to be right that imposes is imposition.

Every space consisting of intelligent conscious beings, is either objectively moral, subjectively moral, or in conflict. In the objectively moral space conscious motion is unlimited except for acts that impose. In the subjectively moral space behavior is limited to the preferences of the most powerful. Those who can impose on others do so at will and those who they cannot resist impose on them. Maybe groups, maybe one more powerful than the rest who can simultaneously control or impose on others. Constant conflict within a subjectively moral space where there is no supremacy, because the essence of subjective morality is control. While there is an infinite amount of subjective moral hierarchies based on an infinite amount of subjective preferences (liked things) that can be imposed, it is one thing: control.

If consciousness survives death seperate spaces will have to exist to accommodate different modes of moral operation that produce different potentials for motion. The propensity of the objectively moral to prevent and neutralize imposition is in constant conflict with the propensity of the subjectively moral to impose. There would be eternal conflict. Assignment of consciousness to a space is determined by moral understanding and application. This means your deity doesn’t help you if consciousness survives death, you go to the appropriate space based on your chosen potential for motion.

Now, those who love their supposed benevolent tyrant, meaning the ideas of the doctrine produce positive feelings, may contend that evil is all that exists and we pledge ourselves to that evil to gain favor with the deity. Okay, but in addition to there being no evidence of the deity beyond you misidentifying internally produced feelings (ideas in your head) as externally produced feelings (spirit of the deity), there’s more to it.

If you believe in eternal spaces or an eternal space you have to acknowledge the problem a being has who lives forever. The problem of finite knowledge and infinite time. To illustrate this problem I want you to imagine you were taken to a space, and within that space you can create and experience everything you want to at will, but there is no way for you to add anything new to what you know right now. How long do you think you could maintain contentment? A million years? A billion years? A trillion years? How about a trillion times a trillion years? Even then you have an eternity to go. The point is, over the course of an eternity, forever, finite knowledge will lead to the desire not to exist, because any being in that setting will create and experience everything so many times that nothing produces adequate stimulus to want to do anything.

If you don’t believe eternal spaces exist you can write this off as hypothetical. If you do believe in eternal spaces the being or beings within that space have the problem of finite knowledge in a setting of infinite time.

The universe began as energy that exploded out and inflated space. For the first 300 million years it was a soup of protons, neutrons, and electrons that couldn’t form atoms because it was too hot for electromagnetism to function. After roughly 300 million years the universe cooled and hydrogen and helium atoms began to form, gravity brought these atoms together to form the first stars. Through the lifecycle of these stars, most notably at the end of the stars life heavier elements formed. These heavier elements led to more complex structures, in the stars that were produced, asteroids, comments, and planets. On at least one planet life came into existence and evolved into intelligent life capable of manipulating the material and forces of the universe to produce more elements and objects. Beginning as particles, then two elements, then through those two elements 92 elements dispersed across space giving way to life. The universe is the random generator of objects, with the most complex objects it can produce is intelligent life which is capable of producing objects.

Any eternal beings have a problem of finite knowledge in infinite time. The solution to finite knowledge in infinite time is a random generator of objects. The universe is the exact solution to the problem of eternity.

Morally, what best serves the interest of an eternal space? Objective morality only prohibits imposition which allows for maximum subjective expression, which maximizes the potential for motion, creation, and experience. Subjective morality limits subjective expression, because people are limited in creation and experience by the subjective preferences of the authority. Presuming based on the nature of consciousness, that existence itself is eternal creation and experience, objective morality is ideal and subjective morality is not. Objective morality maximizes the potential for object creation and subjective morality limits it.

What Christians believe is that all of existence was created to be controlled by the deity. Everyone is either his eternal servants, or is confined to eternal torment. Your idea of heaven is an objective construct of hell, because the human constant, the constant of any being is desire, and your desires are subject to the authority of the deity forever. Two sides of the same coin which is torment, eternal servitude or eternal pain. Those are the options according to what they believe. Mind you, these are options the deity would not want to exist for, meaning the deity does not love you as he loves himself, despite the hypocrite demanding it of you.

The deity doesn’t benefit you in life, doesn’t benefit you in death, exists on the premise that everything exists to satisfy his desire to control others, offers you eternal servitude or eternal torment, offers no evidence of its existence, and its commandments consist largely of subjective preferences that are not ideal for human beings or any other intelligent beings. People willfully accept this BS, because they’ve been trained to assign positive feelings to the ideas and are afraid to think critically of them for fear they’ll discover they’re wrong (and they are) and then the ideas will cease to be able to supply the positive feelings. Willed ignorance and stupidity. Harmful to self, others, and existence.

You believe a deity’s magic is responsible for what happens on this planet when in fact it is the decisions of people on this planet, governed by BS.

Moral functioning is corrupted through your worship of this illogical deity, who exists to control because its creator, human beings, seek to control others and he is an implement of achieving that end. Moral functioning is corrupted because the morality of deity worshipers doesn’t function through perception of self directly, but functions through how they believe the deity perceives them. When they do wrong they don’t feel bad if they believe it’s forgivable because if the deity forgives the deity’s perception of them doesn’t change and thus their perception of self doesn’t change. There’s no negative feeling to produce behavior avoidance.

Furthermore, people are so fck’n stupid as to believe that they can offset their wrongs with good deeds. You either intend to impose or you do not intend to impose. You think altruism is good. It isn’t bad, but it also isn’t good in the sense that it doesn’t cover the bad (love covers a multitude of sins). An act of altruism is a subjective value. The feeling experienced through a sacrifice of time, money, or energy is more valuable than the time, money, or energy in the moment. That is to say the feeling you get from the time, money, or energy spent helping someone else is greater than the feeling you can experience by retaining that time, money, or energy in the moment. This includes the potential for negative feelings for not helping based on whatever ideas produce them. Your good deeds follow the same process as anything else you like. You sacrifice time, money, and energy to see a football game, eat a piece of cake, to go fishing, because the acts produce a positive feeling. The same way you sacrifice time, money, and energy to help because the act produces a positive feeling. You’re not judged according to obedience, and disobedience is covered by obedience, you choose to be imposing or unimposing based on what you understand.

All things done in ignorance are not forgiven because a: your intent to be controlling or uncontrolling determines your potential for motion and what space is appropriate for that motion, and b: what you don’t know is a product of your values, what you like. Values direct attention, avert attention, lead to the exploration of doubt and questions, as well avoidance, suppression, and rejection of information that challenges beliefs. You maintain false beliefs that support your values.

I was also aggravated because I do have my national symbol of willed ignorance and stupidity shirt with a crucified Jesus on it that I was going to wear after the gym but didn’t. Mainly because after the gym I planned on going to Walmart and then about 15 miles to a rest area. I’d put it on after my shower, go to Walmart, and then take it off once I reached the rest area. I thought it was better just to wear a plain relaxing shirt. I also haven’t been active on my journal and I need to update the webpage itself.

Smaller irritants following. People putting themselves in other people’s way. Two people wide people standing in walkways. Didn’t create any blockage for me, maybe for others, but it’s an irritant just to see such people. To either be oblivious to the fact that there are other people in a public place and where you’re standing is preventing people from moving, forcing them to wait, or to be aware of it and not care. Not morally wrong on the surface in the sense that everyone has an equal right to be in that space, but indicative of a character that’s probably morally deficient, unless unaware and unintended. Unaware is different from oblivious. Unaware in that you typically are thinking about how your movement impacts the movement of others but your attention is trained on something that causes you to be a momentary obstruction. Obliviously it doesn’t cross your mind that you’re in other people’s way because it isn’t something you think about. Of course intent can make it morally wrong, where your intent is to be obstructing. Meaning you’re not standing there by right while you’re doing something else, you’re standing there intent on being obstructive. Small irritant but on the heels of preceding irritants.

After checking out there was a man at self checkout who was looking at me, and naturally I’m looking back. After a moment he asked if I could help him out. He asked if I knew how to insert his debit card claiming he never used it. The card was worn, I took the card from his hand located the chip side and told him he had to put the chip side in and I inserted the card into the terminal.

That brief interaction had a profound impact on my mood at that moment. General positive social stimulus and the opportunity to do something for someone. However, on my brief drive to the rest area that event did produce some momentary negativity in analysis. The card was worn, and it seems incomprehensible that he didn’t know how to insert the card into the machine. I went through a few possibilities and thought maybe I should have responded differently, but I ultimately just decided to accept the benefit and not worry about the intent.

This is where I’m at, teetering on this decision. Next entry will be after I finish the project I’m working on.

2/3/25

I watched a Mr. Ballen episode on the lost lemon gold mine. It’s told as a ghost story but the events serve as a great example of how systems produce the circumstances that lead to undesirable results. It’s very apparent in this story.

In the 19th century two men were commissioned to find gold mines for a wealthy man. They were part of the larger group but split off from the group and supposedly stumbled upon a significant vein of gold. One of the men, Frank, said to the other Black Jack, that they shouldn’t tell the man who commissioned them to find the gold. They should keep it between the two of them, mine it as they need it, and be set for life. Black Jack refused, believing they should honor their agreement and accept the agreed upon compensation. They argued and Black Jack went to bed. Frank saw Black Jack as an obstruction to his desire to be financially secure. He killed Black Jack in his sleep.

What caused Frank to kill Black Jack? The dispute is about whether or not to renege on their agreement to report gold findings to the investor. Blackjack is satisfied with the agreed upon compensation and Frank is not. Frank should have negotiated for compensation that he believed was fair. Had he, there would be no dispute with Blackjack because they would both be satisfied to honor their agreement. However, the market pays what the market pays. This means if Frank will not perform the service for the offered compensation, the investor will find someone else who will. Otherwise, Frank could either negotiate for a fair price for the service, or find a different job. Just an example of how systematically produced circumstances produce undesirable results like this murder. It doesn’t absolve Frank of responsibility for what he did, but it does bring the collective to bear partial responsibility for producing the circumstances that created the potential for the act. Frank should have negotiated for what he considered was fair compensation for the service, but could not negotiate because the labor market at the time was desperate.

There was still the potential for all interests to be served. Although Frank couldn’t convince Blackjack to keep the gold for themselves, he may have been able to convince Blackjack to renegotiate. If Frank and Blackjack tell the investor we’ve found a multi-million dollar gold mine, but we’re not going to reveal the location unless you agree to give us each 5 percent of the profits from the mine, the investor will likely agree to those terms. Ballen describes the mine that no one has ever found as being worth billions based on Franks description, but let’s say the mine produced just $200,000 of gold per year. This would be $10,000 per year for Frank and Blackjack during a period where the median income was about $500 per year. 20x or more the annual salary of half the people in the country. Frank doesn’t think of this because he is willing to impose on others to advance his perceived interests.

Another interesting part of the story is what happens after he kills Blackjack. He reported that he was hearing whispers in the woods, a voice saying he was going to suffer for what he did, and a loud shriek. This prompted him to flee the forest on horseback and go to a church. It was strange to me that Frank would have the courage to murder his friend in his sleep, but not have the courage to stand up to disembodied voices. In that situation why not grab the axe, and shout into the forest like “bitch you want some of this mother fucking axe too? You whispering bitch, speak up pussy. If you could do something you would have done it, now stfu I got to bury this body.” I mean if you’ve made the decision to be that be it. Instead he kills his friend and then relinquishes the gold mine that drove him to murder.

The interesting part of those details is he goes to a church. He tells the priest what happened and asks him to help him because he believes Blackjack’s ghost is haunting him. The priest hearing the murder confession tells Frank to leave town, that he’ll see to it that Blackjack gets a proper burial and this will end the haunting. The priest wanted Frank gone and wanted to cover up the murder so he could claim the gold. If he doesn’t cover up the murder the investigation will lead to someone else discovering the gold. The priest commissions a guy to bury the body, and never finds the gold, but what was interesting to me is the revelation that the beliefs surrounding his chosen vocation are BS. There are so many priests, pastors, etc who don’t really believe what they tell people.

There was more made of the ghost aspect of the story. Efforts to connect happenings surrounding attempts to find the mine with the supernatural for which there is no evidence. The biggest piece of evidence against the haunting is that the investor spent 30 years personally searching for this mine. Obviously if the forest is haunted or protected by spirits he doesn’t survive for 30 years. They ignore this detail and imply that he was killed by something supernatural because he wrote a letter claiming he found the mine and shortly after his cabin burnt down and he died inside the fire. More likely coincidence, or he wrote the letter, set the cabin on fire, and killed himself realizing he wasted his life chasing after a mine that didn’t exist. Potentially dooming others to do the same, look for a mine that probably didn’t exist.

In the previous entry I mentioned that I returned to Holly’s to finish the book. The book Ava is available for purchase or free download, and took a little bit longer than I expected. I have about 10 more days here having ordered Phenibut that is on backorder. The last two months has been dedicated to that project, and now I need to resume. Which I suppose will first be focused on promoting the book which may hold more appeal than previous books. I think the subject itself is interesting, a window into the relationship of a father and daughter, and insight into the life of a 19 year old woman who killed herself.

Twice in the book I mentioned that I would rather my daughter be right with liberty, possess the ability to think, and be dead at 19 than to have the desire to control, and being led by feelings into self deception and live to be 100. I’m confident she survives in a space of liberty. Explained in the book, as well as other places in this journal.

I also consider myself fortunate, because I had such a close and wonderful relationship with my daughter. People cannot have with their kids the relationship I had with my daughter, because I didn’t treat my daughter like a subordinate, I treated her as an equal. Reason and benefit were the authority, and it was just as authoritative coming from her as it was coming from me. I didn’t lie to my daughter, and my daughter witnessed the consistency between my values and my actions, as well as acknowledgement and correction of inconsistency, and being capable of correction in general. Neither of us were restricted by immovable false beliefs. I mean how many people can have a voluntary hour long phone conversation with their teenage daughter on a regular basis? Exchange substantive text messages throughout the week. Voluntary engagements, always laughing, always enjoying what we learn from each other. A lot of people don’t have good relationships with their children, and even those who do have good relationships with their children lack the potential to have a relationship with their daughter that compares to what I had with Ava. Maybe that sounds ridiculous considering the conclusion of her life, but our relationship didn’t contribute to the decision.

I’ve changed my homepage. I’ve written dozens of introductions over the years, substantive, informing about basic principle and content of the site and it has not been an asset in creating interest. Written word is a dead medium of communication among this species whose comprehension skills are very basic. I’ve created a coupon code (Free10) for free downloads of books and abandoned an introduction altogether.

2/11/25

I was fortunate enough to take second in an Omaha H/L tournament and won about $600. The final hand was some BS. The flop was 5K5, I had a 5 he had a king. Turn was an 8, and then the river was an 8, and he had an 8. Disgusting.

I sent the book to a few different suicide support groups. One has a book or a blog that allows people to submit articles and stories. I sent an article that summarizes some points made in the book Ava I called (Suicide) In the Context of Existence. I’ll share the article below but the idea is that death means one of a few different things depending on a person’s perception of existence. Which for the most part is nothingness, deity worship, or ideal. I don’t know if it will be understood, but if it is, for parents who have prolonged profound grief, it may be beneficial to gain a better perspective on the event.

I had a mildly embarrassing moment. It’s mild because I ultimately don’t give a fuck, but it is slight discomfort created from inconsistency with a performance standard representing a small momentary adjustment to self worth.

I pulled into BP intent on getting air because I have a slow leak in the tire that I have to add air to about once a week. There was a disabled or elderly transit van next to the pump. I positioned the car so I could pull up to the air pump when the person left. I sat there for maybe 20 to 30 seconds and questioned whether the driver was getting air, or if he was just parked next to the pump. If he was just parked there I could just back up to the pump and fill my tire with air.

I got out of the car and started walking over there but his engine was running and I thought it was the pump running so I started walking back. A man called out to me and asked me if I needed the pump. He offered to move so I could use the pump but I told him not to worry about it, I only had 1 tire to be filled and I should be able to back up in front of him. The reasoning was A: I didn’t want to wait for him to move, someone tells you they’re going to move that might be 1 to 3 minutes away. Not that the time itself is significant, but it can be aggravating, feeling like someone is needlessly prioritizing something else over your time. B: He looked like he was taking a break, maybe had a few minutes in between pickups, wanted to stretch his legs, smoke a cigarette, and make a call. I don’t want to interrupt his break if I don’t have to.

I backed up and underestimated the length of the hose. Then I backed up more but I was using just about every inch of the hose. Then I saw the gauge was close to 40psi. I was on the wrong tire. He had to leave so I made it more difficult on him because he had to back out. In hindsight I realized I may have been blocking a route to the pumps. In the moment I felt like a jackass. The initial cause being over estimating the length of the air hose, and the minor stress contributing to me forgetting which tire I was filling. Had I pulled up the correct distance and filled the right tire I probably wouldn’t have thought about it again.

Insignificant, but I recognized the inefficiency. I was initially disappointed with my decision not to just wait for him to move, but upon reflection the decision was alright if my execution would have been better.

Tomorrow I have an appointment to have tires I purchased mounted. The phenibut I ordered shipped 3 days early. I should be heading back out of here pretty soon. I presume about a week.

Suicide in the Context of Existence

Ava Kali Simerl committed suicide in December of 2024 at 19 years old. My daughter’s suicide came as a shock initially because of her general quality of life and the near prospects for improvement. She just returned home towards the end of October after having spent 3 months traveling the country with her boyfriend. She saved money from family, and worked jobs through her teen years. She purchased a van, made modifications to make it more suitable for camping, and they traveled the country fishing, hiking, and observing wildlife and scenery. After roughly 3 months on the road she still had over $3,000, so it wasn’t as if she spent all her money and then didn’t have money to do what she wanted to do or purchase what she wanted to purchase. She still worked intermittently for her grandma Jill and her boyfriend’s grandparents. She lived with her mother and had no responsibilities, no obligations, and no expectations to do anything from anyone who was important to her. If she wanted to, she could live with her mom indefinitely, and her father and mother wouldn’t have a problem with her decision to do that. Not that she was interested in that, Ava and Fern were making plans to move out, but I’m trying to illustrate that she was in a zero pressure environment, with whatever pressure she put on herself for various reasons. She had great relationships with her mother, father, boyfriend, and friends. She was enrolled in school for phlebotomy, which was a means of establishing an income quickly while she continued to go to school to become a nurse.

Ava didn’t have any problems, and emotionally she was usually upbeat, at least when I interacted with her she was. There was no indication from our frequent communication that she had any significant problems in her life. However, under the influence of alcohol someone did something she didn’t like and she decided to kill herself because of it. It wasn’t anything that was significant outside what she made of it at that moment. For me the most unfortunate part of her suicide, is that she wasn’t facing difficult circumstances with no prospect for improvement. Had her life been unending endurement of torture, had she even perceived it to be that, it makes it easier to support that decision. If that were the case, loving my daughter more than anything on this earth means I wouldn’t want her to remain somewhere she didn’t want to be for my benefit. If she didn’t want to be here, and I want her to be here so I can watch her develop, and enjoy interacting with her, that would represent loving me more than loving my daughter. Unfortunately that isn’t my situation.

After two months I am better than I expected to be but I’m well aware that I have entered a different world and my happiness will always be tainted by her absence. In the world with my daughter she is tied to so many things in my life, and now I have entered a different world that she no longer occupies, and now that she is no longer attached to things in my life they take on different meanings. For example, my ambition loses meaning in ideas of how my success would have benefited Ava. Interestingly, my ambition is also strengthened in this new world motivated by the idea that I can honor her through my success. That’s the best way I can describe my experience losing my daughter, is entering a different world.

I am better than expected based on my initial feelings, and believe I am probably better emotionally than most fathers who have lost a child. I didn’t love my daughter any less than any other father, and as most fathers believe about themselves, I believe I loved my daughter more than other fathers. I believe I am handling it well because of my perception of the event. I’ve written about my daughter’s life and my experience, sharing my perspective in a book called Ava. The book is available at the following link for free download using the code Free10

What does my daughter’s suicide means for her?

There are three categories that beliefs about existence generally fall within. Nothingness, deity, and ideal. The first two you know, and the third you do not.

Nothingness is the belief that the universe spontaneously came into existence to be and then not to be. While I believe this is unlikely, mainly because it would make more sense for nothing to exist than for something to exist and serve no purpose, but if this is the nature of existence what has my daughter lost? Another day to 70 years to have experiences that serve no purpose outside an effort of trying to strike a positive balance between positive and negative feelings? If nothingness is the nature of existence, my daughters suicide doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things because the conscious experience leads to nothingness anyway.

If existence is ideal what does her suicide mean? Do you know what problem any eternal being has? Imagine you existed forever in a space where you could create and experience at will. How long do you think it would take before you created and experienced everything you enjoyed so many times that there was nothing that remained enjoyable? A billion years? A trillion times a trillion years? It doesn’t matter because time is infinite and knowledge is finite. Eventually existing becomes a burden if there is nothing new to learn and experience.

The universe began as the building blocks of atoms, and once the universe cooled hydrogen and helium atoms formed. These atoms formed stars, and through the life cycles of these stars all the other elements in the universe were created. These elements formed more complex structures like planets, and on at least one planet life came into existence. Life that is motivated by the production of positive feelings, and survival, that led to the evolution of intelligent life. Intelligent life capable of learning how to manipulate the matter around it to serve its purposes. Life capable of producing objects and having experience. Looking at the universe and what it has done, the universe is the random generator of complexity and objects, beginning as protons, electrons, and neutrons and creating everything we see in random assembly produced through the natural forces.

If a person believes in an eternal being or beings and an eternal space, they have to acknowledge that these beings have the problem of infinite time and finite knowledge. The universe is exactly the solution to that problem as the random generator of objects and consciousness.

The nature of consciousness, human or otherwise is the pursuit of experience that produces positive feelings. If we believe as seems likely, that the universe exists as the random generator of objects and perhaps the reproductive mechanism of consciousness, we can understand any beings that exist beyond through their interest in object creation, and the expression of desire.

Morality consists of ideas pertaining to right and wrong. Right and wrong is either supplied through authority, or it is understood through individual benefit. Morality functions through self perception. We avoid acts that we believe are wrong because committing those acts causes us to see ourselves as something we don’t like, which reduces self worth and produces negative feelings. Morality is either objective or subjective, and the implication is the potential for conscious motion.

How can morality be objective, or how can right from wrong be known definitively? The conscious constant is desire. At all times all beings want to do what they want to do. If the acts of each do not interfere with the acts of all others, all beings can do as they please which is ideal. The nature of wrong is imposition, and the nature of right is the absence of imposition because abstaining from imposing acts serves all interests equally and simultaneously. There’s several categories of imposition that exceed the scope of this article to explain thoroughly, but generally objective morality is understanding that imposing intent is wrong, and unimposing intent is right.

How do all other moral doctrines fall into the subjective category? Any moral system that claims an unimposing act is wrong is imposing a subjective value onto others. A subjective value is something liked or disliked, someone who likes the color blue and doesn’t like the color red, that’s his preference. In this context we could use someone claiming it’s morally wrong to eat pork, that’s an effort to impose a subjective preference onto others. It’s an effort to force others to dislike what the authority dislikes. Any moral system that claims an act that imposes is right, is imposing on others. Morality is either objective or subjective, and there are innumerable potentials for different subjective moral codes based on the preferences of different authorities.

In an objectively moral space all the beings are free to do as they please because none of the beings interfere or impose on the others. This produces the maximum amount of subjective expression, which maximizes the potential for motion, in the creation of objects and experience. Objective morality advances the general interests of beings who have the problem of infinite time and finite knowledge, and as beings who desire to freely create and experience. Within a subjectively moral space beings are limited in subjective expression to the preferences of the authority, and/or are imposed on by those who are more powerful, and impose on those who are less powerful. This does not serve the interests of beings who exist forever because limiting subjective expression reduces objects and experience, and none of these beings want to be imposed on or have others interfere with what they want to do.

The justification for imposition is to prevent or neutralize imposition, or in the administration of justice. Which means separate spaces must exist to accommodate the motion produced by different moral application. If not, there would be eternal conflict as the propensity of the objectively moral to prevent and neutralize imposition is in conflict with the subjectively moral to impose. This is the moral duality, but it isn’t reward and punishment and it isn’t necessarily a good and evil duality. It’s a difference between the desire to create and experience, and the desire to control others. An objectively moral space benefits more from intelligent species who discover and apply objective morality in greater subjective expression and potentially the survival of consciousness to that space, to be an asset in continued creation and experience. However, the objectively moral space still benefits from object creation and some consciousness even when an intelligent species chooses moral subjectivity. I say this to say, I’m not trying to convert anyone with an explanation of ideal existence. I’m trying to explain what the potential for ideal existence means to my daughters suicide, and whether an eternal space exists or not, objective morality is ideal for human beings, and any conscious beings.capable of moral understanding.

I believe that consciousness survives death for a number of different reasons that I’m not going to go into here but are addressed in the book. Presumably there is a space for those who will impose on others when they have the ability and desire to do so. So those beings can continue on within a space with others and compete for control of one another. There is another space of infinite exploration, creation, and experience that is inhabited by beings who are objectively moral and benefit from the existence of all others through what each individual creates and experiences. To quote the book “I’d rather my daughter be right with liberty, have the ability to think, and be dead at 19, then for her to have the desire to control others, be led by feelings into self deception, and live to be 100.” My daughter did not possess the intent to control others, and if existence is ideal as I understand it to be, my daughter is eternally free to explore, create, and experience forever. And I will see her again.

The other explanation of existence is that an all powerful deity created the universe to satisfy his desire to control others. This is a being who experiences positive feelings through the control of others, and the torture of others who refuse to submit themselves to him. Those who are obedient are rewarded and those who are disobedient are punished. The monotheistic deity offers eternal servitude or eternal torment, which are actually two sides of the same coin. The monotheist’s conception of heaven is an objective conception of hell which is eternal servitude because all beings have constant desire that is limited by the preference of the deity. The deity allegedly knew before hand that some would submit or obey, and others would not, so according to monotheists the universe exists to supply him with beings that he can control or torture. Both heaven and hell describe a space of subjective morality that is ruled by one being. The constant of any conscious being is desire. The deity created human beings to exist in some degree of misery for ever, either as his servants which interferes with desire, or perpetual torture, which needless to say is inherently undesirable.

This is extremely unlikely, for reasons explained in the book Ava and in other books that exceed the scope of this article. If the universe exists to satisfy a deity’s desire to control and torture what does my daughters suicide mean? It means the postponement of eternal servitude or eternal torture by up to maybe 70 years. Rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I mean maybe for the first 50 years or so existing in such a situation, but I have to imagine after the first million years with an eternity to go, you’re not looking back like I really messed up missing those potential years I could have been on earth.

If we believe there is an observer or observers, that the universe exists for the ideal purpose, what is the relationship between intelligent life generated by the universe and the observer? A subjectively moral observer, the monotheistic deity, created beings who are an offense to him because they are incapable of complete obedience. They owe the deity a debt for existing and satisfy that debt through the pledge of eternal servitude. The relationship between objectively moral observers and the intelligent life that comes into existence is complete reciprocity. LIfe comes into existence to perpetuate contentment for the observers. The observers cannot sustain perpetual existence without the expansion of knowledge which is supplied by the universe, and most significantly by intelligent life. An equal of exchange of existence (life coming into existence) for existence (observers continued contentment with existence).

I’m confident in the survival of my daughter’s consciousness to a space of limitless potential inhabited by beings who have an objective understanding and application of morality. I believe my daughter has begun experiences according to her desires that exceed anything that any of us can imagine. Not because I want to believe it, but because the explanation makes the most sense to me based on what is, what is not, what can be, and what cannot be, leading me to the conclusion that is the most likely.

I am confident that my daughter is better off, and I have to be happy for her for that. My life will never be the same, my happiness always tainted, and I long to converse, correspond, and interact with, hug, and hold my daughter. I lament not having the opportunity to see how she would develop. Those are things that I wanted, and apparently these were things she was less interested in, in that moment than I was. I’m comforted by the probability that my daughter has survived to something better. I accept her decision to get there faster than she otherwise would have. I don’t mind making the aforementioned sacrifices for her benefit. Imagine she had an opportunity to have a perfect life but I would never see her again? Would I want to deny her that opportunity just to satisfy my desire to talk to her, text her, interact with her, and see her development? If I would make that sacrifice if it was her decision for a better temporary life on earth, why would I have a problem making that sacrifice for her decision to experience so much better for an eternity?

If the essence of existence is nothingness with no observers nothing matters anyway.

If the essence of existence is to satisfy a deity’s desire to control, losing up to 70 years on earth in the context of eternal servitude or eternal torture is insignificant.

I’m sharing these concepts in case it’s of any benefit to anyone who has lost a child. For questions or clarification feel free to send me an email at orionsimerl@gmail.com

2/15/25

Tom Holmen claimed that the cartels in Mexico should be classified as terrorists and his reasoning was because they traffic fentanyl and fentanyl kills 250,000 people per year. Never mind that the most deadly year on record is actually around 110 thousand people, what’s really impressive is just how stupid that statement is. It’s astonishing how many things he is wrong about with so few words.

First, a terrorist is someone who uses violence and intimidation to advance a political goal. Cartels cannot be terrorists because they have no political goals. They’re sophisticated outlaws, their aims are the obtainment of money, power, and respect. You can’t be a terrorist without the advancement of political goals.

Even if the US does or has labeled cartels as terrorists, invading Mexico (if they could get approval from the Mexican government) to hunt down cartel members would be a horrible idea. Pablo Escabar killed random people in an effort to persuade the Colombian government from interfering in his affairs. I think if the US were to actually try to hunt down members of the cartel, the cartel likely responds similarly by attacking members of the US population, planting bombs in densely crowded areas probably among other things. I suppose at that point they would become terrorists in the sense that they would have a political goal in trying to persuade the US not to hunt them down through random attacks against the population.

I doubt the US could gain the support of the Mexican government to send troops to war against the cartels, and I also doubt there’s any real will to do this. I think it’s more to scare the cartels. I don’t know how effective the threat can be, but the idea could serve as a deterrent to some cartel operations? Maybe the threat could cause cartels to tread lighter than these otherwise would, but it’s at most a minimal determent. There are few things those people would forgo due to fear of the US invading their country to kill or capture them.

The worst part about this is the long standing myth that supply drives demand. If the US were to invade Mexico and eradicate all traces of the cartels this is not going to stop fentanyl from coming into the US. After Pablo was killed and his empire was reduced to ruins, cocaine continued to enter the country. In the same respect in the absence of the cartels in Mexico, others would emerge who would supply the demand for fentanyl and other drugs. A few independent groups would form and grow in size and sophistication and new cartels would emerge because the demand for the product exists.

The United States cannot acknowledge that the circumstances that exist in this country produce people who become dependent on drugs. They blame the suppliers for responding to the demand that the US ultimately created. The solution requires addressing the production of individual circumstances in this country, which in addition to improving economic opportunities requires the abandonment of a lot of bullshit, and that’s something none of you want.

Demand cannot be reduced because for some to enjoy life as they currently do requires many others not to enjoy life. Prohibition of the substances is what causes trafficking and distribution to be lucrative. The power of not only cartels but criminals across the country would be vastly reduced if all drugs were legalized. I’m not a proponent of that solution recognizing that drugs like meth, PCP, and cocaine in the form of crack produces paranoia, delusions, and behavior that is detrimental to the public. The aforementioned, plus heroin and other opiates, and powder cocaine all create the potential for harm to the public in procuring the money to obtain the drug. I don’t necessarily believe that legalization is the perfect solution. I do think it should be compared. The consequence of legalization in the increase of drug dependent crime, versus prohibition which would defund criminality.

The perfect solution is the elimination of circumstances that predispose people to developing and maintaining drug dependencies. Absent that, lifting prohibition of controlled substances trades what probably amounts to a slight increase in drug dependencies and crimes perpetrated by addicts, for a sharp reduction in all other crimes. Not only a reduction in all other crimes, but reduction in the sophistication and organization of criminality, as criminality loses its monopoly in its most lucrative sector which is the distribution of controlled substances. Prohibition can be imposed on an individual basis, where repeated behavior detrimental to the public while under the influence of certain substances can lead to the revocation of the privilege to possess the substance. Or, crimes perpetrated to obtain a drug can lead to it being illegal for a person to possess the substance. Not something I am promoting, but a United States where all drugs are legal has less crime than a United States where drugs are illegal. My efforts to reduce drug dependency are focused on improving circumstances.

—

In the past I’ve applauded Texas jury outcomes in instances of self defense, and instances where the parents of children who were sexually assaulted were found not guilty for retribution against the perpetrators. There was a case I came across where a man murdered his wife while she was recording him in their driveway, and was only given 10 years, and he is eligible for parole after 5 years. Absolutely disgusting, but it isn’t difficult to understand where the light sentence came from.

The man’s wife told him she was having an affair, he grabbed a shotgun and followed her outside. She started recording him with her cell phone. He said he was man enough to pull it (the gun or the trigger), took aim, told her goodbye, and shot her in the head. The charge was reduced to 2nd degree murder by the jury as the defense used a the Texas state law defense of sudden passion. The law allows for the charge of first degree murder to be reduced when there is provocation that could cause rage or other emotional instability that prevents a person from acting in their right mind. It’s actually a pretty stupid law because of how much discretion there is in sentencing for 1st degree murder, where the sentence is 5 years to 99 years. The charge doesn’t need to be reduced to take circumstances into consideration for appropriate sentencing.

Had the jury sentenced him to 20 years on 2nd degree murder the reduction of the charge wouldn’t have been very meaningful to me. The issue I have is for a man to kill a woman who didn’t do anything wrong and the potential for him to be free within 5 years. Where does this sentence come from?

It was an all female jury. One might think that an all female jury would have a gender bias that would lean towards a stiffer penalty. However, the prevailing bias was actually their personal opinion on infidelity. Probably influenced by their deity that commands that thou shalt not commit adultery, which implies that she is partly culpable for her husband killing her because she broke the deity’s commandment. More important is how many women pride themselves on fidelity. I believe the victim was dehumanized by the jury, because she behaved in a way that was contrary to the women’s personal and moral standards.

By contrast, I saw a young man in Texas sentenced by a judge to 8 years for failure to seek aid. It was tragic to me for several reasons. First and foremost, the young man (early 20s) did not intend to harm anyone. He was involved in an accident, his passengers were injured, and he got out of the car and ran from the scene. He made a bad decision, he was afraid of the consequences, and tried to avoid those consequences but he never intended to harm anyone.

The passenger survived and gave a statement saying she didn’t think he should go to prison, she forgives him, but thinks he should have to face some consequences for what she had to go through.

The young man was put on probation. Had issues reporting and when probation told him they were going to revoke him, he told them that the court wasn’t going to do anything and they were going to reinstate his probation. These comments are probably the reason why he was given so much time.

Add to this his lawyer didn’t say anything other than that he had a job, was taking care of his two children, and was in a better position to complete probation than he was when he was originally placed on probation. The young man didn’t say anything other than what his lawyer said. Had he or his lawyer explained his perception of the event, the feelings that led to the decision to run off, why he did what he did, I think he may have had a better outcome. Reminding the court that he made a mistake under stress that may have resulted in additional harm, but he never intended to hurt anyone.

Either way, the judge should understand this, and there’s no reason for him to be sentenced to 8 years in prison. He’ll probably never be productive and his children will suffer because of the state’s decision which will impact their development and likely produce more problems for the public in the future.

What the fuck ever. Stupid in, stupid out, produces hell for most, that the few who benefit from this organization are insulated from.

I’ll be leaving WI within a week. I’m waiting for the weather to improve. Don’t know where I’m going. Doesn’t really matter. I’ve been everywhere and with few exceptions every place is just a different proportion of different brands of ignorance and stupidity.

2/19/25

There was a false report that went viral thanks in part to a tweet supporting the idea by Elon Musk. The post claimed the Mexican Senate approved allowing US special forces to conduct combat operations against cartels in Mexico. It was actually approval for US special forces to train the Mexican army, which is something the US has done throughout Latin America for about a century. In past times it created relationships for coups, but in this instance it is an endeavor of mutual interest, in creating a more effective combat force to resist the influence of organized crime in Mexico.

I initially didn’t know the post misrepresented what the Mexican Senate actually approved. I was a little bit surprised when I heard it. Surprised on a few different fronts. Although a foreign power fighting a problem in your country seems beneficial, foreign soldiers have no stake in collateral damage. I mentioned in the previous post that if the US invaded Mexico to attack the cartels, that there’s a strong possibility the cartels would probably use IEDs in densely populated areas in the US in retaliation. The cartels would also probably do worse within Mexico. The US wouldn’t care about the repercussions to the Mexican people. Not to mention operations themselves, bombing, and other military actions that have consequences to the land and people. That’s one reason I don’t believe Mexico would allow it, because the US has no stake in the consequences of military action in Mexico.

The second reason is allowing the US military to conduct seek and destroy operations against the cartels, is authorizing the use of force by a foreign power against your own citizenry. It is the legalization of extrajudicial execution. Cartel members aren’t concentrated on several compounds that can be bombed and raided and that’s the end of it. It consists of levels and integrates Mexican people from across the population, and these people are not wearing uniforms denoting cartel affiliation.

I also doubt the effectiveness of such efforts. It would be like Afghanistan but even less effective. Less effective because the US wouldn’t have unilateral authority to secure areas and control what the population does. Like Afghanistan in the sense that the same way it was difficult to distinguish an Afghan civilian from a member of the Taliban or AlQaeda, it would be difficult to distinguish a Mexican citizen from a cartel affiliate. In the same way a known affiliate in Afghanistan may have a cell ping near a village of innocent people, leading to drone assassinations, producing civilian casualties, in rural areas you could see similar things in Mexico. Collateral damage will drive support for the cartels from the Mexican population, to go along with those who already support the cartels out of fear, and those who will support them for whatever benefits they may provide them in a war time scenario. As well as general nationalist pride that resents the presence of a foreign military operating within their country. 20 years in Afghanistan, and outside of the largest urban centers, the Taliban still controlled most of the country. In Mexico the US wouldn’t even be able to control urban centers.

It’s the wrong tool for the job, it’s like trying to use a hammer to drive a screw. Military operations are used to assert force against a defined enemy to create compliance or neutralize a threat. Although cartels are extremely resourceful it’s still a law enforcement issue. Investigation, apprehension, and trial. Think of it like this, if the US authorized the IDF to eradicate the Crips, Bloods, GDs, VLs, LKs, etc, what would that consist of? It would consist of identifying members, finding them, and executing them. Looking at it from that perspective, you would say that US citizens have the right to due process, that it would be unconstitutional to allow a foreign military to execute US citizens. This is how Mexico should see this. It’s very revealing even for such an idea to be proposed and those who support it. You cannot fundamentally support the right to due process and support extrajudicial killing of gang members, which is what the cartels are. Or you believe US citizens should have rights but not the citizens of other countries which is pretty consistent for this country, from their government and from the population.

Needless to say, I wasn’t very surprised to discover that the report authorizing US military operations in Mexico was false. It may at some point create opportunities for US military personnel to serve in an advisor or support capacity for Mexican operations in national efforts against the cartels. Even this is pretty unlikely. Lastly, on effectiveness, if there were at most joint operations where the Mexican government has a specific goal and US personnel would be responsible for certain objectives in achieving that specific goal, cartel operations don’t require the presence of leadership in Mexico. So if the idea is to kill the leadership off, all the leadership can move to countries that don’t allow the US military to operate within their borders. There’s always someone willing to take on new high risk responsibility for great reward. The most important people move abroad, and there is never ending supply of captains who will emerge within Mexico to manage operations according to the will of the leadership. You find and kill one, there’s always someone else willing to take his place.

None of this is serious. It’s just the current theater to occupy the American public. Something for the left to hate and the right to support. Even this viral post claiming that the Mexican Senate is allowing the US to deploy troops in Mexico will be fact to many people. One guy doesn’t know that isn’t what was approved tells others who tell others, and none of them check to see whether the claim is actually true.

The solution is to correct the circumstances in the US that produce drug dependent people. This will eliminate the demand and largely defund not only cartels but also crime in general. If this isn’t an option, the option is to legalize drugs to defund crime and the cartels. I’m only bringing this back up because I’ve thought further about the prospect. In the previous entry I stated it’s a choice between less crime overall, and an increase in crimes related to the procurement of drugs, crimes under the influence of drugs, and an increase in drug dependency. There’s another element to this.

Drugs are the lifeblood of the criminal economy because it creates recurring income. Production and distribution, the more you sell, the more you have to invest, the more you can purchase, and the more you will make. Obviously bottlenecked by the amount you can procure, how fast you can distribute it, and your ability to maintain security from thieves and law enforcement. Like any other business, there is the potential for ever increasing streams of revenue.

What I was thinking about was the same thing I initially thought about marijuana legalization, that it takes away opportunities for disadvantaged people to make money independently and have time. I’m now a proponent of marijuana legalization because the market has been so saturated with the product through legalization, that there isn’t the money in it that there used to be even in states that haven’t legalized. I don’t know, maybe in the south, but definitely not in states that border states that have legalized. What happens to all the people who would sell drugs if all drugs are legalized?

The decision to sell drugs is the willingness to take a risk for the opportunity to have time and money. All these people who are dissatisfied with their opportunities, whether real or perceived (based on their development through their early circumstances), who would have sold drugs, will do what? Sure, some will get jobs, some may develop productive interests, maybe become entrepreneurial, but others will take different risks which may lead to a spike in different kinds of crime. Still, even considering that, other crime has greater risk, and isn’t nearly as lucrative. Meaning people who could have sold drugs for years and never been caught, may be caught quickly trying to do something else, like robbery, fraud, etc. Also means many would not commit other crimes due to risk and morality. Legalization still greatly weakens criminality.

I surmise that a potential byproduct of marijuana legalization is the rise in retail theft. That isn’t to say that certain states and municipalities removing deterrents to theft haven’t been the primary driving force, only that the same people who would start a retail theft operation are likely people who may have sold marijuana if marijuana wasn’t legalized in those places, or if the price wasn’t driven down by market saturation by neighboring states legalizing. Marijuana distribution and a retail theft operation are both relatively low risk decent reward situations, implying that the same people who would sell marijuana when prohibited, may operate retail theft operations when not prohibited. On some levels it is the same. Instead of buying marijuana, you buy products from shoplifters, or shoplift yourself. Then you sell the products to others to sell or you sell the items yourself. The difference is the product is initially stolen and not grown, otherwise, you’re still just buying a product and selling it for more than you paid for it.

I guess my biggest problem with legalization is depriving poor people of an opportunity to make money and have time. Selling drugs is a steady income. Robbery isn’t a career, eventually you get caught, or get killed in the attempt, or get killed in retribution. Of course a lot of robbery goes unreported, because a lot of robbery is robbing drug dealers. We would eliminate those robberies and the aftermath of those robberies. Crime is very limited, and outside of selling drugs there isn’t much opportunity for exponential growth like there is in selling illicit substances. Legalization would be a net positive for the general public, in defunding criminality and reducing crime, but it would be confining to those born into desperate circumstances which bothers me.

—

I went to a tire hub job through Veryable. I worked for the company in Cincinnati semi regularly. Typically me and 2 to 3 other people would unload a trailer in about 2 to 3 hours and they’d pay us for 4. The tire hub in Milwaukee, (actually Waukesha) offered 8 hours. The day I was there they had inventory all over the place. The supervisor mentioned that people weren’t coming to work and there was only 1 guy operating the lift, but it also seemed like there was a problem with too much inventory and not enough space. There were pallets of tires and some stacks of tires not on pallets in most of the space, and most of the racks were pretty full. The supervisor had us wait in the break room while they tried to clear the dock entrance where the truck was. After about an hour we were told that we wouldn’t be unloading but we could return at 5pm to clock out and they would pay us for 5.5 hours. I was attending in part for the cardio to get myself used to working as I head back out.

The other guy who was there asked me if I could drop him off at the Kwik Trip up the street and I agreed. He mentioned that he had an upcoming job out of state. He was going to be subbing in for a company whose workers were striking due to union contract disputes. He said Trump wasn’t having it and he was happy to capitalize on the opportunity. Trump probably didn’t have anything to do with it but maybe I look like a trump supporter. LibertyAndTruth I suppose implies conservativism to people even though it clearly isn’t, based on content. Trump is no different than any other politician, except in being more brazen in his BS, understanding that fact and evidence among the population on both sides of political allegiance is irrelevant. Tell people what they want to hear and how they want to hear it and American people require no substance. Better for the social fabric than Kamala, and maybe better in some small policy differences, but generally people’s opportunities are unaffected by who heads the federal government.

We briefly discussed unions. I’m for unions in some situations and not in others. Understanding that the labor market suppresses wages and benefits I like the idea that workers have leverage to negotiate better wages and benefits. On the other side of that it depends on the union rep. More importantly, unions are often detrimental to the work environment and advancement. Rules for working negotiated by the union put burdens on workers they’re supposed to be helping. Pay is often based on seniority and not on merit. Obstacles to firing employees not only means it’s difficult to fire poor performers, but forces good workers to work with poor performers for similar rates of pay. It isn’t always good and it isn’t always bad, unions are good in certain settings and bad in others.

For example, when I was working with Premier we worked a union job in PA. Prior to that job we did the FF&E on a Staybridge in Auburn, AL. We finished in less than a month. We received bonuses for extra work not in the original contract (installing overhead microwaves), and additional money allocated to the labor budget. If we were union workers we would have a contract to be paid a certain hourly rate and would be incentivized to drag ass to earn as much as we could through the hourly rate. There would be additional restrictions on how we could complete the job. I saw this on the union job we worked in the Allentown, PA job where most of the contractors were union. I didn’t finish that job, but was subject to extra rules that were absent from non-union jobs. Mark told me that they were trying to hold him responsible for delays because other contractors were trying to drag their portion of the job out. So Mark ended up hanging artwork, fixtures, and TVs on walls that weren’t textured, painted, or drywalled, and putting furniture on floors that weren’t completed.

Overall, I think unions have largely outlived their purposes but each union must be evaluated on an industry by industry and company by company basis to determine if they benefit workers. My experience working on a job with union contractors was negative. I made more than union people of my experience working for a non-union contractor, and there seemed to be more regulations rigorously enforced compared to non-union sites that I worked at. I can imagine work wise it isn’t great for those contractors based on my experience with labor. If someone didn’t work they wouldn’t be back, there’s an obstruction to that for companies through the union which not only impacts productivity, but also forces others to work more.

—

I may have mentioned in the previous entry that my departure had been delayed by widespread inclement weather. It has been very cold almost everywhere. I think I’m going to leave Monday. I need to rotate my tires and the first day it will be warm enough to do that is Sunday. I think it warms up after that, at least somewhere within about 1000 miles. No idea where I’m going. I don’t feel particularly good. There’s no reason for me to believe anything is going to change or improve.

The other day I was leaving the gym. I’m driving and see this bitch about to make a left hand turn. She’s turning into the roadway within the parking lot, sees me and pulls out in front of me. I hit my horn and she flips me off. I rolled down the window to vent my frustration and called her some stupid bitches. First because she pulled out in front of me while I had the right of way. Second because she wouldn’t accept that she was wrong. The second is important because it represents the fundamental problem with human beings. Their willingness to interpret the world in a way that makes them feel good as opposed to what they observe and are capable of understanding. A world full of people who are mostly wrong about most of the things and view the world around them according to what makes them feel good.

My next wasted effort will be soliciting churches and mosques. I’ll identify the consequences and implications of their beliefs and ask for a response. I don’t believe I will get any responses because in my experience it is much easier for people to ignore what they can’t respond to than it is to acknowledge something that shows they’re wrong. It’s something to do, to occupy my mind and pretend I’m being productive.

I think the real question isn’t whether or not I will ever be successful on this planet, or whether ideas and observations will ever be understood or penetrate the figurative matrix of human delusion. The real question for me is how long will I last and is there any real benefit to my persistence? Which is to say, in the grand scheme of things, if I live another 20 years, from the other side, will I look back and see those years as having subjected myself to needless suffering? Suffering for the prospect of something grand that I know cannot be?

3/1/25

I left on Tuesday and returned on Thursday. I left to do a job that had to be postponed. I was going to do that job and then return to living out of my car, scheduling work as I was able, and occasionally making half hearted attempts at promotion and solicitation. Resume the misery I’ve been experiencing for the last 2 years and the better part of the last 10. I received a notification from one of the apps I use to find work that there was a job back in Milwaukee. Holly telling me before I left that she understood I felt like I had to leave and that I was welcome to return anytime means the opportunity is there.

I was only a little bit south of Champaign, IL. After purchasing supplies at Walmart, and filling up my tank I had about $300. I also had my phone bill and website coming out in the next few days. I needed to find work. It costs me about $25 a day to live out of my car if I’m stationary, and that plus gas when I’m traveling. My stress levels increase incrementally about every $100 I am below $400 without work scheduled. $400 or more in my account and I’m not worried about money at that moment. Under $300 stress is present, there’s a concern to prioritize finding work. Under $200 I’m experiencing a significant amount of stress and finding work is prioritized. Under $100 and I’m wholly concerned with finding work, I’m more irritable, and I’m more aware and focused on the tyrannical self deceiving species who have contributed t the creation of my circumstances.

Tuesday night I slept at a rest area about 20 miles south of Champaign. The following morning I had to decide where I was going to go. I was going to return to eastern MO since I could usually find work through an app over there. Then I received the notification of the job back here and Holly welcomed me back. I played poker until about noon, and won a ticket to a $4000 Omaha H/L tournament. I went to the gym in Champaign, and went to a rest area about 30 to 40 miles north of Champaign to play the tournament and sleep.

Went to work on Friday. We were done in 3 hours. They allowed us to pretend to do stuff to gain additional hours which is cool, but I don’t like to play that game. There’s no difference in having us walk around the warehouse and just paying us a certain amount of hours to complete the work. Stupid shit. I eventually told the supervisor I wasn’t going to waste my time and their money and I was going to clock out. I was asked if I was interested in a job and I was not for a few different reasons.

I didn’t like the environment. The supervisor told this woman who had 10 to 15 minutes on her shift after she completed her delivery route to help unload the truck and she didn’t want to. Why? We didn’t need her help. Let her go home. You’re not fostering teamwork, you’re producing unnecessary dissatisfaction within your team. As mentioned when I was there about a week earlier people not coming to work left us unable to unload the truck because there was product all over the place. I speculated that they had too much inventory at that moment but that clearly wasn’t the case since the floor was clear for the most part on the 28th. It’s easy to say people don’t want to come to work that’s why you have problems but if people don’t want to be there it’s just as likely to be avoidance of the environment as avoidance of the work. I’ve been in a supervisor and employer roles and have had success with a reasonable approach more than an authoritarian one. The woman who was supervising us was pretty cool.

Not to rehash old shit, but I also know the amount of money I’m able to save through that job or any other job is insufficient to do anything worthwhile. I’ve already done that once through interstate moving and twice through Premier. Which means I work the job because the commitment of time, energy, and submission to authority is worth enduring, to purchase things that produce positive feelings in sufficient quantity or quality. It isn’t worth it, not only because the money earned doesn’t furnish me with opportunities to produce sufficient positive feelings, but also because I have discoveries that should have market value but do not, based on people who cannot identify and act on their own best interests.

I haven’t been doing too much lately, primarily playing poker online through a site that I believe is rigged but that I can still usually win through choosing my spots and playing Omaha. Omaha, especially high low, you can pretty much know where you’re at because the nuts high and the nuts low can be expected. I cashed out another $180, but there’s so much BS that doesn’t add up. Improbabilities occurring too frequently for the random number generator to truly be random. I play on this site because most states in the US ban online poker which forces players to play on these semi-dubious sites. Many of these bans persist because of casino interests, although I believe there are 8 states that allow online poker. Without the prohibition of online poker, I’d be able to play on reputable well regulated sites. Of course if I wasn’t part of a species of zombies I wouldn’t need to play poker to earn money to begin with. Is what it is.

I did see a few pieces of propaganda concerning Trump’s department of government efficiency which is a joke. There were initial reports that Trump cut 16 billion dollars from the budget primarily through cutting government jobs and reducing social spending. These reports were countered by other reports that the amount cut was only 2.5 billion and many of the widespread firings were followed up with rehiring most of the people who were fired days and weeks afterwards. I’m sure the numbers are inflated, based on Trump claiming that 300,000 people per year die of fentanyl overdoses which is nearly 3x higher than any year on record, but the actual number is irrelevant. If Trump has cut the budget by 16 billion dollars that cut is miniscule. To put it into perspective, imagine you had a $6,500 per month budget. How significant would it be to reduce your monthly spending by 16 dollars? It’s nothing. While millions and billions of dollars sound like a lot of money to ignorant people, you need to remember that the budget is in the trillions, and a trillion is 1000 billion.

There was an interesting stunt by some member of congress last year. He held a bag of washers or bolts in his hand and pointed out that this bag cost the US taxpayer $80,000. There’s nothing special about it, it is cheap material formed to a specified shape, probably procurable at an ACE hardware for less than $20. If Trump was serious about reducing the budget he wouldn’t be trying to cut social spending or cutting government jobs which actually benefit the public. He would audit subsidies and contracts. I mention that the congressman’s presentation was a stunt because it was an item from within a defense contract. It was an opportunity to appear concerned about wasteful spending while knowing full well that he and others will not audit and change contracts to reduce spending. Weapons manufacturers invest in both parties to ensure they can rob the public by selling something for $80,000 that it costs them probably less than $2 to make. The budget isn’t inflated because the government is being taken advantage of, the budget is inflated because public policy is directed by political investment. It’s all appearances.

The budget cannot be significantly reduced because it requires harming the interests of industry. In the book Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History when I’m citing the numbers that 85% of congresses campaign contributions come from less than 3/10th of 1 percent of the population, or that 75% of Trump’s and 72% of Clinton’s itemized donations (book was written before 2020 election) were $10,000 or more, I’m evidencing an implication. The implication is when a group (industry) selects candidates through political investment, candidates must serve the interests of industry in order to continue to be viable candidates. Industry invests in candidates for public policy that benefits them, most significantly in contracts, subsidies, tax law, and regulation or deregulation. That’s where the real money is spent and it is untouchable.

3/17/25

I worked a few days at Tire Hub in Waukesha before I left. Had I not worked at the Cincinnati location I probably wouldn’t have thought much about it. I’ve commented in previous entries about this location. On Monday we unloaded a truck and there were still tires on the floor that were unloaded Friday. Tuesday the tires we unloaded Monday and the ones from Friday were still on the floor. The following day there was enough space to finish the unload. The last day the tires from Friday and the other truck were still on the floor. After clearing out semi tires from some of the bottom bins we put all the tires in the bottom bins in about 4 hours.

They have a problem with personnel but they also have a problem with expectations. The conveyance of expectations is achieved through example. If you have supervisors who spend all their time coordinating and managing, and none of their time doing any of the actual work the employees will interpret their verbal expectations in a way that is what they want it to be. In Cincinnati, I can’t remember his name (may have mentioned it in some entry from that time) but I think he was the second highest manager was on the floor on the forklift, putting away pallets and stressed the importance of keeping the floor clean. Pretty much all the fork operators in Cincinnati were objective focused, in the sense that the tires needed to be put away so they made a conscious effort to get it done. The managers stressed the importance through word and action and that served as an example of the expectations of the job. If they see how you move they know how you expect them to move on the job.

The dock area was substantially smaller than the warehouse in Waukesha and yet I believe they processed more tires through the Cincinnati location. That estimate is based on routinely unloading trucks with over a 1000 tires in Cincinnati, sometimes 4 trucks a week, and at the Waukesha location having fewer trucks per week with less volume. In Cincinnati I never arrived to unload a truck and there were tires on pallets unless they were pulled to go out for delivery that day. There were 3 occasions out of about 6 where we couldn’t unload the truck in Waukesha because there were tires on the floor.

At one point I was working with another guy unloading semi tires from the bins. Once we finished I think we took a break. I came back first and they assigned me to putting tires back. He came back and asked me what I was doing and then walked off. 10 to 15 minutes later one of the supervisors asked if he left me high and dry? I said he doesn’t work for me he works for you. The implication being you’re paying him not to work, I’m not. The consequence of that implication is other workers will work less if you’re paying people not to work. Didn’t really GAF in this situation, and I usually don’t allow the work habits of others to compromise the commitment of services I agreed to provide, but in some situations where it’s requiring me substantially more energy to complete the job I’ll say something or slow down depending on the job.

It was also interesting to me that the supervisor referred to him as the other guy instead of by name when the other guy worked at that location more than I had. As a supervisor you foster a better relationship with your co-workers and a better environment overall when you know the names of people who work there, even if they’re just repeat temporary workers.

He either left or they sent him home, he came back by me I think to get his sweater and said he was leaving. He worked well the times I worked with him. Told a lot of questionable stories. Said he worked another job and was making $2000 a week. Why tf would you be unloading tires for $75 to $150 a day 3 days a week if you already had $1500 of weekly income? Why tf don’t you have a car if you have $2000 of weekly income?

He told me some woman called him and said she was sorry for spreading a rumor about him 30 years ago, that he never heard of, about him taking the pussy. I said why tf would she apologize for something that you didn’t even know about? If he didn’t know about it and it had no impact on his life, why bring it up to him? I told him sounds like some 12 step shit, AA NA cult. He brought it back up later on and I told him I didn’t want to hear it.

I never want to hear someone bring up to me about being accused of rape. The fact that you’re bringing it up is going to create the idea that I’m working with a rapist and I don’t want to be thinking about something I can’t know the answer to. The reason rape is unforgivable, is because any type of sexual desire you have, there is someone who will fulfill that with you, even if it costs you money. Not only are you willing to control and violate the body of another person to satisfy your desires, these are desires that can be fulfilled by willing participants even if it costs money.

I don’t want to hear about that shit. However, on another day we were talking about child support arrears, and when I was in prison, in DCI which is intake in Wisconsin, (at least in 2000 it was), I mentioned how I was locked up with people who said they were locked up for child support, putting people in prison for arrears. I didn’t know if they were telling the truth or not so it may not be true that people went to prison for arrears, but it did inform him that I had been in prison. Perhaps this was his way of trying to see if I was in prison for a sex crime (felony battery). If you bring up a subject, depending on your disposition towards the subject, whoever you are talking to will share their own experiences on the subject. In this instance he brings up some woman falsely accusing him, and the expectation is if I had experience with that, I would say that happened to me too. Unlikely motive, because I worked with him 4 other times after that conversation revealing that I had been to prison, and only now did he mention that story.

I believe he harbored deep feelings of inadequacy. He tells at best exaggerated stories, probably complete fabrications because in his mind it improves other people’s perception of him. That perception improves self worth and produces positive feelings. Different from telling actual stories as an opportunity to provide insight into a subject or entertain through things that have actually happened and are relevant to the topic. There can even be improvement of self worth and positive sensations from the perception that you lied to somebody. A person feels smart through their belief that they caused someone else to believe something that is not true. That may be part of the motivation, primary motivation, or not at all. I say deep feelings of inadequacy, because some inadequacy will manifest by not being real, inconsistencies, outside of efforts to achieve a material objective in the compromise of realness. When you go out of your way to not be real that’s a different depth, you’re routinely creating objectives for boosts to self worth through image promotion. This means you subconsciously perceive opportunities for positive sensations through lying within social settings.

On another occasion a supervisor told him to roll the tires to a different spot than where he started putting them. He kind of slammed the next tire on a pallet near him which would appear to be insubordinate. I understood he was putting that tire down to be a bump tire, a tire he would use to bounce the other tires off of. The supervisor began repeating her instructions and I told her he was using it as a bump tire. Afterwards I joked that he slammed it down like he was mad. At the same time I speculate that he may have been baiting her into an argument he could be right about. Where had I not interjected he could say something to the effect that he heard what she said he was just making a bump tire. There’s different possible motivations for the act. Potentially just in her being wrong about what he was doing, positive feelings in making her feel uncomfortable for making him feel uncomfortable in her telling him to do something. Or in the resistance to authority which can be self worth restorative if he felt bad for her telling him to do something. It changes the perception that he’s under her authority if he can get her to say something and she’s wrong about what she thought was going on. He is likely oblivious to these explanations because they serve as the basis for feelings and the feelings motivate the actions, and his thoughts will consist of the objective not why he’s doing it on deeper levels, why what he’s seeing is producing his perception, feelings, and objectives..

I would say the previous interpretation was a stretch but he tried to bait me into something similar. Not long after I told him I don’t want to hear stories of his rape allegation apology, he was moving pallets with the pallet jack. Shortly after a supervisor came over and told him not to move them. The supervisor explained that he was going to move them with the forklift. I grabbed the pallet jack because it was underneath a pallet and I was looking for a place to put it because the spots in that area where we would put the pallet jack were occupied. He followed me across the warehouse where I found a spot for a pallet jack.

On the way back he grabbed another pallet jack and went back to moving pallets. I asked him why he didn’t take the pallet jack I just brought back. He said just let me do what I do. I told him I don’t care what you’re doing. I was saying if you still needed the pallet jack I would have left that one down here. That way I didn’t have to put the other one back and he didn’t need to go get the other one.

The fact that he didn’t say hey I’m still going to use that, and that he replied just let me do what I do, suggests that he anticipated that I would tell him the guy said not to move the pallets or that I would tell him not move the pallets. IDGAF if he’d rather be moving pallets than doing nothing after he was told not to. I have to inquire about why he did something that doesn’t make sense. He wants a pallet jack, walks with me looking for a place to put the pallet jack, and then goes and gets a different pallet jack. Had us doing shit we didn’t need to be doing.

It highlights his contrarian tendencies which are likely a product of inadequacy, either the product of low self worth (inconsistency with standards or disappointing results) or the perception that others have a low opinion of him. He works when he’s told not to, and avoids work when he’s supposed to be working. Which means he has no natural disposition towards either end, he doesn’t want to be working, and he doesn’t not want to be working, so the cause of him doing either is external, in this case, if he’s told to work he doesn’t want to work, and if he’s told not to work he wants to work. If there are circumstances where what he’s being told is unnecessary or wrong, it makes sense, so it doesn’t represent an issue with following directions. When the direction is necessary or right, the cause is inferiority. Doing what someone tells you to do feels bad, like they’re controlling you, and refusal feels good because you didn’t allow the person to control you.

Overall, he worked well, we’d chop it up from time to time, joke, there were just a lot of seemingly fabricated stories and occasional off shit like I described. I’m typically pretty easy to work and get along with, I work, share analysis, usually find something funny about whatever’s going on, and I’m not trying to control anybody. One morning somebody said they were trying to be like me, I said why you want to be like me, I’m over here moving tires around just like you are. I was called smart on a few occasions, I deflect the compliment because I deny the existence of the quality.

Nobody is smart. Reality is objects, motion, and the feelings that they produce. Intelligence isn’t anything more than the prioritization of truth, the identification of objects, and the organization of objects through cause and effect sequencing. Normal people have roughly the same potential for intelligence because they all have the ability to identify objects (senses and sequencing) and to make assignments of cause and effect. Differences in intelligence is a product of values, how much intelligence is required to experience positive sensations and how much intelligence is limited by the attachment to false beliefs. In addition to intelligence being limited by values in the sense that different objectives require different levels of intelligence, intelligence is also limited by values in the direction of attention, where for example if you’re concerned with people’s opinion of you, you’re thinking about that instead of paying attention to what’s going on. Just an example but there’s many prioritization of value that limit people’s awareness. Point being, there are no smart people. Not me or anyone else, there are only people who are less intelligent than they could be. IQ heredity doesn’t challenge this conclusion because heredity is measuring genetic predisposal to values that lead to the production of intelligence as much as, and probably more than, it is measuring any innate disposition for intelligence. Missed an opportunity to provide that run down, but even providing the run down it’s unlikely that anyone would grasp the definitiveness of the explanation for it serve any benefit.

—

I half woke up in North Carolina feeling horrible. Half woke up because I couldn’t really fall asleep. Short 15 minute at most spurts of sleep followed by an hour or more of trying to fall back asleep unsuccessfully. I planned on going to the gym before the SpringFree trampoline relocation I had for the day but I was too tired.

I fell asleep for about 45 minutes from about 10:00am to about 10:50. I replied to an AT job that was $40 to bring a carpet in for a woman in Charlotte. It was on the way so I offered and she accepted. I expected a roll and a long walk but it was pretty short and the carpet was fairly light. She mentioned she had a chair she needed assembled but I didn’t have time. We exchanged numbers.

The second job was fairly simple because I’m very familiar with the product. The end of it was where I ran into problems. The base has U shaped legs with a bar that goes in the middle and the top of the bar in the middle is u shaped and cups the round base bar. When I was walking around doing my final checks I noticed that one of the middle bars on the leg was partially out from the base. Structurally it doesn’t really matter. Wouldn’t have mattered if the bar was missing but it looked bad, could create concern for the customer, and I had to fix it.

I spent a half hour or so trying to get the bar under the base and it would not move. I went to my car to try to beat it with a rubber mallet, used a 4 foot probably inch in diameter steel pry bar to pry it into position, and kicked the shit out of it. Would not move and eventually I popped it out completely with the pry bar. The only way to get it back in was to remove the legs from the base. When I did the base sagged down and the tension from the net and the rods locked it into that position. From there I was trying to reattach the legs but I couldn’t get the left side in because of how the position the base was locked into. I tried for about a half hour to an hour. Completely pissed off and frustrated.

Eventually I had to come to terms with the fact that I may need to take the whole thing apart. I thought about coming back in the morning. Then I decided worst case scenario it would take me probably 2 hours to break it all down and put it back together. Thankfully I didn’t have to take the whole thing apart, just the net, followed by about 1/3rd of the rods. It was just irritating to have it done, then spend another 2.5 hours trying to fix some anomalous problem..

When I finished the job I was high on endorphins from the effort, and the relief from moments of intense stress and frustration; but I didn’t lose sight of where I was and what I was doing. As I thought about something I laughed at only a few moments prior, I thought just because you see me laughing, doesn’t mean I’m enjoying life. Didn’t lose sight of where I was at and what I was doing in the sense that I’m aware that I’m doing menial work to survive and with limited to no prospect for worthwhile improvement. Imagine you were confined to a cell that was inescapable. Although you knew you probably couldn’t escape, you’d still give it some effort.

I texted the woman I brought the carpet in for and asked if she still wanted me to assemble her chair? She asked how much and I said I was just going to do it for her and if she wanted to throw me $5 she could. I saw the chair before I left looked like just a few Allen screws figured it’d be 5 minutes. The carpet carrying was easy, I appreciated the opportunity, I liked the idea that the woman would have her chair put together. I also told her I lived an hour and a half away since that’s where I was coming from when I originally responded to the ad, so it wouldn’t make sense for me to come back the following day if I did in fact live an hour and a half away.

Ask me just about anything and I’ll give you an honest answer, except if you ask me where I live. It’s a lot explaining for you to understand why I’m living where I’m living. If anyone was actually interested in why I’m living where I’m living I wouldn’t be living where I’m living. Ultimately comes down to the fact that you can’t sell truth to a species who are attached to false beliefs. I’m not going to take that stigma because you cannot understand my prioritization of value, and you don’t want to understand that self deception prevents me from being able to advance my interests and being compensated for advancing human interests.

The chair was a little goofy in the assembly. Still finished it in under an hour. She asked if I had kids which led to a brief conversation about Ava, the book, and other things in my life. While I don’t know how much she understood, I do know some of it made sense to her. Enough to where she commented about how it was crazy that I was doing this kind of work when I had so much else to offer. Maybe thinking I would be offended she said the work I was doing still required intelligence. Not really, and I wasn’t offended. I thought the same thing when I was frustrated with the SpringFree assembly. I think the same thing on a near daily basis.

After I left I went to Walmart then headed to the rest area to eat and was going to call Holly. As soon as I got on the on ramp it was backed up due to an accident. I sat on the on ramp for over 2 hours. I called Holly while I was waiting. Talking shit. I asked if this was the first accident they ever dealt with. Joked that maybe they only had one tow truck driver and he was busy with other shit.

I just didn’t understand how it could take that long. First priority is to assist the injured. Then collect evidence, take pictures, identify witnesses. After that get the vehicles involved in the accident off the freeway. How TF does that take 3 hours? Are they out there trying to move this shit by hand?

After about an hour and a half the car next to me asked if I would pull out to let them out. GPS had me 3 miles from the rest area. I didn’t know that I could exit and get back on after this onramp. I may have had enough room to get out but I wouldn’t be able to get back on the on ramp. So I declined the request. Shortly after the car behind me pulled off, I pulled forward about the 4 feet that I had to let cars out from the inner on ramp lane. Later I felt stupid when I realized that I could have pulled off and went back on. I could have dodged that whole 3 hour ordeal.

I slept well last night. I have a few projects that may begin and resume. Implications and consequences of Christianity as a solicitation, and then maybe a short paper on moral function and duality. In both cases there is no outlet, which saps my motivation. The churches won’t acknowledge and moral philosophy or psychology journals also will not acknowledge. So I write these things, send them out, and get no response, or a generic response that doesn’t acknowledge the content.

I bid on a SpringFree assembly in DC. Not too keen on going there, but it’s a tank of gas to make about $290 for about 3 hours of work. I have a few days before I need to think about money so I’ll probably resume those projects. Maybe play some poker tournaments.

4/15/25

I began entries on a few other occasions. Deleted most of it not seeing much of a purpose in sharing another diatribe about this species, or lamenting my time and opportunities on this planet more than I have in surviving content.

3/28/25

It’s becoming a problem. As soon as I plan my routine I begin thinking about how everything I’m doing or plan on doing in that moment could be accomplished within the comfort of a house, as opposed to out of my car. It’s hard to contend with that logic, but when I returned I immediately didn’t feel good, and I should have.

I should have because I was pulled over and taken into custody in Kentucky, and I wasn’t able to bond myself out. I had the money but Whitley County Kentucky only accepts cash and my money is on a debit card. They also don’t have an ATM. I called Holly. She works with snow removal and landscaping contractors across the country and found someone fairly close by who could bring cash.

I was pulled over for swerving on a sobriety check. By that time I’d been driving 6 hours and my contacts were dry so there were moments where my vision was distorted and I was focused on blinking to try and wet my eyes. I may have swerved a few times because of this. I don’t believe I was on the lines but probably moving within them.

He told me I had a warrant in Boone county. I was surprised initially, but once he said 2018 I remembered the incident. I was working in interstate moving and just crossed into KY from Cincinnati. I was pulled over for not having a plate on the truck. This was a Penske rental and there was no plate. He asked me what I had in the back and I told him furniture. I opened the rear of the truck to show him and he noticed my duffle bag. He asked to search it and I refused. I had a small amount of marijuana, not a big deal but the two people I hired about a week prior stocked up in Colorado. He said he was going to have a K-9 do an open air sniff.

If there wasn’t the issue of having to confirm the identity of the truck because it didn’t have a plate he wouldn’t be able to detain me to wait on a K-9 unit. An officer can only investigate on the basis of probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The circumstance of seeing a moving truck driver’s duffle bag in the back of a box truck does not suggest that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or could occur. If he was stopping me for not wearing my seatbelt (I was cited for that too) he could check my license, insurance, vehicle registration, and then decide to cite me or warn me. While I’m detained he has to be working to accomplish these tasks. Once completed he cannot detain me to wait on a dog to arrive because he has a hunch that there could be something in the duffle bag. Rodriguez v. United States.

I didn’t know any of this at the time and it really didn’t matter because he was running the trucks VIN, he was on the phone with my partner who owned the moving company, on the phone with Penske, and he had something to investigate to draw the stop out. My concern was he would do an open air sniff, then take everything out of the truck and go through it piece by piece. He could drag it out for several hours and then we might be out there for several more hours repacking and stacking the truck. So I allowed him to search my bag and admitted to having weed in it. Probably not more than a few grams. I received a must appear citation.

Shouldn’t be a big deal but I need to go to court on the 4th in Kentucky, and had Holly not arranged for my bail I presumably would have sat at least until the other county came to pick me up. Maybe I could have paid my bail using my card at the other jail. Then I would have been 150 plus miles away from my car, if it wasn’t towed before I could get out.

Initially after Ava left I was somewhat more motivated and I channeled that motivation into her book. Following the completion, and realizing there isn’t much of a market for a book about a 19 year old’s suicide I sunk back into about where I was before that.

Prior to Ava passing I was back in DFW Texas. Before Texas I spent a few months in Kansas City, and prior to that I was in the St. Louis area for the better part of about 8 months. Living out of my car, working through Veryable and Airtaskers, working on projects and solicitations, and sending solicitations for my material. I was briefly revitalized by the whistleblower claim, but subsequent failed solicitations further reinforced the reality that there is no outlet for information that challenges the spectrum of popular perception. I say spectrum in the sense that people’s perception of reality is bound together by ideas that are universally accepted, and from that base all deviation forms a spectrum of different perceptions, based on different experience and values.

I perceive reality through motion and morality, then value and interests. Those within the popular perspective spectrum perceive the world through value first, subconsciously in the feelings produced when exposed to new information, good in reinforcement and negative when the information is threatening. Also consciously, for example, if they can interpret information to make it appear more of what they want it to be, or make it appear to others to be more of what they want it to be, that is how they will interpret it. Challenging information is avoided, ignored, and rejected, and a person presenting true information will be avoided, ignored, and rejected by a people who see the world as they want it to be. This is also a people who does not understand morality and is not consistent in moral assignments. What is right and what is wrong is often more a matter of if it applies to them or others, or if they like the person or not, than it is about defining and recognizing unprovoked harm, or behavior that is detrimental to all. These primitive mother fuckers are still using terms like evil, instead of understanding their role in producing the people who behave in ways that are detrimental.

The point being I was in Texas, about 10 years out of motivation, and not confident that I could last another 3 to 5 years to see if this whistleblower claim will come to fruition. Ava decided to check out and I was motivated by the prospect of honoring her through the success of my work. Shortly after finishing the book I didn’t have a strategy to market it, and returned to the reality that there is no outlet for any of my material despite it pertaining to subjects that people are interested in, and it being beneficial to their development and interests. Now I’m neither here nor there. By that I mean I’m not at the place I was before Ava passed and I’m not at the place I was immediately after.

I’ve left on 3 occasions. The first was too soon and I made what seems like a good decision to return to provide emotional stability to write the book. The second time I left to do a trampoline assembly in IN and was going to resume my typical goings from there: labor, projects, and solicitation. After a few days this is the first time I thought about Holly’s open invitation to return, and most recently in North Carolina was the second time I figured I could do everything I’m doing in the car in the house.

Initially I was alright, but as I began working on a church solicitation I stopped after a second approach. By second approach I mean I started one solicitation, abandoned it and then began another. It just doesn’t matter. They won’t acknowledge the deficiencies, consequences, or non-idealities of their beliefs and this is just renewed exercise in futility. Every other target audience is the same on every other subject.

There is some difference in me being at Holly’s as opposed to me living out of my car beyond the improved comfort, stability, and lower cost of living.. There’s a general reduction in self worth for several reasons. First, I will do anything within my means for Holly and she will do the same for me. Through the years it’s been reciprocal depending on who has and who needs. In knowing this about one another, we both avoid accepting help from the other while always knowing it’s available.

The actual essence of where we are today isn’t so much a helping situation, as much as it is mutual value of one another’s presence. Holly doesn’t incur any additional expenses and gains my company. Based on what I know about her and me having been there her quality of life is probably greater with me there than it is without me there. I should feel good about that, and I do, and I don’t.

Part of it is because I recognize that I am benefiting from something she works for. It is better to be in a house than it is a car, but the benefit is not great enough to me that I am willing to perform the work available to me, in the quantity required, to pay rent. Especially because I have a market contribution in the Liberty and Truth content that does not provide me an income because I live among a self deceptive tyrant species. That being the case, I don’t like the idea of benefiting from something that she works for. I feel better about myself living out of my car, than I do living in a house that someone else is working to pay for.

Overall mood and well being is probably greater by Holly than it is in my car, but this may be a detriment because the discomfort of living out of my car is often motivating even if what it produces on projects and solicitations leaves me no better off materially than I’d be if I never completed them. I feel better in the production of the material and the prospect than I do doing anything else. Obviously it is developmentally beneficial where I learn or ideas evolve in research, analysis, and articulation.

To make matters worse I’m not doing anything productive. One benefit of being by Holly is it costs less for me to live, which means I don’t need to work as often and I have more time. Of course wasting more time amplifies the loss of self worth. It’s a very strange situation to be in. Absent any inspiration leading to success, I’m essentially waiting to see if this whistleblower claim materializes because if it does I’ll be in a position to dramatically and positively change the trajectory of this species and accomplish something for existence, as well as improve the quality of human life for as many generations as this species lasts. May have only a century or so of civilization left, but I recognize the opportunity. If the claim materializes, I have the means to succeed. If it doesn’t, I can check out at that time because outside of the advancement of Liberty and Truth, there is a net deficit between opportunities for positive and negative feelings. In other words, the potential for joy in my life is not worth the energy required to experience it. Energy in this context is defined as any negative sensations experienced to achieve an objective (positive sensation).

I haven’t made any effort to contact anyone since I’ve been back. Divergent general interests and the human tendency to classify things as crazy that they do not understand. Among those I know who are still alive and not in prison. I ran into an acquaintance I knew casually from when I was younger. I saw Jeff Key at Walmart. Didn’t know him real well but he knew people I knew growing up and I’d see him from time to time. I vaguely remember corresponding with him on Facebook 5 to 10 years ago. I don’t remember the content of the exchange.

The second familiar encounter was at the gym. Mikey Boyance, probably wrong spelling. There was a period in my life where we hung out semi-regularly, my son’s mother Nikki and his child’s mother Janeen were cool (unborn at the time). I also knew his half or step brother as well as numerous other mutual acquaintances.

He asked if I was Orion and I confirmed and he told me he was little Mikey. To which I replied with his last name having known multiple Little Mikeys and he confirmed. I thought he was dead, someone told me years ago that he died. I commented as much adding that a lot of people we used to know aren’t here any more. He said he thought it was sad, I didn’t say anything but I think about the alternatives. Whether drugs or something else that was a product of lifestyle, would they have enjoyed their life as much as they did having chosen other paths?

I haven’t seen him in 20 years or more. Judging by his physique I assume he went to prison at some point. I remember him as a little skinny fat dude, like a Smithers body. Seems unlikely that someone who wasn’t physically fit in their teens and early 20s would develop an interest in physical fitness without some catalyst. Before I knew it was him from across the gym I noticed how good of shape he was in. No homo, just as a gym goer you notice where people are at, and compare. Reinforced the idea that I needed to lose some weight and I do. I wasn’t going to try to catch him up 20 years in a moment at the gym. It’s a long fuckin story, but there’s a lot of it in print.

Worked at tire hub. Came at a good time because I was running low on money and I have court in Kentucky on the 4th. To my surprise it seems like they’re figuring it out. There were no tires on the floor except for what was going out that day or the following. Seemed worth mentioning because I wrote about all the discrepancies between the Waukesha location and the Cincinnati location.

I’ve been wasting my time in ways I don’t care to share. What am I doing? That is part of the reason I waste time. With nothing worthwhile to pursue I distract myself through simple occupation of my mind, like poker, among other things. The more time I waste the worse I feel, and the worse I feel the more I waste time to relieve myself of how I feel for wasting time. That’s one element of it. The other element is the persisting circumstances that produce the desire to engage in time wasting activities to begin with. I won’t rehash it, no outlet, no acknowledgement, so there’s no purpose.

—

I returned to Kentucky for court. Initially I went to the wrong court house across the street. When I arrived at the correct courthouse there was a sheriff outside with a list. I gave him my name and he told me I was in 2A. Go through the checkpoint, take a right and I would see the elevators. I sat in the courtroom for about 3 hours. Finally a person I believe was a victim witness advocate asked me my name and discovered I wasn’t on the docket for this court. I was sent to 1A.

I entered the courtroom and was approached by a bailiff who told me my case was already called. He explained that I had been there since about 8:30 and he sent me to window 3 outside the court. I believe it was a clerk of courts. She sent me back into the courtroom. I returned to the court and then the bailiff accompanied me to the clerk. He told the clerk the judge wasn’t going to hear my case, followed by the clerk telling him Amelia(I think that was the name) told her to send me in.

At this point I was frustrated and considered leaving. If the judge wasn’t going to hear my case and already issued a bench warrant they were about to take me into custody. I drove 400 miles to go to court on a misdemeanor that I could have avoided Kentucky and never dealt with. Now, through no fault of my own it appeared that they were about to lock me up.

We went back into the courtroom and the bailiff approached some member of the court staff. The judge instructed us to line up in the order that our names were called. When I was called I was given the opportunity to plea out to a fine which I did.

Kentucky has what I consider to be a good application of the law on marijuana. Prohibition of marijuana is immoral because its prohibition has no direct benefit to the public. Substances are prohibited because they promote behavior in their users that is harmful to the public, or they have the potential for dependency that increases the likelihood of public harm in the procurement of the substance. Marijuana does neither. In a nation where many people have limited opportunities to have time and money, the prohibition of marijuana has the indirect benefit of creating an opportunity for income for some people. That opportunity isn’t as great as it used to be since the market has been flooded through state legalization, but in states where it is prohibited it’s still potentially somewhat lucrative. Kentucky maintains prohibition, but the penalties are not great.

I saw a locked up abroad episode that was interesting to me. A woman had an anxiety/panic attack. She was prescribed medication. She was a drug addict who sold drugs to sustain her habit. She also worked, and one of her coworkers invited her on a trip to some Latin American country where unbenounced to her, he was trying to smuggle a substantial amount of cocaine back to the US.

I don’t remember if he told her but I think she knew because there were men who came by with bags that he had to take and followed them to the airport. She has a panic attack outside the airport and needs to throw up. She filled out her name on a luggage tag and gives it to him to put on her luggage. He puts the luggage tag on one of the cocaine suitcases.

In the Airport the drug dog comes around and hits on one of the bags. They discover the cocaine and her coworker is taken into custody and she is pulled to the side to fly back by herself. The other bag of cocaine with her luggage tag on it was already on the plane. Later they discover this bag and she is arrested and is sentenced to a few years in prison.

What’s interesting to me is her ordeal is directly a product of her psychological treatment or lack thereof. Instead of helping her understand the source of her anxiety, identifying what she perceives in her environment and the thoughts and feelings that produce the panic, she’s given medication to at most dampen symptoms. Years after diagnosis and being put on medication she has an episode brought on by her knowledge or suspicion that they’re going to be smuggling cocaine back to the US. It’s because of this episode that she has to throw up and give her tags to her friend to put on the bags. If not for the failings of the mental health industry she does not have that episode and does not go to prison. She goes to prison because she was prescribed medication instead of learning how to contextualize circumstances and become accepting of outcomes. Panic and anxiety stem from the anticipation of undesirable outcomes and the inability to accept those outcomes.

—

As mentioned I’m doing nothing productive. I’ll probably leave again soon. The prospect of that bothers me because I do not want to leave Holly alone. We share very few common interests. She obviously isn’t interested in my material much less the promotion of it, or organization around it. She does know I’m true to my core, consistent, and logical. Which is in part contaminating to her because she cannot find anyone else who will be that to these degrees. She could have a more enjoyable life if she met the right person. Perfect woman for a simple man.

I miss Ava. Her texts and conversation is irreplaceable, and was very important to my well being and attitude. I respect and understand her decision but it leaves an unfillable void.

My lack of productivity is temporarily intellectually dulling, and emotionally destabilizing. Not to extreme degrees but has produced at least one semi-embarassing incident. Wisconsin Vision Center advertised a 59.99 eye exam for contacts and glasses. Cheap but not unbelievable. My last eye exam from Stanton was $90. I scheduled an exam because my prescription expired and my last pair of contacts were worn out to the point that they were bothering my eyes. At the conclusion of the eye exam they initially charged me $170. I was angry about this and retrospectively would have preferred to keep my cool.

The price was reduced to $140, I accused them of deceptive marketing and it is. However, from the time I saw the promotion on their website to the time I went to my exam the promotion on their website had changed. Originally it stated 59.99, and somewhere it stated contacts or glasses. When I returned to the site in the presence of the manager it stated starting at 69.99. I could probably use the way back machine site to see the original ad but it wouldn’t make a difference. The anger came not from the additional cost. The cost is significant to me, but isn’t really outside the market rate. I was upset because I was mislead about the cost. For $140 I could have went to Stanton and got an eye exam plus a 12 week or 6 months supply of contacts depending on whether I went with one 2 week or 1 month contacts. It’s a difficult event to move on from, because it is deceptive marketing and I was right to be angry, but subjectively I didn’t like how I expressed it, and some of that behavior is influenced by my lack of productivity in the preceding days and weeks.

I’m waiting to receive my title for my car from Texas. My registration expired in February of 23. I’d like to register my car before I leave. Not a good idea, but trapped as I am whether I’m here or anywhere else, all roads likely lead to self destruction.

In the meantime I’ll review my material and see if there are any edits or expansion warranted. It’s always a mix of inspiration and frustration. Inspiration from the content, and frustration that I am the only one who knows about it and its significance.

As I mentioned, I’m not doing much of anything, but I did notice that Trump implemented tariffs which is puzzling because it’s of no benefit to anyone. As that detriment began to play out he paused the tariffs. It’s ridiculous in an economy with a 4 percent unemployment rate that the tariffs are to encourage the return of manufacturing jobs. That’s the pretext that tariffs incentive companies who sell goods to the US to manufacture those goods in the US. It’s also an absurd proposition because no company is going to incur 10x the labor costs to avoid a 25 or 50 percent tariff on the finished product.

Tariffs primarily impact US companies because so much of trade consists of US companies manufacturing products or components abroad to be sold in the US. The same as democrats use climate change to punish or weaken companies who primarily or exclusively support republicans through policy or legislation, tariffs, and the pretext of creating US manufacturing jobs may be some of that. Of course the issue is that tariffs impact so many industries, that it is at best, we harm our donors to harm their donors more and benefit through the net. I don’t think that’s what it is as far as industry goes, but it may be that to create diplomatic leverage. In the sense that the tariffs harm the global economy and probably cause more harm in other countries than they do in the US. So implementing tariffs and causing that harm allows Trump to use the threat of tariffs to influence the decision of other countries to ensure advantageous outcomes for the US and US corporations. That’s my suspicion at a distance, since it obviously won’t accomplish his stated purpose and harms industry of both political affiliations.

5/03/25

Recent events in Colorado cause me to rehash some old content. Content I recently thought would be less socially relevant since it seemed for a time that this misconception was fading from public acceptance and would no longer influence the creation of public policy.

I saw a video of a school board meeting where a father was expressing his frustration with the school using his child’s gender identity, taught to the child from the school, and supported by the therapist to take away his child from him through custody proceedings with his ex-wife. Shortly after, I discovered that Colorado is trying to pass legislation that would make it a crime to dead name or misgender someone, as well as charge a parent with child abuse for doing so, and take children from parents who will not affirm their child’s gender identity.

I began restating points I’ve made previously that gender identity is a construct of false importance.

Gender identity is an individual assigning gender to values, and creating an identity based on whether more of their values (or key values) are masculine or feminine. If they like and do more things associated with males they identify as male because they like traditionally male things and therefore do things that males traditionally do. Identity is what you do and what you see yourself doing.

Gender is the distinction between the reproductive characteristics of one member of a species and another member of that species. Gender represents what element of reproduction a member has the ability to contribute. Male and female gender distinctions are made across species based on their reproductive roles. A female bass isn’t a female because it puts on make up, acts feminine, and likes things that are associated with females, it’s female because it is capable of the female reproductive role.

From the beginning of human history due to genes and circumstances, the behavior of males and females diverged. Men and women tended towards different likes and dislikes and different manners and different behavior. These differences become elements that we identify the objects of man and woman by. Women tend to do and men tend do are associations, but doing what the opposite sex does, does mean you are the opposite sex.

There’s nothing wrong with anyone liking and expressing any values they want to express so long as the expression of those values don’t interfere with the liberty of others, but your gender doesn’t change. There is no genetic basis, no genes identified that cause a person to be trans. There’s no basis for a man claiming to feel like a woman or a woman claiming to feel like a man, because neither has the ability to know what the opposite gender feels like.

People can pretend that it is more than values but it is not. There is no way to qualify what makes a person trans beyond what they like. If in a room we have two men, one is trans the other is not, how do you distinguish between the two to qualify the difference between the men? Itemization of what they do, which is based on what they like.

This isn’t to say that it’s all choice because values develop subconsciously, so for people who are truly trans they develop values associated with the opposite sex. Either things associated with the opposite sex cause them to feel good or there are ideas associated with being trans that draw conscious effort into the establishment of the values. For example, a male child who likes to wear dresses has developed a value associated with the opposite sex. Or, a child sees the opportunity to gain attention, group belonging and social interaction, and gains an interest, and trans values develop and are consciously pursued in order to gain those ends. That represents ideas associated with being trans leading to trans behavior and the development of trans values.

Social psychology seeks to produce social norms that reduce negative impressions on a group by group basis in an effort to maximize individual well being. Academia generally is also looking to conduct research that advances public biases, where research that supports popular narratives will receive media coverage and the conclusions will be parroted by those who have an interest in promoting the bias reinforcing research. I don’t know the order of things but I believe it was decided that if these people with gender dysmorphia were able to live and be treated as their chosen gender this would improve their quality of life. Efforts were made to force the population to believe that these people are the opposite gender as opposed to just liking things associated with the opposite gender. The latter is true and the former is not.

The problem is teaching something to children that is not true, and creating importance around something that is not important. It isn’t true that a person born one gender can be another gender because gender distinguishes between reproductive capabilities. The second element of this is there are no genetic components. There are no genes that cause a person to be more likely to be trans. Typical children crave attention, social opportunities, and are looking for things to define themselves through to establish identity. Choosing a gender identity that is not one’s born gender is a way to gain attention, create social opportunities through group belonging, and the establishment of identity. Which means in some cases a child is inclined to adopt the opposite gender’s values, to gain the aforementioned benefits. They’re solicited with ideas that all their problems may be because they’re not really their born gender, and things will improve if they and others accept that. They’re swallowed up into a cult who thinks all their problems come from people who don’t accept them for who they are when the truth is they don’t accept themselves for who they are. Otherwise you wouldn’t try to force the world to believe things that are untrue, you’d say I’m a man who likes things that women like or I’m a woman who likes things that men like.

As I mentioned the first issue is creating importance around an idea that is not important. This impacts a child’s development short and potentially long term as the child is focused on irrelevant things, who approves, who’s transphobic, us and them, among a variety of other things that orbit this meaningless identity. A young woman on Tinder a few years ago (mid-20s) who identified as non-binary, said it was fun to talk about gender after not being able to defend her positions on the subject. It is meaningless, because all we’re talking about is someone who has more or key values that are associated with the opposite gender. Or a person whose values straddle genders but they still want to play the game and be in the group, so they identify as non-binary. Values that straddle gender is probably less correct than to say their values or perception of their values are in flux. Values are always in flux according to mood and circumstances and they change wildly over time.

There are older studies that show children develop values associated with the opposite sex and then often grow out of them. This is the danger of the gender identity lie. It is easier to say I used to like things that I don’t like any more, than it is to move forward having to admit you’ve invested your life in bs. Either way, you are what you do, and what you or others perceive your gender to be is wholly irrelevant.

Depending on age, what a child likes one year may be completely different from what they like the following year. Yet, if they have values associated with the opposite sex, especially when ideas associated with those values have been promoted to the child, why should these values become the focal point of their lives? It’s insane, but pretty par for the course for this species. All children should know that they can express themselves however they want, and it doesn’t matter if they express themselves in ways associated with their own sex or the opposite sex.

How does this help the man in Colorado or any parent in Colorado who may lose custody of their children or be charged criminally for not reinforcing a lie to their child and making the child’s gender identity the focus of life? If he or any parent understands this they can teach their child. In doing so the child doesn’t fall victim to building their life and seeing the world through a fictitious and meaningless lens.

Anyone who understands this and recognizes how stupid gender identity is, probably harbors beliefs that are just as stupid as gender identity. You’re all the same, just subscribe to different brands of BS, so it’s often easy to see the opposing sides BS, but you’re just as incapable as your opposition of seeing your own BS. Beyond the realm of politics, into whatever beliefs are required to maintain a perception of the world that maximizes your joy. You’re the same people who burnt witches and sacrificed babies to deities, you just live during a different period and subscribe to different stupidity, confident that you know things because there’s enough other people who share in that stupidity.

–

Atlanta PD has at least 1 real stupid officer and real stupid supervisor. A woman contacted police claiming that a man known to her kicked down her door and attacked her. They found the man and arrested him, but he was a quadrapalegic and didn’t have use of his legs, confined to a wheelchair. He was brought to the station and the arresting officer tipped him out of his wheelchair trying to search him. Another officer in the area helped put the man back in the wheelchair and recognized the discrepancy in fact: that a man who cannot use his legs is incapable of kicking a door down. The man is obviously incapable not only of kicking a door down, but also assault and pursuit which the alleged victim also accused him of.

They went to the supervisor to explain the situation. The supervisor essentially said they have probable cause and he should take him into custody. You cannot have probable cause based on a witness statement that you know to be false. You have probable cause for arrest for filing a false complaint.

It begs the question of how much of the behavior of these officers may be influenced by the promoted misconception that people and more specifically police don’t believe women. Feminist propaganda. Where the fear of failing to take a woman’s legitimate complaint seriously creates a bias that prevents the officer from seeing apparent discrepancies between claim and fact. Probably not the supervisor who was biased by experience, and didn’t actually see or believe the suspect had lost use of his legs 20 years ago. His error results from a lack of diligence, where upon hearing the story and being skeptical he should have walked down stairs and confirmed his suspicions before deciding that the suspect’s wheelchair is a ruse. Initially the supervisor did say contact the district attorney’s office. Which is probably the correct response. Interestingly this portion of that body cam footage is absent from most broadcasts and rebroadcasts, only showing the portion where the supervisor says it’s an obvious ruse he just doesn’t want to go to jail. The arresting officer seemed to lack the wherewithal to be an officer. Operating not out of a sense of duty or presence of mind for law, fact, or public benefit, but robotically. Even in providing the officer with the course of action to call the DAs office the supervisor still demonstrated a lack of diligence in knowing the officer probably didn’t have the confidence or the ability to choose that course of action. The essence of his treatment of this inquiry was I don’t want to be bothered with this shit, let the courts figure it out, and I don’t care who is needlessly harmed in the process.

How does biased police coverage, including in this story, as well as policy decrease the desirability of the job, and lead to the hiring of people with poor aptitude for the job? Everything believed influences everything that happens. In the previous portion Colorado is trying to pass legislation to make it a criminal offense to not subscribe to a manufactured delusion, and that is a product both of the ignorance of the left and the ignorance of the right. Same general order of factional popularity determining true from false and right from wrong. In this story, there are potential influences of ideas about people not believing women, public opinion and policy leading to bad hirings, but most importantly police who don’t understand the spirit of their job.

Despite most officers not understanding the spirit of their job, what it is they are actually doing, most officers do operate within the confines of the law. With ideal laws, law enforcement is the maintenance of right, preservation of liberty, and the restoration of persons who have been wronged. We don’t have ideal laws or ideal circumstances (circumstances that predispose people towards criminality). LEO should still see themselves as the enforcers of right, the defenders of individual liberty, and navigate unideal laws where they have discretion towards an outcome of public benefit.

We know the supervisor doesn’t see himself as that. If he did when the officers told him the man couldn’t have done what he was accused of, he would have confirmed or disproven the concern based on the possibility they were about to seize a person who had done nothing wrong. The mere fact that the officers came to him to tell him this, suggests a strong possibility that the man is innocent. A person who believes it is wrong to lock someone up who hasn’t done anything will investigate; because they don’t want to see themself as someone who has done that. It’s subconscious, the thought will be produced through the possibility of the outcome that threatens self worth and consequently well being.

For the arresting officer he would call the DAs office and explain the situation to have the warrant suspended for the same reason. Examples of people with weak moral character in jobs that are essentially the enforcement of morality. Consequence and reward thinkers, not what should I do but what can I do.

It’s even crazier that the report was filed with the DA and a warrant was issued before the investigation was even conducted. They didn’t bother to get a statement from the accused before issuing a warrant for his arrest? This is two officers, at one department, and it’s unfortunate that a minority of officers reflect poorly on what is a competent body typically enforcing law with public benefit in mind.

—

I’m pretty fucked up. I was doing leg presses but I started off differently. Usually I warm up with 3/4/5 plates per side for 12/8/4 reps. The good leg presses were taken so I went to a shitty one which is a different movement. I didn’t warm up but I did begin with 4 sets of seated ham curls, and the first set of shitty leg press I did 20. So when the good leg press opened up I started off 6Ps per side which I typically get about 10 to 12 on. Second set I added 25s to each side. Last set I took the 25s off because I fell below my desired rep range. On my last set at about my 7th rep I felt a twinge of pain from the upper left side of my glute to my back. I racked the weight, put the weights back up and then went to do leg extensions. The pain wasn’t severe but I felt it as I walked.

The next day I went to the gym to train my back and shoulders. Pull ups hurt so I did lat pulldowns. I didn’t want to do bent over rows so I did machine rows. Then I did some machine lat pulls, followed by lateral raises and rear delt flyes. No pain except for on the pull ups.

The following day I woke up and checked my phone to see what time it was. When I did I saw my bid for a Veryable job was accepted. The job consisted of unloading a truck of Styrofoam containers, then breaking down some pallets, taking unlike products on the same pallet and putting them on their own pallets. After lunch for the last two and a half hours we walked around the warehouse to straighten things up. There was some discomfort most of the day but I was able to work through it although my gait was noticeably affected.

After working at Imperial Dade through Veryable I was very fucked up the next day. I could barely walk and every step produced substantial pain that grew worse over the day. Probably didn’t help that I was trying to stretch which is probably the worst thing you can do for a muscle tear. I think my digestion is fucked up, which can happen with muscle strain or a bulged or ruptured disc.

Today I woke up feeling substantially better but still worse than I felt the day of and the day after. All the way at the bottom. I think my back came off the backrest and I try to get maximum range of motion by flaring my knees out to the side on the eccentric to pass my stomach. If the bottom of my back comes off the back rest it puts pressure on the lower part of my back. The weight isn’t shit for my legs, but it’s still about 550lbs on my lower back. I was just a little careless trying to get through my leg workout, hating leg training, and must not have had my back flush against the pad.

The most difficult part of this is the digestion issues I’m having. Anytime I eat anything my stomach becomes extremely bloated, fatiguing my abdominals from the stretch. As a result I’ve been eating much less. Tomorrow I have a SpringFree trampoline relocation job to do. We’ll see how that goes.

–

I did the SpringFree Trampoline relocation. Physically I was fine and the experience for the most part was better than expected. They had some accessories not mentioned in the ad, a sprinkler and a basketball hoop. Technically it’s outside the scope of work, but not completely outside the realm of expectation for the job. I didn’t have zip ties with me to reattach the sprinkler which is essentially a hose capped on one end with holes in it. I did reattach the basketball hoop as it was on pickup, but it was sagging forward. I was subtly disappointed that I wasn’t able to get the hoop to be completely straight despite about a half hour of attempted adjustments. On other SpringFree trampoline hoop assemblies there are header poles across the net. Either this model didn’t have them or they weren’t installed when initially assembled.

After the job I stopped at a Walmart in Lake Zurich, IL. Had an experience with some inconsiderate bitch who seemed to intentionally leave her cart blocking an aisle.

It’s not about the act of leaving the cart being supremely detrimental, that isn’t what upsets me. It isn’t a great inconvenience to traverse maybe 15 yards round trip. What upsets me is she doesn’t consider how her actions affect others, it doesn’t bother her that she may be needlessly creating an inconvenience for someone else. Otherwise when she leaves her cart she will consider whether where she’s leaving her cart may prevent someone from getting where they are trying to go. You’re almost automatically conscious of these things when it matters to see yourself as someone who has needlessly created an obstacle for someone else. The act itself is not morally wrong, because as a Walmart shopper she has the right to that space having reached it first for a reasonable amount of time, but it is an indication of moral character. Which is to say if it doesn’t bother you to create needless obstacles for others, which is harm, albeit minimal, there are likely other areas where she would impose on others when it serves her interest to do so.

Secondly, it may also be an indication of moral character, because she appeared to see me coming and decided to block my way. Not only does she not feel bad (micro loss of self worth perceiving herself having done something she believes is wrong, or has even a small amount of needless suffering) but she feels good creating obstacles for others.

Unless the act is perpetrated based on some benefit to me, her moral character disgusts me. Our attention in certain moments can be consumed by idea or task leaving people momentarily unaware of things they would typically be aware of. If this were the case then none of the aforementioned is applicable. However, in this instance the woman saw me come around the corner from produce, and saw me looking at the bread aisle, and shortly thereafter the bitch left her cart at an angle so I couldn’t pass.

This dumb shit population in the existential context thinks leaving a shopping cart in someone’s way isn’t bad. What people don’t understand is that it isn’t about what you do, it’s about what you have the potential to do. How your values are oriented determines your potential for motion. Desire is the universal constant, the duality of act and mode of operation is imposing or unimposing, and those who do not impose can be in a space with any other beings who do not impose of any priority of subjective values. It isn’t about degree or extent, pieces of shit are limited in opportunity and ability to impose including fear of consequence. Small seemingly insignificant acts reveal moral character. In my brief and increasingly infrequent interaction with this species in 42 years, a great majority’s potential for motion is imposition. Many people who others think of as hard working, kind, and compassionate will survive to a space tyranny. Good deeds don’t cover bad deeds. Good deeds are self-serving, undertaken for the feelings that they produce the same as bad deeds. The willingness to do evil identifies the potential for conscious motion.

It doesn’t matter what people think, when what people think cannot be true, and when what people believe is rife with inconsistency and lacking any factual foundation.

Interestingly, when I went around the corner a young man who worked for Walmart had a cart with boxes for orders he was filling. We seen one another suddenly and I moved to the right of him. He said sorry and I said excuse me. I suppose’s he’s sorry he was in my way and I asked him to excuse me for being in his way. We both recognized one another’s right to be in the space and would have preferred not to have inconvenienced one another. Also suggestive or moral character.

After Walmart I went to a dispensary to get some weed. I always choose the lowest priced sativa which happened to be Sour, Garlic, Mint from a company called Lula’s. After the purchase I read the back of the package and was upset by the first line. An all women owned company.

I’m not upset that I bought a product from a women owned company. I don’t believe that women have any less potential to create a superior product than men. I was irritated by the use of gender to create a market advantage. This is an advantage that is based on a promoted misconception that gender is a source of disadvantage. Where some people would purchase their product based solely on the idea that they’re supporting a disadvantaged group, i.e women. That left a negative impression of the company who 1: probably promotes the misconception and does so indirectly through the marketing on the package, and 2: exploits the misconception to gain a market advantage. An example of how people’s beliefs are fashioned to serve the interests of others.

I definitely wanted to hate the product. Unfortunately it was a very good product, stress relieving, mood elevating, conducive to focus, among other things contributing to overall improved feelings of well being. Noticeably impressive, so I suppose at least they’re selling a quality product through the reinforcement and exploitation of popular misconception.

I returned to the gym for the first time in 8 days. As expected not only from the time off, but also being in a calorie deficit I had already lost a significant amount of strength. I did three light warm up sets, followed by 6 sets averaging about 5 reps each plus some myo reps. Myo reps are pushing your set to 0 reps in reserve, taking a brief 10 to 20 second rest and then getting additional reps. Im currently, or I was training chest to improve my bench press so I was doing 10x3s. 10 sets of a weight I could get 3x. Just getting back to it it made sense to go a little lighter, and when my reps at even that lighter weight began to decline I felt like I reached adequate volume to reach maximum stimulus from this workout. When strength begins to decline on a movement additional sets are unlikely to improve stimulus, only adding to systemic fatigue, i.e junk volume

Before I left I did some light back extensions. This may be a bad move. My stomach problems may be caused by the pain from a muscle strain, as I’ve read that there are nerves in the back that share a pathway with nerves in the stomach. Pain in the back can potentially produce pain in the stomach and disrupt digestion. If that’s the case, placing even a small load on my lower back and stretching it is exactly the wrong thing to do. However, if the issue is a herniated or bulged disc putting pressure on a nerve, I feel like stretching or subjecting it to small load movements has the potential to shift something and take pressure off the nerve and relieve my symptoms. I haven’t done much research, it is what it is, but in one article it stated that digestive issues caused by back pain/injury is usually upper vertebrae whereas my pain/injury is at the very bottom, and wraps across the top of my glute up to the side of my hip at times. Not impossible to suddenly develop a digestive disorder at the same time as a back injury occurs, but very unlikely because there are times where applying some biofreeze to the area will reduce the stomach discomfort.

There’s this one dude at the gym whose presence irks the shit out of me and somehow he always decides to work out near me. Poor gym etiquette, often engaged in some ineffective elaborate circuits, ramming plates on the bar, dropping and slamming weights, part ego lifting, often half repping, I refer to him as captain inferiority as a potential explanation for the spectacle.

The dropping of weights and slamming plates on the bar, as well as often needlessly occupying multiple pieces of equipment is a direct irritant. Without that I don’t notice or analyze, and I’m not concerned with the remaining ridiculousness of his workout.

Just to qualify the assertions, yesterday he sets the decline bench onto another bench, has a pad on the floor next to a smith machine, and then has a smith machine he’s also using. He does a set of weighted sit ups on the decline bench. Followed by a dead lift from the smith machine which is the straight orientation and the bar begins about 16inches off the ground, followed by V ups on the pad, and then does a few upside push ups off a nearby pillar.

What is he trying to accomplish? He isn’t trying to build muscle because no set is taken close enough to failure to produce any adaptations, and volume per muscle with maybe the exception of abs is too low. He isn’t trying to build strength even with his 1 to 3 rep sets of deadlifts in-between because again a: his volume is too low (did about 5 sets within the circuit before changing to half rep bench press), and his intensity is also too low. How do I know his intensity is too low? For compound movements like deadlifts you should be at a place where you don’t have the energy to move onto another exercise. For him moving the weight 16 inches and dropping it back down isn’t adequate stimulus.

He also isn’t doing anything for endurance or even improving cardiovascular performance because he’s capable of doing his circuit without any visible fatigue. If he goes through his circuit and he’s completely worn out, then he’ll force cardiovascular and muscular endurance adaptations, but he isn’t even doing that.

This is just to say, that on top of his obnoxious workout slamming plates on the bar, often dropping weights, taking up multiple pieces of equipment, his workout produces no results. Little skinny guy who could probably obtain about the same physique through diet alone. This workout was fairly mild in the nuisance generated. On another occasion he brought a bench to the smith machine in an incline position. Put too much weight on the bar and couldn’t get the bar to the bench which is still a limited range of motion. So he was jerking it up and slamming it down for maybe 5 to 6 half reps. On machines he typically uses a weight he can’t control and ends up slamming the weights at the end of the set as he’s typically half-repping for most of the reps.

Most people don’t know what they’re doing which is fine. But captain inferiority, Mr. Look At Me, who probably tells people he’s super strong but he’s a hard gainer draws attention to himself through his poor gym etiquette so I notice.

Not a big deal. I have no standing to say anything to him, he pays his gym dues the same as me and can workout however he wants wherever he wants. Just disruptive how he works out, and the frequency with which he’s working out within a close proximity of me. Probably 6 happenings, and only now did I feel like chronicling it.

I’ll be editing my catalog over the next few weeks which should improve my mood.

5/12/25

The issues with my stomach and the issues with my back are unrelated. I went to the ER (my only access to healthcare) because 3 weeks of varying degrees of pain in my stomach is an indication of some significant problem. I have blood clots in my portal vein near my liver across to my spleen. Makes sense, everytime I eat blood is supplied to my stomach to facilitate digestion, toxins and nutrients carried to the liver and nutrient blood is carried away from the liver. I did short cardio circuits to move blood away from my stomach that temporarily reduced the severity of pain after eating. I would have never guessed. It was so strange that the onset corresponded to the pain in my back.

I can’t afford eliquis. The doctor is putting me on warfarin and then I’m supposed to see a primary care doctor who will give me a referral to a place who will test my INR levels. Warfarin has to build up in the body, it thins the blood by increasing INR levels. I don’t know what it stands for or what it is, but the level must be between 2 and 3 to be safely and effectively thinning the blood. The further it is from 2 the less it’s thinning the blood and over 3 I presume you run the risk of internal bleeding. It isn’t something I can take unmonitored, because the dosage needs to be adjusted according to my INR levels.

I’ve been in the hospital for 2 days but should be released tomorrow. I’m going to see what it costs to establish a primary care physician and monitor my INR levels. I need at least a month to make sure these blood clots are gone. They’ve been giving me lovenox and warfarin while my INR levels adjust. I suppose the worst case scenario is I get the script of warfarin and when it’s about to run out I go to the ER, have them test my INR levels and they can write me another script and adjust the medication. This obviously isn’t ideal but my budget for treatment is about $200 per month. If it costs substantially more than that then I need to think about something else. I’m not about to add $1000 to my monthly expenses to manage these clots.

Like I said I think I need about a month of some kind of blood thinner to make sure these clots are gone. The opinion of the doctor is that I continue on blood thinners for at least 6 months, follow up with a hematologist to try to identify the cause of the clots, and possibly be on blood thinners for the rest of my life. I’m not doing that. While I theorize that the cause of the clots may be insufficient movement, and a general poor state of well being, even if I have developed some mutation that tends towards hypercoagulation, it’s still a decision that comes down to the following::

I believe that taking any medication long term, and possibly having unusually thin blood, may be detrimental to long term health. If I take this medication to prevent clots, and live another 10 years I may arrive at that point with problems with my organs. What’s the solution then? Dialysis, maybe more medication to prop up some organs while probably also damaging other systems? Constant problems, perpetual pain, lacking the ability to participate in basic activity, eating, sleeping, movement, etc. On two occasions since the pulmonary embolism I went a year and a half without clots. Following those incidents I took Eliquis for a month and the clots were gone. I risk developing a clot that goes to my lungs or some other place that can cause death, to ensure I don’t damage my body long term. The clots usually begin in my legs. I felt them in my legs on every occasion. Even prior to this problem I felt clots in my legs but I can usually get rid of them by increasing physical activity. (any clots in legs didn’t cause the portal vein clot. Clots from your legs cannot migrate to your portal vein) In the future if I feel them and get checked out, I can probably eliminate the possibility of that outcome. Maybe I will begin training calves and this will prevent the blood clots altogether. Either way, I would rather risk death than risk life long health problems. Especially because death has a relatively low probability when compared to the high probability that the medication and the blood thinning has to create health problems over the long term.

I feel like my best course of action is to figure out a way to take blood thinners for the next month to ensure the clots are gone, and then following that if I have clots again I’ll go back on blood thinners to get rid of them. Of course I could have another pulmonary embolism and not have the opportunity to get medical attention as I did the first time. If he dies, he dies. Life is important to most of you because you don’t understand what it is, and you have a greater degree of uncertainty about death. As for me, I’m alive simply because I am alive. Which is to say I’ll ride this out for as long as I can since this is my only opportunity to be on this planet. Within reason. It isn’t worth it to me to have to find another $1000 or more of work per month to avoid the risk of dying from blood clots. I live a life confined primarily by the circumstance of living among an irrational self deceptive species. While not medically verifiable, I theorize that these circumstances, my perception of them and the mood it produces, contributes to the development of these clots. Not completely outside medical correlation, as stress and hopelessness has been associated with the development of medical problems. Maybe coincidental but I know that in addition to lifestyle factors (insufficient physical movement) these things have happened during periods when that razor thin margin of choosing to live, instead of choosing to die gets thinner.

Nothing but positive things to say about the staff in their abilities and manners at Froedtert. I think most other hospitals wouldn’t have performed the tests necessary to find these clots. The doctor said that I’m healthy by every other measure besides the blood clots. Most ERs probably run some blood tests, don’t see anything and I’m just out here dealing with the pain and not knowing what’s going on. I don’t know what the consequence would be if not treated or if the vein became completely blocked by the clot, but at another hospital I may have found out. Without a CT scan there would be no way to know.

I had a difficult time rating pain and believe I gave a poor response in answering a question about pain. I was asked what rating of pain was intolerable? I interpreted the question as what level of pain impacts ability to function. I said a 6. To me pain is relevant when it prevents me from doing something. When I first began experiencing these problems the pain was so severe that I couldn’t sleep, I couldn’t lay down, and I couldn’t concentrate. I would rate that pain about a 7 because I’ve experienced much more severe pain than that. I’ve experienced dozens of shoulder dislocations, some lasting in excess of an hour, and that pain is far worse than the stomach pain despite the stomach pain preventing me from participating in most activities.

My pain in the hospital probably through the introduction of blood thinners noticeably decreased from where it was while at Holly’s. On my second day after eating lunch I did experience an unusually high degree of pain. Earlier that morning the doctor told me I could get a tylenol and a muscle relaxer if needed. After that lunch I asked for the tylenol and muscle relaxer but was told the doctor only ordered tylenol. I’m not going to press the issue and risk looking like I’m trying to get high.

On my second day there I learned I could go outside. In doing so I managed to smoke some weed which hit particularly hard having not smoked in a few days. I felt like I looked like I was high and in a noticeable hurry to get back to the room. It rarely has that effect on me, but at the hospital I’m trying to meet certain behavioral expectations because I’m appreciative of the service. Especially since my bill will either be written off or sold to a debt collector. Almost immediately after I returned to the room, the nurses came in for shift change and I was putting eye drops in my eyes. They could have been like “SIR, have you been smoking marijuana”? I’d have to say no, I wear contacts and they dry out my eyes. How dare you accuse me of using drugs.

—

This morning I talked to a woman who was going to see if I qualified for insurance. A few hours later when I talked to my doctor she told me I had insurance, which meant I could get xarelto, and I didn’t have to worry about the monitoring on the warfarin. I was confused because she didn’t mention that they just got me the insurance, she said when the pharmacy checked to see if I had insurance I had it. Only later when I was back at Holly’s and contacted the state medicaid member support line did I learn that the social worker was able to get me instant insurance. I can’t say for sure that the CT scan, admission, and the gaining of insurance wouldn’t have happened at another hospital, but I can say it all happened at Froedtert.

I did a read through, some minor editing, and reorganization of The Supremacy of Bias. The order was good but not for most people. The first two case studies probably would have lost most people. Whereas the order now allows the reader to become engaged enough in the content to put the effort in understanding the more complex analysis. One notable edit was in a footnote addressing IQ heredity. The footnote was to answer for the statement that all knowledge reduces to objects and motion, essentially, objects in cause and effect sequencing which makes the potential for intelligence relatively equal. Most variation is a product of values, in the things a person likes requiring or not requiring intelligence, followed by self deception limiting intelligence because a person cannot learn what challenges their beliefs. This obviously means their perception of life and the world is skewed which will also limit intelligence aside from direct limitations through avoiding, ignoring, and rejecting challenging information. When the footnote was written it was geared towards the idea that genetic potential cannot be known. This is a very primitive explanation because I later learned that IQ heredity is based on twins raised apart. Where any variance between the twins is considered to represent the environmental impact on intelligence because the twins are genetically identical. I updated that footnote. The problem with twin studies, if I haven’t written this enough already in other places, is that twins have a genetic predisposition towards values, meaning within similar environments they will like similar things that require similar levels of intelligence to pursue. There’s no way to determine whether they have similar innate abilities for intelligence, or if they have similar values that lead to the production of similar levels of intelligence. The significance is that some would say twins prove that people’s intelligence is genetically limited, whereas I understand that a person’s intelligence is most strongly influenced by their values which has genetic roots, but does not innately limit a person’s genetic potential for intelligence.

Outside of that there wasn’t much to edit. Most of it cannot be edited because it represents exchanges between myself and others. As usual, I was very impressed with the material, things I forgot I wrote, the definiteness of analysis, and of course it represents examples of self deception in the maintenance of values, the underlying human shortcoming at the root of all problems. I’ll go through American Prosperity Proposals next, don’t anticipate many if any edits.

Holly was walking back and forth saying she was procrastinating. I asked about what and she said to take a shower, mainly because she doesn’t like having to clean her hair out of the shower. I explained to her that she was decreasing her quality of life because each moment she doesn’t do what she intends to do is a moment living in anticipation of an undesirable outcome. Whereas after she completes the tasks each moment is no longer tainted by the anticipation of having to take a shower. The delay produces unnecessary suffering. Just acknowledging this reality can prompt a person during certain kinds of procrastination to stop procrastinating. If a person knows this, they will think about it when they’re procrastinating and it may prompt the person to carry out the act that they’re delaying. The act will be motivated by positive feelings associated with the idea of saving themselves suffering, perhaps recognizing they’ve made an intelligent decision and improving self worth.

I watched the last Sergio Leone movie I didn’t see, Once Upon a Time In America. Sergio Leone is my favorite filmmaker. This movie did not disappoint. It begins in the middle of the movie. Gangster’s are looking for Noodle’s for telling on someone. Noodles returns to his friend’s house after spending some time at an opium den. The gangsters already went there and beat the shit out of his friend, with one remaining there in case Noodle’s returns. Noodles kills the gangster. Noodles witnesses his three friends dead with one burnt beyond recognition. Later he goes to a lock box and retrieves a suitcase. The suitcase is there but there’s nothing but newspapers in it.

Then the movie explains the formation of their gang. Going back to their youth and how they got started. Takes place in the early 20th century. There was a more experienced gangster trying to drive the young men out of the area. He killed one of Noodle’s friends, and young Noodles killed the man with a knife but also killed a cop with the knife. He’s young so he was given like 10 years. He gets out and it goes through the progression of the gang making money until the end of prohibition. It reaches a point in the movie when his friend Max wants to rob Fort Knox. Max’s girlfriend asks Noodles to save Max by tipping the police off about a shipment of alcohol which was about to be legal. Noodles intended to go with and told his girlfriend he was going to go away for probably about a year. That’s how much time he thought they’d get for the illegal alcohol shipment.

After he tips off the police Max wouldn’t allow him to go on the run. When he comes upon the dead bodies, those are the dead bodies of his friends who were killed by the police he called on them. The guys looking for him in the beginning of the movie are looking for him because they know he called the police.

Earlier in the movie the 5 original members had a lock box and they put cash in the box every month. There was supposed to be a million dollars in the box which would have been an extraordinary sum at that time. To access the box they gave the key to the guy who was beat up, and all of them had to be present for him to give them the key. In the beginning of the movie Noodles gets the key because he’s the only one left. Then he goes to the box to find the suitcase doesn’t have the money.

The movie goes on between what he’s doing and filling in the story via flashback. Later in the movie he goes to visit his friend’s graves. They’re in a mausoleum and there is a lock box key hanging in there. He grabs the key and goes to the box and there he finds a suitcase full of money with a post it note that says pay advance for a job.

Eventually he receives an invitation to go to a party for some senator that he doesn’t know. He goes to see his childhood early adulthood hood crush to see what she knows about senator Bailey and why he’s inviting him? She’s an actress and outside her door was the senator’s son who was played by the same actor who played young Max. He goes to the party and Bailey summons him to a private room. It’s clearly Max played by James Woods. Noodle’s played by Robert Denero pretends as if he doesn’t know it’s Max. Max essentially tells him that he took his money and his girl. He’s in trouble and he’s going to be killed. He wants Noodle’s to kill him. Noodle’s remembers his friends growing up and their experiences. Noodle’s decides not to kill him. He exits and he’s standing on the side of the street. We see Max standing about 50 yards from him on the other side of the street. A garbage truck of sorts goes by and when it passes Max is gone and we see the back of the truck and there’s like auger screws grinding up produce. The presumption is Max threw himself in the back of the truck.

It’s interesting because at different points in the movie they were working for a mob boss played by Joe Pesci. They did a job for Pesci’s character. His friend Joe had a robbery he set up but needed someone else to do it because they knew his friend Joe. They do the robbery then bring the diamonds to joe. Joe pays them 20k and then Max and company kill joe and the people who are with him. The character played by Pesci ordered Max to kill Joe. Noodle’s asks Max how long before Pesci’s character tells someone to get rid of Max? Later in the movie Max tells Noodles that someone was telling him to get rid of Noodles. Not necessarily kill him but to move on from him.

This is a rush synopsis of the movie but it’s a great movie. It forces you to pay close attention to understand what’s going on. 3.5 hours long. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is still my favorite movie. This may be my second, but the other dollars trilogy movies (fistful of dollars, and for a few dollars more) are probably more simplistically entertaining. The other movies he made, Once Upon a Time in the West, and Duck You Sucker are also great movies.

The good the bad and the ugly is a story of mutual hatred and respect forced to work together to advance common interests. Betrayal, revenge, mistrust, and a hallmark of Leone’s movies is the consistency of his characters. By that I mean characters whose values are consistent, where they typically don’t make decisions that are inconsistent with how they make other decisions. Characters who know who they are and are consistent in reasoning. Something that probably doesn’t resonate with a people who live their lives oblivious to why they do things, and will do anything in pursuit of some positive feeling. Their behavior isn’t consistent or based on consistent reasoning or alignment with any personal standards, so such characters probably seem unrealistic.

Powerful scenes expressing truths. Duko says to his brother where we came from if one did not want to die of poverty, he either became a priest or a bandit. You chose your way, I chose mine, mine was harder. His brother who was a priest slaps Duko, and Duko punches him. Duko says you became a priest because you were too much of a coward to do what I do. As Duko walks away his brother says he’s sorry. His brother slaps him because he told him the truth. After being driven to violence, his brother realizes Duko told him the truth and apologizes. These scenes are contrasted with funny scenes. Clint Eastwood’s character witnessed this unbeknownst to Duko. As they’re riding out on the wagon, Duko tells him how his brother never wants him to leave, and no matter what happens he always knows there’s a brother who has a bowl of soup for him. Clint knows he’s full of shit and just says nothing like a cigar after you had good meal, and passes him the cigar. Even that could be interpreted as a moment where he had respect for Duko and the cigar was symbolically congratulatory in being right about himself or being right in the argument. Maybe not that but still an entertaining scene following that true scene.

Other parts of the movie are hilarious. In the beginning of the movie Duko escapes 3 bounty hunters killing 2 and wounding a 3rd. Later in the movie the bounty hunter who he wounded catches him in the tub. He tells him he hasn’t been able to use his right arm since he was shot but he’s had 6 months of learning how to shoot with his left. And now he has him right where he wants him. Duko had his pistol on a piece of leather around his neck and the pistol is underneath the water but unseen because of the bubbles in the tub. He shoots the man several times, gets out of the tub and says when you have to shoot, shoot, don’t talk. Every piece of the movie and the story is perfect. Another hilarious scene Duko and Clint are in the wagon and there are troops approaching them on horseback. Their uniforms are dusty and look grey. So Duko starts yelling hurrah for general Lee, down with general Grant, god is on our side because he hates the yanks too. Clint says god is not on our side because he also hates idiots. The soldiers get closer and knock the dust off their uniforms revealing they’re blue uniforms. I could probably go through just about every scene in the movie and the entertainment value is self evident and there is a great deal of meaning in so many of the scenes and story. The establishment of the bad character in the beginning of the movie. He goes to get information for someone and gains some information for himself. The guy asks how much did he pay you to kill me. He said something like $250, but lied and said he was just there to get information. I think the man gave him $500 and he killed him anyway. He returns to his client and shares the information. After he gives him the money he says I almost forgot, he gave me $500. I think he wanted me to kill you. They laugh and he says but when I’m paid for a job, I always follow through. He kills the man. It isn’t that he’s bound to his agreement to service whether direct or implied, it’s that he is the kind of person who will kill this man because the information he provided him creates a competitor to his interests; recovering the gold that this guy Jackson stole, He’s that cold, calculated killer throughout the movie.

There’s a scene in Duck You Sucker where the revolutionary is telling the co-star that he should be concerned about his country, and his co-star launches into this diatribe saying the people who read the books. Sit around their tables and they eat and they eat and they eat, and they talk, and they talk and they talk, and they say we need to make a change. The people who read the books go to the people who can’t read the books and say it’s time to make a change. The poor people make that change. And where are all the poor people? They’re dead, they’re all dead. And then the whole fuckking thing starts all over again. So please, don’t tell me about revolution. The underlying meaning is so true. Today there is much less armed struggle than there used to be, but the underlying theme is still true even in the United States. Where poor people are manipulated through their ignorance to support causes that serve the interests of the organizers, politicians, and indirectly the business interests who are the dominant crafters of government policy, including spending.

One of the greatest scenes in film was in Once Upon a Time in the West, a scene where Sergio himself had to play the role because of the danger involved in the scene. They’re on a train and hear him walking around on top. So they’re watching the windows waiting for him to climb down. Two things that would probably be overlooked in modern film making, the fact that a person walking on top of a train car would probably be apparent to anyone within the car, and instead of randomly firing through the roof it would make more sense to wait for him to try to climb down, and not let him know that you know he’s up there. We see a boot come down across the window like he’s trying to climb down into the car. One of the characters goes to grab his foot and pull him down, and when he does he gets shot through the boot. The character put his gun in the boot and lowered it down to make it appear that he was climbing down. The scene where Bronson’s character is met at a train station and he asks the men if they brought a horse for him. They look at each other and laugh and say it looks like they’re one horse short revealing their intent to kill him. He says you brought two too many and proceeds to kill them. The main story is a great portrayal of justice through revenge.

A fistful of dollars is when a man with a 45 meets a man with a rifle, the man with the pistol is a dead man. To kill a man you must hit him in the heart. The iconic ending where Clint’s character puts a slab of iron on his chest and Ramon empties his rifle unable to kill him. That movie Clints character is more empathetic and justice oriented than he is in the other two movies, most notably freeing a woman and her child who was kidnapped by Ramon. He plays the rival gangs against each other and then kills Ramon. Has Ramons gang wipe out the competing gang, and then he wipes out Ramon’s gang.

For a few dollars more one bounty hunter wants to kill a bandit because he raped his sister and his sister during the rape grabbed a gun and shot herself to end the rape. The other bounty hunter wants to collect the bounties. They have a natural distrust for another based on their profession and different interests in what they’re doing. At the end of the movie they have mutual respect for one another. Iconic scene the gang leader has this chained pendant that plays music that he got from the Lee Van Cleef’s character’s sister, and he says they’ll shoot when the music stops. Van Cleef’s gun was on the ground but he also had the same music pendant that Clint was in possession of. As the chime is about to stop Clint’s character starts the other chime. He trains a gun on the gang leader and gives Van Cleef a pistol belt. This allows Van Cleef to exact revenge on the gang leader.

Clint was also a great actor for western roles. Outside of his movies with Leone, hang em high, and high plains drifter were good movies but outside of that I’m not really a fan of the western genre. This is just a few scant thoughts on why Sergio Leone is my favorite filmmaker of all time. Nothing is comparable. These movies benefited from actors who could act without talking. Looking like you imagine you would feel if you were in that moment. Indio shedding a single tear before the duel with Van Cleef knowing he was about to die, or when Van Cleef’s gun is shot out of his hands and he’s confronted by Indio, theres very little dialouge but through his face he’s expressing thoughts and emotions that a man would be feeling in that moment. Trying to solve an unsolvable problem.

After I found out I had insurance I looked up whether TRT was covered by Wisconsin medicaid and it turns out that it is. Interestingly it is a place where poor males over 40 have converging interests and benefit from trans promotion. TRT being covered is essentially a product of the state wanting to provide gender affirming care to trans people. I think people whose values are more consistent with the opposite sex, who want to receive hormone treatment to better assume the roles associated with the opposite gender should be able to do that. And if the state can afford it, then poor trans people shouldn’t be excluded from treatment that has the potential to improve their qualify of life and self perception. The problem is when gender identity is promoted to impressionable children who haven’t developed the ability to think critically, and ignorant parents use state insurance to fuck their kids lives up through puberty blockers and hormone replacement. This isn’t just a potentiality, there are already people who have deep regrets about gender affirming care as minors, and those who deny their regret but it manifests through suicide, often blamed on societies unwillingness to accept their delusion of manufactured importance. I haven’t read the law or ruling to know what it actually covers, but I assume it would cover children who have state insurance, and that is a problem. (Interestingly, shortly after I wrote this I came across a report that Wisconsin was trying to pass legislation to prevent state insurance from being used for transitional care for minors.)

I’d definitely like to see if I can get TRT. I think healthy levels are between 500 and 1000 nanograms per deciliter. My testosterone levels may not be low based on diet and exercise, but they’re definitely lower than they were in my 20s. Even if I’m in normal range, maybe I can still get TRT to move me into the upper end of normal. With the right doctor a few claims of symptoms associated with low testosterone should justify the prescription. No matter what the levels are its really a relative scale. Which is to say if I’m a person who has had higher testosterone levels in the past, which is evident as a consequence of aging, then my current levels even if they’re within a medium normal range could be producing quality of life issues, because for most of life I was used to having higher testosterone levels. I used to work out primarily for the increase in mood, but having been in good shape at different periods in my life I would like to lose weight while losing minimal amounts of muscle as well as increase the rate in which I put on muscle. There is the potential for side effects with TRT so if my blood work were to reveal a problem or there are other undesirable side effects I’d get off it, but I am interested in seeing what it would do for me.

I plan on making an appointment with a primary care provider where I’ll ask about TRT but also see if we can find out how bad I fucked up my back. I’m not doing shots and I don’t require any pain medication, but maybe I can get an MRI to find out what’s wrong and maybe get a referral for spinal decompression therapy which can be covered by Wisconsin medicaid if it is deemed to be medically necessary and part of a chiropractic visit. Strange that chiropractic would be covered by health insurance. For the most part it’s snake oil. Undeniably a person may feel better after an adjustment, but I don’t believe there’s any alignment taking place that has any real impact physiologically. It was invented by a guy who tried to convince people that magnet therapy would cure all their health problems. The cracking isn’t a permanent relocation of the bones, it’s gas bubbles collapsing within joint fluid. It’s a treatment that survives based on the feelings experienced within and immediately after the treatment. I don’t believe there are any long term benefits. Spinal decompression may be the exception where the treatment actually does stretch the spine and relieve pressure on discs. It’s something that I’m interested in and if I can get an adjustment as well I’m not averse to the good feelings generated through the adjustment.

There’s lots of talk about how the Bucks are in a bad position because they went all in on Dame without realizing that Dame didn’t really fit the team. He’s a ball dominant player who typically doesn’t put forth effort on defense whereas the Bucks are running 4 out 1 in and need 3 and D guys surrounding Giannis, with a few of those guys also being able to create their own shots in the midrange and to the basket. I supported the trade at the time. What no one seems to understand is that the Bucks with Giannis, AJ Green, Gary Trent, and KPJ can contend. They just need a starting 5. Athletic defender who can stretch the floor. The Bucks need to buy out Dame’s contract and go after Miles Turner or Naz Reid. With the experience they will gain over the season and the experience of the past playoffs that team can contend for a title. Sign and trade brook. Keep or sign and trade Bobby. Then we have Kuzma, Simms, and Rollins off the bench and can add to our bench depth either by sign and trading Brook and or Bobby.

First round exit based largely on inexperience, and against the best looking team in the playoffs. This is the Pacers year to win it. If they don’t win it this year they may have missed their opportunity. They’re playing insanely good. Everybody does their job, gets open, and knock down open shots. I don’t see anyway they don’t come out of the east. Knicks are playing good but not as good as the Pacers have played. Then it may come down to how well they match up with the Thunder. If Minnesota or Denver come out of the west I think the Pacers will steam roll them like they did the Bucks and the Cavs. Although I think if the Bucks would have won that game 5 that they lost by turning the ball over with less than a minute up by 7 that series could have turned. I think the Bucks could have won game 6 and then anything could happen in a game 7.

I hope the Bucks keep Giannis, and start KPJ, GT2, AJ Green, Giannis, and acquire either Naz Reid or Miles Turner. I say this not as a Bucks fan, but as a Giannis fan believing that this will be his best chance to win a title. Otherwise if he went to the Rockets or San Antonio he has a chance but there’s no telling how a coach will try to use him and limit his impact on the game.

5/15/25

I finished reading through The American Prosperity Proposals a few days ago. Only change was a qualifier in the introduction. Proposals were written between 2014 and 2023, and the citations reference material dated to that time. The qualifier is that although amounts in references to income, wealth, savings etc have changed, the amount of the increases purchases the same or fewer goods than the amounts from previous years, and there’s still roughly the same proportion of people confined to very limited purchasing power. I also like the proposals to be dated, as a testament to how long they’ve been ignored.

Years ago I was much more interested in improving the circumstances of lower and middle income people, recognizing the difficulty of moral conduct when opportunity is limited and a person is financially insecure. That’s what I prioritized, diagnosing fundamental problems and the proposals were the solutions to those problems. Then I learned that people were not concerned with problems and solutions, they were concerned with the promotion of causes for personal benefit, material or emotional benefit. I also learned that people in this country were unable to understand, identify, and act in their own best interest. This of course led to discoveries in human behavior among other things, but this used to be my priority.

I’m relatively casual regarding my own life because it all matters very little to me. I say very little because it matters just slightly more than it doesn’t. Not limited to APP which in the grand scheme of things is very small, but I discovered morality (functions and duality), existence (possibilities, probabilities, ideal, and purpose), perception and human behavior, systemic function, among other things. I made efforts to share those discoveries and organize around solutions and people didn’t give a fuck. This is a planet that churns out shitty people, who replace the previous generation to ensure continued production that primarily benefits a relative few. Every gym that’s shot up, every man on a NYC subway who robed and raped another man, and all lesser general malfeasance, theft, assault, robbery, murder, fraud, rape, etc is a collective production. By most of your own belief you’re going to hell (eternal servitude).

Do I care if they know better, improve the quality of human life, reduce and eliminate undesirable results, and become morally fit to survive to a space of liberty? I don’t think I do, except for children within the age of innocence despite knowing they will inevitably become as self deceptive, illogical, and brainwashed as the adults who raise them. I’m just here, and liberty and truth makes sense so I’ll continue to put forth some effort. Overall it doesn’t matter, we have your objects, experiences, and potentialities (different timelines) to experience and create with, and the universe to explore. If we gain a few consciousnesses great, if not they still fulfilled their purpose regardless of where they go based on what they have chosen.

Sounds crazy to think about or express, but crazy is a word used to describe something that people do not understand and often cannot understand due to their bias and desire to protect their value structure. The world is like a folded map, and each person begins with a square they explore and many people do not see beyond that square, don’t know what exists within other squares and how what exists in other squares changes the meaning of what they see. Either way, watching humanity wallow in their shit is no longer met by any compulsion to convince them to do otherwise. My success is no longer seen as being of great importance and my irritation with the illogic and consequently evil of this species is balanced by the positive feelings from a: seeing the results, and b: confidence in the existence of justice served through the confining of consciousness to a space of tyranny upon death, as they apply and desire.

I finished APP a few days ago but I haven’t began anything new because I took a job pulling weeds for $250 that took 2 days and fucked me up. I typically do not take landscaping jobs because it’s always so much more than you think it’s going to be. I wouldn’t be writing about this but I was impressed with the customer, a woman named Diana who lived with her sister and mother in Woodridge, IL.

I expected to complete the job in 4 to 6 hours. If it’s a flat rate job I don’t work like most people work. I typically don’t take breaks and I’m focused on the tasks the entire time. Something that may take someone 10 hours I can usually complete in about 6. I’m not bragging, but I’m one foot in front of the other until the job is done. It was more than weeds. There was grass in these flower beds among other cover that needed to be uprooted and there was no quick way to do it. In all probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 square feet, probably 150 linear feet in 5 different areas.

After about the first hour I was there I contemplated leaving. Then I walked to other areas and determined there was less to remove in succeeding areas and decided I would finish. I arrived at 12:30pm. I took one cigarette break for a total of about 8 minutes. Near 9 o clock it was getting dark. At that time Diana’s sister came out and told me I could come back tomorrow and they would give me another $100.

I came back the next day and finished in about 3.5 hours. They gave me an extra $30 through Airtaskers and $100 cash for the second day. Made $380 total, really 333.75 after AT fees, and then minus fuel about $290. What’s notable about this is Diana’s appreciation and application of fairness. She didn’t have to do anything else. I fucked up and bid the job too low without having a good idea of how much work was required. I was not only appreciative as the benefactor, but I respected that they acted on their value of fairness. It begins with recognition of how much work was done, the intensity of the labor, and the value of the service. From that recognition there are a variety of specific motivators,

1: Perceiving it to be right on the basis of fairness, self worth maintenance, avoidance of a negative feeling for perceiving themselves as having done the wrong thing, and or subtle positive feelings for perceiving themselves as having done the right thing. Where they recognize that the value of my service was worth more than the price they offered.

2: Imagining how I would feel having provided services that were worth more than I was paid. Where they either imagine my dissatisfaction and share in it through imagination but also recognize that they would be responsible for me feeling that way. Also the reverse in imagining how good I may feel in being adequately compensated, and appreciated through that compensation, where they share in their idea of the feeling they’re creating, but more importantly, recognize that they’re responsible for producing that feeling which enhances self worth. Even when it’s empathy, it’s still self worth.

3: It may be motivated by the idea that through deity or some magical force of karma they will be rewarded or punished for not taking advantage of someone or taking advantage of someone. Unlikely in this situation but it represents consequence processing.

Whatever the specific motivating factor was, I see it as a representation of moral character. These things are not necessarily thought about, but are expressed through feelings and ideas related to their ends, like let’s offer him $100 to come back tomorrow. Of course, it may have just been motivated by ensuring that I did a good job on the final area. Although when I finished I thought I agreed to do more than I did and Diana told me I didn’t need to do that. Maybe a little of both, but I gave no indication at any time that I was going to ask for more money, so I shouldn’t have been a potential consequence. Maybe just quality of service, but seems more like a value of fairness and appreciation creating potential positive or negative impacts on self worth.

—

Misconceptions and false narratives are pushed through all mediums including entertainment and art. Obvious, but something I mention in attempting to watch a comedy special and watching a comedy special. Holly mentioned that she saw a comedy special on Hulu featuring several popular comedians. It was actually just advertising their specials. Of the comedians mentioned I chose Chris Destefiono (probably misspelled), who I’ve seen clips from and has been funny in some of those moments. He roasted the shit out Theo Von, hilarious. The special started off with him repeating it’s over for white people, and saying it’s been a good run. I shut that shit off immediately because it disgusts me to have such a damaging and divisive misconception promoted.

Was it a good run for the Irish who were brought here against their will and forced to work as the property of others? Was it good for the white people during the dust bowl when they left their homes and tried to survive in other places? Has it ever been good for any white person born to a low income household? Race has been a source of disadvantage in this country, but definitely is not today. All racial disparities are generally a product of economic disparity, being that a greater proportion of black people are born poor. Of course there are over twice the number of white people living in poverty as black people in poverty overall. Differences in results that are caused by income (nearly everything) will show up as a racial disparity in statistical analysis. For example, black people have a higher unemployment rate than white people which may suggest to some that black people do not want to work, and may suggest to others that employers are racist. In reality the opportunities for people born into low income households are often not worthwhile. This is true among all races, but because a greater proportion of black people are poor more black people will be unemployed than white people; because proportionately there are more black people with opportunities that are not worthwhile. Those black people are no worse off than white people who come from the same household income. It isn’t a racial disadvantage.

There are no racial impediments to housing, education, employment, access to services public or private, or protection under the law.

James Madison said that the interests of the haves and the interest of the have nots are distinct. It was in the context of arguing for the Senate to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority poor. The poor want opportunities to make money, and the wealthy, through industry, want to maintain their advantages, in labor markets, the direction of public policy, the direction of public funds, and other avenues of wielding power which are harmed through lower class opportunity and prosperity.

Promoting the false idea that being white in itself is an advantage divides lower classes along racial lines and makes it more difficult to identify and organize around their common class interest. Obviously prioritizing a problem that isn’t a problem is the channeling of time, energy, and resources away from solving actual problems. Typically works out well for the organizers who exploit the ignorance of their followers for personal gain. Followers whose conception of the world is built on largely incorrect stereotypes. Like white people have had it good.

I used to be a fan of Bill Burr, but over the last few years it’s become more and more evident that he’s been brainwashed by his wife, LA CA, and leftist mental health professionals. To my surprise his special revealed exactly that. He talks about being more agreeable with his wife leading to improvements in his well being. Goes on to say he’s like a horse and he goes where she says and he’s happy because she pets him. He provides an example of him not saying something because she told him not to, despite his use of it producing a positive outcome. Within his act he justifies the trading of who he is by claiming people of different value structures are secretly crying while he’s happy.

It isn’t behavior that I respect but there’s nothing wrong with Bill relinquishing his will for the positive feelings it produces in and of itself. Bill often describes how his father expressed emotion, and may have always wanted to be in a normal peaceful household. This was probably compounded by seeking approval from his peers and perhaps father which is why he often discusses his history of suppressing emotions. How he behaved was motivated by gaining the approval of others, but that isn’t necessarily the motivation of others behaving that way. Bill is someone who probably never understood those values, which were his own values adopted for the perceived benefit of appearance.

Bill’s circumstances are unique in the influence he has over others. His adoption of bs is more than the mutual benefit of one wanting to dominate the other (his wife) and the other wanting to be dominated (Bill). He accepts and promotes a view of the world that is not true, the reinforcement of these ideas and stereotypes has consequences for the circumstances of others. In directing attention to problems that are not problems, creating racial divisions, and diverting people’s attention away from their own interests. None of this pertains to him putting on the apron, or putting on the saddle as he prefers to describe it, but large portions of the remaining content promote popular misconceptions.

Before I go into that I will say he did have a few funny bits. The one I remember he was talking about open caskets and said why are we still doing that? You said he died, I believed you, you didn’t need to show me proof. Is there some guy out there at funeral like I’m calling bullshit. I want to see him. That shit was funny. Kind of like an R-Kelly thing with Bill, where they disgust me as people but R-Kelly is still the greatest R&B hit maker of a generation, and Bill is sometimes still funny. Something I mention to say that things people do well, regardless of whether they’ve done something horrible or believe something stupid, are still good at the things they’re good at. OJ was a murderer, but also had the greatest single season a running back has ever had. Bill Burr is a tool of deception promoting division and influencing the production of people’s circumstances, but he’s also still a funny comedian from time to time and has a catalog of older material that is extremely funny.

Bill does a bit that wasn’t particularly funny about an HOV lane. The joke being that if a klan member was pulled over in the hov lane the only thing he did wrong was not having another klan member with him. This goes into a spiel about the klan and proud boys being terrorist organizations complete with vague unspecified acts about walking down the street with guns yelling racist shit. He also says the only reason these groups are allowed to exist is because they don’t harm white people. The bit promotes huge misconceptions, mainly that these groups are a problem, have relevant influence on American life, require attention, and that white people are enabling their existence.

He may say it’s just a joke, but a joke relies on and reinforces a perception of what’s being said. What would be funny about the joke is the idea that a dangerous hate group is allowed to exist, and the rules of the HOV lane make it better if there are more of them. Does anyone remember a KKK attack in the last 5 years? 20 years? 50 years? In fact I would challenge someone to find a crime perpetrated by a white person, against a person of color that was solely motivated by race in the last 5 years. I think there was a mass shooter of a black church a few years back, perpetrated not by the klan but by a lone actor. Outside of that there’s nothing that comes to mind. The idea that the klan and white nationalist groups are a problem in the United States is delusional. Membership is extremely fringe, representing a very small portion of the population often miles removed from people of color. Their acts are non-existent, or if they exist are far and few and not significant enough to garner any attention. They do not garner any attention not because they’re suppressed, there is an environment where media will cover anything that is race based because people watch it, and activists are always looking for something to justify the existence of their cause. They do not have any influence in candidate selection or the influencing of public policy outside of their preference for popularly existing positions. Which is to say a white nationalist group might be for segregation, but it cannot influence public policy to produce that, it can only support whatever’s already associated with one of the two parties’ platforms.

Sure 70+ years ago the KKK was a problem. The klan had influence in local governments, influence over courts, and actively terrorized and murdered people based on race often without consequence. That shit hasn’t been going on for a long time. I’m sure there is the occasional rally where some white nationalist group gets together and records themselves, but how is it relevant to American life? Public policy isn’t influenced by these fringe groups, and these fringe groups are not committing crimes. They’re irrelevant, and Bill promotes the delusion that people’s quality of life would improve if these groups didn’t exist.

The 4 most notably incidents of hate crimes in the last 5 years were Jesse Smollet, the guy who influenced the mayoral election in Colorado Springs by recording a burning cross and writing an racial expletive on his candidates sign, the council woman who put a noose on her own desk, and the racist notes left around a college parking lot (or around campus, don’t remember the details, only the cause). Each of these incidents were hoaxes, efforts to exploit popular misconceptions. It also tells us what the perpetrators think of the idea that racism is a problem. When you believe something is a problem, not only do you not need to manufacture examples of its existence, but you will not manufacture incidents because of the consequence it has for the cause. You would rather forego the attention (Smollet), allow the other candidate to win the election (Mayoral Election), lose your job (Councilwoman), or forgo whatever rewards were involved in the notes, than to risk calling the credibility of your cause into question.

Meanwhile Bill is implying nobility to BLM in other segments of his act. BLM is a hate group that accuses white racism of being responsible for black people’s problems. The only way for white people to be right according to BLM is to give money to black people and to agree with their narrative. What has BLM been responsible for in the last 5 years? Organizing riots, looting, burning of property, occupying public and private space, largely by promoting the lawful use of force as being unlawful to people who claim to have an interest in how law is enforced, while being ignorant of the law and the rules governing the use of force. They exploit the ignorance of the masses for their own personal gain, including elections to local political positions that often end in scandal and corruption. They’ve done nothing to improve opportunities for poor black people.

Bill praises the efforts of a group that is actively harming the public and promoting racial prejudice while claiming the problem is with groups that are not relevant by any measure on public life. He allows his wife and the stereotypes popular in his area to control his mind. Which is fine for him, but the problem is he promotes these things to others and the reinforcement and advancement of popular stereotypes has consequences to the production of people’s circumstances. He’s traded his soul for the positive feelings he experiences through the adoption of that perspective.

Not only BLM, but also other activist groups, I believe the organizers know they’re full of shit but the public’s adoption of the stereotypes allow them to exploit the public through the reinforcement of those biases. A stereotype is an idea that’s counted as fact based on popularity, either within a group or among the broader population. White people are privileged, racist, evil (unless they agree with our narrative), responsible for the struggles of people of color, police abuse their authority, criminals are just trying to provide for their families, among others. Just a sample of some stereotypes that cannot be challenged, because their existence doesn’t rely on fact, at most they rely on a few impressions. Impressions that were viewed through the bias of those stereotypes, are devoid of context, and often do not even represent what people claim they represent.

Example being that even if each controversial use of force was unlawful, in the context of 10 million annual contacts it doesn’t represent a problem with policing. At most a problem with a department, typically a problem with an officer whose conduct doesn’t represent the conduct of the majority. Why am I talking about police use of force when I’m talking about the promotion of racial politics? Use of force has been the greatest tool of racial politics promotion. Black lives matter when they can be exploited for someone else’s benefit.

Where is the discrimination in employment? If it is racial discrimination you’ll hear about the settlement. If there’s racial discrimination as the economy contracts the unemployment rate of black people will rise before white unemployment revealing a preference to retain white workers in an increasingly desperate labor market. When the economy expands the white unemployment rate will fall before the black unemployment rate. In the trends over the last 20 years that isn’t what we see. We see the unemployment rate of all racial groups rising and falling together. Where are black people being denied education? Where are they being denied housing to purchase or rent based on race? Where are they being denied services, public or private based on race? In the absence of any example of systemic racism, they use dramatic impressions removed from local and general context to maintain their narrative through the mischaracterization of force by police. By local context I’m referring to the facts of an event including the application of law, and general context I’m referring to what the event means in consideration of policing as a whole.

An often leaned upon example of the reinforcement of stereotypes not actually being the reinforcement was the use of deadly force against Jacob Blake. Blake was in swinging distance of an officer with a knife and refused to drop the knife making him an imminent threat to life and great bodily harm. The legal standard for the use of deadly force is when there is an imminent threat to life or great bodily harm. No one from among the rioters in Kenosha ever asked when the use of force is lawful, and how the law applied to that event. Instead there were multiple days of riots where public roadways were obstructed and blocked, and property was destroyed after the lawful use of force. Aaron Rodgers dumb ass said something about it. The Bucks and Orlando canceled a playoff game because of it. No one was interested in whether what was done was lawful or right, they were interested in reinforcing their stereotypes. A black man was shot in his back by police, because police are racist, want to kill black people, are enabled by white people, etc. Minds that do not rely on fact for conclusion cannot be changed through exposure to fact. The stereotypes that their perception of the world is built on is fact to them.

In the absence of any overt evidence of systemic racism, those who believe that race is an issue believe this largely because they’re racist. For poc if they are racist towards other groups with their group, they imagine that other groups must be racist towards them. Many white people who do come from upper middle and affluent incomes have only associated with people intimately from similar income groupings. Based on their experience white people are advantaged because that’s what they see, and so they’re easily persuaded by popular stereotypes. Buying into the need for racial justice creates an opportunity for ignorant people to experience boosts in self worth through the illusion of morally relevant behavior.

Racial self-deception is on par with Christianity but it reveals the character of its organizers. When you believe something is a problem you seek to understand that problem, identifying the causes of the problem to eliminate the cause to eliminate the effect. An objective assessment, both in research and personal experience in day to day life it becomes evident that race is not a source of disadvantage, except in as much as it’s promoted as a problem when it’s not a problem leading to division and reduced quality of life for all people.

6/11/25

I finished a fairly substantial revision of Liberty The Definitive Moral Truth. There were a few things that were not articulated very well, other things I”m embarrassed to have included, not because of the content itself, but because it didn’t really fit the theme of analysis. I added headings to every paragraph, identifying the general point of the paragraph in hope that it will aid the reader in understanding the content. This revision has greatly improved the product, in articulation, cohesion, and reducing redundancy. Redundancy cannot be eliminated because there are overlapping tenets within religions, and the response is the same each time it is addressed.

I cleaned up explanations on moral functioning, as well as application. There must have been some last minute additions that I didn’t reread that made certain paragraphs difficult to understand. I rewrote nearly the entire section on Islam. A large portion of it was content unrelated to the evaluation of the religion through the lens of objective morality. The chapter on Islam became the general principle summary of all monotheistic religions. I felt this way after the last revision of Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison, where the book is more of a straight path with fewer detours. I’ll probably go through ASC and add headings to the paragraphs.

After reading Liberty: The Definitive Moral Truth a few times in the revision process,

I come out of it so much more disgusted with people’s irrational beliefs, including the worship of imagined power. I compiled a small list of churches, synagogues, and mosques in the area to send an e version of the book to. I don’t feel good about the prospect. It isn’t the anticipation that the emails will be ignored, the book won’t be read, and it will not accomplish anything. It’s imagining the perception. These are people who sacrifice their souls, for the positive feelings that come from believing things that are inconsistent and clearly not true. They immerse themselves in false beliefs for the positive feelings the beliefs provide. I imagine they receive these emails and think that I am the crazy one, without understanding the irrefutable points and the implications these things have for their deities, for them, and for others. A crazy person is someone who doesn’t make sense, which is them, as explained in the book. However, a crazy person is also someone people do not understand, because they cannot make sense of him so to them he doesn’t make sense. You cannot imagine how heavy of a burden that is to carry. Knowing that this is the only way I can be perceived, because there’s no indication that anyone understands any of these things.

I’m supposed to have a root canal done in a few weeks. I suppose I should thank the democrats? Not really, I should thank the health care sector for recognizing a way to pilfer public funds and charge exorbitant prices while providing some public benefit. That’s why they’ll do everything they can do for you except provide you with the money you need to get ahead. All public assistance is industry subsidies. Utility assistance is paid to the utility company, food share is paid to grocery stores, etc. They’ll service the condition of people being poor without providing any real opportunity to improve their situation

Reminds me of a piece of an interview I saw with Arnold Swartzeneger on the Theo Von podcast. Arnold gave the most ridiculous answer on homelessness in California. He said that the population grew faster than they could build houses. LOL. Homelessness in California has two parts to it. The first is that there’s plenty of places to get free food, it’s easy to get an SSI check, there’s plenty of drugs, and use and possession is essentially decriminalized. For most homeless people that’s what they want, free stuff to aid them in their quests to stay high. That and the weather and California is an ideal place for most homeless people to be homeless. The second reason is there’s a lot of money in servicing the condition of being homeless. Party affiliated non-profits among, government programs, other entities who profit from the presence of the homeless population. Those who service the condition of being homeless, including indirectly in health care,food share, vouchers, etc.

In 2015 to 2016 I was homeless in San Francisco. Effectively, but for the most part not technically. I was providing ride shares between the Bay Area and Aracada/Eureka, and points in between along the 101. My van broke down in Daly City which borders San Francisco on the peninsula. I lived in the van for about 4 months before it was towed from the parking lot, and then moved into a shelter, while I worked at a moving company to buy a car and leave. I applied for benefits in San Francisco. While I was there I was primarily working on material. Recognizing the homeless problem, being among it but having a different lifestyle, I wrote a program that I submitted to the San Francisco City Council. I slide the proposals underneath their doors. I called to follow up and spoke with secretaries, but none of it led to acknowledgement or interest in the proposal.

The proposal was to offer the homeless people in San Francisco a lump sum to leave the city and agree not to return unless the sum was repaid. I presumed it could be enforced through perjury law. I think I recommended $20,000 per person, but 10 years ago $20,000 probably buys what $30,000 buys today. It would have cost the city/county 200 million dollars one time. To put that into context they spend over 300 million dollars caring for the homeless every year. This isn’t to say everyone would take the money and leave, but a majority would. This would have allowed the city to provide shelter and housing for the remaining and enforce ordinances to prevent people from sleeping in public spaces. They would have saved over 3 billion dollars over the last 9 years, and there would not be people living on the street there today. There’s more money for party investors in servicing the homeless community, than there is in solving the homeless problem. The 3 billion dollars the public would have saved, is 3 billion dollars less that would have been paid for those big and small who serve the homeless population.

They just don’t get it. None of these people give a fuck about you. Public policy is determined by investment. Politician’s create consent through ideas like helping the homeless, helping migrants, climate change, etc. There’s riots in California over immigration enforcement. Why? First there’s resistance to immigration enforcement because there are a lot of private companies who make a lot of money contracting with governments to provide assistance for migrants. NYC was a grandiose display of private companies making hundreds of millions of dollars to provide food, shelter, and other services to illegal migrants. Most of the people participating don’t even have a rational basis for why they’re participating. At best they are moved by the idea that the US is responsible for impoverishing Latin America and people should have an opportunity for a better life, without understanding that there are Americans who require those resources to have a better life. Most are just looking for an opportunity to feel powerful and important within the mob. We’re here to support illegal immigration, but we’re also here to destroy property and loot businesses. LOL.

Prior to the flood gates opening from policy and rhetoric from the democrats I was both for the enforcement of immigration law, and for the illegal immigrant. I say prior to the 2022 to 2024 surge, because that wave led to the mass squandering of resources to care for migrants that could have been applied to something to improve the lives of poor Americans. Even if it had to be done through the businesses of party donors. Illegal immigration is a problem when it imposes on the opportunities of Amercian’s, and prior to the surge it really didn’t, but obviously during it, it did based on the money spent. For the most part fuck those people. People in sanctuary cities, in NYC, who are stupid enough to support people and policy that takes funds from their poor, and channels it to illegal migrants, through companies who syphon enormous profit to provide them services.

I’m for the enforcement of immigration law, it is required as a basic deterrent to illegal immigration to prevent people from trying to come here in droves. At the same time, individually, I respect the risk people are willing to take for an opportunity to improve their lives, and wish them luck.

—

The previous entry was running long, but there were a number of topics I wanted to discuss. Obviously the tariffs serve no positive domestic purposes, and while I don’t think it is beyond his buffoonery, he obviously has advisors who would limit the harm he does. I’m still of the opinion that 1: tariffs harm foreign countries more than they harm the US, 2: this will be used as leverage in diplomatic matters, and/or 3: the harm to other countries will help the US maintain global advantages.

I say Trump’s buffoonery, but how much of it is a show intended to draw the attention of the public and maintain popular divide? Maybe it isn’t, maybe Trump is just that stupid, but as someone who analyzes the potential impacts events will have on popular perceptions, I entertain the idea that events may be manufactured based on the anticipated impact it will have on the public.

For example, Trump met with South African president Cyril Rhambosa, and chastised him for genocide against white farmers. Cyril stated they had a problem with crime and Trump was dismissive of that explanation. I read a human rights watch paper on white farmers killed in South Africa. There was a period of time where these affluent farmers were insulated from the crime the rest of the country was subject to but around the 90s they began being targeted. Not because they were white but because they had money, and there was no mention of the government turning a blind eye to it. There were a few accounts of robbery and murder attempts and the police came. In one account a perpetrator was captured and taken into custody. Human rights watch has no interest in concealing state sanctioned racial genocide.

I imagine that before a president meets with the leader of another country, someone familiar with the country briefs the president, and I imagine if a president had questions they would have the opportunity to ask this person. I imagine if a president planned on accusing his guest of sanctioning racial genocide, he would ask someone if the state was in fact sanctioning racial genocide. Maybe buffoonery, but it seems almost impossible that he wouldn’t know that. Which is why when I see these things over and over and over again, I wonder if he was briefed to make the comment to stimulate reinforcement and divide, or some other state goal.

I saw a clip of the view on a right wing clip presentation show. The show was criticizing The View, and The View’s criticism wasn’t completely wrong, but it didn’t address the key misconception. Maybe the view addressed this at another point in the show but based on what I saw, they managed to take the wrong position against something that was also wrong. It speaks to what I often say that there are two groups with strong opinions about a subject and both those opinions are wrong.

The View cited statistics that there was something like 1500 murdered farmers between some time frame representing only 1 percent of murders in South Africa over that span. Went on to say that these numbers were reported by the farmers, stated to call the veracity of the numbers themselves into question. Instead of addressing the fact that it isn’t state sanctioned genocide they argue that Trump and his supporters are racist because they’re concerned with white farmers but not the rest of the country who makes up most of the murders. Stimulates racial biases, from black people reinforcing the idea that white people don’t care about black people, and from white people in reinforcing the idea that the left doesn’t care about white people dying.

Why is The Views position wrong? I imagine in the 1920s there were black people who were killed because of their race, and I also imagine that some went unprosecuted or perpetrators were exonerated through trials contaminated by racial prejudice. If we looked at statistics those murders probably represent less than 1 percent of all the murders that took place in the country. If one of the presidents at the time were called to account for those murders, it would be wrong to say well they’re not important they only represent 1 percent of the murders, what about everyone else who was murdered? The distinguishing feature of these murders isn’t that the people were black, but that they were killed because of their race and denied justice from the state. If something similar to what was occurring in 19th and early 20th century America was occurring in South Africa, it would be wrong to say that it isn’t important because it only represents a small amount of the total murders.

The View should have addressed that these murders were not racially motivated, and the police respond to crime reported by white farmers. The reinforcement of popular racial stereotypes is more profitable, it represents the brand and the desired content of their viewership. Maybe they did tell the truth at some point, but even had they, that segment was still intent on pushing racial narratives, and is wrong and irrelevant when the murders are not racially motivated or state sanctioned.

I also saw that Trump stated that Biden had stage 9 cancer, and accepted a jet from Qatar. These things force one to consider how much of the president’s job is to be distractor in chief? Is it possible Trump doesn’t know there are not 9 stages of cancer? Even if it is not provable that you accepted a Jet that will eventually become your property for diplomatic favors, it does create the appearance of it. Becomes a subject of controversy. Tweeting to Walmart to eat the tariffs, or about Taylor Swift, and Bruce Springsteen becomes a subject of controversy and draws the public’s attention to irrelevancy.

I saw a little bit of a daily show, and Stewart was trying to reinforce the idea that Trump is trying to get rid of the constitution because someone from his administration said they were looking into suspending habeas corpus based on the justification of invasion, which is constitutional. Second, it would only be suspended for people who illegally entered the country, where I believe the idea is anyone who has entered the country illegally, can be deported without a deportation order from a judge. I don’t think illegal immigration now can be classified as an invasion. While the numbers have had an impact on the quality of American life in some places, typically based on public policy in those areas, the vast majority of Americans are completely unimpacted from illegal immigrants. If you have 10,000 a day, which would be higher than any annual daily average I’m aware of, that isn’t a high enough volume of people to call it an invasion, which relies on the idea that it would have an impact on people’s lives the same as military invasion. Spirit of the law is to ensure the republic can be maintained during a time of crisis where elements of due process may be suspended either due to an inability to fulfill them, or if the fulfillment threatens the existence of the republic. Even this you have to ask the question why an administration would want to mention suspending habeas corpus when best case scenario they don’t know if they can do it. If it’s something you may not be able to do, why mention it? Worst case scenario they know they can’t do it and it’s a statement made to create a public reaction, supporters like the idea that Trump is trying to make it easier to deport illegal immigrants, and detractors can reinforce the popular leftist conspiracy that Trump is trying to turn the country into a dictatorship. So much of the senselessness from elected officials and people within their administration reinforces the stereotypes of the opposing side. These things may not be intentional, but what they definitely are is evidence of how stupid the US population is.

—

There was a video where officers pulled a man off a motorcycle who was wearing a device that acts like an airbag that suffocated the man. It was in my feed and from a propaganda channel so the comments were filled with how the officers were wrong to pull him from his bike when they were not wrong. Then there were claims that he didn’t have enough time to comply when the second officer who arrived on the scene told him twice to get off the bike, and he traversed a space of about 30 feet to reach the suspect. It obviously takes less time to throw your leg over a motorcycle than it does to walk 30 feet which dashes that argument. I replied to a comment claiming the police murdered the man by pointing out that his non-compliance necessitated the use of force. I received a reply that was deleted stating that the suspect used no force, proportion, and other things that did not apply. He deleted his comment but I wanted to share my response to him, mainly, because I summarize the obvious basis for the need for law, respect of and enforcement of law. I tend to support law enforcement not because I support the profession, but because officers are typically acting in accordance with law.

Why was force used, a: the police wanted to use force against him, or b: the suspect necessitated the use of force because he was non-compliant. The correct answer is b, where if not for his non-compliance force would not have been used. The suspect necessitated the use of force and assumes the risk that he will be inadvertently injured. You either recognize the benefit of the rule of law or you do not. At all times people want to do what they want to do. Ideally, all people exercise their liberty as they choose so long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else. The basis for right and wrong is whether or not an act imposes. Therefore, the laws that prohibit imposition allow us to be freer. Law must be learned, respected, and enforced. It’s only through the rule of law that we have anything. Otherwise production cannot take place as each individual and faction must spend all their time in defense of themselves. If you prefer the tyranny of the powerful over the rule of law that’s your choice, but it represents evil in its inherent detriment to human interests. But you’re a puppet who perceives the world through stereotypes that you’re manipulated through to advance interests that are not your own.

To expand on the idea just a little more, a law enforcement officer has a duty to enforce the law which often times requires detainment during an investigation, identification of a suspect, or arrest. When an officer is conducting an investigation and a suspect refuses to identify, step out of a vehicle, refuses detainment, restraints, or any other lawful command the officer has a duty to gain the suspect’s compliance with the law. A suspect necessitates the use of force, because the officer has a duty to gain his compliance. Unless an officer is reckless, intentionally excessive, or malicious, the suspect is responsible for whatever injuries he may sustain because he necessitated the use of force through non-compliance.

The problem with force and compliance is as follows. If an officer is using a certain amount of force and the suspect is not complying how does the officer gain the compliance of the suspect? By applying more or different types of force. Like a boxer who fights 12 rounds and dies from his injuries after the bout, people are capable of resisting force to levels that exceed what they are physically able to endure. A suspect who is non-compliant is authorizing the use of force against them, and are assuming the risk of sustaining unintended injury.

—

I had an interesting exchange on Airtaskers. Airtaskers is an app that allows people to post pretty much any kind of job they need done. I do primarily product assemblies through the app, sometimes auto mechanic work, hanging pictures or TVs, landscaping, or anything else posted that I believe I can do. I check the posts for the whole country because I’ll often travel if the money makes sense. I saw an ad posted by Deloris M in Richmond, VA titled “I need someone to post a sign saying go ahead white european”. In the details she wrote It’s to solve racism because they got on my last nerve. Recognizing the hypocrisy I commented in the question portion and an exchange ensued that proved the hypocrisy. I have the screenshots from this exchange.

Orion S

You could solve racism by not being racist. Imagine you were logical, could identify controversy and articulate that controversy? Imagine you were capable of admitting when you were wrong? If you were any of those things you wouldn’t be asking people to post signs denoting another person’s race, pretending your problems are based on race and not behavior.

Deloris M

Definitely not understanding why I suffered. What does it mean what other people are racist. I suffer from people yelling the ord black. I suffered because of people being racist because of my ethnicity.

Orion S

You suffer from a deluded perspective. How do you suffer from the word black? It is a word used to describe the absence of light on the visual color spectrum? Second, how have you suffered from people being racist towards you? Just because someone of a different race doesn’t treat you how you expect to be treated doesn’t mean they treated you that way because of your race. What I do know is black people are not excluded from opportunities for education, employment, housing, services public or private, or protection under the law (based on race). If it happens there are law suits and the injured party is made whole. You’re led about like a puppet, doing a disservice to people who actually suffered racism (pre1980) and those who suffered significantly (pre-1960). People who suffered so you wouldn’t be disadvantaged (today) because of your race. You do a disservice to the great leaders who organized against actual injustice. Fraudulent, uneducated, and easily manipulated generation. Underclass people are focused on irrelevancy, unable to identify and act on class goals. Every problem you see in the world is a problem you contribute to through the maintenance of false beliefs.

Deloris M

Such as “Black”, “African American”, or specific ethnic/national identities when known. It struck me as violence and Afrophobia.

Deloris M

But I remembered to stay away from european people.

Orion S

Yes. Because you’re racist, so you think other people are racist and that’s how you interpret people’s motivation. That’s why your perspective is deluded.

Deloris M

No I can hear perfectly clear. It’s very dangerous to be anything but anti-racist.

Deloris M

I’m ending this conversation because of you believing I’m racist. I never talked to anyone who believes I’m racist.

END

Someone who says they stay away from european people which clearly isn’t in reference to people hailing from europe but white people, it means they believe that all white people represent undesirable qualities. That is racist, but it still doesn’t matter. Who cares if she doesn’t like and avoids white people based on a faulty belief that all white people possess undesirable qualities. It doesn’t matter because it likely has no impact on anyone’s opportunities. Which is the effect of 99.9 percent racism that exists in this country. It doesn’t matter because it doesn’t impact opportunity. I don’t care that she’s racist, I’ve just recorded this as an example of the racism from the antiracist crowd and the inability of such people to be communicated with.

LibertyAndTruth

5/2024 Through 6/2025

JOURNAL HOME PAGE RETURN