I don’t remember when I first created the solicitation, but the following is the solicitation refered to in my log that states sent solicitation.
The greatest issue this species faces is deeper than economic inequality, deeper than a lack of popular representation in government, deeper than climate change or any other symptom produced by the systems the people of the United States consent to. The root issue is the human inclination to allow what they like to determine their truth, as opposed to truth determining what they believe is true which impacts what they like. People avoid information that challenges their beliefs and when confronted by such information they ignore it. The value of their position is associated with the value of many other things including themselves. When they are confronted by information that shows something they believe to be true is false, or something they believe to be good is bad, it compromises their value of others who they like, and compromises their value of them self. It lowers their self esteem causing a negative feeling and it’s no secret that people avoid what causes them to feel bad, and pursue that which causes them to feel good.
The interest of the broadcaster or publisher is to attract attention for the purpose of selling subscriptions, advertising, or attracting donations. For this reason, the publisher who is usually born out of some bias must publish material that reinforces an audience’s bias to maintain attention, to maintain the publication. Any material created without a bias will offend all biases and be suffocated by its propensity to offend. Novel material, albeit accurate and containing ideas that could produce dramatic changes in the way human beings perceive themselves, how they understand the organization of the world, and their role within that organism, will go unpublished if it offends the bias of the publication. The merit of material in the eyes of the publisher is determined by its ability to reinforce reader bias.
Typically, if material has merit, the people who a person interacts with will confirm that merit and assist in the promotion of that material. What if this person’s interest in a subject develops independent of his social or professional groups? Naturally, he seeks out new groups who profess the same interests. He soon discovers these groups are less interested in the principles they profess, and much more interested in the social function of the group, in the good feelings social interaction produces and in the affirmation of the groups positions. Again, anything that challenges the groups doctrine is ignored when it cannot be refuted and this leaves the individual with two choices: he can either abandon the group, or he can abandon his ideas and positions, adopt the ideas and positions of the group, and gain their attention by reinforcing their bias. Since his purpose for interacting with the group is the advancement of his ideas and the benefit to his species derived from those ideas he abandons the groups.
If people are the victims of their bias and the interest people have in maintaining the bias of others, why do I think I am an exception? I was once accused of believing I had a monopoly on the truth, which is an accusation made because the individual lacked anything substantive to defend their position or to address my points. My response is I seem like I have a monopoly on the truth because I am loyal to it. I don’t experience the same sensations as I used to or that many other people feel when they are wrong about things. It doesn’t affect my value of myself because truth is my highest value, meaning I welcome correction, and as a result I am usually only wrong once. When I am wrong, I abandon the incorrect position and adopt the correct position.
I have written a book called “Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True”, that not only addresses the lack of courage that produces self deception, but explains the discrepancies between what is, and what is perceived to be regarding political, economic, and social subjects. In addition to identifying problems, I present novel, feasible, and comprehensive solutions to the issues I identify. The only time I feel optimistic about the state of this species and its trajectory is when I read this book. First because I recognize it’s potential to broaden perspectives through easily understood concepts, and how it contributes to people to better understanding the world and their relationship to it. The second cause for optimism, is if the solutions proposed in this book are understood and realized, it will circumstantially liberate millions of people, potentially billions. Not only economically, but also politically, where popular interests will be able to compete against the interest of industry in the market of political investment.
The information in the book is transformational. A change in the trajectory of human civilization from one where a few prosper and most do not, to one where everyone has opportunities for prosperity, popular interests have representation in government, and where the possibility of premature extinction is reduced. Not a utopian promise achieved through radical changes, but small modifications in understanding and modifications to systemic elements that will have a profound impact, as well as ideas to address some symptoms directly.
You’re receiving this email because you are affiliated with some activist or social justice cause, and I am attempting to solicit the attention of people who have at least have some civic interest. I hope you will read the book, recognize the merit, and recommend it to others.
If someone hands you a bag and tells you it contains gold, the reward is worth the effort of at least opening the bag before discarding it.
The book is attached and I would greatly appreciate your attention.
720 448 2846
2/3: PETA Sollicitation
Hello, my name is Orion, I recently saw your ad that didn’t air during the Superbowl on the TYT. I made a comment which led to an exchange with others. I’ve also written a book called Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True, and while it consists of the identification of human problems and solutions, it also addresses a lot of popular myths that serve as the basis for the popularly perceived reality. I think this exchange of comments demonstrates the root misconception responsible for the aims of PETA.
People generally cannot handle information that challenges their beliefs so I already understand the feeling will probably be too great for you to cope with. I explain the reason for this in the comment exchange which is another benefit of enduring. Other benefits include understanding how some of your positions interfere with human intervention in the ethical treatment of animals, and if this truly is the great struggle of our time as you pretend that it is, than enduring the pain to potentially improve the quality of life for some animals should be worth it. My book is available for free at http://orioncs.net/free-copy-of-orion-2020-toelit/ which is worth reading since it has the potential to improve the quality of life for human beings, and the more prosperous people become typically the greater the need there is to fill the uncertain voids in their life by contributing to frivolous causes. That means if my ideas are successful, more people will become interested in your cause.
1st Comment:Orion Simerl: Speciesism, come on. The life of an animal is not equal to the life of a human being and that can be qualified based on what they are capable of. Animals are food, and the highest purpose an animal can serve is as fuel to the ideas and work of the most evolved and intelligent species on the planet. Otherwise they can die in the wild when they get too sick to run, and either cannot catch prey or cannot escape a predator. I’m not completely familiar with all the groups positions but they are extreme because they don’t recognize the value of human life. There are laws that adequately address animal cruelty. Animals can be formed into accessories that provide warmth or in some cases are worn to add value to the wearers perceived projected image contributing to their self confidence and overall well being. Not to mention a more humane death in being shot or otherwise executed as opposed to starving or freezing to death in the wild, or being violently eaten alive by other animals. Funny they are against their own cause which is the ethical treatment of animals. I think if we’re pushing the ethical treatment of animals we should begin with the ethical treatment of animals by other animals; meaning they should take that march and throw a bucket of blood on a pride of lions.
2nd Comment: Kath Casey@OrionSimerl : WOW! The world really is your ashtray! How evolved of you to discern what’s also best for our natural environment where EVERYTHING has a balance. No more bees = no more food pollination, no more bears, no more reforestation, etc. But hey! They make cool hats don’t they?! smh
3rd Comment: Orion Simerl@Kath Casey If they serve our purposes as bees do then some effort should be made to maintain that species, and people are doing that, beekeeping has taken off in the last few decades. I don’t know how stating objective facts about the purpose of animals means the world is my ashtray?
4th Comment: Kath Casey@Orion Simerl – You honestly believe that to the detriment of the natural balance, if an animal serves you no purpose it can disappear and the balance will hang on your next move?
5th Comment: Orion Simerl@Kath Casey I don’t believe it, I understand it to be true. The only beliefs I have relate to subjects where the outcome cannot be definitively known. As far as to “the detriment of the natural balance” I’m not sure what you mean by that, but I will say the term natural balance doesn’t really mean anything because human beings are part of nature and whatever balance we create is the natural balance. If the natural balance was intended to mean do I think we should be negligent and reduce the ability of the earth to be habitable for human life, of course not. We impose limitations on development when that development will have negative consequences to human beings. Leave untouched what serves our purposes, and help those species survive that serve our purposes. Otherwise, what purpose does it serve to invest time, energy, and resources in helping something that provides no benefit, when that same time, energy, and resources could be invested in a cause that could save or improve the life of a human being?
6th Comment: CerBoris@OrionSimerl: Hang on. If humans are “the most evolved and intelligent species on the planet” then why are you judging animal behaviour v’s human behaviour? Any animal rights group exists because humans are their own worst enemies and will nearly always put short term greed above long term survival. Look how many species of animals went extinct because of human greed. It is actually happening at a faster rate now than any other time in history. Besides, humans aren’t anywhere near the most evolved
7th Comment: Orion Simerl@CerBoris I didn’t judge animal behavior and human behavior, I explained the purpose of animals on the planet and their value compared to human value which is key to making the point that PETA is trying to reduce the value of human life by making an animal equal to a human. I also pointed out that an animal that dies of ethical causes dies a far less ethical death than one who is slaughtered or hunted.
“Humans will always put short term greed above long term survival”, I don’t think this is popularly true, this is just true among the deciders, in a country founded to operate functionally as a plutocracy, where the interests of wealth decide matters of the state. The reason a small group relative to the population continues to make these decisions is because people develop biases based on what things they are exposed to (idea, positions, people, groups, etc), where something gives them a good feeling and these things form an individual’s identity. 1st, people avoid information that challenges their beliefs because it compromises their value of things they like. Say you like animals, you like PETA, and you have ideas and impressions from those sources that make you feel good. I’m not saying you do but for example. Any information that challenges what those feelings are founded on will produce a bad feeling, because if you find out something is bad that you think is good, or something is false that you thought was true, you will no longer get the good feelings from these sources. People get bad feelings from information that challenges their beliefs so they avoid it, and when confronted with it, they refuse to acknowledge it. Everyone has different biases, and organizations like TYT and many others probably more substantially make money reinforcing those biases, and as a result human beings cannot communicate. And that is why they will likely destroy themselves shortly. That may be true human beings are not the most evolved, I should have considered that statement more carefully as there are ways that it could probably be quantitatively false (for instance we could take a species that has more mutations), but we are the most intelligent.
I’m not under any illusions that PETA will acknowledge my points, I understand the human subconscious and how it protects human beings from acknowledging information that has the potential to change their value of subjects. Furthermore, PETA is a business where organizers are paid to advance this nonsensical work, meaning you’ll probably ignore this and move on.
I’ll address one more point made by one of your minions made in a different comment exchange which states why would you kill something if you didn’t have to? As this relates to hunting and agriculture, it is to give the animals purpose as described in my comments. Why would you take away the purposes animals are intended to serve? In this same vein, consumption of different nutrients changes the chemical makeup of the body and the feelings of the individual. Even the taste can change thoughts and feelings which affects behavior, decision making, and ultimately the human trajectory.
Most activist groups primarily serve the purpose of providing the members good feelings from moral affirmations of belonging to a social justice cause, as well as feelings from the opportunity for social interaction. The one redeeming characteristic of PETA is its members seem true to their cause based on their actions, where the irrational attachment to animals is the true motivator of most members. What amazes me is that a group like PETA has the resources to pay for a superbowl ad. It speaks to my main point which not only applies to PETA but most activist groups, that people waste so much time, energy, and resources for causes that do not serve a good purpose.
Appreciate you taking the time to review this criticism and enjoy your meaningless existence in serving a cause that at some point you will understand you have been a detriment to, and that serves no good purpose.
2/3/2020 Email Reply
I had a list that was created by the public, where if you have an activist organization you can list your organization on this site. I’ve sent roughly 2000 of these sollicitations and received a response today from someone who is probably a teenager who posted they are the Environment Council of Rhode Island. The reply was generic saying the first chapter on tax policy was read, but he or she were too busy to read 809 pages.
At the time I thought I was still dealing with an adult who was affiliated with some legitimate organization, I prepared a response which began as an explanation for the popular myths on tax policy chapter. It was going to go into asking the person to read a chapter per day as time permitted based on the reasoning that if you liked the first chapter, it makes sense to read another since people presumably read what they like. Otherwise you’re lying about liking the first chapter. There was a link on the bottom of his response that linked to writing by the person, so I decided I would do for him what I was asking others to do for me.
I read the first paragraph and checked the citations. There were serious issues and I skimmed the following paragraphs and saw serious problems which I mention in the short review I provided him. The following is that review which is a critque of the second sentence and the first assertion.
1st Paragraph, insufficient substantiations. Sentence asserts “Global per capita income continues to go up while the resource base that supports that economy, and the climate that supports all life, deteriorate rapidly, and inequality grows”.
First link is to a website to the Center for Biological Diversity. The site claims scientists predict more than 1 million species are on track for extinction, which is an assertion that doesn’t have any meaning even if it is true, although there is no citation for these scientists. It’s only relevant in comparative time, as well as the purpose the species serve to human beings. If 1 million species will become extinct in the next 50 years, it is only relevant when compared with how many species became extinct in the previous 50 years. For example, if 1 million species became extinct in the previous 50 years than that is the rate of natural selection. If it is substantially more than we need to understand the value of the species that are likely to become extinct, as it relates to preserving ecosystems as it relates to human purposes. The main point is that even if the number is reliable, it doesn’t tell us anything.
Second, we return to human purposes. If bees are becoming extinct which serve human purposes in pollination then it is in human interests to ensure their survival, where as it serves no purpose in directing time, energy, and resources towards preserving a species. We live in a country where the median individual income is 31k per year, and 25% of the population has an income of less than 18k per year, and globally 50% of the population lives on less than 5$ per day, and 80% of the population on less than $10 per day. We have human problems where we shouldn’t be wasting time, energy, and resources preserving species that serve no purpose for human beings.
In the previous paragraph I mentioned global income, and while he mentions global per capita income, whatever the increase is it hasn’t increased the quality of life for most people. He doesn’t appear to be asserting this as evidence of any improvement but it is something worth mentioning in discussing the assertion, which is unsubstantiated. He appears to be using it as a correlation for the resource base “depleting rapidly”, trying to assert that the economy cannot continue to grow because growth will outstrip resources. I don’t think rapidly is an accurate way to describe depletion, and I don’t think growth will be impacted through scarcity of resources in the next few decades, with the exception of some areas where climate change may lead to increased water scarcity and a loss of food production, which probably won’t have much of an impact on Rhode Island where the author is from, or the United States. Which isn’t to say it isn’t a problem, but it isn’t going to result in economic contraction as the writer suggests.
Inequality has grown but it has nothing to do with the depletion of resources or the increase in the global per capita income and has no place since it doesn’t pertain the basic assertion, that economic growth is unsustainable and these are the consequences, since inequality is not a product of that.
Climate is an issue primarily in its potential and the likely trajectory of climate change to reduce habitable surface area through desertification and frequency of extreme weather events. The greatest threat to human civilization will be the inability of peacefully redistribute population from uninhabitable areas to habitable areas, where conflict will ensue for control of habitable areas which will eventually involve nuclear armed countries. The climate will impose on human civilization, and will likely impose to the extent of the worst case scenario given the present state human thought and function. I think he was trying to use the global per capita income increase to assert economic growth instead of citing global GDP. Climate change doesn’t have to get worse as the global economy improves, we can increase the amount of goods and services produced without contributing to emissions by investing in renewable energy, which is pretty obvious.
I did skim a few paragraphs to get a gist of the article which is greatly flawed with false assertions, dubious sources, and lack of clearly articulable points and conclusions. It is built on an inaccurate conception of the world fueled by the left’s overemphasis of racial inequality. Gratuitous and baseless assertions of racism and facsim. It seems like it might eventually lead to a resource based economy although I didn’t follow it that far down since I realized this is probably a teenager’s writings who listed his or herself as the Environmental Council of Rhode Island. If it was put together I would have read and provided a more comprehensive critique, but I have more important things to do since this effort will probably not benefit me, and we have seen how one sentence can contain a plethora of errors.
End of reply
2/4/2020 Email Exchange Resulting from 2/3/2020 email reply.
After I sent the email critquing the first paragraph of the report by the Enviornmental Council of Rhode Island, which as I expressed I thought was the work of a child, the individual claimed to be a senior citizen of 66 years old and the following exchange transpired. The exchange is another example of Bias Induced Denial.
Greg Gerritt: When you terll me that inequality has nothing to do with resource depletion i know you are not paying attention.
Orion Simerl: Inequality is the measuring the degree of divergence between income groupings or the wealth distribution. Depleting resources has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth and income.
Greg Gerritt: Except when the rich steal resources like forests that were already supporting communities or decide that they have the right to pollute low income neighborhoods with toxicv sludge. You are amazingly and willfully blind.
Orion Simerl: I think you’re about 15 years old, probably inspired by Gretta Thunberg, and listed yourself in the listing I was using to sollicit.
You saying “the rich steal resources like forrest already supporting communities” doesn’t mean this happend. You have to provide an example of this happening. Even if there is an example of this happening, it has no bearing on the general income and wealth distribution on a state, federal, or global level. Which means resource depletion has nothing to do with inequality which is the controversy.
There’s no need to qualify pollute low income neighborhoods with toxic sludge because even if true, it has no bearing on the income and wealth distribution.
Greg Gerritt: I am 66 and do not suffer fools gladly. What happens to all the people who live in the rainfor3est who get displaced by oil drillers and gold miners. And why are people still stealing forests if they are not in short supply. The people who get displaced are either killed or end up in shanty towns. And it is the inequality that makes it easy for people to pollute low income neighborhoods. You are not looking at whole systems. The entire future of the environmental movement is about climate justice. Not just climate. Get a clue. You wrote a book and now you think it is the gospel. I sincerely doubt you work with people of color or low income communities or you would not say the things you do.
Orion Simerl: If you’re 66 and this is your ability to comprehend and articulate, the world is much more hopeless than I previously estimated. The displacement of indiginous people has no effect on the income and wealth distribution since indignious people have an economy that is independent of the global economy. While it may decrease their quality of life it has nothing to do with inequality despite the injustce against them.
To a certain extent, it is inequality that allows industry to pollute low income neighborhoods, largely because neighborhoods close to pollution are less expensive than neighborhoods away from it. Yet this still doesn’t serve as evidence that the depletion of resources produces inequality. There is no causation between the depletion of resources and the exacerbation of inequality. This is your stated point of controversy and you fail to provide any basis for that assertion which is why you continue to state general cliches some more meritorious than others, but that still don’t speak to the point you are trying to make.
I’ve written a book that is the gospel, literally, in it is completely consistent explanation of political, economic, and social systems that also explains the purpose of life, the universe, and objective morality. It is good news for people who are objective and value the truth, but not so much for people like yourself, which is the majority of people who have a higher value of things they are invested in than they do of the truth, and this is also addressed in the book. Comparatively, you have failed to produce one paragraph that conclusively asserts anything as I demonstrated in disection of the first paragraph of “your report”, whereas what I have produced consists of assertions supported by credible data assembled in clear cause and effect relationships that produces clear conclussions that people cannot challenge in fact or reasoning.
You sincerely doubt I work with people of low income and color? That’s funny considering I am a person of low income, who has spent 6 years of his life incarcerated, who has spend his entire life associating with other people of low income, and worked, literally, job settings with people of low income and color. I am the disadvantaged, whereas you see disadvantage from outside looking in. This contributes to the purity of my intent which contributes to the objectivity of my analysis and the approach to my solutions. I’m concerned with actual results, not the appearance of, but quality of life improvements, which requires an objective understanding of systems and circumstances.
I do appreciate your sorry attempts at arguing from an incorrect position, as each one of these kind of exchanges serves as evidence of bias induced denial. People’s behavior is largley doing what makes them feel good. Information that challenges people’s beliefs is avoided and when they are confronted by it they refuse to acknowledge it. The reason being is those beliefs serve as the basis for good feelings. Finding out something you believe to be good is bad or something you thought was true is untrue compromises the person’s ability to derive good feelings from the ideas, positions, and people they derive good feelings from. In this situation based on the broader context of your position, you want to use your cause of the enviornment to persuade disadvantaged people to be concerned about the enviornment based on the reasoning that their financial disadvantage is caused by destruction of the enviornment. It feels bad to be confronted by the fact that there is no causation between the degredation of the enviornment and disadvantaged people’s financial opportunities. This information harms your interest and you have a higher value of maintaining that interest than you do of what is true. There is bad feeling associated with being confronted by this information because it compromises your interest, and threatens to reduce the value of things you value, and take away the good feelings you get from those positions. Still appreciated because it is another example confirming Bias Induced Denial.
Greg Gerritt: You are a complete idiot. Th displacement of the indigenious has nothing to do with inequality? Stealing land has nothing to do with inequality? The riches of white folks in North America has nothing to do with stealing land? How come the poorest people in the USA are Native Americans? Are you completely nuts? Go read Dumping in Dixie. Go read Bury my heart at Wounded Kne After you read those you may write back to me. But your ignorance is wilful so I do not expect you to ever get a clue.
In your inability to make a point you resort to name calling. You’re trying to claim that the conquest of native American’s almost 200 years ago is increasing inequality today. While Native American’s are probably the poorest ethnicity they also comprise only 1.3 percent of the population in the United States and their proportion of wealth and income has increased in the last 3 decades through casinos. Inequality for native americans improved not gotten worse. Again, even if inequality has become worse, you still fail to connect the depeltion of resources with inequality.
Do you notice how I address every single point you try to make and you’ve failed to present even a single piece of evidence for your position? Ill be posting the remainder of these exchanges on my website later today. http://orioncs.net/log-summary-2/
2/6/2020 Proud Boy’s Email Sollicit
I am an unpaid author whose material relates to political, economic, and social function, and is suppressed by bias. Bias Induced Denial is based on the understanding that people pursue what causes them to feel good and they avoid that which causes them to feel bad. In the simplest of language information that challenges people’s beliefs causes them to feel bad so they avoid it and refuse to acknowledge it. This is a detriment to our species because it means communication cannot take place, and we cannot come to truth about things for which truth can be known. This is also why many issues typically have two sides, and both sides are wrong, or one side is right but on a false understanding. My material is offensive because it is true, and therefore it offends all biases.
Despite not having a market, the material has a great deal of value to Americans, in understanding the political, economic, and social systems we live within, as well as improving human intelligence, and comprehensive solutions to solving our problems. My material offends all biases, and the biases of the Proud Boys will be no exception, but there are probably also significant points of congruence, which will contribute to a more thorough understanding of existing positions.
For example, Proud Boys may be able to appreciate an article written about Australian Gun Control which compares the amount of mass murders in incidents and casualties in the 20 years prior to gun control to 20 years following gun control and there is no reduction in victims or casualties. This reinforces the idea the article is founded on, which states, reducing the means available to kill people does not prevent people who want to kill people from killing people.
Then your bias may be offended in an article called Immigration Overstated and Uncorrectable. The article measures the amount of people taken into CBP custody each year, which amounts to about 180,000 people. Even if CBP prevented no one from entering the country the US would only gain 180,000 people, which in a country of 330 million is the equivalent to adding or subtracting 1 dollar. This isn’t an argument for open borders because that would cause a huge spike, it’s merely stating that immigration is an overstated problem for political purposes. You can take a video everyday of 1000 people in a caravan and broadcast it to make it seem like there is an invading army of immigrants when actually the problem is overstated. Immigration cannot be solved because the same probusiness foreign policy that has created circumstances where people’s country is unlivable, is still going on and it isn’t likely to change. We’re fine to maintain the borders as we presently do with little or nothing in the way additional resources, aside from what is required to maintain adequate housing conditions.
I’m sending the book to civically minded groups in an effort to create a market for information that benefits humankind. The book is not limited to political issues and solutions, but also contains objective moral philosophy, a theory of the mind, and causes for the formation of popular perception. It is a substantial document. When you have time if you will read and share it I would be greatly appreciative, and I always welcome questions, comments, and feedback.
720 448 2846