The content of this page consists of reflections on my day to day life, and/or to express insights about human behavior, the application of morality, or analysis of articles and narratives of political, economic, or a social nature.
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.
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 Catholicism, 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 uear 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 thie 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 terminations 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 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 importing 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 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.
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 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.
11/12/24
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.
—
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 aspect, 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 the idea that I could be harmed for something I say to address a potential incorrect 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 side walk 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 yo 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 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.
11/7/24
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, and they’ve 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 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, efforts to promote their deity in education, and an environment 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, as people see illegal immigration as 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.
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 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. Trump would have to cut federal funding to these states to force compliance and he’s not going to do that.
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.
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.
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 and the Liberty, MO post office immediately return to sendered the package. 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 listen 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 have no intention 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 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:
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 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, or 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. They 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 and 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 if 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.
10/11/24
I’m able to win not enough money consistently playing poker for an enormous expenditure of time.
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, maintains 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 have to 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. Theres 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 unnecesary 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 things they 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.
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 that subconsciously motivates the rejection or causes information to be ignored. 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 false 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 affordable of 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.
10/4/25
Sometimes I watch this YouTube 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 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.
10/1/24
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 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. 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 and $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 implications of such a 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 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 in refutation of.
I’m just here until I’m not.
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 pertaining 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 they 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.
9/15/24
I was about to go to the gym and noticed my tire was flat. It’s 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, 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 more 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 happend 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 expectations had also impacted my mood.
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 thats 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.
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 call for 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 including 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, and 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 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 perceive themselves through 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 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 from improving.
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 through 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.
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. Really 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 consists 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 don’t typically 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 entered the chat mentioning how the consumption of new information can lead to better consumption. Then 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 being 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 an environment absent imposition allowing all people to do as they please, and there is subjective morality where an individual or group decide 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 largy 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 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. All federal funding should be cut off to the states and cities who refuse to cooperate with enforcement of federal immigration law. We end the problem immediately.
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, you have eternal conflict since the tyrant seeks to impose and the libertee seeks to prevent and neutralize imposition. As the theory goes according to what the universe does, and the problem that exists for eternity that the universe solves, 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 point being, why 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 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 harms 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? 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. Make 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 production 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. 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 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 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 good work environment, all cool people from what I can tell but I’m not sure how long I can keep this up.
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 to me 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 whistle blower 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 if 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 citizens 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 defend that right, and the perpetrator having no right to anyone else’s property, and risking his life for that property if he chooses to impose on the rights of other people to their 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 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.
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 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 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 Plebo 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.
Theres 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 amount of 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, without the full context of the event, the totality of the circumstances. 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 yo 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 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 they would believe 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 grabs a lot of boiling water, and then 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 now 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. 😂.
I do not have a law enforcement bias, but I dabble in a thing called truth so when the perception of a group is distorted for political gain and media ratings, I’m interested in addressing this distortion, especially when it has quality of life implications, through the focus away from actual problems to manufactured problems, and then of course the problems that arise through the solutions to the problem that isn’t a problem. When a good portion of a well functioning country is the opportunities available, the law, and enforcement of the law enforcement has to be effective and intent on advancing public interest. When it is effective it doesn’t require attention. Opportunities and law require attention, but enforcement as a product is very effective and operated within the confined of constitution and law. 8 million arrests per year, and at most a handful of incidents that make national headlines, often portrayed as something that is much more controversial than it actually is. If you have 8 million of anything, and 5 parts of it are bad, you don’t define the overall product by the 5 parts that were bad, you define the product by 7,999,995.
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 the area 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 within their territory 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 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 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 is 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, 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 disappoinment.
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 I was returning to my locker 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.
7/13/24
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 who 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, 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.
7/9/24
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 value, 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 us 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 begkn 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, due to chemical dissipation of the stress leading changes in objectives. If the stress isn’t present, the subconscious is free to prioritize other objectives not concerning 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 to 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 and 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, 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 it could create inaccurate perceptions of me.
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.
Second, I had to know what the number meant. 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 department, 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 obvious about 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. They did the same thing. 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 represents 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 whole 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.
7/1/24
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 sollicitation 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.
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 is little more than 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.
—
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 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 is well and then I can take a week to rewrite ASC. Go through journal entries and pull examples for ASC.
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. If life isn’t enjoyable, and cannot become enjoyable you can see what, if anything comes next, and then there is at least the prospect that your conscious experience will improve.
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 isnt 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 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 dollys from the warehouse. Shortly after, I saw Mike who is a supervisor walking with the men and believe I remember seeing him look in the truck as he walked past, but this may not have happened. Probably an uncertain memory created by coloring from the bias to distance myself further from the appearance of inaction upon witnessing imposition.
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 act to notify them or prevent it. Which led to ignorance that imposition was taking place.
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 and what I was told was a partially frayed ACL. 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 to not 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 we’re 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. Through 1000 sent, it’s safe to assume that this profession is no less subscribed to the idea that Brawndos got what planets 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.
6/8/2024
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 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 feelimgs. 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 addresses 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 objective 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 or torment others.
Lastly, imposition is correct in the prevention and neutralization of imposition. So again, if consciousness survives death there is 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.
6/6/2024
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 would or would threaten to harm them. I have no stake in the outcome, whether guns can or cannot be owned legally because I cannot possess a gun legally. Well I mean 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 persons 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.
Two days later I worked a job 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 pac 4 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 palletizes 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.
Then 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 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 the general impact it has 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 in what they 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 rating have came in the same south of St. Louis general area. Walker Products, Gilster Mary Lee, and this one from PLZ (had 5s on week 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 last, and decreased the law from deterring crime protecting the public. The law exists to protect the public from imposition, reducing the effectiveness of the law in that regard causes people to be less free. Lastly 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 8 million arrests it doesn’t represent a systemic problem. Even 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 actually 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 facing 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. In other words what a person cannot do should be a greater burden than the burden being prevented by not doing the thing. We perceive law through net liberty. The law isn’t perfect, made less so by the delegation of law creation 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 to criminal behavior. 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 respect have 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.
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. of course 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 as they are, and they believe these things 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. That’s a functional distinction, substantively the liberal in the United States doesn’t understand the problems and doesn’t have solutions.
The first question concerning circumstances is what’s the difference in the distribution of income? 50 percent of people who earn less than 30k per year identify as democrats compared to 27 percent who identify as republicans at that income level. 30 to 50k it is 46 percent democrat, 39 percent republican. Above 50k the republicans hold an advantage. (https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/)
What impact does this 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 outcome 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 implications 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 psychologies 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. I’m also not going to retain a this is what you do when kind of run down, I’m going to a retain this is why things are done. 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 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 for 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 website, was wearing 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. It’s obvious that since it’s a distribution center for food products, 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 statistic isn’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 requires 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 because I don’t use it. I 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 have 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 which is what I would have discussed afterwards.
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.
Interestingly 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 pull 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. He 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 feeling doing the job based on the circumstances of the job. 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, fck 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 with 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.
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 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 5,1y lbegan 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 conived 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 entailed. 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.
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, those 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.
5/11/24
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 thrown beneath these 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.
This job. Hotel. Sollictitation. Edit ASC. Paper.
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, pain in back, 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 and 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 to reduce 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 understand 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 mean 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 value preserving objective.
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.
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.
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.
4/24/2024
I scheduled two more days for work at BCI last week, Wednesday and Thursday. On Wednesday I went to the gym and then Walmart to get a post workout meal and food for the job. When I finished eating I put the business in the GPS and noted the time I had to leave the parking lot to head to the job. I began to think about how I was feeling having not worked there in nearly a week. Freedom, clarity of mind, my shoulder blades weren’t fatigued and sore from the repetitive motion, and I had time to make progress on the things I have scheduled to complete. I was also involved in a controversy that I wanted to stay engaged in, and shifting my attention to 8 hours of repetitive motion listening to shows, comedians, or movies is going to pull me out of that. It takes probably two days just to recover from that mentally. I checked my debit card and saw I had about $750 once my final money hit. That gives me time to find an Airtaskers job. I was also thinking about how I’d feel physically and while doing the job.
The time came for me to leave and I didn’t leave. I sat there going back and forth between the money, the work, the consequences, and a decision based on the amount of money I had, and how much sense it made to work at least that day since I’m 20 minutes away. This is a good exercise to illustrate Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison. I’m not going to do it now but I do have plans for an ASC article, I’ll probably do it there. I left on it making sense to get the money while it was there and I’ve positioned myself to get it.
This wasn’t the end of the comparisons. The subconscious is also set to an objective to produce a positive feeling which includes avoiding negative feelings, short term and long term. I kept thinking about the act of working the job and the impact that working the job would have on my mind and body, and how this would impact how I interpreted and responded to the controversy I was involved in. Most importantly, I thought how I would feel while working while the controversy remained unresolved. That was about the point where I turned around and decided to abandon the two days of work I scheduled.
When I withdrew my bid I had to provide a reason through the app. I wrote I have other things I’d rather be doing. That was funny to me. I didn’t mean to leave them possibly short handed, but as the time to start approached I realized I didn’t want to subject myself to a shift of that work at that time. The money wasn’t worth the work at that time. It made sense when I placed the bid.
I may have written about this exchange previously. The exchange was reignited out of the blue by the participant. I either didn’t see or didn’t feel the need to respond to his last comment 4 months ago, and then he sent another comment that I saw and responded to.
The specific controversy is that intelligence is more determined by the environment than it is by genes. Heredity is established by testing the IQ of twins. Since they are genetically the same, any difference in IQ is a product of the difference in environment. He states that since the average difference between twins raised apart is 20 percent, that intelligence measured by IQ is 80 percent genes and 20 percent differences in environment in the United States.
The issue is that values are genetic. People are genetically predisposed to liking different things and to different degrees. What they like directs their attention and forms their interests, and their interests play a big role shaping intelligence. If someone likes basketball and spends all their time dedicated to the sport, their IQ may not be as high as someone who likes astronomy, and spends their time studying astronomy and connected fields. This doesn’t mean the athlete has any genetic inferiority for IQ, only that his values didn’t produce interest in something that leads to the same development of IQ. Of the 80 percent of IQ variation that is genetic, how much of that is genetic ability, and genetic directing by values that produce interests that lead to the development of IQ?
How do you test the intelligence of animals? Typically you have them perform puzzles for food. There has to be an objective involved in the development of IQ. Objectives are created based on the anticipated feelings that something will produce, and what produces positive feelings is partially determined by our genes. Any genetic differences in IQ, are partially, if not mostly a genetic predisposition to like things that lead to differences in IQ. It’s wrong to imply that 80 percent of intelligence is based on genetic ability, when the development of intelligence depends on interest, and interests develop through genetic predispositions to environmental stimulus.
I understand this at deeper levels, and have documented how values play a role in limiting intelligence. The mind is always set to objectives to produce positive feelings. There is no conscious motion without directing value, and value assignments are made subconsciously through experience, and how things cause you to feel is partially determined by your genes.
I had some other things to write about that I’ve mostly forgotten. I’m doing a lot of driving again to find work. This exchange has occupied most of my free time so I shut it down after these questions. He’s engaged in dishonesty throughout this exchange. He responded with more questions some of which have been answered in the previous answers, some of which represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what was stated, and main points that establish what I stated above were never acknowledged. I’ll be using this exchange as an introduction to assignment sequencing and comparison. It’s a good example because I can use the exchange itself as evidence of some of the points I made, because I made a few erroneous assumption inferring what heritability was represented by. I also overlooked a key element and all of these things I know what happens, where I can show the values and sequencing that lead to the errors, and how they were corrected. I can demonstrate ASC and intelligence through this exchange. Here are my final answers from that exchange. I’ll probably start that project and may submit it as a research paper after I finish the preparations for my next sollicitation, create, and send a batch of sollictitations.
. Why do you believe it is values leading to IQ being measured, instead of intelligence?”
Intelligence begins with utility, and utility begins with value. Every place a person directs their attention is in anticipation of a positive feeling or utility towards that end. One may be interested in being a social media influencer and their attention is directed towards learning what attracts attention. Another may be interested in medicine, and these differences in interests will lead to the consuming of different information which will play a role in the development of intelligence measured by IQ. The social media influencer may have a lower IQ than the one who studies medicine, but it doesn’t mean the social media influencer couldn’t have the same IQ if they were as interested in medicine as they are in a social media presence, or as much as the one studying medicine is interested in medicine. The interest in social media influencing and the interest in medicine are rooted in values that have genetic origins.
Values and intelligence are inextricably linked, because intelligence forms in the pursuit of objective. The kind of objectives pursued will determine the potential for the development of intelligence. The values assigned to these objectives have at least partially genetic origins. Heredity doesn’t tell us anything about how much IQ is genetic ability, or how much IQ is genetic directing towards objectives that produce it.
2. “Why do you think these values are genetic, but don’t think IQ is?”
The first part of the question is answered in my response to question 1.
The second part, I’m not saying that there isn’t a possible genetic component to IQ, only that the genetic component is almost negligible and cannot presently be separated from the genetic directing component responsible for the development of IQ. A lineage that tends to have a high or low IQ describes just as much the values that produce objectives that lead to the development of IQ as it does any natural ability to understand and apply things that are measured through IQ. I believe the differences are negligible due to the fundamental simplicity of all knowledge which is objects assembled in cause and effect sequencing. And I recognize how values, not only in the pursuit of information, but in protection of themselves create impediments to intelligence. I stated that values cannot presently be separated from ability on IQ tests because I believe they can through ASC, but that isn’t something I want to go into here.
I also spent the first 30 years of my life just as ignorant as everyone else. From third through 8th grade I was passed onto the next grade primarily based on social promotions, and failing grades. Never held back. At 14 years old I was incarcerated for battery and had various run ins with the law going back to 8 years old. From 14 to 24 I spent roughly 6 years incarcerated in and out of jail and prison serving around a year at a time, getting out, and going back. I primarily sold drugs to sustain myself during this period with jobs briefly here and there as may be required as a condition of probation and parole. It was through drug sales that I gained an environment where I had time and money. From about 24 to about 28 I began to avoid situations that created the potential for me to go back to jail or prison. I was focused on family with my daughter and her mother, and making music. Eventually I became less interested in making a living becoming an artist and developed questions about why I was as I was and why the world is as it is.
I continued to become better and better at making music and reached a place where I really liked the music I was creating. But there were a few things that led to the devaluation of that objective. First, in being involved in the music scene I understood there was a certain level of politicing involved, that I had no interest in engaging in. Developing relationships beginning with undue praise and pretending to be more interested in others than you actually were for whatever promotional benefit or avenue of exposure they could provide. I couldn’t do that. I couldn’t do that because I have other values, standards of behavior that are violated through such “politicing”that would produce decreases in self worth, being forced to see myself as something I did not value. Ultimately, the loss in self worth wasn’t worth the potential benefit to improving my chances to earn money through music. The elements of the decision we’re not known to me then, only that there was a time when I realized I was poorly suited for the establishment of the kind of relationships necessary for success. Other elements included reasoning that my life could be more with success but probably wouldn’t be different. In essence, the value of pride and novelty led to the devaluation of the music objective and opened up the opportunity for new interests to form.
There’s a lot I need to skip and condense to make the point. But the answers to those questions, why I was as I was and the world is as it is led to the consumption of information that radically changed my perception and values. In the growth I’ve experienced in the last decade I’m able to recall instances where something may have been explained to me but I didn’t understand it in the moment, based on my recollection of the circumstances, the acts, and my thoughts and feelings in the moment I can identify why I didn’t to understand it then. Sometimes the information couldn’t be understood because of the consequences it had to my value structure, and other times information couldn’t be understood because it didn’t appear to have any utility at the time, so I didn’t pay attention to it. Later in life something might prompt a memory of such an instance and I can understand now what I couldn’t understand then. If my values never changed, there are things I never would have been able to understand, not because of some innate inability to understand it, but based on values, determining the direction of my attention, or to preserve themselves.
In summary, I know what changes took place that led to the development of my intellect, and it wasn’t innate ability. This is supplementary, the main reason I think innate ability towards intelligence is insignificant is because I understand the basis for human behavior. The pursuit of positive feelings and intellect develops as a byproduct of requirements to produce those feelings. Normal people can learn anything if the subject is valued or has utility towards a valued objective.
3. “Based on these two statements:”
(Below he is quoting me. The context of the quote is a scenario where two people were exposed to essentially nothing from birth, there would be no difference in the development of intelligence because intelligence cannot develop in that environment. Fundamentally, intelligence comes from the environment, and as objects were added, even if they’re exposed to the same objects IQ will develop differently based on what they become interested in.)
“Neither of their IQs will increase because they haven’t been exposed to any objects. IQ can only increase through exposure to objects”
Do you think running a conveyor belt of different objects in front of someone will produce someone who is practically omniscient?
No. Measurable intelligence requires exposure to objects and assignments of value to produce objectives that require the development of intelligence to complete (those) objectives. As directed by values the more objects one is exposed to the more potential objectives can be created, and the more capable they are of organizing objects to accomplish their objectives. Also, the word object isn’t being used to describe only physical items, but also motion (sequence), feelings, and thoughts. Anything that can be distinguished from everything else.
4. You say:
(Him quoting me)
“If a person generates enough satisfaction in their life through their current IQ level they have no need to develop further.”
(Me quoting his question)
“I was making the opposite point. The existence of people who are not satisfied with their life disproves this theory. How do you respond?’
The existence of dissatisfaction doesn’t preclude the existence of enough satisfaction to continue on within a particular set of circumstances. A person may be unable to change their circumstances, since the act requires time, money, and know-how, which are things their present circumstances may not provide. When most of a person’s time is spent earning an income that only provides for their expenses there are none of the elements required for improving circumstances, which typically begins with improving income. To improve income requires an investment of time and money to purchase capital to start a business, or to improve human capital to improve the market value of their labor.
Some people are dissatisfied because they are trapped, but within their life they have plenty of things they do that produce positive sensations and make life worth living. Work for the underlying value of providing for themselves and their children and keep themselves entertained outside of tending to their responsibilities. They’re dissatisfied with their circumstances because their present isn’t living up to their expectations, but their attention is focused on doing the things in life that bring them joy. Their potential for intelligence will be based on developing efficiency within their vocation, and solving for any problems they encounter in pursuit of the things that make them feel good. Development of the intellect beyond what is required to serve those purposes has no perceived utility. Intellect doesn’t develop, but the values and circumstances that limit development tell us nothing about the person’s potential for intelligence, only that it didn’t develop within their values and (through their) interest to that point.
As far as improving their circumstances being an indicator of intelligence itself, it may be perceived as impossible as previously mentioned. If not, it may be perceived as not being worth the effort. Of course, it’s ultimately a product of the objectives associated with improving circumstances being perceived as less valuable than their present objectives that they’ve prioritized. It doesn’t mean they’re not intelligent enough to find a way out, it means that a way out doesn’t exist, isn’t perceived as being worth the effort, or their present objectives are more valuable to them than the objectives associated with circumstantial improvement. In many situations value will be assigned based on the progress towards a goal compared to the sacrifice being made. If a person has to cut out a lot of the spending that causes them to feel good on a week to week basis this is going to noticeably decrease their well being. This decrease in well being can be offset either by the idea of the goal, where they experience positive feelings by imagining or thinking about the goal. It can be offset through subtle increases in self worth through their perception of themselves in making progress towards the goal as they abstain from typically spending. It can be offset through the progress towards the goal. The problem is if you need to save $20,000 and you’re only able to save $100 a week, you’re making great sacrifices impacting your quality of life and potentially the quality of life of your family, and after 10 weeks you have only saved $1000. The course is unsustainable because progress is too slow to offset the decrease in well being from changes in spending habits that are required for emotional upkeep within those circumstances.
I mentioned my friend who has been drug dependent and involved in criminality for 20 years and I believe what he is living, is a life of optimized satisfaction for him. In other words, if he quit drugs, got a job, and tried to find other things he liked doing, he would have a lower sense of well being than he does presently. If he changes his life is this an intelligent decision? It would first require massive overhaul of his values that would have to come from changes in understanding that can only come from the consumption of information, and he would only consume such information if it was perceived as having utility towards some currently valued end. Changing his circumstances based on his current values is unlikely to produce increased satisfaction in life, so it can be argued that not changing his circumstances isn’t a product of a lack of intelligence, but it may be intelligent not to change his circumstances because it will probably produce a decrease in his quality of life.
5. “IQ is adequate for contentment” Then why are plenty of high IQ people unhappy and not content?
I think I addressed this somewhere in the previous reply, but the quote is coming from the explanation that when IQ is adequate for contentment, it means they are smart enough to accomplish the objectives that make them feel good frequently enough to be content. A guy goes to work, spends time with his family, engages in his hobbies, thinks his deity is pleased with him, and has general contentment. He doesn’t have interests that facilitate the development of intellect beyond what is required to live his life. Doesn’t mean he can’t, it just means his values are not ordered to produce the kind of interests to develop greater intellect.
I didn’t state and don’t believe I implied that greater intellect or higher IQ will produce happiness. High IQ people are unhappy for many of the same reasons low IQ people are unhappy and others that are exclusive to their higher IQs. It’s a very long list. The question is too broad taken at face value, but you’re using the question to challenge the idea that higher IQ produces happiness which is a point I didn’t make.
6.
(Him quoting me)
“More importantly, genetic dispositions towards values are well documented in twins raised apart where they tend to like a lot of the same things that come to them through neutral exposure.”
(Me quoting his question)
“You realize this is also how we know IQ is highly heritable, and yet you question that, but not this?”
I don’t question that people have genetic dispositions towards the things they like. That is observable. I also know that the things people like direct attention and where they direct their attention determines what they will become interested in, and the pursuit of those interests will play a major role in their development of intelligence. One genetic factor of intelligence is inherited values. Undeniably. How much of it is genetic ability versus genetic direction is unknown. You test a set of twins and conclude the 5 point difference in IQ comes from environment and the remaining is genetic. But you don’t know how much of the remaining IQ is a product of ability, or a product of values that leads to the development of ability.
7.
(He’s quoting me. The context is he mentioned programs either intended to modify behavior or improve IQ that didn’t work, I guess attempting to support the idea that the programs failed because the participants didn’t have the ability, when it’s just as plausible that the programs failed because the programs don’t work.)
“Because your programs are trash”
(Me quoting his question)
“Do you know of any programs that exist that use methods you think increase IQ? If so, can you show me them? If not, how do you know you’re right?’
Obviously if there were programs I probably wouldn’t be discussing this on YouTube. As far as knowing I’m right, if it’s in reference to the programs being trash, it’s based on your statement that they were ineffective, and casual familiarity with behavioral modification programs and techniques. Often a fundamental misunderstanding of the causes of undesirable behavior, but I thought the programs were in reference to behavioral modification since you were responding to a quote where I mentioned behavior as an element that influences the development of intelligence.
8. (Him quoting me.)
“instead of engaging people’s true self interest in consideration of their existing values to modify their values”
(Me quoting his question. His question demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of what values are and how their role in the production of human behavior. Any behavior modification is changing values. Specific values and prioritization change as circumstances change, or maybe simpler put, you like different things at different times, and the things you like when you’re 10, many of them you won’t like when you’re 20. Even with the variety of things we like, and the fluctuating degree with which we like them based on circumstances, our genes influence what we like and what we pursue that influences the development of intelligence. By saying if you can modify values in what sense are they genetic, shows he doesn’t know what values are. It’s genetic in the predisposition for something to produce a positive feeling.)
If you can modify people’s values, in what sense are they genetic? If you’re about to say that they are only partly heritable, then I could copy all your problems with me talking about IQ being heritable, and say the same about values.
That’s completely true that they are partly heritable. Values change based on circumstances, and are dependent upon belief. Development, susceptibility to belief, and how a person responds to changing circumstances is influenced by their genes. I’m not making a case that genetic values are the sole determining factor leading to IQ, I just believe it represents significantly more of the genetic predisposition for IQ than innate genetic ability. I understand how my own intellect rapidly developed through the changing of values and the perceived utility of information, in pursuit of objectives associated with those values. I also recognize and have documented how values serve as a barrier to communication and limit intelligence. And just to be clear, when I’m talking about value, the word is used to describe the feelings produced by an object or the anticipated feelings an object will produce based on its similarities with other objects.
What I meant by engaging self interest and changing values through existing values, is showing people how they’re interests are better served by doing or not doing something. As opposed to efforts to train behavior through reward or punishment which is a tool to influence values, or by using a value of social approval in an effort to modify behavior through social norms.
END of answers.
There’s a few more paragraphs from my previous response I want to share. One is an explanation of the decision making process that he neither acknowledged or challenged, and the other was a summary metaphor I liked.
“You’re not measuring an individual’s innate abilities for intelligence when you’re giving them an IQ test, you’re measuring how well their genes translated to the development of IQ within their environment. The environment furnishes paths towards the enhancement of IQ, and genes may predispose people to choose those paths, which tells us nothing about any innate advantage or disadvantage in intelligence, only that genes are on average are 80 percent responsible for the selection of their IQ path. Which is why IQ testing cannot be conflated with intelligence, because while IQ can measure different elements of intelligence, at any given time we’re witnessing an individual’s propensity to that point to develop IQ, which depends almost entirely on the utility of development.
This is also why you need the genes that influence the expression of something in the brain that corresponds to a specific function, otherwise you’re only measuring how genes influence choices that lead to the development of IQ with nothing to concretely say that the genes are responsible for the ability to generate IQ or intelligence.
Do you understand this? For example, a person with a 90 IQ doesn’t have a 90 IQ because his genes and environment produced that IQ. (Don’t quote that out of context). He has a 90 IQ because he didn’t require the development of a greater IQ to achieve satisfaction within his circumstances. Genes are more determinative of choices and behavior, and choices and behavior are more determinative of the development of IQ.
Circumstances are the first element of the decision making process.
The second is the highest valued objective within those circumstances as a comparison between perceived opportunities.
The third is the energy required.
The fourth is consequence in probability and severity where severity represents the obstruction of other valued objectives, which is a comparison between the immediate objective and the anchoring objectives the immediate objective has consequences for. Value of course represents the anticipated feelings an objective will produce.
The fifth element of the decision making process is essentially consequence without probability and where the object being impacted is self. If the objective is inconsistent with moral or subjective standards there may be a comparison between the value of the objective and the anticipated loss of self worth.
Thoughts and the feelings attached to thoughts are conscious signatures of these processes. When the energy is insignificant, there are no consequences to anchoring values, and the act doesn’t violate any moral or subjective standards there are no thoughts related to these things.
The mind is always set to objectives to produce positive feelings. Which doesn’t mean it cannot produce thoughts that produce negative feelings in the pursuit of a significantly high objective, like reducing uncertainty surrounding the anticipation of a negative outcome. Where worry, for example is an effort to figure out a way to effect a negative outcome, or gain acceptance and prepare to respond from that point. Figuring out is the act of identifying the effects that objects can be made to produce to achieve the most desirable outcome.
The ability of an individual to identify opportunities to produce positive feelings depends on their value structure and their understanding of objects, the causes that produce objects and motion and the effects that objects can produce. The amount of intelligence a person develops in identifying objects, sequencing, and the effects that an object can produce ultimately depends on the utility of that intelligence in achieving a valued objective.
Metaphorically, if flipping a light switch was a measure of intelligence, one may enter a room and flip a light switch because the light makes them feel good, whereas the other may enter the room and not flip the switch because they feel better with the light off, but it tells us nothing about a difference in innate ability to flip the switch, only about a potential innate disposition to value the effect. In the same respect, the heredity of IQ cannot distinguish between genes creating dispositions towards the development of IQ through values and behavior, and genes being responsible for generating IQ, but it claims the latter, while it is actually the former.
It’s actually the former because the base functions for intelligence are universally present in normally born people. There is no difference between a person explaining an episode of their favorite show, and someone explaining a law of physics, it’s sequencing of objects, the only thing that is different is the objects.”
4/15/2024
I ordered phenibut on the 5th. It was supposed to arrive on the 10th. Tracking said it left St. Louis distribution on the way to the facility on the 10th. The 11th and 12th the status didn’t change. I went to the post office and the supervisor provided a variety of explanations that seemed rehearsed as to where my package was. Mentioned a branch closing, a machine breaking, hand sorting, a greater volume than usual, among probably some other things. She lied and said they don’t do mail searches until 30 days which coincides with the amount of time I have to pick up my package until it’s thrown out. Today is the 14th, I put a request in for a mail search that showed up in my tracking on Saturday. After that the tracking updated back to in transit to the next facility arriving late. Idk. I guess I’ll find out more as the week begins. I just don’t see how it can be in transit to the next facility for 3 days, when it’s only 50 miles from one facility to another. If she told me the truth, she said that is an automatic status. I was under the impression that status only updates when a package is scanned being taken on or off a truck. I could definitely see someone taking it, since it is two ounces of a powdery substance felt through an envelope. The other possibility is it arrived at the post office and it wasn’t scanned when it was taken off the truck. So it’s at the post office.
I worked 4 days last week at that assembly line job. I left Friday for a job in Louisville on Saturday, $350 to hang 2 TV mounts and 5×5 foot mirror. $280 after AT fees. When I arrived I discovered he had concrete walls covering brick. I bought a masonry bit and some tapcons. The problem was there were places where there was concrete and an empty space or concrete and then something I couldn’t drill through. I had to go back to Home Depot and get anchors. I used about a 2 foot long metal french cleat and tapcons to hang the mirror.
After that I went to Shelbyville. Simpsonville rest area. That’s where I typically go if I’m in the Louisville area. Shelbyville has a planet fitness and a Walmart and it’s only about 5 miles from the rest area. It’s a good place to get things done. Unfortunately I went to the gym today and the water was off because of a broken pipe. If I can’t shower the location no longer becomes viable. With that in mind I’m headed back to where I was to see if I can pick up that phenibut. If not I’ll order some to another location.
I have maybe a dose left that I didn’t take today. Not taking it is a subtle but notable difference. With the phenibut the situation is hopeless but it’s more matter of fact, and let’s try despite the hopelessness. Without the phenibut mood is influenced by feelings and thoughts about the incorrigibility of this species, the production of my circumstances, and the denial of my existence through the ignoring of my observations, discoveries, ideas, arguments, and positions. My decisions are filled with apprehension, and I feel unmotivated. Doesn’t really make me anxious, not a withdrawal or anything, just a notable absence of the positive thoughts and feelings that have the potential to motivate me within these impossible circumstances.
My mood has also been suffering from doing a deload at the gym. The main reason I go to the gym is because of the mood enhancing benefits I experience from working out. I have a 4 day split. The first half of the deload was same weight with half as many sets per movement. The last 3 days I’ve been in the second half of the deload which is 50 percent of weight and 50 percent of sets and leaving about 8 reps in reserve per movement. In not challenging yourself you don’t get the endorphin release you get from pushing every set to failure. The goal is to reduce fatigue and position yourself to make more gains. I don’t know if I really needed it or not but my strength on certain movements has been stuck. I think on bent over rows part of that has been working the assembly line job. Traps and probably rhomboids are over worked at that job. I perform the movement of grabbing the box and putting it in the folding machine primarily through moving my shoulder blades. I do it this way to avoid putting repetitive stress on my elbow joint. I’ve lost about 20 lbs of weight, or about 4 reps. I was doing 205 for sets of 12, and going 225 for 6 to 8. Now I’m doing 185 for 12 and 205 for 8, and not even going up to 225. It may just be the job but I figured I’d try to deload. Not good for mood though. 1 more deload day left. I don’t know if this true, but I believe I heard that using muscles for endurance activities takes away the ability of the muscles to be used for strength and power. Where if the endurance movement is in higher demand your body will build a greater proportion of endurance fibers, and atrophy the fast twitch fibers. While I’m still doing strength building movements for back roughly twice a week for probably about an hour, the bulk of my time, roughly 32 hours, I’m doing the endurance movement while working the job. That might not be true, but even if it isn’t I’m at least overworking the muscles, possibly obstructing recovery and growth.
Weather is getting warmer. Summer is coming and that’s not good for me. The impending heat is another element that negatively impacts my mood.
I’ve also been reading old journal entries. Some of it is repetitive because so much leads back to the same answers, but some of it is interesting in analysis of events or articles I’ve reviewed that I’ve forgotten about. The chronicling of circumstances isn’t good for me to read. Remembering being in those situations and still being near those situations or potentially entering worse situations does not feel good.
I have about 120 pages left. I have very few entries from 2017 and 2018. While interstate moving I didn’t have time to sleep much less write. In 2019 and 2020 I had my charges in Florida I was fighting, while learning and developing Assignment Sequencing and Comparison, as well as following current events. There wasn’t much journaling in that period because most of what was written during that time is in ASC, The Florida Ordeal, and Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History 2019-2020. I’ll preface pre-2017 in summary, probably beginning 2014 when I left WI initially, and what led to that decision.
We’ll see what order I accomplish these things. I really don’t need to finish reposting the old journals. I have a few books I want to look over before my next sollicitation and I need to write that sollicitation.
4/5/2024
I didn’t mention that I was pulled over last week, because there was a potential issue. I didn’t know if I was going to resolve it or just avoid the state. I did get lucky though. We were waiting for dispatch to run my name but dispatch wasn’t responding. There was a situation where other officers were chasing a suspect so the dispatchers were busy with that situation. He grew tired of waiting and let me go.
After the incident I remembered I received some traffic citations driving from Kansas City to Wisconsin. I was returning to Wisconsin to resume interstate moving. I had to pick up a truck in Janesville, and oddly enough I think I did a direct delivery to St. Louis, or maybe somewhere in MO. I was pulled over and received citation that I never paid. Since it was traffic I presumed MO would suspend my license in MO. Even though I have a valid WI license, I was worried maybe I’d be suspended in MO and have a problem.
I immediately left MO and went to IL. I contacted the troopers and they found the citation and provided me with the information about the ticket. I looked it up on MO courts before I called the county the ticket was issued from. They tried to suspend my license, but Wisconsin will not suspend a person’s driver’s license for out of state citations. They scheduled a court date and mailed me a notice of the court date. When I didn’t show up they issued a warrant for my arrest for failure to appear on a speeding ticket.
That’s pretty crazy. They cared enough about a $124 speeding ticket, that if I ever came through this state and had interaction with law enforcement they were going to create a problem for me. On a fucking speeding ticket? Somebody was upset enough that my license couldn’t be suspended that they wanted to schedule a court date, and the judge thought it was appropriate to issue a statewide warrant for a speeding ticket? Surprising.
I called the county, they provided me a number to call to pay it, and shortly after paying it I received an email stating I paid the ticket and am in compliance.
Suppose dispatch would have ran my name when I was stopped? It may come back as me having a warrant out of Harrison County. The officer might not have any information other than you have a warrant for a failure to appear in Harrison County. I may not have the opportunity to pay it on the spot. My car may be towed. I don’t know how they would proceed with it, but I’ve never heard of a warrant being issued for a failure to appear on a speeding ticket. Screenshot attached, because I’ve never heard of it so I wouldn’t expect you to believe it.
Instead of taking off this whole week and trying to find something on AT next week, and finishing up going through these journals, books, and creating the next solicitation, I had to go back and get that money I spent on the ticket. Since I’m here, I worked the following day. Since I’m here, I’m working Monday and probably Tuesday so I can be better situated for a little bit.
I recently noticed that it costs me about $64 a month to drink sparkling water and diet Pepsi. 12 16.9oz bottles of Pepsi, and 16 12oz cans of sparkling water, sold in 6 packs and 8 packs respectively, is roughly my weekly consumption. I thought about in terms of a subscription. If someone offered me 2 8 packs of sparkling water and 2 6 packs of diet Pepsi per week would I buy that subscription? I mean I am already by virtue of maintaining that pace, but if it was put to me like that I probably wouldn’t do it. Those beverages along with flavored caffeinated drink mixes probably save me money by preventing me from making single beverage purchases, like energy drinks, or sodas. The diet Pepsis have been on sale for about 4 dollars a 6 pack, so if I buy about 3 individual 20oz throughout the week that’s about the cost of the 2 6 packs. Sometimes I would purchase multiple energy drinks on the same day, which can be near that cost. This subscription probably saves me money.
I’ve been spending more money lately, and there are two reasons for it. In the American Prosperity Proposals I introduced a term called emotional upkeep. These are purchases required to produce positive sensations to be able to maintain your income within your given set of circumstances. For example, if a person stops at Starbucks every morning to buy a coffee on their way to work, that experience may be required to meet the requisite amount of joy they need in continuing at that job within those set of circumstances. It isn’t a discretionary expenditure that could be substituted, or eliminated and saved, it’s an expense required to do the job they do to earn the income they earn. The same as they couldn’t eliminate the cost for fuel to get to the job.
I notice how my spending has increased on food while working this job. I went to taco bell once, and jack in the box a bunch of times. I was also spending more at Walmart, usually on food. I did so intent on the satisfaction of eating it, driven by my underlying dislike of the work I’d been performing. If the amount of money I’d been making increased this would be measured through my marginal propensity to consume. Essentially showing a low income person making more money and spending the increase instead of saving it. That isn’t what that is. Because if I were performing different work I wouldn’t be buying extra food to create positive sensations in response to the stress caused through this income opportunity. So the additional income that is consumed is an expense created by that income opportunity, and necessary to earn that income.
I don’t know that this is an MPC situation. At least not relative to some of the weeks and jobs I had. But those jobs have become slow, hopefully they’ll pick up again soon. $300 to $400 on trampoline assemblies that take about 3 to 5 hours, is preferable to 2 8 hour shifts pressing cardboard into a folder. The point is, I was at times making about the same or more other weeks. But that shit dropped off and the veryable job I worked in Cincinnati in-between assembly and handyman jobs stopped posting. We could say MPC based on the two weeks or so preceding my arrival in the area
I’ve made other purchases that could qualify as MPC like socks, drawers, belt, and pants. Phenibut and a hat. Spark plugs, tire, and a quart of oil. The last three were required to maintain transportation. Also bought an 1/8th and I think 2 tall cans somewhere in there. Along with the phenibut those are general circumstances emotional upkeep purchases. The rest are essentials except for the hat. Even the hat is less discretionary consumption, and more investment since the hat has my logo and my website. Although I do have a logo website that that’s been demoted to a work hat because it’s old and dirty
The difference between the MPC between low income people and high income people is often a higher income facilitating purchases for necessary things that higher income people replenish regularly or already have, and lower income people only being able to afford these things when their income increases. So it appears as if lower income people don’t save their money when they experience income increases and higher income people do. Again, typically higher income people have had higher incomes and made purchases and maintain upkeep on those purchases through that higher income, whereas lower income people experience pay increases and are catching up to a standard of living that is considered normal for others. Just another place where economists who lack real world experience look at poor people and say they don’t save and invest and this is why they’re poor. Behavioral choices where when they earn more they spend it so they can’t get ahead, when in reality, they’ve been living below a normal quality of life standard and pay increases allow them to begin approaching what is normal, or to catch up.
The real reason I’ve been spending money has less to do with the money I’m making, and more with the opportunity to make it back. It’s notoriously hard for me to spend money outside of investment. When I used to hustle I always had money but I rarely spent money. You pick up a product and as you sell it once you’ve made your money back on the cost the additional money you make isn’t thought of as profit. It’s thought of as money that can be put into purchasing more product at a better price. You find yourself buying the things you need, and saving all the money you have to put towards a bigger bag.
Anyway, when I don’t know how or when I’m going to get money it requires a sizable amount before I’m willing to spend any. Knowing I can work this job enabled me to make purchases I otherwise wouldn’t have made. I can spend the money if I know I can make it back.
I plan on working Monday and Tuesday. I’m considering working Wednesday. I have phenibut on the way so this could be a determining factor.
I’ve almost finished breaking down and reposting the second volume of the journal. Have about 2 weeks of entries shouldn’t be more than 4. Then I’ll move onto the first volume, read through the remaining books, and create the next solicitation. I’ve discovered the limit on editing a page is 300 pages. Both volumes are 300 pages when copied, so the limit on a WordPress page is 300 document pages.
Read something interesting this morning that 7 percent of the workforce is older than 65. In 1985 only 2 percent of the workforce was older than 65. This is interesting to me because it has the effect of lowering the unemployment rate and raising the work force participation rate. If the same proportion of retirement aged people were retired as in the 80s, unemployment would be over 8 percent, and the workforce participation rate would be much lower. Older people working into retirement skews the true health of the economy in regard to labor. This isn’t to say that a lack of jobs is a problem, but from a distance it skews the supply and demand of labor. As a percentage there are more working age people who are unemployed, and more working aged people not participating in the workforce. My focus is less about job availability, although CEPs from the American Prosperity Proposals, and a Balance Stimulus address job creation, but my focus is on increasing the quality of existing opportunities for unskilled workers.
3/30/2024
Should be the last journal entry until I finish up what I need to finish up and begin the next sollicitation. There’s been no indication that the previous sollicitation has even been read. I also don’t know how long I can keep up with this work. It requires so much time for such little money. The company I typically work with pays well above the market rate, $20 an hour as compared to $14 to $16 among similar jobs on the app. I’ve had a few mornings where I woke up feeling like I did for most of last summer. Probably March to August or September.
Wake up with my eyes closed trying to fall back asleep. Thoughts vary based on whatever is going on, but the underlying theme is this is it. Things can get worse but cannot get better. There are no improvements on the horizon, windows of opportunity, the decontamination of minds that prioritize irrelevancy and interpret information based on how the information causes them to feel, instead of what makes sense. I think if the remainder of my life will be similar to the last 10 years, it doesn’t make much sense to continue. I’ve had a few days like that recently probably spawned from the amount and kind of work I’ve been performing. I go through it from different points of reasoning until I begin counting my breath to fall back asleep or decide to wake up to start my day.
Last year that’s how I woke up most days. I was demoralized after working, saving, and then investing the money into an effort that reasonably should have produced some return at least in the form of interest and there was nothing. And no way because people’s reasoning abilities are reduced to believing things that make them feel good. They’re reasonable only in as much as the reason they believe something is because it feels good. They cannot put points together to arrive at the conclusion, or understand the implications of the conclusion. It took me 5 months of hard work, in a bs work environment to save $12,000. That’s what it took for this failing effort. I began working the job intent on doing what I had done and creating a presence with my material, or checking out. Didn’t check out because there wasn’t enough pain present.
When I’m engaged in some effort as ineffective as I anticipate it to be, it’s accompanied by some fantasies in considering possible outcomes. All those fantasies lead to a place where the human species is greatly improved and I have some compensated role in contributing to that effort. These fantasies obviously produce positive feelings. I had no fantasies after my campaigns failed, because I had evidence that I could not be understood, so continued efforts were fruitless, and 10 years of negative feelings produced from each failed effort was assigned to promotional efforts. I wasn’t doing anything that created even the potential for a positive outcome.
My baseline emotional state was hopelessness that fluctuated based on my circumstances. Anger when circumstances deteriorated, and brief periods of elation when I would recover (1). That hopelessness is always present but becomes deemphasized and drowned out when I’m engaged in a project or there is the prospect of something that could produce a positive outcome. I believe I’ve written about this fairly recently, in engaging in some effort and predicting that once the project is finished or there are no results from the effort I’ll return to my baseline hopeless state.
1: My circumstances are obviously already in a deteriorated state. I’m speaking relatively here, times when I wouldn’t be able to find work, had 10s of dollars and then maybe I find a job and make a few hundred dollars, the release of the stress associated with those circumstances produced radical shifts in mood briefly, maybe for a day or two.
The following may be thoughts influenced by dreams or something along those lines. I don’t know where the prompting comes from but I do know it isn’t a completely internally organic train of thought. There are times I think that I have everything I’m going to get out of this life. The species is incorrigible and I should leave with what I’ve accumulated and spare myself the continued struggle in efforts that serve no purpose. I sometimes think about this in the context of survival of consciousness after death. To look back from maybe last year to however long I live and be embarrassed that I didn’t check out. The same is also considered from another angle, to look back after checking out and becoming aware that maybe there was an opportunity had I stuck around.
There are of course other elements and thoughts surrounding the idea of removing myself from this planet. It is the only option I have. There is only this, what I have been doing over the previous 10 years, or there is that. There isn’t anything else because the improvement of my circumstances and the effort required to improve my circumstances does not improve my well being if I remain ignored and have no outlet for my material and improvements in the intelligence of the species.
—
I worked for a different company than usual for a 5 hour shift. There was a guy telling what are presumably fake stories about being locked up. Hollywood shit. It’s funny because as someone who has been incarcerated for semi-long periods of time, a little over 6 years in total at the juvenile, adult, county and state levels, it’s clearly a poor attempt at trying to appear to be tough, or to think that others would think he was cool. I can’t say for sure since I’ve never been incarcerated in this state but most of what he said is BS.
There isn’t some different brand of people who are locked up that are not the same people who were once on the street. If you’re in prison, for the most part it is the same people who were doing the same shit you and others you associated with, friendly or unfriendly. There are also consequences for your actions while you’re locked up. In my experience at the county level a fight would result in a week or two in segregation. At the state level the first fight I was in I didn’t get out of the hole for 6 months. In addition to losing privileges or being put in segregation, inmates often faced new charges or more time. I was sentenced in Wisconsin (2000) under truth in sentencing which is still in effect. This means you get your time in and parole time at sentencing, for example you might get 4 years total and it’s 2 years in and 2 years out. At that time for every 2 days you spend in segregation, your mandatory release date pushes 1 day back into extended supervision time. In my situation, being in the hole for 6 months pushed my MR back 2 months.
He said he was locked up for 4 years but just beat one charge recently he was charged with from the charge he sat 4 years for. 1st I’ve never heard of a case taking 4 years to resolve. Anything that occurs during an event is one case consisting of whatever you’re being charged with. You’re either going to trial or you’re pleaing out. You don’t go to trial on one charge or plea on one charge and then have a trial that takes 4 years on the other. The DA is offering a plea agreement to resolve all the charges, they’re not offering a plea for one charge and going to trial on another. If you’re going to trial on the charge you think you can beat the DA is going to trial on the charge they think you can’t, and if you lose on one you’re getting maxed out. He presumably, if this situation was real and it 99.999 percent is not, he’d have plead to the charge for 4 years and the DA in the plea agreement would have dropped the other charge or ran it concurrent. You don’t plea out on one charge and go to trial for another or go to trial on one charge and then 4 years later go to trial on another. When the charges are part of the same case for the same event.
He claimed he was in a prison where inmates had different color jumpsuits for different lengths of time. Maybe, but I doubt it. In prison in WI everyone wore green, unless you were in segregation you wore red. The real problem with his claim is classification. Maybe different in MO, but in Wisconsin when you go to prison you go to DCI for intake. First few days you’re in your cell pretty much all day, coming out to meet with people for health screening and other things. Then you’re moved to a pod where you come out to eat, and you get rec and other things. From there you’re either moved to another pod or moved to the barracks which is a dorm setting with bunks if you’re going to be classified to medium or minimum. I presume every state has different level security prisons for inmates of varying degrees of offenses, time, and flight risk. If he had 4 years it’s unlikely that he would be staffed to a max joint, and unlikely this max joint would be housing offenders who had time of less than 5 years, and then designate which offenders had how much time through the color of clothing they wore.
It was ridiculous. People who are or have been about that life are not surprised by what they find while they’re incarcerated and don’t use and exaggerate the experience to try to make others think that they’re tough.
Another man there discussed some of his experience doing time at the county level which is consistent with county time I’ve served and doing time in general. People have routines, nobodies trying to go to seg, especially doing state time. Count times, eat, play cards, go to rec, maybe you have a job, socialize with those who you associate with, and do your time. If somebody disrespects you, whoop their ass. Maybe run in their cell or go to the bathroom and hope you don’t get caught and nobody snitches. That’s how most people are doing their time and the environment.
Most predatory shit was finesse. People pretending to be naive inmates friends to get things from them. Borrowing shit and not paying it back. Rapes and murders do occur, rarely outside of max joints, but even rarely in max joints. When I was in Ethan Allen this dude had supposedly raped his celly, but it was rumored that it was consensual until they were caught. Besides my own experiences, I came from this. I have acquaintances, most of the people I know have been to prison and some in max joints. As well as have been locked up with people who have been to max joints. None of the fairy tale shit he was talking about were regular occurrences.
The other guy was telling some story about somebody asking him for noodles. The BSer said he’d have gave him the noodles and then said now your my bitch. First he’s not doing that, second, 95 percent of people locked up county or state would hit him in his shit if he said something like that. He said he got beat up everyday. He said if you go in the pod if someone is looking at you you better just go fight them because it means they’re going to do something to you. Just a lot of ridiculous shit. I was there to make $100, if he thinks making an ass out of himself makes him look cool that’s his prerogative.
I recently mentioned that I’ve had people who I used to know make efforts to contact me through FB messenger and I ignored their requests seeing no real benefit in it. I received a text asking if this was Os number? I responded what makes you think O would want to talk to you if he’s had this number for 8 years and you don’t know if it’s his number? As most people I know he explained that he’s been in and out of prison and lost my number and through other clues in his text, I knew who it was.
I’ve known him since I was 8, he was 7, and his brother was 9. He texted that his Mom and Dad both died while he was locked up this past time. His brother died 3 to 4 years ago. I thought his dad was already dead so that wasn’t really news.
I talked to him a few years ago in 2022 a few times, he was locked up when I was in WI 2019 and 2020. Funny part about his situation is he was out (parole extended supervision time) on an ankle monitor but didn’t have a house to go to. House arrest with no house. Not that he didn’t have places to go, just that he didn’t have an address that he could use for house arrest.
He’d been back out for a few months and was already on the run for absconding. He’ll be going back, although he talked to his PO and should be getting an inpatient drug program when he’s caught if he doesn’t catch any new charges before now and whenever that is.
When I talk to old friends the content is pretty much the same. Who died, who’s locked or has cases, who just got out, maybe who is into with who, who’s snitching, and who is in or out of relationships with who. Then maybe followed by that individual’s plans.
2 people we know just caught a bunch of serious charges that I looked up on CCAP. Both had possession of firearms by felons, one also had body armor, possession of multiple controlled substances, reckless endangerment, and the stories surrounding the charges are kind of crazy. Another guy we know just got out after 3 years. I wondered what was going on with him, last time I saw him was 2017, he was on the same shit he’d always been on but I heard he moved out of Milwaukee and had settled down with a chic he’d been involved with for awhile. Apparently that was short lived because he got sentenced to 3 in 3 out, although it wasn’t directly related behavior. It was DWI 7th, 8th, or 9th(that’s the charge). I say it wasn’t directly related to behavior in the sense it wasn’t for a crime that was related to criminal intent or lifestyle. I may have mentioned previously that an old friend was getting out after 15 years for 3 counts of armed robbery. He’s been on work release for some period of time as he’s finishing up his sentence, and my guy talked to him and said his plans are to take the money he’s saved and start hustling. He’s got no idea about what’s been going on for the last 15 years, has 6 years of parole, and basically plans on getting out and doing and selling drugs. Given what I know about him, having known him since he was probably 15, this isn’t going to go well for him. Not to mention he allegedly told on some people about some things long ago and these people have not forgot about that. When I was in Milwaukee, 2017 or 2019-2020 his name came up and people were talking about doing something to him when he got out. Not life threatening, but fucking him up.
As for my guy, he was talking about how a woman gave him a car and bought herself a minivan. The minivan was taken to a tow yard but he has the title signed by the seller but not by the buyer. He was going to go to the tow lot, get it out with the title and then sell it. He said she couldn’t go to the police because she had warrants. His plan was foiled because he was hanging out with a person who is known in the streets to be on some bitch shit, telling on people and looking for opportunities to advance his immediate interests at the expense of those who he pretends to be cool with. As I was told, my guy had some hard and didn’t do enough with the dude, so he called the chic who got high with him and he told her what my guy had planned to do. Somehow, the way it was told to me is she gave the guy at the tow lot some money to get the car out without a title.
From a moral standpoint he’s obviously wrong for trying to steal her van and sell it. But from within that lifestyle it’s fucked up to betray your guy to get high or to try to pull a chic who you just met.
I don’t try to provide any advice. These are men 40 years old who have been doing the same things they’ve been doing for 25 years. What can my guy do? Work for $12 to $15 an hour, barely be able to afford anything and that’s his life? Like his mom who was on AFDC for a lot of years then spent her life working a job that barely paid her bills and went to the casino to play slots from time to time. Or he can figure out ways to get money for drugs which he’s very successful in doing, meet different women who have that same interest, have fun, and then pay for it going to prison from time to time. Pretty similar to his dad. Same as his brother. There’s nothing I can tell him that is going to improve his quality of life.
Over the last 10 years, among those who haven’t died or haven’t been sentenced to long prison terms, their quality of life is probably much higher than my own. That’s what’s there. If not for my moral clarity it would be very appealing to revert, and in some sense convert. The criminality I was personally involved in was rooted in money and respect and I never had any substance dependency issues. I sold drugs and stood on respect. Jail and prison time I did was for batteries, and an escape charge. I wasn’t directly involved in robberies, home invasions, finesse moves, shootings, etc, but I grew up with and associated with a lot of people who did. That’s all there is for me looking back, and although it isn’t unappealing from a sensational standpoint, it’s incompatible with my development, even if I could abandon ambition and return to a mindset of basic sensationalism.
Most of the people I know are drug addicts, dead, in prison, still involved in illegal things, party all the time, and some have settled down or are halfway in halfway out. For me, it’s all the same because we don’t have the same interests. Why don’t I go home? There’s nothing there for me that’s moving forward. When you develop in isolation, your development isolates you because you develop different interests and nobody else does. You think the problem is people don’t know things only to discover that they don’t want or care to know things. They’re content with their value structure. When you try to meet and work with people who profess like interests, you find that they’re more concerned with their own agenda than they are with the causes they claim.
Anything else, if I were employed to increase my comfort is also unappealing. My life isn’t about increased comfort, that doesn’t produce contentment. I want to live in a world with intelligent people where all people have opportunities for adequate amounts of time and money, and are born into households where the heads of those households have adequate opportunities for time and money and foundational values to create environments that are conducive to children developing productive and intelligent interests and habits. I can’t have that because the species I am a part of is governed and manipulated by feelings they don’t understand which allows deception and stupidity to reign supreme.
3/26/2024
In the previous entry I explained that I respected the second shift supervisor based on how she did her job. An element of that is she typically doesn’t have an issue with what you’re doing so long as it doesn’t impact production or safety. This is how decent people function. They don’t make up rules for the sole purpose of making someone do something they don’t want to do. The first shift supervisor appears to do this.
One girl was sitting in a chair and another girl was about to get a chair to sit on while working and she told them they couldn’t sit in the chairs. What exactly is the difference between the one girl making boxes while seated versus standing, and the other putting a small hairspray bottle into a carton while sitting versus standing? If they keep up with the line, there is no difference, except that in one situation they’re more comfortable and in another they’re less comfortable.
Not sitting in the chairs has no impact on production. The dictate is a personal objective of the supervisor exercised through her vocational authority. There are several explanations as to why she derives pleasure from the act of telling the girls they cannot sit.
We can rule out company policy because other supervisors allow employees to sit while they’re working so long as it doesn’t produce unsatisfactory performance. Of course if we couldn’t, and it was company policy a supervisor shouldn’t blindly enforce company policy, but should roll it back and explain if you want me to enforce this it has to make sense. Otherwise it’s stupid, and there’s no reason for me to force stupidity on others, compromising their well being while they’re providing services, potentially harming the work environment, decreasing the likelihood they will return, and potentially harming production. Why would I enforce a rule that doesn’t improve production, when enforcement of that rule may harm production? That’s stupidity because it adversely impacts all affected interests and provides no benefit. But this isn’t company policy as far as I know.
After production and company policy, the supervisor could claim that the act is motivated by the value of fairness. In the examples I have, 2 I’ve shared and another I’m about to she could claim that her value of fairness motivates her to assert authority. She sees two girls sitting and everyone else standing, so she says no one can sit in chairs because she thinks it’s unfair if they sit while others stand. It’s a very perverted conception of fair, where in a situation where everyone can work effectively seated and there aren’t enough chairs, those without chairs are no worse off by those sitting who have chairs. It’s fair by way of whoever found and decided to use the chairs first. If you’re concerned with fairness then allow the others to bring a chair.
It definitely isn’t about fairness, because in the previous example she used group punishment by prohibiting the use of items not normally prohibited because someone used the non -prohibited item in a prohibited way. A woman had an ear bud in and was on the phone while she was working. This act of talking on the phone while she was working had no impact on production or safety, and therefore should not have been prohibited to begin with. The supervisor said no one could have earbuds or their phones on the line. People still do, but it obviously isn’t fair to punish people for the behavior of others, especially when that behavior is inconsequential to the company’s aims. Group punishment intent on getting the group to supervisor one another. Something that’s also counterproductive to production. The point being is fairness cannot be a motivating value in telling the girls they can’t sit down, but then not be a motivating factor to limit what people can do while they’re working based on someone else’s behavior.
We can eliminate company policy, and fairness as motivating her actions. She appears to derive pleasure from controlling others. It’s probable that other people obeying her dictates creates a perception of superiority, that creates improvements in self worth which produces positive feelings. This behavioral mechanism may also operate outside of control, through the assertion of authority itself, where the dictate need only be stated to produce the perception, to boost self worth, and produce the positive feelings behind the purposeless dictates.
She worked on another line on second shift and when the work was finished she yelled everybody needs to be cleaning. There’s a few brooms, and a few garbage cans, and about a 10 foot space around the perimeter of about a 20 yard machine, and there’s a dozen people. There isn’t enough to clean for everyone to be cleaning. I left, shift was over, my area was clean, but it was unnecessary, stated for the sole purpose of asserting authority. Unnecessary because after each shift the areas are cleaned and require no additional motivating input from a supervisor to accomplish that end. Her saying something is for the sole purpose of whatever pleasure she derived from issuing the dictate.
A third possible source of motivation for dictates that serve no productive purpose could be positive feelings she experiences in making others uncomfortable. In denial of chairs, denial of earbuds and phones, and in the third, even unnecessarily telling people to do something produces some suffering in others she may be aware of and derive pleasure from, albeit probably subtlety but subconsciously motivating. It’s unlikely, but definitely a possible element of motivation.
The supervisor’s dictates contribute nothing to production, and are motivated by the pleasure she derives from controlling others and/or asserting authority. While I believe it’s unlikely that she is motivated by producing suffering for others, she clearly values the act of asserting authority or controlling others more than she does the wellbeing of others, since the well being of others is affected by the dictates and the dictates do not advance the interest of production.
This represents a tyrannical mode of operation, the willingness to impose on others for acts that do not impose, where there is no justification for imposition because the acts also have no impact on productivity. Where non-imposing acts could be imposition if they impact productivity in a setting where people agree to provide services to meet a standard of production. In this setting, that standard of production is well defined, where as long as each individual’s contribution ensures that the line doesn’t stop then they are performing consistently with that standard of production.
This doesn’t prejudice my treatment of or disposition towards the supervisor in recognizing this about her, except in how I interpret her dictates. Where it’s a pattern, and if subject to one that doesn’t advance the interests of safety or production or I’ll leave presuming I have an adequate amount of money. As it is, I intend to finish this week and then go somewhere. Which doesn’t mean I may not be back in a week or two if I cannot find work when my money runs low.
—
I worked on Monday 3/25 which was the day that the chair directive occurred and prompted the previous analysis. The next day I worked was 3/27, and it probably couldn’t have been a worse day to follow up that analysis.
Before I begin, up to that point the line rarely stopped because of people’s performance, and if it did stop because of performance it was a product of ability, not effort, and not a product of engaging in other activity. One example was the first day I was folding boxes a guy started loading the machine faster than I could make em and the machine stopped. I couldn’t be substituted because no one else wanted to do the box folding. I didn’t care, I was the bottleneck on the process, so if you think it accomplishes more to run it at maximum speed and stop it every 5 minutes, as opposed to running at a slower speed consistently, you know better than I would what numbers those strategies translate to. After the break adjustments were made to change the person loading the machine and we resumed consistent production. I’ve since developed the ability to fold the boxes faster than the machine can wrap enough product to fill a box.
In my time working there, there are no notable occurrences of a lack of effort or distractions (phones, ear buds, food, drink, etc) leading to the line stopping. Yesterday the girl next to me who is responsible for putting the product in the boxes frequently left the line to do something with her phone, and just stood there without putting product in the boxes causing the line to back up. I initially tried to help a few times but once I saw she wasn’t putting in the effort there was no point in trying to conceal the problem. I’m an uninterested party in the outcome. I have an agreement to provide services to perform the task I have been assigned to, and each of them has the same agreement with the company. Whether the line stops or not because someone isn’t performing well has no impact on me. In this situation it has no impact on my share of the workload. I fold boxes and ensure there is a box available as soon as one is needed to place product. The speed with which they put the products in the boxes doesn’t impact the amount of work that I have to do. I will help out if someone is falling behind, largely so they don’t have to feel responsible for the line stopping if they’re putting in effort.
I take the position that if something doesn’t involve production or safety, and obviously respect among one another which is indirectly production, that the enforcement of other rules is arbitrary authority and has the potential to harm production in a number of ways indirectly, most notably in spite. I’ve taken this to the extreme in a variety of settings. When I hired Craigslist workers who I took on the road as an interstate mover sometimes they would drink in the morning before we’d do a job. As long as what they did didn’t compromise their performance including the appearance of professionality, I didn’t care what they did. Why should I? I’m not not advocating for companies to take such an extreme position, it was appropriate for those people and that environment, not for many others, it’s just to say how far I have taken it and had success.
I wrote what I wrote and came in to a person seemingly intentionally backing up the line and stopping production. I saw her on a few occasions quite capable of moving faster than the machine. I presume her motive was to be moved. If you don’t like the task, if you cause the machine to stop you’ll be given a different task.
After the first break as can be expected they were moved and two new people replaced them to put product in the boxes and send the box through the taper. Interestingly, the woman putting the first two items in the box worked similarly to the girl from the first period. Often allowing the product to build up and rarely putting product in the boxes. The machine didn’t stop because the guy who puts the other two items in the box was a beast on that task. He put 4 items in most boxes and sent them through. I thought it was fucked up for him, because it was a grossly unequal distribution of the work load, but having been in his position it doesn’t seem like much, as a man you feel incumbent on doing more if you’re working with a woman, and you also don’t want to be responsible for the machine stopping. I get it, but if not for his overachieving performance the machine would have stopped and there would have been more interruptions of production.
She was replaced after the next break. We come back and the guy who was placing the product and sending the boxes through the taper, very shortly after the machine begins running says I need to send a text and he takes his gloves off and backs off the line. Consequently, the line backs up.
With everything I saw during the course of the day I say to myself maybe you mother fuckers need to be controlled and have somebody standing on your necks? In the moment that’s what it feels like. Ultimately, I think this is my 10th day working there, so what occurred that day is anomalous and not representative of the normal functioning on that line. But to someone monitoring who looks at the numbers they see production was down. The machine stopped multiple times because employees were on electronic devices. Without electronic devices on the line these stops don’t occur and therefore electronic devices limit production. Of course 99.9 percent of the time they do not, if contextualized by all the times employees and contractors use electronic devices while on the line. Electronic devices do not cause the line to stop, the prioritization of their usage does. That prioritization typically stems from someone who isn’t concerned with maintaining the expected standard of service to begin with, which is more prevalently observed without distraction from electronic devices.
I should have showed the other guy how to send the boxes through the taper, sent a few through and folded more boxes to keep the line going. The reason being was this person’s performance during the previous period earned him a brief cover. My perception was obviously colored by people not putting forth effort throughout the day, and felt like he was switching up by jumping off line to send a text. We also recently came back from break so it made no sense that he would schedule a text to take place right after break. It may have had legitimate importance. If it did he could have told the supervisor, and she would have covered for him for the few minutes he needed. Had I known he only needed a few minutes, and it was only a one time thing I would have covered for him and kept the line going, but I didn’t know that and the day consisted of people bs-ing.
Still not done. About 20 to 30 minutes before we’re about to finish we discover that there are roughly about 8 pallets worth of boxes that do not have stamps on them. Apparently at least one of the people palletizing wasn’t paying attention to which way the numbers were facing on the boxes. When you place the boxes on the pallet the numbers stamped on the boxes are supposed to be facing out. The only way you have 8 pallets of boxes with no stamps, is if the person putting the boxes on the pallets isn’t making sure the stamps are facing out. In his defense he can claim he assumes the stamps are in a spot based on the orientation of the arrow but the arrow isn’t a good indicator because sometimes the boxes enter the machine with the arrow flap on the other side which changes the orientation of the stamp on the box.
Overall, what I observed was frustrating. Not in the sense that it undermines the arguments that rules or dictates should pertain to production and safety, just the appearance of it. In the sense on this day people chose to hinder production or showed extreme indifference to production through their behavior, which implies a more restrictive environment is required to maintain production standards. It’s implied, but typically not effective in accomplishing those ends. As previously mentioned, this represents one off day in my experience, not normal operations.
—
Much more representative of my previous experience working on this job than the previous day. The guy who did the boxes before I did boxes was working and asked me if I wanted a break. I used to find putting product in the box the worst job, but since I had been doing boxes on all previous occasions on that line, the prospect seemed somewhat appealing. I left it up to him and he wanted to do the boxes.
The line didn’t stop all night outside of 1 issue with the taper. There were also boxes that were not stamped that were caught by the palletizers so we didn’t have 8 pallets of boxes to rerun at the end of the night. It didn’t malfunction as it had the previous night, but had it, they’d have caught it to fix the issue to avoid that outcome.
I do think I’m faster at folding the boxes but he has a better strategy that allows him to maintain the same output. By measure as speed is concerned I can typically produce 3 boxes as fast as a loader can fill 2. By that I mean the first person places two items into each box, and as they fill 2 I’ve made 3. There were a few times when he was under 1 to 1 with me, where I filled the box before he had one ready. I believe I’m slightly faster, but as long as a person can fold a box as fast a person can fill a box they can never be the reason the line backs up. The only advantage I have at 3:2 as opposed to 1:1 is I can get ahead of packers even when the line is filled with product.
The difference in strategy is when I fill the line with boxes I wait until there is another space on the line to make a box, or I replenish my material. He swipes the bottles down the line getting them to the packers faster allowing them to work ahead of the line and allowing him to stay ahead on boxes. If you have the right packers it’s a superior strategy.
When I worked with him previously I saw that he did this. I initially didn’t incorporate it because I was learning the machine. After I became proficient I didn’t incorporate it because of a difference in perspective, and because I didn’t have the experience to know it was the superior strategy, but had I, I may still not have implemented it.
First, the effectiveness of the strategy depends on the effectiveness of the packers. There is a most effective way to pack the product. The first one puts 2 items in the box furthest down the line and the second places 2 items and sends it through the taper. This allows the boxes to move as fast as possible and creates the quickest opportunity to put another box on the line. Seems pretty straightforward but different people do things differently. Sometimes the first person will take the first 6 items and put 2 in 3 boxes, this keeps the boxes on the line. Or they may put 4 in box while there’s empty boxes after it. I’m not sure if this strategy of swiping with a full line of boxes can be a detriment if the packers are working sub-optimally. It may still be helpful even if the packers are working sub-optimally.
The difference in perspective is I approach the task in isolation of other processes that I’m not responsible for. The goal is to ensure the line doesn’t stop. Proficiency for the box folder is to maintain a 1 to 1 ratio with the packer, since doing so means the packer always has a box for product and the box folding can never be the bottleneck. As for the packers, their responsibility is to pack the boxes faster than the machine can wrap them. However they choose to accomplish this or not accomplish it is up to them. I don’t assume they want me to swipe the bottles to them.
From his perspective I believe he’s looking at the job from an overall production standpoint and is admittedly interested in staying busy. Once I became proficient with the boxes I sought to utilize that proficiency to adapt to the preferences of the packers when possible. In one instance a woman at the taper pushed the boxes back. From my experience on the taper I remembered that it’s advantageous to leave a space between the last box to put your hand behind it to push the box through and press the rear flap down. On another occasion I noticed a packer who liked to keep a space between the oncoming boxes and the boxes she was filling to reach through to grab the product. Id make a box and try to time sliding the box where she had the previous one while leaving that gap, or I slide the box into the gap while she was filling the box, so she could slide it and keep the gap. I’m typically looking for things I can do to make other people’s jobs easier, so long as it doesn’t make my job more difficult.
Our strategies are different but equally effective in that we can both avoid being the reason the machine stops. The rest of production depends on the supervisor putting people in the right position or providing the right instructions to make sure they can keep up with the machine. Now that I understand the differences I can ask and explain to packers and see if they prefer to have bottles slid to them if I end up returning to this job.
I’ve been thinking about what I wrote about the first shift supervisor, and the examples I used to argue that she experiences pleasure from asserting authority at her job.
The first situation, she may have just been the messenger and was told by her superiors to tell us what she said. Even so, she also added something to the effect that we’re all adults lets act like it. Which is extremely condescending and reveals feelings of superiority. More importantly, it’s a stupid statement when 7 out of the 8 people present did not violate the rule. Not to mention rule violated had no impact on production or safety. For her she probably said it because she believed she could the favor of people by minimizing it as something adults do, i.e accept irrational authority.
This is probably the bigger cause of her actions but I do believe some of what I previously mentioned is also valid to some extent.
Years ago my daughter texted me that she was in the principal’s office because they couldn’t provide her with a valid reason why she couldn’t wear her hat. They claimed it was to identify her, but couldn’t answer how her hat made her effectively less identifiable, and had evidence it did not because she had been in school through her first two classes and was identified during that time.
We discussed the conditioning of authority and how her recognition of it obstructs those ends, but also the purpose of her going school and the consequences of her being willing to die on every hill where she is right about something. I may still have this account in Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison because the event coincided with a period where I was making ASC discoveries. I also wanted to make sure that she understood that these people don’t know what they’re doing. Ironically, I said they’re not consciously trying to turn her into a clock punching box maker, they just think that people are supposed to do as they’re told. It’s a standard of right for them. What I meant by clock punching box maker has nothing to do with vocation, it’s meant as a person who unquestionably accepts authority. The teacher enforced the hat rule because it’s a rule, not because she understands who, if anyone benefits from the rule. It’s right, and she’s right for enforcing it simply because it exists and comes from a high authority.
Some of that may be present with the supervisor in 2 out of the three examples. The example of the chairs doesn’t follow suit because it isn’t an enforcement of policy, and she wasn’t even supervising that line or crew. Perhaps there was previous history with the specific individual who was sitting, and while I have observed this individual perform poorly in other tasks, this individual’s performance in this task was outstanding, handily out performing the other person performing the same task.
In the other example seeing people away from the machine can be her seeing people in places she feels they’re not supposed to be. Again the area is cleaned by the end of the shift and that is the objective. I for one make efforts throughout the day to clean my area. When the shift is over my area at most needs a 30 second sweep and sometimes not even that. What purpose does it serve for me, or anyone else who has cleaned their area to stand in their area or to pretend to be cleaning what’s already been cleaned? This can be more a long the lines of an authority based standard of right, and an inability to understand what is right based on the circumstances.
The motivation for saying things to people that are unnecessary or serve no purpose is consistency with maintaining a standard of authoritative right, the perception of which produces positive feelings albeit usually subtly through improvement of self worth. This authoritative reasoning isn’t typically the sole motivator. There may be feelings from asserting dominance over inferiors, in the assertion itself or through control, and the acts are consciously justified through the authority based thinking. Their reasons are actually conscious justifications to engage in acts that produce positive feelings from controlling others, or witnessing themselves assert authority.
A lot of this could be wrong. I’ve had maybe an hour of total opportunities for impressions. Which to me makes the behavior more telling since in 1/3rd of the days I worked there she’s asserted authority 3x unnecessarily and condescended and asserted superiority. Someone also left her a Google review stating that she’s disrespectful to temp workers. I don’t have enough exposure to her to feel completely confident in any conclusion, but I also don’t seek that exposure since I was about $200 away from walking out based on the limited exposure I have had with her. Just to say, if she’s the supervisor there’s a good chance I don’t make it through the shift, even if she were direct her attention at others instead of myself.
While I was packing the second shift supervisor handed me a pair of safety glasses. If you’re packing product they want you to wear safety glasses. I couldn’t argue with it because it pertains to safety.
Now I need to get to work finishing up editing and posting journal archives. I have a 5 hour job on Saturday and then I should be able to take about a week. I’ve decided to just post the old journals chronologically, and maybe cut a few things out.
3/22/2023
I intended to go through my journals and edit or remove content that required further explanation. Unfortunately I cannot access the page in editing mode. This is the reason I have multiple pages because once the page reaches a certain length I can no longer edit it and have to create a new page.
I can still view the pages but I cannot edit them. I copied the page by viewing it and then intended to split each volume into two separate pages. I have two volumes that will need to be split and then recreated to remain accessible. As I went through it the explanation of circumstances becomes monotonous to read. There were periods that was the constant restating of being trapped without the potential for improvement due to the self deception engaged in by the general public. He’s not wrong, but it was appearing far too frequently.
There’s part of me that thinks I should edit and post it in its entirety as I had previously. But there are portions are probably better off withheld for at least two reasons.
The first reason it’s probably a better idea not to post it in its entirety is my general disdain for the general public that I vent in anger frequently the worse my circumstances become. He’s not wrong in his assessments, but he’s definitely not ingratiating himself with people through that content. Which isn’t to say I’m going to omit all of that content but it’s gratuitous at times. An effort to console myself through ideas and affirmations of justice and the consequences of bias reinforcing behavior.
Another reason some of it is better left unpublished is because some of it requires additional explanation or familiarity with my perspective to be understood as intended. People will draw inaccurate conclusions not having enough contextualizing information to grasp what is intended, and make incorrect inferences about me. All of which will occur anyway because people’s perspectives are built on BS, but there’s no benefit in adding fuel to that fire.
An example of something requiring additional explanation is the statement above: my general disdain for the general population. What this means is I recognize that what I see is a product of human behavior, and most people live lives that are mostly built on BS they’re committed to that produces what we have. Including my circumstances. When I look at humanity as a whole I have a problem with that. That knowledge doesn’t prejudice my opinion of people in interaction on an individual basis. How I perceive and treat the individual is based on their behavior.
I’m going through the entries but I also need to go through my books before I prepare a solicitation for the next group I plan to solicit.
I worked at the assembly line job for 4 days this past week. The work is brutal not in the physical demand but in the repetition. To work on an assembly line is to become the assembly line. The whole line could be automated but remains manned probably based on preserving required elements of their non-profit mission and because the cost of automation would probably vastly exceed the value of the service. The company exists as a non-profit for adults with disabilities, but as far as I can tell at least on second shift it’s just adults who need the money. I plan on putting in another 3 days this week and then hopefully find something through AT to take me to another area. Not that there’s anything wrong with the area I’m in, from a distance and casual interaction people seem decent.
Maybe two notable happenings outside proficiency in my task and adapting that proficiency to accommodate the tasks of others further down the line. I wrote about those observations and adaptations but after doing so felt these things were better left unstated. Came off as patting myself on the back for things that to me were not praiseworthy.
The first notable incident is I was seen on camera vaping. The supervisor asked me if I was vaping on her line and I admitted that I had. She said okay and that was the end of that. Later I apologized to her, and explained that it wasn’t intended as disrespect I just didn’t think anyone would notice. She does her job well, identifying what task is best suited for each person to ensure the line runs continuously, and is kind and respectful to those who she supervises. While I don’t have respect for rules that have no impact on production or safety, I do understand how not following those rules can have consequences for those who are tasked with enforcing them, which is why continuing to break the rules is disrespectful to the supervisor who I respect based on the respect she shows to others and the proficiency with which she does her job. It should also be noted that my vaping on the line isn’t exactly vaping in the sense that I inhale small amounts that are absorbed by my lungs where there’s typically no vapor visible upon the exhale. On a few occasions I overestimated the amount inhaled. Vaping helps to cope with the repetition of the work and pass the time, but I stopped vaping on the line since she brought it up.
The other noteworthy interaction was somebody stating that they thought revenge was petty. It was following a joke I made that didn’t land. The guy had on a trucker cap, suspenders, some off brand seemingly well worn work boots and looked a little like a farmer. To make conversation I said he looked like the type of person who would get revenge through the use of heavy machinery, a bulldozer, skid steer, backhoe.
I’m a proponent of revenge in most cases. I believe someone who has been victimized has a right to revenge. In situations where a victim cannot be made whole, where what is taken cannot be restored, revenge is a means where some amount of well being can be restored. Most of our criminal justice system is revenge for the victim. If someone assaults a person the justice in the offender being found guilty and sentenced to jail or prison is the satisfaction the victim experiences in knowing the person who has harmed him has been harmed. Although victims usually lie to appear more noble claiming they’re glad the offender cannot harm anyone else, or hope they learn their lesson, or other consequences that deny the presence of satisfaction of revenge to promote the more socially respected value of compassion.
Revenge is also a deterrent to would-be perpetrators.
The word petty which I have used in recent entries essentially describes the lack of significance of an action. In a recent example while putting product in boxes I wrote that it felt petty to create an issue out of performing marginally more work especially since the work itself is not physically demanding. It’s petty to say I’m putting more product in the boxes since the act isn’t producing any effective harm. As mentioned it has consequences to the work environment where in that situation the petty act has other detrimental consequences.
Can revenge be petty? Maybe. If someone harms you unprovoked and with the intent to harm, no matter how slight the harm may be, revenge in similar proportion may be appropriate for the restoration of well being. I can’t really conceive how this mechanism can become petty because the intent to harm and resulting harm even if relatively insignificant is still significant.
The feelings resulting from revenge are naturally satisfying and observed even among animals. The human propensity for revenge is dampened by false beliefs and faulty ideas often surrounding forgiveness that fail to acknowledge the consequences of purposeless forgiveness. Or the faulty belief that forgiving others will result in them being forgiven. Evil people seek forgiveness and forgive because they want to be forgiven for their evil conduct. Righteous people seek justice because they do not intend to harm others outside of the prevention and neutralization of imposition.
I intend to be here a few more days to make some more of this hard money, reread my books, and then hopefully find something worthwhile through AT.
3/16/2024
I was leaving the dollar tree and a man asked me if I would sign a minimum wage increase petition and I declined. First, I’m not opposed to minimum wage increases, I just don’t support them because they’re not a solution to improving income. Right now in most places, the market value of labor is already well above the minimum wage and well above any short term increases that will result from increasing it. The bottom of the labor market is already paying more than you can raise the minimum wage to, and those wages are still inadequate. In other words, if the minimum wage is currently $10 per hour, and you want to raise it to $12 an hour, it doesn’t help very much if 90 percent of unskilled jobs are paying $15 an hour already. Not to mention minimum wage increases are always incremental, and by the time the final implementation goes through the market is far beyond the minimum wage.
I suppose it’s marginally beneficial to a very small percentage of the workforce but it doesn’t create adequacy of income, or improve income opportunities for the bottom 40 to 50 percent of the income distribution who requires improvement. It’s not a solution to a problem so I can’t support it. It’s servicing the condition of being poor without providing an opportunity to achieve adequate income.
It’s a source of distraction and contrived controversy where Republicans like the Democrats often do can introduce sound reasoning without a factual platform. Like raising the minimum wage will lead to economic contraction, companies will have to lay people off, businesses will close down, and a number of other arguments about the consequences of raising minimum wages. Maybe a historical example that doesn’t parallel the present circumstances. When all the while it’s irrelevant to most industrial interests since the bottom of the labor market is already well above the minimum wage. There are probably some exceptions in areas where extreme minimum wage increases have occurred, but this just leads to adjustment of the business model to accommodate that economic environment, and marginally pushing the bottom of the labor market up still doesn’t produce adequate income, especially in that economic environment.
I was working through a labor hall in Denver when a minimum wage increase occurred (2017 or 2018) It was in the neighborhood of .50 and I can’t say I remember much of an improvement in my circumstances through that $4 a day. I mention that situation to say I’m not unfamiliar with what it’s like to be forced by circumstances into a minimum wage situation, and also not unfamiliar with what a minimum wage increase means to someone making minimum wage.
Not opposed to minimum wage increases, but I generally don’t believe it’s harmful or meaningfully helpful so I don’t support the effort. I say generally because within some circumstances it may potentially be one or the other but a great majority of the time it’s neither.
–
I saw two people on a corner with microphones and a banner that read say hailmary, and they were reciting the prayer through their microphones. It was somewhat funny to me, because it’s as ridiculous to me as it would be to most to see someone with a star wars sign reciting a prayer to attract the light side of the force. They’re both completely fictitious, and it isn’t difficult to realize that if you’re not invested in the idea being true. I said they could send the same message with a sign that read we’re fucking idiots. I’ve addressed the why to that in Liberty The Definitive Moral Truth and in probably several entries in this journal.
Why are they doing what they’re doing? Because they believe doing this publicly will gain them and others favor with their deity. The intended purpose I believe is for Mary to intercede with the deity on the person’s behalf, or the deity will forgive a sin for this chant. It’s a Catholic tradition and strange even by irrational Christian standards. I may be wrong about the purpose, but I do remember scenes of priests during a confession telling the confessor to say X amount of hail Marys for what they confessed.
Regardless of whatever nonsense the purpose is the act has one primary motivator and a secondary motivator. The primary motivator is an increase in self worth as they see the deity being pleased with their behavior, and the self worth of the religious consists in part of how they perceive the deity perceiving them. This motivates acts of obedience. The secondary motivator is seeing themselves as doing something that benefits others. This can produce positive feelings through the idea itself, if for example as they see themselves as saving souls that idea may feel good in the benefit they’re providing. Or maybe they see the effort as creating impressions to draw people to their deity, and that thought can feel good. In thinking they’re doing these things their self worth increases as they see themselves as someone who is helping others. Outwardly they would give the glory to their deity, as obedient behavior increases their self worth through their perception of its perception of them.
These are the subconscious elements of the act, the feelings that motivate the act.
I’m a guest in the area so I try not to interfere in these people’s lives. Without restating all the irrational points about Christianity, or even this particular practice, it really is insane.
I sent out my sollicitations. I received one response that the solicitation looked interesting and the person intended to read the book. Hopefully I’ve generated that same interest with others and maybe I can sell some books and attract some attention to my material. I went through this journal and I was pretty impressed with some of the content. I really just skimmed it looking for content I may want to take out to prevent inaccurate inferences about me through that content. Although there is probably some things in this journal that may be better left unsaid.
I’m going to skim through the previous journals, then I need to edit a few books and prepare another solicitation for a different group. Depending on the effectiveness of the academic solicitation I may contact more people from the academic community. I’m not sure how long I’ll be in the area but I need at least a few days on that assembly line job to replenish my funds and then see if something worthwhile comes up in a worthwhile area.
3/11/2024
Recording the noteworthy perceptions over the last week to two weeks has provided me with some very valuable information. A way to qualify behavioral changes and adjustments to my value structure over time, as well as a clearer identification of a conflict of values, and a fear that poses a problem. It also serves as an opportunity to demonstrate the functioning of values and standards. To understand this entry probably requires reading the two previous entries.
We begin with my editing of Liberty the Definitive Moral Truth. All speech is morally right unless it’s deception or threats. I tried to create a clause that doesn’t hold up. In doing so I brought myself back to a time when my value structure was much different than it is today and visited the previous mindset.
The clause was someone saying something that they should know will produce a violent reaction. If person A says something to person B that they expect person B to respond violently to, then person A has caused the violence. It brought me back to a time when respect was paramount. The example being when I was younger maybe 15 to 27, if you called somebody a bitch you were effectively challenging them to a fight. If I called somebody a bitch it was their opportunity to choose their fate, they could fight, be quiet, or call me a bitch back and I would start the fight. That was understood among just about everyone I associated with. It serves as an example of how that can be true, that someone can say something to someone and expect a violent reaction, and be responsible for that reaction.
It cannot be right morally because emotions are based on the interpretation of words, not the words themselves. Otherwise, anyone can say any words are disrespectful and justify a violent response and the mechanism becomes an instrument of tyranny.
I tried for two reasons. The first because this species is nowhere near morally or socially mature enough to respond morally to certain things being said to them. The second, and a legitimate fear I have, is I’m not completely certain how I will respond to overt verbal disrespect. I wanted to protect myself morally in the event that I respond poorly in the future. While not correct, there is an element of correctness to it. By virtue of the fact that I’m generally respectful, courteous, helpful, and not looking to impose on others physically or otherwise. Meaning just about any physical altercation I’m involved in is going to be a product of someone else intent on provoking that behavior.
I mentioned what’s probably best referred to as ho card, where if you let somebody call you a bitch they pulled your ho card if you didn’t do something to em. If you exchanged those words it meant you both were afraid. But obviously its a perception that extends beyond the overt and verbal, to other acts that are perceived as being disrespectful.
That’s why a lot of this gets the attention that it does. As a younger man I stood on just about everything with tyrannical fervor, but with a conscience, and a good will outside of matters of respect. As you get older the consequences are more significant, and for me specifically, I know exactly what is right and wrong concerning any act where I have enough contextual information. That’s been a conflict I’ve understood for a long time, the value of moral behavior and the remnants of the value of respect. They’re incompatible, because oftentimes to be consistent with one you have to violate the other, or risk violating the other. Having a history invested in respect advancing acts, a big portion of self worth from a large period in my life is based on those acts. There are values associated with maintaining respect and my eagerness to engage in such behavior. By values I’m not talking about idea based, but experience based, feelings associated with acts that felt good. It’s deep, but no longer prioritized. These events get the attention that they do because of that.
The feeling of consistency with a standard is responsible for general feelings of well being, so it isn’t as if consistency with one offsets the negative from inconsistency with the other, even if the other is deprioritized. Instead you feel disrespected and have to account for why you allowed it to occur, despite consciously having devalued it, or having the correct moral interpretation, because you still have that lens with those values, and it contributes to self perception and impacts self worth. Although these happenings are all insignificant, my attention was drawn to them based on inconsistency with standards of respect.
Standards of respect are rooted in the perception that person A thinks I’m someone they can do something to, whatever that something is that a person believes is disrespectful. In these situations, we’d say this person thinks he’s going to make me do more work. Nothing else matters outside of resolving the disrespect, not any of the benefits or even the possibility that it wasn’t intended. Typically such a person is angry as soon as they recognize it. I could see myself as a younger man responding very disrespectfully to those situations either intent on starting a fight or to assert dominance for believing the person thought he could disrespect me. The story could have been this dude just started yelling and trying to fight people saying he was doing more work. That’s how something like that looks from the outside looking in, and from the inside looking out he thinks they’re not going to have me do their work, without realizing that it wasn’t about that, it was about the disrespect and his inability to allow it, or in some cases the potential for the appearance of it.
Put him in anger management. Lol. When I was younger I recognized this at least in part, because I recognized that I didn’t have anger problem, I said I had a pride problem. As ignorant as I was in my youth, I’m proud of the few accurate observations I had as that younger person. This was one of them, he knew why he fought. He may have been angry, but he was only angry because he felt people were saying they could whoop him by being disrespectful to him. Or that he wouldn’t do anything.
The third person is intentional, since thoughts and behavior are produced by a person’s understanding and values, so as that understanding changes, values typically change producing a different range of thoughts and behavior. In many cases, a person is not really the same person they used to be. It’s also important to consider the role of circumstances in the production of behavior. All people are capable of nearly all behavior if pressed by the right circumstances long enough. Obviously people respond differently to the same circumstances, but there are a set of circumstances that can produce most behavior. When I’m talking about someone being a different person, it’s in reference to a different understanding producing different behavior within like circumstances.
Instead of looking at life like a ball that is rolling and accumulating different impressions, like you’re this one person who has done all the things you’ve done, it’s more accurate and overall healthier to think of former versions of yourself as different people, while of course being mindful of what they’ve left behind and how those things impact your perception, emotions, understanding, and values. And make adjustments to conform your responses and behavior to your standards.
While there are many people who are not the same people they used to be there are probably more who are the same people. They get older but experience no significant growth. They’re children with responsibilities, they’ve chosen their truths and are not interested in adding or discovering anything is wrong. They’re content with work and play. For some people it is more accurate to think of them as a ball rolling down a hill accumulating impressions because their understanding doesn’t change.
One last insight pertaining to this side bar is the kind of people who develop those mind sets and the enviornment that makes an extreme value of respect advantageous. It’s most prevalent among low income people and people who are incarcerated. Obviously, the enviornment makes this mind set advantageous, since the perception that you won’t defend yourself increases the likelihood that people will target you. This isn’t necessarily a low income situation, but a criminal circles and incarceration situation, both of which are primarily a product of growing up in a household with heads who had inadequate opportunities for income. More importantly, these values of respect become prioritized the less a person has and the more limited the person’s perceived opportunities are. Respect in the extreme often becomes deprioritized with age, since people’s circumstances typically improve, or they develop higher values. Circumstances may improve through employment, and higher values can be a romantic relationship, often a child, or something along those lines that can contribute to self worth, build a new identity through, or otherwise serve as a consequence to respect promoting behavior where the negative feeling of compromising those higher values, is greater than the negative feeling from the loss of self worth in not enforcing a matter of respect.
For others, their circumstances don’t change and they carry this extreme value of respect with them. This usually leads to death or long term incarceration. For those who have nothing and have little prospect of obtaining anything they believe is worthwhile, respect is something that they can enforce and base their selfworth on. I could write much more on this but let me get back to the point of the entry.
I mentioned that I may have responded poorly had the man who held the door for me have let it close when I thought he saw me coming. I was initially upset because I thought he saw me and was about to let the door close. Later I thought he had no moral obligation. I was upset and may have responded poorly because I would have perceived the act as being overtly disrespectful.
Other incidents where it appears people are dodging work or deferring a greater share of the workload to me can also be interpreted as disrespectful, which is why I thought about the shit and was bothered by it. The value is deprioritized, but the lens is still there. If the lens is still there that lens has to be overcome because seeing myself through that lens produces discomfort. Which is why first I check morality, and after I clear morality I think benefit and consequences.
It also influenced the perception of my environment. There was a forklift driver who asked me in a very friendly and respectful way to stack the boxes more towards the center of the pallet. In the frame of mind I was in, and having stacked the pallets for half a shift previously without anyone asking me to stack them differently, I began to wonder whether it was a legitimate concern because the boxes are shrink-wrapped. I was thinking he was just saying something to me to say something to me until I noticed that the pallets are stacked two high, and if the top one is off-center it can lean backwards or potentially forwards and fall off. I had to see it to know for sure (I did see a pallet leaning on the fork lift), had my perception not been influenced by observing my partner seemingly avoiding work, I probably don’t question the motives of the forklift operator asking me to stack the boxes more towards the center of the pallet.
Mentioning my behavior high after break and singing along on the Dolph track is an inconsistency with a performance standard. I need to understand why it happened to prevent it in the future.
There’s more to it than what I wrote in the entry, but it’s a conflict with a standard of performance in regard to behavior. As a younger man I listened to music that was reflective of my lifestyle and that kind of music changed over time. The last rap artist that I listened to that still represented authenticity and relevance in content was Alley Boy. I stopped listening to rap for the most part because the music reinforces values and a lifestyle I haven’t been living for over 10 years. Rekindling or being reminded of those values isn’t beneficial and can influence behavior by reminding of my lifestyle, experiences, and those former values that are in conflict with newly developed and prioritized values and ambition. After I stopped listening to rap I did listen to some of Dolph’s music and liked some of the content. Other content I wasn’t a fan of, particularly his references to tricking, or spending money on women. Basically, my support of his music was really just like a vote, that I thought he was one of the few quality artists post my era of rap music. But I was unusually high so it came out as fandom, and I happened to pick up on the song during a lyric that represented behavior I don’t support. Subconsciously there’s a subtle negative feeling in misrepresenting myself through behavior that is conflict with performance standards that produced these associated thoughts. For some they think back to things and don’t like the way it makes them feel. For me I recognize that the thoughts are a subconscious objective, the interpretation of my behavior is inconsistent with a performance standard producing the accompanying negative feeling generated from a loss of self worth. The thought is produced to resolve the negative perception. Either by rationalizing how the behavior was acceptable, or understanding what produced it to prevent it in the future, and in doing so being able to seperate myself from the act through that improvement in understanding.
The same as being asked my age and not having a good response. I thought about it because it’s behavior that was below my standards in my response. There are certain questions I don’t like to answer because the answers carry with them stigma and lead to the application of stereotypes that are not accurate, and I know people cannot understand the explanation because if they could the answers would be different.
Mentioning the chic I thought was sexy was to understand why I didn’t put any effort into trying to get on that. I’ve been fucked up for about the last year after saving 12k working a job for 6 months, and investing that money into an effort that should have produced attention, interest, and support but did not. Now I’m at a place where I have two angles and campaigns that may produce some interest, and that has to be my sole focus for the time being. I’ll try to pull something through Tinder, straight forward hang out, smoke, drink, socialize, and smash situation. Recharge, where these encounters help me to be more productive in other areas of my life. It’s something I thought and wrote about to understand why I wasn’t pursuing a valued objective.
Let’s take the three instances where I observed people perform less work than they were expected to.
In each of these situations I’m disturbed because I recognize it as moral imposition and possibly disrespect. It’s subtle but present and produces comparisons to arrive at a decision of how to respond.
I initially don’t acknowledge the disrespect aspect of it, primarily because I like to think that my morality is my highest governing standard, and there’s no guarantee that it is intended. In fact there’s no guarantee that the act of fucking off is intentional, since there were times when efforts were made to do more, and then it could be what I termed as off pattern suboptimal work habits to reduce the monotony. So, it not only isn’t coming from a place of disrespect, or even an effort to do less work, but from a place of trying to make the job more tolerable through a more intricate pattern of work. I recognize disrespect as a possible interpretation not as a fact.
The exception was the third guy who was on his phone and became over interested in ensuring that his boxes were stacked perfectly. He had some other shit going on and I’m not going to put his business out there. That may have been the only time where feelings of disrespect were present and that caused me to question the motives of others retrospectively.
The morality aspect of it is a fact but as previously mentioned the degree is low to non-existent since the energy required for the act is almost negligible, and in certain capacities like palletizing, moving a box has an upside in being able to move and have something to do. This was acknowledged in the moment through the idea that in every situation it seemed petty to address.
I had morality and respect as motivators, but there was no value in changing the environment. By that I mean if I say you’re fucking off and making more work for me and that caused them to do equal parts of the work, it doesn’t improve the quality of the time I’m spending at the job. As previously mentioned I thought about this in the moment when I recorded that I didn’t want to change our co-working dynamic. From that moment on our relationship working together is different, and after getting what I want, I’m going to feel uncomfortable and try to make behavior adjustments to not be perceived as intimidating.
There are of course consequences. I can be right and still appear to be wrong, or even be wrong. It can be perceived as trying to control how other people work, and if the person isn’t consciously avoiding their fair share of the work that’s the only way they can interpret it. This can lead to a reputation of being difficult to work with which could prevent me from working there in the future, or otherwise harm the work environment.
There are other foreseeable consequences in telling people how to work, how that can be interpreted and how the situation can escalate, and the serious potential consequences of escalation.
If I respond, it’s solely for the feelings of having stood on respect when there is the potential that disrespect wasn’t intended, and to neutralize imposition for the sake of neutralizing imposition. Which really isn’t the neutralization of imposition because the effect is observed but the energy, or burden of the additional work is essentially imperceivable. In this situation the principle fails the principle, where the act can be quantified as imposition, but there’s no effective imposition actually taking place. This means efforts to remedy the behavior cannot neutralize imposition, because although quantifiable, there isn’t any real burden attached to it. So neutralizing the imposition is in essence, an imposing act. Or it’s about respect which in many ways is an effort to control others.
We cannot discuss the decision outside the context of my mindset for being there. I go there intent on performing the tasks satisfactorily, to socialize with my coworkers when opportunities arise, and to earn the money I need to sustain myself for the prospect of being able to proliferate my material and organize to promote human interests while hopefully improving my circumstances to improve my effectiveness in the aforementioned ambition. I’m there to get the money to sustain myself short term, I’m not invested in the culture.
In essence, I observe moral imposition, and potentially disrespect. An exceedingly low degree of imposition and a non-overt low degree of potential disrespect. There’s a subtle threat response to self worth that produces analysis. In comparison, the benefit of addressing these things is very low, positive feelings may be produced through neutralizing imposition principley, and advancing respect. These positive feelings which within my present circumstances will be subtle, and much less than the potential consequences of possibly being wrong which will reduce self worth for having acted wrongly (performance standards), will contaminate the work environment, may produce spite (people intentionally making work harder in response to being told how to work), potentially lead to escalation, and potentially lead to me losing this opportunity for income. There’s a plethora of downside and essentially no upside.
In thinking about these insignificant happenings, I think about so many times in my life previously where I may have responded in similar situations, and experienced consequences and knew I was ultimately right in my address. Probably from 15 up until my early 20s I would have responded in this situation not because I thought it was a good idea, but based on the need for evidence that I wasn’t afraid to respond to such a situation. I spent a good portion of my youth refusing to accept explanations for not making bad decisions because I viewed everything as potentially a rationalization of fear. The only way I could know I wasn’t afraid or to appear that I wasn’t afraid was through action, even if everything I understood about the situation led to the conclusion that the act would be harmful to my interests. Secondly, as a younger man respect was paramount, so if I thought a person was being disrespectful, even if they weren’t, I was going to force the issue to make sure I had the person’s respect, or fear which produced the appearance of respect.
Circumstances influence the prioritization of values. Over the last decade being in more difficult circumstances and with less perceived opportunity old values can be reprioritized leading to different decisions. For example, even a slight modification of circumstances could have produced different behavior over the last few weeks. When the first shift supervisor was talking about ear buds and phones on the line my first thought was to walk out. Had my money been just a little bit better I would have walked out because I typically don’t subordinate myself to arbitrary authority. In this case, it really didn’t affect me, but I would have left anyway because of my aversion to it. I probably had a little over $200, had I had a little over $400 I would have left.
I was apprehensive about posting this because it could create concerns, but I see it as an opportunity to show how the mind functions and creating points of reference for concepts like standards, value, comparisons, and the fluidity of assignments and prioritization based on circumstances. Also demonstrating how perception takes shape through standards. The formation of objectives, including thought objectives. Regardless of what I perceive and my thoughts pertaining to that perception, it’s been over a year since I’ve been in a physical altercation which is to say I do well in managing my behavior and avoiding situations that could cause me to react poorly. More importantly, in the last roughly 3 years I had 2 physical altercations and neither was over respect, both were morally justifiable, in response to a threat and defending myself from an attack.
3/9/2024
I’m laying mulch for a customer I’ve worked for on two prior occasions. I think I journaled about both of those experiences. They were both more work than I expected based on the description. Despite two prior jobs at his residence I underestimated the time it would take to complete this job. Not grossly, I should finish it tomorrow but I initially thought it would be a day and a half. It looks like it will be closer to 2 full days. This morning when I arrived he asked if I would apply a weed killer before I put down the mulch. I initially said no because it’s another application to the entire area. He said I know more money, but it was only to do a small area so I agreed to do it.
It’s strange that you expect someone to do more work for the same amount of money. You wouldn’t go to Mc Donald’s, order a cheese burger, and when they bring you a cheese burger expect them to also give you fries. If it was the whole areas it would take about 4 hours, but the area he wants done should probably be about a half hour. I think to myself, if you called a landscaping company they would probably charge $1000 or more to do what I’m doing. I should have charged him $400, I only charged him $300.
A woman drove past who lived in the area and told me I’m a hard worker. Seen me out there from 8:30am to 6:30pm, minus about a half for lunch, steady moving and distributing that shit. 8 yards of mulch, I placed about 5 yards today, with the furthest point from the pile being about 60 yards away. The truth is, I’m trying to get that shit done, but there isn’t too many people who can move like I move on task.
I’m really not making much more than the assembly line work, but the work however more laborious is much more satisfying.
I worked two more days in MO. I should also state that people in the area where I had a bad day were pretty cool outside of that day. Initial impression led to stereotypes about the people in the area, but these stereotypes did not produce prejudice because succeeding interactions were judged based on the content of those interactions. Sometimes it’s like that, I often wear my emotions on my face, and even when I’m not, thinking can produce off putting facial expressions, and the natural appearance of my face leans towards the appearance of anger. Just to say that sometimes what I’m observing is a mirror of what I’m feeling, in the sense that my emotions can bleed through my face and people may act consciously or subconsciously based on my physical cues.
Still fuck those old ladies blocking the aisles 😂 (previous entry), but the other interactions were not representative of the broader social culture in the area. I say that not because I wanted to get through, or even because it was a big deal to walk around them. I say that because it demonstrates a level of inconsideration that is astonishing at their age. Sure we all have lapses in such a setting where we may unintentionally become obstacles for others. You’re side by side in a space that only accommodates 2 people, so you’ve already decided our pace is going to decide how fast everyone behind us can go. Then with people behind you you stop in the aisle and begin poorly articulating a question to a store associate down an aisle.
First I wouldn’t side by side moving at a slow pace, mindful of the fact that I’m not the only one in the store. If I did, if I needed to ask someone a question I wouldn’t stop and block the aisle because I know there are people behind me who are trying to get to the items they came for. If I were on the outside I’d at least pull my cart to the side or if on the inside I’d push my cart ahead. Why would I do this? Because I’m mindful of the impact that my actions have on others, and it doesn’t feel good to prevent other people from doing what they want to do, when it doesn’t significantly change what I want to do or require a substantial amount of energy. In this situation, it makes me feel good to not be in people’s way so I act in accordance with that value.
It has nothing to do with the obstruction itself, and everything to do with a person who isn’t concerned with how their actions impact others. This situation isn’t morally wrong. As patrons in the store they have as much right to that space as is reasonable for their purposes as I or anyone else does. It isn’t morally wrong and maybe that’s as far as it goes, but it’s indicative of a lack of concern for how their actions impact others.
Even if it’s cultivated behavior among the elderly it still speaks to the thinking processes of the elderly. What I mean is if culturally in the area people are taught to subordinate their interests to the interests of the elderly causing the elderly to no longer be concerned with how their actions impact others, it’s still these individuals who think it’s a good idea to not care how their actions impact others. Again may only be in this situation, but it’s hard to imagine a person who is inconsiderate in something like this, but more considerate in everything else.
Interestingly, on a different day there were two children playing in Walmart. One threw a kick and said Get Over Here, I think they were playing Mortal Kombat live action. I smiled at that and their mother apologized but I said you’re fine. Children can do what they want to do so long as they’re not harming others or property. Children want to play and are still developing. It should feel good to see children enjoying themselves. As they grow up consideration can be instilled by helping them recognize how other people’s inconsideration bothers them, and reminding them when they’re doing something that will make other people feel bad. That’s an approach I took with my daughter, in the sense that her behavior reflected an understanding of how she believed her actions would cause others to feel. If there’s something I thought she should do I’d explain how it advanced her own interests or sometimes how the consequences of her actions would cause others to feel, and if it made her feel better to cause people positive or negative feelings. Of course in consideration of her own interests, and sometimes in her own interests it was matter if the effort was worth it. I raised my daughter in almost complete absence of authority, with probably a handful of exceptions where a situation exceeded my abilities as a parent at the time. She’s 18 now and has exceeded my expectations in behavior and intelligence.
I worked two more days at the assembly line job. The first day I was able to secure the job for the next day. When I arrived for the first day all I was thinking about walking up was I got to do this shit tomorrow too. The first shift manager asked me how I was doing? I said something to the effect that I was decent but the walk up here was rough. She started asking questions about where I parked and if I hurt myself. I made another comment to convey that it was about the job that I think she also missed. Then I stated that the idea of working the job was much better than coming in to work the job.
One lady laughed. Seemed like something she did so I wouldn’t feel uncomfortable, probably fulfilled that purpose. The discomfort is minor. When I originally came in the woman who laughed was a little flirtatious. That was another awkward moment just in the sense that she asked me how old I was and I wasn’t prepared for the question. It’s difficult to be as old as I am, to know what I know, and to be where I’m at. She’s older and bigger and probably don’t know she could get it on a hang out.
There was another chic there on Monday and Tuesday, cute face super fat ass, a little belly, semi sloppy but sexy. I’m just at an odd place where I do need to get on something, but I also need to get this material off the ground and have things chambered I’m about to fire. My general circumstances make small talk leading into that challenging.
Embarrassing moment. I came back from break. I have a thc pen that supplies a different dose at different times. Sometimes I hit it once and I’m good. Other times I need to hit it twice. This time I hit it 1.5x. Pulled until it blinked, then about half that. I came back from break pretty fucking high. The dude asked the manager to put on Young Dolph. One chic on the line said never heard of him. I told her that Dolph is cold, speaks on real shit. The dude who asked to put it on was rapping and when he stopped I rapped the upcoming part and it was the weakest part of the verse “She liked to argue so I sent that bitch to law school”. I don’t even agree with the sentiment, in spending money on a woman beyond what is something I want to be doing, or activity. Later he asked where he was from and I said Memphis. Just felt like a bad look all around, reinforcing stereotypes that don’t represent me. Like a fan of a subculture as opposed to being values developed through life style. Convergence of the right circumstances to produce the wrong behavior.
I found out a person’s character through a misinterpretation. We were palletizing and I’d grab a box and he’d grab a box. Initial assessment was he was a solid worker. I commented that the work wasn’t shit, hard to complain even if someone was fucking off. I knew in the moment what I just said is it’s okay to fuck off if he wasn’t solid.
Shortly thereafter he was on his phone and missing boxes. In other environments and situations I may respond differently, and have as recorded in other entries. The fact is unless he’s gone on a pallet I’m grabbing one box off the conveyor as it comes regardless of what he’s doing. We’re putting 6 to 8lb boxes on a pallet, and it’s really hard to want to address a MFer trying to dodge work when the work isn’t shit. I’d just pass boxes down the line and eventually he’d get them. It was funny to me, because there were periods where he would be squatting down trying to pretend like he was fixing his stack and he was definitely expending more energy in that charade than it took to pull a box and stack it.
In saying what I said I effectively removed any consequence he may have been concerned with fucking off, and the result was he began fucking off. He’s only persuaded from not imposing on others if he perceives a consequence. The imposition being creating a marginal amount of extra work (maybe 5 to 8 pallets more for me) for me by failing to fulfill the expectation of service. I would have been right to address that, but the benefit of feeling good for addressing it isn’t worth feeling petty when the task isn’t strenuous and I’ve already stated as much. I do notice the shit, and it creates an opportunity that produces comparison. A moral compulsion to neutralize imposition, the degree of imposition in consideration of the effect it was producing, which was very low teetering on a benefit since at least with palletizing, (not true for other jobs) stacking the boxes helps to pass the time. Just to say sometimes it may be nice to have more boxes to stack. Since the degree of imposition is exceedingly low, the positive feelings for addressing it are exceedingly low. There’s that weighed against my circumstances where 1 I need the money, 2 I don’t want to potentially damage my reputation with the app because I may need it for future income, and most importantly, whatever the satisfaction may have been, I still need to work with this guy for the remainder of the shift and potentially in the future, and telling this dude he’s not taking his fair share of boxes is going to change our co-working dynamic.
There were two people in front of me heading into the door from break. I don’t know if the person holding the door saw me, but he started to let the door close when I was about 15 feet away. I hollered out say man, and he held the door for me. I was initially upset because I thought he seen me and was just letting the door close. I thought about it, and he’s under no obligation to hold the door for me and could refuse to hold the door for me for any reason. I’m glad he did, because in the moment I may have reacted very poorly to that scenario. On the break I told him I appreciated him on that door. I only bring that up because I thought it was strange timing to thank somebody for holding the door an hour and a half later.
I might go back there after I finish this job. Work 3 consecutive days a week and spend the other 4 in what trying to do.
Mark from Premier texted me. He told me one of my coworker shot himself and said he always spoke highly of me, which I interpreted as he killed himself. I said i enjoyed working with him and he was good company but I don’t pretend to know when someone has had enough. I’m not concerned with meeting social expectations, I’d have probably never seen him again if he were still alive so there’s no loss to me personally, and if he had enough he had enough. Maybe he finds himself in a better situation, or maybe a worse situation, I don’t know his life, but he was generally cool around me. I’ve been there, just didn’t punch my card because although my life sucks, I don’t feel emotional pain the same as other people do. I’m very accepting of what is and what could be.
For all I know it might not be true. I could see it being something Mark texts to see how I would respond, or just something he texted to see if I would respond. Mark and Chris have texted or called me in the past and I didn’t respond. If he’s contacting me it’s about a job opportunity, and if Chris was contacting it was at the behest of Mark about a job opportunity and I wasn’t interested in entertaining that at the times I was contacted. I remember towards the end of the last project I was working with him, and part of the reasons I left early because of BS he started doing.
—
I had the worst cramp of my life yesterday. Both my calves seized and felt like they were twisted. I tried to stretch it out, then turn, straighten and otherwise contort my body to stop the cramp but nothing worked. It was an extreme amount of pain for 30 seconds to a minute, but it was pure agony. The only thing comparable is a shoulder dislocation, but with the shoulder dislocation there is usually a position I can have the arm in to alleviate the pain in between efforts to reseat it.
I had a cramp last week working at the assembly line job and a guy said it might be low potassium. I’ve had several small ones that quickly subside or I’m able to position myself out of them. I bought some bananas today.
These incidents also coincide with the introduction of strenuous activity. The assembly line isn’t strenuous, but it does require standing. In fact that’s how the subject came up because I asked him if he ever got muscle cramps from standing in one spot. Yesterday, was a lot of work. 9 hours of shoveling mulch into a wheelbarrow, taking the wheelbarrow 20 to 60 yards from the pile, shoveling the mulch from the wheelbarrow and then dumping the wheelbarrow and spreading the contents. Oddly, I didn’t feel all that tired. My muscles were sore but it was nowhere near what I felt on the last job.
While I may have low potassium levels as a contributor or enhancer, I’m probably also overworking my legs.
I finished the job today. 16 hours for $300. I should have got at least $400. I probably could have got $500. Probably would have been a week or so down the road after he started calling people to get prices but he would have eventually called me to do it for $500.
Goal is to have these solicitations out by Wednesday. I’m doing one final read through about ¼ of the way done (Supremacy of Bias), I need to flip a few chapters around to get their attention, I need to double check my solicitation itself, and I need to edit my introduction. The introduction says what it’s supposed to say but doesn’t read well.
3/1/2024
A few days of what was to me very hard work. I was on a packaging assembly line, different stations of repetitive motion. It isn’t physically demanding, it’s more about the unrelenting demand of attention, and the lack of any progress. Lack of progress in the sense that there are no goals within the work, where in other capacities you may have different tasks that need to be completed, and once you finish them, even if you have others you experience subtle satisfaction in what you’ve completed. On an assembly line there is nothing but forced repetition for the duration of the shift. It’s only made manageable through the anticipation of the next break.
If the employees were paid by piece that could improve the setting for the worker, where each repetitive motion counted towards his own ends. The difference in pay would be covered by increases in efficiency. Outside of that I don’t think there’s any way to improve that kind of work. It’s not bad work, it isn’t difficult, but it does require a willingness to provide a majority of your attention to repetitive movements.
One possible behavior I noticed was off pattern work habits. For example, a person is supposed to put 2 2 packs of Lysol in every box. Sometimes a person would skip a box, and later put 4 in another box. I presume this was just a way to do less work, but it may have also been working off pattern as a subtle way to avoid monotony.
In another role, stacking boxes there were 3 of us. I was at the back of the line and they appeared to slide more boxes than they stacked, but then there were periods where they would take a bunch of boxes in a row. I didn’t care too much beyond noticing, it was much better than putting the bottles in the boxes and the effort required to do the work leaves very little room to complain without appearing to be very petty. I’m also not invested in the job.
They had some situational processes. One took the box off his pallet to slide to the other guy so he could complete his pallet. Extra work that doesn’t really accomplish anything, but I suppose for box stacking completing a pallet is a break in the general monotony. An exception among the other jobs in that respect. Box stacking is also different because it’s the slowest part of the process and requires less attention.
Overall a decent experience, people working there were smooth. There was an incident on the third day that nearly caused me to walk out but I needed the money. The first shift manager said that people couldn’t have their ear buds in or use their phones because one employee, who made herself known was talking on the phone during a shift. Not only the group punishment aspect of it, but the condescending way in which it was delivered, and the irrationality of the rule to begin with.
I don’t wear ear buds because the music and other noises are too loud. I do check my phone for time, and if the machine is down for a few minutes I might look on my phone but I’m generally an uninterested party in the consequence.
I said that’s why you only have 7 people here. I think they only need 6, but 9 is probably ideal. What I meant is that people don’t want to work under arbitrary authority. The conclusion isn’t correct, they’ll probably find as many workers as they need most nights because the pay is marginally more than similar jobs in the area.
It is arbitrary authority. The only reason the place of employment should be concerned with what their employees are doing is if it affects production or impacts the safety of the employee or others. The machine never had to stop because an employee was talking on their phone through their earbud during a shift. If it doesn’t effect the end product or safety there’s no reason to have a problem with whatever they may be doing at their work station. All you’re doing is causing people to not want to work there, which could negatively impact production. It doesn’t make any sense, and that’s another reason it’s difficult to work in those kinds of jobs. I approach all work with the understanding of an agreement to provide service, not becoming the property of the customer during the period that the service is performed.
This is northern MO, and I’m a geographical stereotyper, which means I tend to believe that the actions of a few people in the area is reflective of people’s general tendencies in that area. While the people that I worked with were cool, outside of that small acts and manners are an indicator of character. Most of the people I worked with were probably from east of the job in the St. Louis area whereas the management and the area I’ve been in while here is further west. Notably, I go into this Walmart. I’m walking up the main walkway along the aisles and there are two old slow women side by side with their carts blocking the walk way. Then they decide to stop and ask questions to a worker in one of the aisles blocking the walkway. I walked around the displays to get to the next walkway, and later encounter the same thing. Obviously not a moral offense, they have the right to occupy the space while patronizing the store but it’s revealing of character. Where in a space with others you lack the most basic consideration of how your choices impact others. If you’re not concerned with others in making these small decisions, don’t have the wherewithal to think I should leave a path so other people can pass since I’m not the only fucking person in the store, it indicates a priority of self and a willingness to disregard the interests of others when it serves your interest to do so. It’s indicative of imposing tendencies, suggesting a willingness to impose on others where there is opportunity free of consequence. Outside of this there’s just a general distance and lack of manners I’ve observed from a distance, a general feeling of dissatisfaction that emanates from the people I’ve observed in this area. Then again, all these impressions occured the same day, I was tired from the day before, mindful of concerns that are often apparent on my face that may influence the behavior of others. None of it a big deal, it was all in one area, and 15 miles away where I use the gym and other Walmart folks are smooth. Wrong to stereotype the people of this area based on a handful of impressions.
The problem with the work is it takes me a day to recover, in part because the shift ends at midnight and it takes a half hour to get to the rest area and then it’s difficult to fall asleep. Then I still wake up early and cannot fall back to sleep. I did finish the Liberty: The Definitive Moral Truth edits and additions. There were some serious issues that needed to be fixed that I don’t know how they escaped my attention. It’s possible I had a version I edited offline that was lost when I went back to online editing. In one paragraph I had a sentence that didn’t belong at the end of a paragraph, completely broke from the preceding and following point. I think it was part of another paragraph and I deleted the paragraph but somehow moved the sentence to the preceding paragraph. Idk.
I began compiling a list of emails in an effort to promote The Supremacy of Bias to begin sending sollicitations this week. General fields include psychology, sociology, and philosophy. I’m going through the papers seeing the titles and reading the abstracts and it reinforces the idea that people in these fields are producing almost nothing that has any practical value, and some of it is the criticism and advancement of theories that demonstrate a very weak and inaccurate understanding of the mind. At some point, I may do a project reviewing the abstracts of papers and conduct a meta-analysis, for relevancy, practical application, and accuracy as it relates to constructs that attempt to separate the psyche. I’ve only compiled about 50 emails, and it’s all from sociology journals, but it reinforces ideas about study that don’t translate to first person real world behavior.
For example, there was a paper I began reading about the social self. The paper relies on literature on the subject and the author using it as references and providing commentary to build points in an effort to define the social self. (I only read a little bit of it) There is no social self. There are differences in behavior in social settings but those differences are not some static set of values or identity that a person becomes when they’re interacting with others that is distinct from who they are outside of a social setting. There are often subconscious perceptions informing the individual of others values that produce different behavioral tendencies in utility to accomplishing different objectives within the interaction. The individual behaves differently within the social setting than they may otherwise would, but they’ll also behave differently in other social settings (around different people) where they perceive people as having different values. There is no social self, because different people will create different draws on behavior based on the individual’s perception of their values, and the objectives associated with the interaction. Secondly, as it relates to persona or image the same is also true. The image a person is trying to project socially will vary according to their perception of the groups values and will change according to values and objectives. This idea of a social self is a product of a greater general deficiency in social sciences being based on categorization and classification. Human beings are much more fluid, with values increasing and decreasing based on mood and circumstances from moment to moment.
All of this is somewhat discouraging as I solicit people who are invested in knowing things that are often incorrect or have no practical application in the advancement of human interest and understanding. Hopefully there is some overlap with some field where my discoveries have at least been discovered in part so what I’m sharing can be understood. I am more of a field spanning several fields based on direct observations. My lab is life and experience in life and I am almost always in the lab. The perpetual answering of the question why for nearly all results observed, and the search for the first relevant cause after an initial cause has been identified. By contrast you have people with limited life experiences who have extensively studied the theories of others with limited life experiences and have compartmentalized knowledge from a vantage point that’s distant and removed. People who conduct their day to day lives but fail to connect their assumptions and theories to the real world. I won’t be surprised if this effort fails to generate any attention or book sales. I also won’t be surprised if any of these over educated under intelligent people try to pull novel concepts from my material to incorporate into their research. I hope to offset this risk through mass distribution efforts inside and outside academia where any would be theft (using something without crediting me) would result in their academic death. On the other side of that I could also be inundated with criticism, all of which I’m capable of responding to but if there are suddenly 50 papers it becomes a very laborious affair. In that scenario, it’ll be best if there is some faction within the academic community who understands the material and could field the criticism in a way that is consistent with the material and I could consult on those papers. A little ahead of myself, since the most probable outcome is remaining ignored but I do consider the possibilities.
My car is running rough. It has been stalling while idling, hiccuping at times when I’m driving, and sometimes stalling after I initially pull off. May just be air filter and spark plugs, but the greater concern is something in the axel or suspension. Above 60mph I get a loud sound and vibration coming from the right side of the car that comes and goes intermittently. Last time it was a tire issue where the bent sway bar rubs on the control arm producing a vibration that causes the tire to wear unevenly. This should still be the problem but it seems different. Before it would vibrate and feel bouncy but reducing speed would cause it to go away, whereas now, ill reduce speed and it will continue. I suspect there may be an issue with the CV axle. I’m going to flip the tires and see if this once again moves the sound and then I know I need a tire.
Right now I have a little over $300 and I have a job next week that pays $300 but it’s also 400 miles away and I need to buy a shovel for $20 to $30. Also brings me back to an area I’ve been trying to get away from. I’m mindful of the idea that my circumstances could dramatically change at any time depending on how much longer this car lasts. When I’m low on money with no guaranteed income it’s hard to spend $55 on spark plugs and an air filter, or $100 on a tire, or $200 on an axle, and whatever I don’t address could be the thing that leads to the end of this car. In essence, I consider that when this car goes, all I have is what I have and the more money I have the better I’ll be from that position. Just to say I consider how unfortunate I will feel to spend $100 on the car and then for the car to break down shortly thereafter before I can use it to make some more money.
2/22/2024
I had a gig through the veryable app this morning but awoke to my phone having no service, and later discovered that there was a national network outage effecting my service provider. I went to a Mc Donald’s to use the wifi to access the job through the app and get directions. When I arrived it was a loading dock area and multiple entrances all of which appeared to require a key fob to enter. The entry point was not as described. I couldn’t call so I missed that money.
After I missed the job I had to find a Mc Donald’s to figure out where I was going. When I did I intended to go 64 East back to the rest area but accidentally got on 64 West. There was a job that was about to confirm in Michigan that was going to begin Friday. I headed to the nearest rest area going north. My service was restored about 12: 30. The woman for the work in Michigan responded that she needed someone to remove some fallen timber from the area I was supposed to excavate.
With that job fizzling out, at least for now, I decided to go to the gym and do my laundry which turned into another ordeal when the washing machine I used had an error draining. The attendant said the only thing she could do is turn it off and then turn it back on. We did this 3 times and each time the door stayed locked when it was turned back on. She said she was going to call the manager, I could leave my phone number, and they would call me when my clothes were ready.
I left and returned about 2 hours later. She was sitting in a chair on her phone. I asked if there was an update on my clothes, and she explained that they were still in the washer. I explained that the expectation of service is that I could wash my clothes and have them back, that I needed my clothes, and I was going to open the washer. She called the manager or pretended to. While she stood with the phone to her ear I was looking up the number for the police to inquire about the legality of forcing open the machine to retrieve my clothes. I did this before when I had an error on a machine (not called police, just forced open a locked machine). I just pulled hard and it opened.
As she stood with the phone I walked over to the machine which was off, and the machine opened. I should have known that it opened while it was off because I heard the door latching when it turned on. My cloths are not as fresh as they could be but the incident resolved itself satisfactorily. I still find it hard to believe she didn’t know the washing machine can be opened when it turns off, but if she didn’t none of it his her fault. The owner/manager may not give a fuck. Or she may be the owner and doesn’t know how to service the machines or address the problem. She mentioned that 4 of the machines were recently serviced and 3 of them were out of service shortly after. They may have a problem with their technicians and it may all be BS. Idk.
I was walking back to my car and a man approached me asked my name, shook my hand and told me his name was Sam. He said he just wanted to tell me that Jesus loved me. I said something in disapproval and launched into a brief summary on objective morality, followed by some of the consequences of Christianity, and the Christian hypocrisy. Christian hypocrisy being that Jesus tells you to love God with all your mind, heart, spirit, and strength and to love your neighbor as you love yourself, but claims he created you for eternal servitude or eternal torment. These are options god wouldn’t want to be confined to, meaning the Christian deity tells others to love their neighbor as they love themselves, but clearly doesn’t love them as he loves himself. Meaning the deity is evil. He said he didn’t want to argue with me and walked away telling me Jesus loves me. Of course not as he loves himself. Lol
That’s an absurd thing to say and demonstrates a fundamental lack of the ability to recognize contradiction. By the logic that the deity loves everybody, the deity loves nothing and no one. Love is fondness unto attachment. Jesus supposed highest value is to love the deity with all your heart, mind, spirit, and strength, whereas I take the position that the creator is not relevant, and the nature of existence is one of reciprocity between creation and creator. Based on the Eternal Problem. The eternal problem being that any being that lives forever is confined to the objects they’ve been exposed to. They have unlimited time with limited knowledge and exposure to objects. If an eternal space exists it has this problem. The universe is a random generator of objects, beginning as hydrogen and increasing in complexity through gravity producing stars, that produce other elements, that produce planets, and the pinnacle of complexity is intelligent life. Life exists with instincts to survive that ultimately results in creation of objects by randomly generated life within a randomly generated environment. These objects can be absorbed into eternal spaces. The composition of energy can be recreated through its atomic structure. Once anything exists it’s composition is known and can be produced within the eternal space that preceded it for the benefit of the beings who occupy that space. Reciprocity, in that the creation produces objects for the creator, and presumably, the creator is objectively moral, and the life that is produced has the opportunity to exist after being born through the universe. The objectively moral aspect being that the creator would not want to stop existing, therefore, he wouldn’t produce beings that are and then are not. Imposition, existential murder.
At the same time, the potential for motion within a space is determined by morality. Prohibiting only acts that impose means all beings are free to do as they please, maximizing conscious motion and subjective expression. Whereas any morality that claims an unimposing act is wrong is the imposition of a subjective preferences, and any act that imposes a moral code claims is right is imposition.
Eternity does require separate spaces to accommodate different modes of morality. Liberty based objective morality, and tyranny based subjective morality where the beings in that space follow the dictates of the most powerful being, who can impose his subjective preferences as moral law. Or as the monotheist call it heaven, which is an objective definition of hell.
All of this is to make the point that Jesus can’t love the lies that are promoted in his name and love me. He represents love and deception, and I represent liberty and truth. Moral application will determine what space is appropriate, not belief in a deity. The proclivity of the libertee to prevent and neutralize imposition is in constant conflict with proclivity of the tyrant to impose. In an eternal space there is eternal conflict, which means someone doesn’t say if you be my friend things will be good for you and I’ll just forgive everyone. People are stupid as fuck and like to believe things that feel good and never think about them. Evil before they’re stupid, since the root of stupidity is hatred of the truth, or any values maintained higher than the truth.
You cannot serve two masters, you will love one and hate the other. The essence of which is there is priority, where when one interferes with the other, whichever one is more important will be given priority over the other. It’s in the context of serving god and money, where if you serve the deity you will prioritize obedience over opportunities to make money, and obviously if you serve money you’ll prioritize money over obedience to the deity. The same is true with the truth and what you like. Any belief to maintain values that is higher than the truth the individual will choose the lie over truth to protect the value. The obvious consequence being people cannot learn things that challenge their beliefs. The root of stupidity is values above the truth, which is why people are evil before they’re stupid.
Jesus says the highest value is to love the deity, whereas I say even the creator is irrelevant because a: no evidence of any supernatural results produced on the planet so praise, worship and obedience serves no purpose in life, b: if consciousness survives death people aren’t chosen to be in good spaces, they choose their space based on their moral understanding and application, do again, praise, worship and obedience serves no purpose c: the creation produces objects and add to spaces to perpetuate eternal existence in expanding the known objects to be used in creation and experience, so no one’s existence has any debt attached to it, because your existence contributes to eternal spaces. He says your purpose is love and servive to a deity, and I demonstrate that the deity is evil, false, or at best irrelevant.
The deity has a message that consists of subordination to tyranny. To give your cloak, if asked for your tunic, to turn the other cheek if attacked, to forgive without purpose creating more opportunities to be imposed on, to rely on a deity that cannot be shown to be responsible for a single result on this planet. It’s almost conditioning for the eternal servitude that is promised. I contend that there is no supernatural interference, that morality is a determinant of motion, that all conscious beings have desire that is ever present, and by prohibiting imposition, that all people are free to do as they please. This is opposed to most of Jesus values as expressed through the Christian religion, so he can’t love it and love that, and he can’t love me because I am that.
He is unjust, and has misunderstanding of morality. If someone tries to take your cloak you have the right to defend it, if someone attacks you you have the right to defend yourself, if someone harms you you have the right to be made whole, and there are no supernatural forces who will intervene in this world on your behalf.
More importantly, Christianity principally supports objective morality and condemns itself. In the idea that you should love your neighbor as you love yourself. In order for the deity to be consistent with his commandment essentially means he has to want for others what he wants for himself. Which is what? To create and experience free from imposition which is the essence of consciousness. That is what the creator can be, the Christian deity is something it cannot be. I’ve written much more extensively on the details in Liberty The Definitive Moral Truth, including a pointed application of liberty to the tenets and scriptures of Christianity.
—
The other day while at a gas pump a man said gas and tires must be cheap. I just said yeah, thinking it was in reference to the traffic at the gas station. The tires part didn’t make much sense. The gas was cheap at the gas station relative to everywhere else in the area. As it applies to me who moves around a lot its an investment. Most of my travel is to reach the next job to sustain myself. If I would have found the entrance to that job, this short trip from Florence would have fulfilled that purpose. I would have rather got things done. I’ll be monitoring the apps if something comes up I’ll take it but I’m trying to get as much done over the next few days and then I’ll figure out where I got to go to make some money.
I had a somewhat interesting exchange. There was a post referencing somebody’s work who essentially claimed good couldn’t be naturally defined and another person who coined the term moral intuition. Moral intuition sounded like something made up by people who didn’t understand morality. I explained how morality functioned, and the basis for good being known naturally as anything that interfered with what someone wanted to do. Naturally, conscious beings, any species is born with desire, genetic programming to liking certain things and through the impressions left by their environment develop other things they like based on the feelings produced, which lead to the formation of other desires. A person doesn’t like being prevented from doing something they want to do. Objective good naturally is a situation where no one’s desires are prevented, so when the desires of one interfere with the desires of others this can be understood as being bad based on the natural constant of desire.
A person responded claiming that self worth was derived from what they think others think about them. This is true, but it doesn’t change the fact that self worth is also influenced by moral consistency. I addressed that in reply. Then he mentioned that a person might need to be imposed on if they’re delusional or trying to harm himself. My response was that a delusional person need not be imposed on unless it’s to prevent them from imposing on others or to neutralize their imposition. As far as a person who wants to commit suicide, people can impose on themselves. Imposing on someone to prevent them from killing themselves is forcibly imposing your value of human life on them. After I explained this he said it’s interesting but he disagrees. Kind of delusional because he doesn’t know the basis for his disagreement or he would have provided it. Not delusional though, just tyrannical in his desire to impose his value of human life onto others. The idea that a person should continue to live within circumstances that they don’t want to continue in because of your irrational insistence that they must when you’re not the person who has to live their life, and the act of the person removing themself from those circumstances doesn’t impose on you or anyone. I’m not pro-suicide, but imposition is not justified just because someone wants to kill themself.
Here’s the exchange
Post Carlos Oliveira
According to G. E. Moore, “Goodness is a simple, undefinable, non-natural property.” To call goodness “non-natural” does not mean that it is supernatural or divine. It does mean, however, that goodness cannot be reduced to natural properties such as needs, wants or pleasures. Moore also stated that a reduction of ethical properties to a divine command would be the same as stating their naturalness. This would be an example of what he referred to as “the naturalistic fallacy.”
Moore claimed that goodness is “indefinable”, i.e., it cannot be defined in any other terms. This is the central claim of ethical non-naturalism. Thus, the meaning of sentences containing the word “good” cannot be explained entirely in terms of sentences not containing the word “good.” One cannot substitute words referring to pleasure, needs or anything else in place of “good.”
Some properties, such as hardness, roundness and dampness, are clearly natural properties. We encounter them in the real world and can perceive them. On the other hand, other properties, such as being good and being right, are not so obvious. A great novel is considered to be a good thing; goodness may be said to be a property of that novel. Paying one’s debts and telling the truth are generally held to be right things to do; rightness may be said to be a property of certain human actions.
However, these two types of property are quite different. Those natural properties, such as hardness and roundness, can be perceived and encountered in the real world. On the other hand, it is not immediately clear how to physically see, touch or measure the goodness of a novel or the rightness of an action.
Moore did not consider goodness and rightness to be natural properties, i.e., they cannot be defined in terms of any natural properties. How, then, can we know that anything is good and how can we distinguish good from bad?
Moral epistemology, the part of epistemology (and/or ethics) that studies how we know moral facts and how moral beliefs are justified, has proposed an answer. British epistemologists, following Moore, suggested that humans have a special faculty, a faculty of moral intuition, which tells us what is good and bad, right and wrong.
Ethical intuitionists assert that, if we see a good person or a right action, and our faculty of moral intuition is sufficiently developed and unimpaired, we simply intuit that the person is good or that the action is right. Moral intuition is supposed to be a mental process different from other, more familiar faculties like sense-perception, and that moral judgments are its outputs. When someone judges something to be good, or some action to be right, then the person is using the faculty of moral intuition. The faculty is attuned to those non-natural properties. Perhaps the best ordinary notion that approximates moral intuition would be the idea of a conscience.
Orion Simerl
Moral intuition is proposed to account for the misunderstanding of moral functioning. Morality consists of moral values that form standards. Morality functions through consistency or inconsistency with these standards. If an individual’s actions are perceived as consistent with their moral standards that perception maintains or improves self worth. Most actions are because inconsistency reduces self worth which produces a negative feeling, so objectives typically are not created that conflict with moral standards. If an objective is exceptionally high valued that is in conflict with moral standards they’ll typically experience a negative feeling because their value of self is in danger should they proceed with the act. This is to create a comparison between the perceived value of the objective versus the perceived loss of self worth to arrive at the highest net value. Essentially, is the objective worth perceiving yourself as having done something wrong?
Morality is similar to other subjective standards except that an individual’s moral standards apply to self and others and are typically understood as producing benefits for self and others if adhered to. A subjective standard applies to self an not others. For example a subjective standard could be an article of clothing you wouldn’t wear, but you have no problem with others wearing the clothing. A moral standard would be abstaining from theft, understood to be right because no wants their property taken, and if people abstain from stealing no one will have to endure an act perpetrated against them that they don’t like. A person with such a moral standard will lose self worth if they engage in theft, but they will also develop a negative opinion of others who steal, and be motivated by to prevent someone from stealing should they witness the act. The motivation for the act comes from the perception that they’re righting a wrong which increases their self worth. As well as empathy and sharing in the idea of what they believe the victim will feel for saving their property.
Morality is a set of standards that derive value through authority or some perceived benefit to self and others for behavior that doesn’t violate those standards. Morality still functions through self worth even when the moral standard comes from an authority. For example, instead of the individuals self worth being influenced by perception of self for behavior that is consistent with their moral standards, their perception of self is based on how they perceive the authority perceiving them for behavior consistent with the moral standard. Moral authorities are usually deity based, so the adherents self worth is largely determined by what he thinks the deity thinks about him, and that depends on how they perceive their behavior as being consistent or inconsistent with the deity’s moral dictates.
Morality functions through self worth. As for whether good has natural properties, or can be observed, it’s irrelevant as to whether good can be defined naturally because it can be understood, and it definitely can and is observed.
The human constant desire, at all times all consciousness wants to do something. All beings can do as they please so long as they are not imposed on by others, and have opportunities to acquire money, know how, and have time. And an individual without opportunities to have time, acquire money, and acquire no how is a person who is being circumstantially imposed on because individual circumstances are a collective or systemic creation. I won’t go into the explanation, 95 percent of this group can’t follow a point anyway, but good can be qualified by the absence of imposition and bad the presence of imposition because at all times all people want to do what they want to do. The prohibition of only imposing acts, and the justification for imposition being the prevention or neutralization of imposition is good because it allows all people to as they please. The duality is that any moral code that claims an action is wrong that doesn’t impose is the imposition of a subjective preference, and any act that claimed to be right that does impose is imposition and the priortization of one interest over another.
I would argue this is natural, because any time you cannot do something you’re upset by it. Evident in simple everyday things, if you want to change lanes in your car and the car in that lane speeds up to prevent you, this is going to result in some degree of anger or discomfort. This is to say that objective morality, which is good by virtue of facilitating desire, and maximizing the potential for conscious motion and subjective expression, is natural, because all people, and all conscious beings for that matter always have an objective they seek to accomplish, and dissatisfaction to some degree is experienced when they are prevented.
Dale Peterson
I don’t think good and bad can be reduced to an absence or presence of imposition. Many times it’s necessary to impose on people for their benefit. This would be in cases where they are delusional or are attempting to harm themselves or others. An absence of imposition could be detrimental if you didn’t do anything to stop them.
Self worth is largely determined by what you believe others think. If you think you are worthless, it’s because you are measuring your worth by someone else’s standards. You have to compare yourself to someone you feel has worth in order to obsess about what you feel you lack. Many people hold up god or Jesus as a measuring stick others use people that they believe have exceptional lives but no real knowledge of their actual life. It’s an imaginary idea they end up measuring themselves against.
Orion Simerl
If a delusional person’s behavior causes them to impose on others then imposition is justified to prevent or neutralize their imposing behavior. If not, then no imposing action against them is justified regardless of whether you think they’re delusional. There’s no exception for delusional people.
If a person wants to harm themselves morally it is wrong to prevent them, and there is no moral obligation to intervene, unless someone has produced the circumstances that led to the person wanting to kill themself. That’s your own subjective value of life generally, and you’re free to try to get someone to adopt that value, but no one is obligated to stop someone from killing themself. It may make sense. The act of a person killing themselves doesn’t impose on anyone.
Self worth is how you perceive yourself. It consists of any values you have and how you perceive your behavior as being consistent or inconsistent with those values. Morality functions through self worth as I described. This doesn’t mean self worth is exclusively determined by moral consistency. Moral consistency is an element. While you may not have noticed, I already confirmed how image promotion contributes to self worth in describing how morality functions through authority or deity. There is an element of self worth that comes with how we perceive others as seeing us. Consequently, there is a wide range of individual behavior that is a product of trying to cause others to have a higher opinion of us. Usually through words and acts that associate the individual with popular values. Self worth increases or decreases based on the individual’s perception of how others perceive them. The impact on behavior depends how important people’s opinions are to the individual’s self.
A person whose opinion of self doesn’t rely on consistency with their own standards is going to have a weak moral influence on behavior.
A person whose self worth doesn’t rely on the opinion of others, isn’t going to be influenced by trying to promote or maintain the values of others.
Another element of self worth is accomplishment and performance, as it pertains to the fulfillment of objectives. When we accomplish something or perceive ourselves as performing well, it improves our perception of self. The same as when we fail or perform poorly.
Self worth itself can be devalued within people. Where their perception of self, or opinion of self doesn’t influence their well being. These are more of the hedonistic type, where if they have the means to keep themselves entertained they don’t think too much about right and wrong, consistency with subjective standards, the opinion of others, or performance or accomplishments because they are too busy having fun so to speak. External stimulation is a chief value that drowns out perception of self.
Dale Peterson
I disagree with your explanation as interesting as it is.
2/20/2024
I finished The Supremacy of Bias, https://orioncs.net/product/sbibcsme/
To validate my ethics statement I notified the participants of their inclusion. One guy wanted to have a conversation and another said I did not have his permission, and the remainder didn’t respond. I reminded the objector that this was a notification not a request, and I believe it was a fair use of the content, on the basis of criticism, research, and education. There’s no other way to show a barrier to communication without controversial dialogue to show how the information provided by one is being received based on the information they supply in response. Each participants quoted dialogue represents a very small amount of the overall word count. Every quoted portion is the subject of analysis. I’m glad he’s interested, but I don’t think he has a case in my use of the dialogue.
As I previously mentioned, a journal publication doesn’t mean much more than exposing myself to people in that field. It takes months to be published and provides no financial benefit beyond any interest that may generated in my material and lead to the sale of books. I may be able to accomplish the same thing as a journal publication by going through journals, making a list of the published authors in the field, and sending them direct solicitations. Someone may be inclined to write a review, or recognize the utility of me or my material to their field which could draw attention to my material, sales of books, which would position me to impliment strategies to create the SALT curriculum and found SALT, as well as campaign for OPL. OPL being the priority, but completion of a SALT course being the training for a role in OPL. That’s my chief plan of promotion for this book.
I do have another strategy for selling books as a means to advancing a mutual interest. My problem is that all popular belief systems are established on false beliefs, and as the promoter of the truth I offend all biases. I’ve been called a destroyer of ideas people hold sacred. The promotion of something they believe that is true, that mutual interest, is canceled out by some important belief that I show to be false. In other words, it doesn’t make sense to support me to advance a message a group likes if I’m promoting other messages they don’t like. The exception is if the message they do like is more important to them than messages they don’t like. I think I’ve identified such a group, and I think this group may benefit in their vocation by reading my material. I’m going to prepare a solicitation for this group, to encourage the purchase of books where the proceeds will benefit them through the promotion of liberty and truth among the general population, and the material may benefit them in being more effective at their jobs.
I have website and material edits and additions I need to perform.
I haven’t found any jobs lately. Nothing on either of the apps. I’m still at a place where I’m not too concerned yet, but concern will be upon me if I don’t find something within the next week. Although my current location is comfortable, and close to the gym, I’m going to move to see if I can find something in a different area.
2/12/2024
It’s been awhile since I’ve posted since most of my productive time has been spent finishing this upcoming book. The Supremacy of Bias: Identifying Barriers to Communication through Social Media Exchanges. The Supremacy of Bias examples of people who are unable to accept information that challenges their beliefs because of the consequences it has to their value structure. The book consists of examples analyzing social media exchanges, and demonstrating that bias prevents communication and reduces intelligence. I’m explaining what they’re doing, why they’re doing it, and their replies are evidence of what I’m describing. I’ve finished compiling and organizing the screenshots, completed analysis, wrote an ethics statement, inserted footnotes, made a cover, and read through it twice. I wrote an introduction I need to replace and I’m about to go through and add a ASC based conclusion to each example. I should have this finished within a few days.
Once I finish it I’m going to contact the people whose exchanges were used as examples. I also plan on spamming academics in social science fields.
I’m going to adapt the book to a research paper format and submit it to a bunch of academic journals. I don’t expect it to be published, but I may be able to attract attention to my material because someone will have to read it to reject it. If it is accepted I’ll rescind the submission.
I’ll rescind the submission because I don’t think the exposure will be worth losing commercial rights to the publication. I think this will be the 8th book I have on my website. I don’t remember the count I had two others that I removed a while back. What I need to do is sell 10,000 to 15,000 books. Get a spot for a year and hire an assistant, to have the stability and perspective carry out an effective strategy for the promotion of L&T material and OPL goals. Writing effective strategy does not constitute an effective strategy, but I do have detailed plans that I’m unable to implement due to my circumstances, obviously including a lack of resources.
How I get to a place where I could feasibly sell 15,000 books to get started is difficult. I hope some of the aforementioned in spamming and journal rejections could generate some buzz among people who have the potential to understand the significance of my material. Otherwise, without the proper motivation the general population are like large children, or animals. Beavers, who go out to gather the resources they need, return to their dens, and raise the succeeding generations to do the same. Animals in the sense that animals do what pleases them but havent the slightest idea why they like what they like and do what they do. The difference being animals don’t have the capacity to understand and human beings deny the capacity to believe what enables them to feel the best. People lean on popular myths for meaning, and remain oblivious to what they are, what they do, and how the world functions around them, and their contribution to that functioning. Their reading abilities are atrocious, and their comprehension is limited by their biases, which also limits the direction of their attention. From a distance if anyone read my journal one may draw the conclusion that I have a lack of belief in myself or my negative outlook constrains my potential for success. This isn’t accurate. I have supreme belief in myself, especially in my ability to reduce complexity to its most basic components and simplest form. I know how seemingly impossible it is to reach stupid people, having been a stupid person for somewhere in the neighborhood of about ¾ of my life. I know how I perceived the world at 25 years old, and I don’t know how I could gain the interest of my 25 year old self with what I’ve discovered was important and have been promoting from age 30 to 40. This isn’t to say that my target demographic is 25 year olds, just that I continued developing, whereas most adults do not to any meaningful degree. Im saying about 25 years old is an age where I wouldn’t be able to get my attention.
Anyway, after I finish this book and throw some shit on the wall as described, with the hope, without expectation, that something sticks, I need to update my website. Maybe the header, but more importantly the home page, leaning on my story and circumstances as opposed to my typically cold to the point outline of the content.
After that I want to update Liberty the Definitive Moral Truth, and maybe ASC. Liberty the Definitive Moral Truth I want to update the explanation of morality. Nothing is wrong within the books currently, but I want to explain morality as a subjective standard, and I want to express organization of objects through ASC, as Motion, Values, and add a subsection of values in standards, which is essentially prioritization of values. Where liked things lose value when they’re in conflict with other values i.e standards. I may add a chapter to the American Prosperity Proposals.
Intellectually there’s no shortage of things to do, but all these things are limited by my circumstances, and motivation is always low because there is no outlet. Putting together a curriculum of my material. Video recording lessons, and other promotional material. I’m also very interested in reviewing public school curriculum, but expansion into other areas of interest and reform to increase individual liberty and intelligence serves no purpose if I don’t have an audience and outlet which I do not. While I understand that most people are already content with their present level of liberty and the boxes of ignorance, indifference, and bias they’ve confined themselves to, much of my efforts are centered on bringing this species to a place that is tolerable for me to exist within. Since I exist where I exist the options are to either remove myself from this planet or try to improve it while I’m alive. The former is always an option and the latter is what I can do since I’m here. It’s 1984 with the illusion of free flowing information. Instead of one false version of reality that everyone is forced to accept, there are many false versions of reality that people can pick and choose from to be deceived according to their own free will, and be managed according to the boxes (categories) they fall into.
The following is a brief story from last week while I was driving to NC from OH for a job. Demonstrates the utility of revenge in the restoration of well being within an insignificant and ordinary event.
—
The fulfillment of desire and the prevention of desire are the most determining elements of well being.
I was driving on I75 south in the left lane. There was a car behind me and a car in front of me, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 yards or so there was a semi in the right lane. I wanted to slow down so I moved into the right lane to allow the car behind me to pass and then I’d move back into the left lane to pass the semi.
Shortly after moving into the right lane I realized I would reach the back of the semi before the cars in the left lane would pass the semi, meaning I’d have to brake, wait for the cars to pass the semi in the left lane, then accelerate to pass the semi.
I saw the car that was behind me was still behind. I put my blinker on and began accelerating to get back in the left lane to avoid having to brake. As I did the car behind me began accelerating to prevent me from getting back in the left lane. First, the car in front of him was only a few car lengths ahead of him and was maintaining the same rate of speed. Regardless of me being in front of him he wasn’t going to be able to go any faster. The only purpose of him accelerating was not not let me back in the lane. This pissed me off because he was trying to prevent me from getting where I wanted to go.
I sped up and got in front of him, cutting him off a little bit and he threw his hand up. I gave him the finger. Shortly after, once I was in position to pass the semi I slowed down and tapped by brakes to make him slow down before going back to the right lane passing the semi.
What happened? He was trying to prevent me from going where I wanted to go with no apparent benefit to himself. That made me angry that he would do that, because in most situations I wouldn’t do that to him. Because he tried to do that to me, it felt good to do it to him, making him slow down. Revenge is an element of justice because it restores well being. Prior to him trying to prevent me from getting over to avoid braking behind the semi, I felt good. When he tried to prevent me going where I wanted to go I became angry. After I was able to get over I was still angry, but after I tapped my brakes to make him slow down I felt better.
Why is this important? It’s important because consciousness operates through an emotional cycle. What we perceive influences how we feel and what we think. What we think can change the way we perceive what’s happening, and change the way we feel. How we feel influences what we think, and how we perceive our environment and circumstances at any given moment.
Suppose I didn’t get over, had to brake, and then had to go around the semi. Not a big deal but I’m mad about it. That anger influences what I think about, what I think about influences how I feel, and both of these influence how I’ll perceive and respond to the next meaningful event. Whereas without that occurring, my cycle of mood proceeds from its unaltered course. My thoughts proceed from the preceding feeling, and my perception of my circumstances and environment is influenced by my mood which is based on the cycle of my thoughts and feelings.
Although I was able to do what I wanted to do it doesn’t change my perception of his intent. Tapping my brakes to slow him down when I was in front of him felt good, restoring a positive sense of well being.
1/30/2024
There’s a YouTube channel I watch that focuses on extreme examples of their political opposition and provide often vulgar and funny commentary. Their opinions are often wrong or rooted in some misconception, but it’s entertaining and provides exposure to current events.
They showed a video of people who were carrying signs outside of Walgreens, organized by some non-profit expressing their displeasure about Walgreens closing that location. They’re trying to advance a racial narrative, and claim their lives depend on the medicine they buy from that store.
The second claim is ridiculous when there is a Blue Hill pharmacy less than a mile from the Walgreens and a CVS less than 2 miles away. The cause itself isn’t legitimate. Second, there is nothing racially motivated about a company closing less profitable or unprofitable branches. Marketing a fake problem, to advance a racial narrative, with no solution.
It’s private property. The government cannot tell a private entity what to do with their property, and the message to Walgreens is what? We’ll claim your company is racist if you don’t leave open a store that’s losing money or otherwise under performing?
It’s not about the store closing. It’s about the interests of the organizers who have learned how to get people together using store closing and race to create events and add these events to their resumes. If you’re interested in creating a six figure salary you find out what stores are closing in your area. Then you talk to people in the area about the store closing. Those who prefer the store you sell them on racial oppression and the damage being done to the community to gain their participation. Those who do not prefer the store or are indifferent you can still sell on racial oppression by convincing them that the store is essential to others in the community.
This event becomes part of your resume, but more importantly you establish community connections through the event. Which makes it easier to create more events and these events can be used to fundraise. Not from the community but from organized money that’s affiliated with one party or the other depending on your political leaning. During the election they can register people to vote and campaign on behalf of the party who has endorsed them. Once they’ve built their resume and established relationships built on BS within their community and surrounding areas, they can collect a six figure salary getting into politics which will open doors for them in the business world for more lucrative endeavors, or they can stay in non-profit and earn a lavish salary through the promotion of BS.
I saw a Fox News headline that read Dwayne “Rock” Johnson says he’s been approached by both parties to run for office. Do you think this is because the only thing Democrats and Republicans can agree on is the political positions of the Rock? Of course not, they just know there are enough idiots on either side who will elect the rock based on his popularity as an entertainer, where he can become an asset to promote the party’s bs messages and narratives, and more importantly vote for legislation that advances the interests of their donors.
I’m well aware of the fact that this species is incorrigible. Not innately, but has socially progressed through generations to reach a place where willed ignorance to preserve value structures is the modus operandi of its individual members. I care less and less about it with each passing day.
My situation is not going to improve, and I will never be in position on this planet to execute my plans. I don’t like it, but I’m accepting of that reality. Wake up in hell everyday, in a world full of puppets manipulated through their biases and the feelings associated with those biases.
1/21/2024
I had a comment and exchange about popular liberal talking points, caps on income, and the cost of pharmaceuticals.
The question in the post: is there a limit to how much someone should be allowed to make?
Orion Simerl
There’s no need to limit income or wealth accumulation. The limits on the income of the wealthy does not produce wealth for the poor. If the bottom of income earners earn enough to meet their expenses, have a reasonable amount of discretionary spending, and have something left over for accumulation we have solved inequality even if there are trillionaires at the top should individual wealth ever reach such an obscene level. There are solutions to accomplish this but those who pretend to be concerned with these issues are really just interested in reinforcing their biases. So we have what we have and it will never improve because the general population, republicans, democrats, and the politically indifferent are pieces of s***.
Allen Bowlds
What about the example with big pharma? Should these companies be allowed to make (basically) infinite profit off of a life saving drug?
Orion Simerl
That’s a more difficult problem that may or may not need to be addressed. It may not need to be addressed if all people have insurance that covers the cost, and if that cost doesn’t cause the price of insurance to be unaffordable. If everybody can afford their premiums then it doesn’t really matter if it costs $100,000 for a medicine that treats some rare disease.
The price charged for medicine is a product of two variables: the amount required for research and development, and the prevalence of the ailment. If there’s a cancer that only has 5,000 cases per year and it requires an investment of 10s of millions of dollars, a company cannot invest in a treatment and sell the medicine at an affordable price because they only have 5,000 people to sell the medicine to each year. We want a cure for everything, but the rarer the disease the more the cure is going to cost.
Now, in some cases research and development is covered by the public where bills may contain subsidies to companies to cover the cost of research and development. Non-profits often provide money to companies for research and development. A person outraged about the cost of medicine is walking a 5k which is essentially covering the costs of R&D for companies they don’t like.
The explanation of why costs may be necessarily high isn’t always the reason costs are high. Hepatitis medicine costs about $60,000. I doubt the company’s investment in R&D and the cost to manufacture the drugs, and in consideration of how many people need it justifies that cost. It might, but doesn’t seem like it should.
The question is will it help to regulate pharmaceutical profits? 1st we ask if everyone has health insurance and can afford their premiums? The answer is no. 2nd, we have to ask how much is the cost of pharmaceuticals to blame for that problem? To find this out we would have to look at how much insurance companies pay out for medication versus everything else. If medication only represents 5 percent of insurance company payouts then reducing pharmaceutical costs doesn’t make health insurance more affordable. However if 40 percent of health insurance payouts are medication, then if it was possible to reduce medication costs by 50 percent, then health insurance premiums would drop by 20 percent since health insurers can only keep 20 percent for profit per the ACA. Prior to the ACA health insurance providers were making between 15 to 20 percent on average so the regulation didn’t really impose on their profits.
A similar regulation could be used on pharmaceutical companies, where the price cannot exceed a certain level of profit based on R&D investment, manufacturing costs, and potential sales expectations within some period of the patent. For example, if a company invests 50 million dollars to produce a cure for a disease that impacts 10,000 people per year, and the patent lasts 10 years (Idk how long medical patents last but that’s another way to approach cost reductions), and it costs $50 to manufacture and ship each dose, and each patent needs 10 doses we’d take the overall cost 10,000 people 10 doses, times $50 is 5 million dollars per year plus the 50 million for R&D. Maybe we say the company should be able to triple their investment. Over the life of the patent they’ll invest roughly 100 million dollars, 50 mil R&D and 50 mil in manufacture and distribution. They should get a return of 300 million dollars. Over the life of the patent they expect to sell 1 million doses (10,000 patients per year, 10 doses per person, 100,000 doses per year, 10 years). Their maximum allowable price would be $300 per dose.
The problem is even allowing for the tripling of their investment may cause fewer diseases to be researched. As I explained in this reply I don’t have enough information to know whether pharmaceutical company profits should be regulated, and I don’t seek out this information because regulating pharmaceutical companies profits is not going to make medicine affordable for people who have no or limited insurance, and reducing the cost of pharmaceuticals isn’t likely to have a big impact on the affordability of insurance.
I support a public option that will allow private citizens to purchase public health insurance. Instead of the government undercutting private insurers who charge premiums that reflect a roughly 20 percent profit margin, the government can charge a premium that is consistent with the industry standard and the profits can be used to cover the cost of people who cannot afford insurance, or to subsidize the cost of insurance for people who cannot afford the whole cost of premiums.
The problem is that the healthcare sector won’t allow it. Obama was making speeches about a public option being included in the ACA. The NYT reported that healthcare lobbyists said it was understood as a condition of their support that there would be no public option, and there wasn’t. They support both parties and therefore have influence in both parties. The bill hits the house with a public option and there are enough representatives from both parties who will vote it down to maintain the support of the healthcare sector. A public option isn’t an option, and for the same reason regulating pharmaceutical companies profits to any meaningful degree is not an option. Industry decides policy and they don’t believe it is in their interests for a public option for health insurance should exist so it doesn’t. So what’s a viable solution? Improving income opportunities to ensure people can afford health insurance.
End exchange
There’s one thing I left out. That’s the risk involved in researching certain diseases. If the profits of pharmaceutical companies are capped the risk they are willing to take is also capped. There’s also lots of research that is undertaken that does not produce a return that would have to incorporated into determining allowable profit on research that does produce cures or treatment. It’s ultimately a bad idea.
There was another commenter who I replied to that repeated the talking point that people need to pay their fair share. I commented how a return to post WWII to PreReagan tax rate is only estimated to produce about an extra 250 billion dollars per year which is peanuts compared to the overall budget. Then I mocked the commenter for taking a sloganist (tax the rich) position without understanding what it accomplishes and he deleted his comment. Increasing taxes only benefits low income people if increased revenue is required to finance a specific program.
—
On Monday I had a job distributing door hangers for a cleaning company in SC. Contracted to distribute 2000 door hangers for $850, divided into payments for increments of 400. It was physically taxing. The first day I distributed 378 and worked about 9 hours not including lunch. At least 6 hours was walking and not stopping to hang the hanger or driving to another spot. My pace using my tread mill speeds as a reference was in the neighborhood of 3.5 to 4mph. I probably walked 20 miles that first day.
My efficiency improved as I discovered I could take more direct routes. I initially didn’t want to cut through people’s yards because I didn’t want to draw negative attention and risk having the police called, and in respect of people’s property I wanted to be minimally invasive. I saw plenty of people walking on their grass, met a few people on their lawns, and being that most of the lawns were brown it didn’t seem like people should mind. I figured if somebody did have a problem with it I’d let them know I didn’t intend any disrespect and that it’s an average of about 3x further to walk around. It adds up in large quantities and most people don’t mind and I didn’t realize it was causing any harm?
Even if I had to go through that 1 out of 100 houses it would probably still be worth it presuming dialogue stayed respectful and didn’t produce escalations. That first day in straight lines I probably would have completed 500 to 600. Other increases in efficiency came from how I was recording the distribution. First in what I was recording, dropping cross streets which were unnecessary since I was providing the address ranges, and second in how I was recording. Initially, I wrote down the streets and address ranges after I completed each section. Towards the end I just wrote down the streets in an area and when I finished a section I’d Google maps the address ranges. It cut down the number of times I’d stop to use my phone.
It took 5 days to complete the distribution. Actually 4 days, 3 full days and 2 half days with the total number distributed being closer to 1850 since he either kept some door hangers or gave them to someone else to distribute. I have a deep pain in my left foot that starts at about the base of my big toe and extends to my ankle. Knee pain in my right knee that has the mangled meniscus and frayed ACL. I may skip cardio at the gym for a day or two but should be alright following the weekend.
I appreciated the steady work but unfortunately it isn’t going to provide the stability I hoped it would. I needed an oil change that was about a $50 expense. I intended to take the oil to AutoZone for disposal but unfortunately I wasn’t able to get the oil from the pan into the empty bottle without spilling it on the side of the bottle. I put the pan and jug of used oil in garbage bags and left them in a garbage can. I need to purchase a box of contacts, and I need to purchase tires. I was considering finding a cheap weekly hotel room for a week but I don’t think I have money for that. I’m going to need phenibut again soon, I also need to get some clothes. After making my necessary purchases I’m probably going to be back down to $300 to $400.
—
A few contrasting instances of service identifies in part a deficiency within American society. One instance a Walmart employee was in the cooler and the milk I wanted to purchase was on a pallet in the cooler directly across from me. I open the door and asked if he would pass me a great value half gallon of chocolate milk. He looked from probably 15 feet away, then walked away. In another instance I entered a Walmart and the greeter who had an eye patch, was enthusiastically greeting people as they came in.
People don’t recognize what it is that they’re doing. A stocker at Walmart may think that is his position, he does what they tell him to do because they pay him money. On a broader level that’s what he’s contributing to the world. By purchasing goods from Walmart people are deciding that they want to live in a world that has a store that carries the variety of goods that Walmart carries at the prices Walmart charges. I usually use this point to illustrate public responsibility for living wages, in the sense that if the public wants wants the products and services that exist to exist that these people need to be paid because their service is as important to the lives of the public as anything else anybody is doing. That’s not an argument for socialist pay regulations or to say everyone should earn the same, only to say the bottom of the labor market should provide pay that meets needs, allows for some discretionary spending, and accumulation. In this context I’m referencing it as a point of disconnect within the workforce. Some of the workforce doesn’t recognize that they’re producing a product or service that improves people’s lives. This isn’t to say they can’t have grievances about having to work the job, how their job is managed, or pay, but they should recognize that it is a tangible contribution to society that improves people’s lives.
For the stocker the opportunity to help someone for minimal effort even outside of his professional capacity should be internally rewarding. Nothing against him if isn’t, doesn’t make him a bad person per say, but within his professional capacity, his productive contribution is to facilitate the sale of products to the public. There should be some level of appreciation for how my patronage provides him with a job, and consideration that his purpose at the job is to facilitate the sale of products. Instead he moves onto some other part of the process instead of spending less than a minute to fulfill that purpose, or at least having the common courtesy to respond even if only to say that he cannot if for some reason he cannot.
Years ago a person’s relationship to the economy was better understood when production and distribution was more localized. It was easier to understand how a person was contributing to what they see around them. An understanding that a job isn’t something you do exclusively to make money, but recognizing how all production is in the service of providing everyone with the things they want and need. That understanding, that a city, state, nation, and the world to some extent is one big tribe that everyone does some part in to ensure everyone has the things they want and need. The difference is production and distribution isn’t presided over by a chief, instead anyone can decide to produce things and bring them to market.
It’s irritating that some people begrudgingly perform their jobs as something that has to be done to get money from the company, but fail to see the relationship between the company and the world and their contribution. Even more so that the person doesn’t have pride in the service they’re providing.
The Walmart greeter at a different location with the eye patch whether he knows it or not is creating positive impressions, positively impacting moods and these feelings are assigned to him and the Walmart shopping experience. For some, having a bad day or a bad week can be improved solely through his enthusiasm. Not deeply but subtly and impactfully. The acknowledgement, the respect, or even if the greeting itself isn’t appreciated a person may appreciate his effort and enthusiasm.
What’s his job? His job is to make Walmart shoppers feel good when they enter the store which may increase the likelihood of their return business and improve their shopping experience, as well as other roles in helping customers and maybe a minor role in security. He has these productive purposes, but the way he does his job can also be personally rewarding, in the sense that the essence of his job the way he does it is to make people feel good on a day to day basis.
This portion was supposed to be more unifying and in depth but I feel like I’ve failed to properly articulate that point. What I’m trying to convey is that perspective is lost in the scale of the economy. If a person was performing a duty on an island of 50 people they would recognize more than they commonly do now how their productive efforts contribute to the quality of life of everyone else. The same is true in a large scale economy but production and the quality of service suffers because they don’t see it.
—
I had a Tinder match I was interested in exchanging messages with who unmatched after my first message. My purpose on dating apps is social, sexual, and to a lesser extent to promote my websites by having them listed in my profile. This person was more about the potential for the message exchange than it was to leading to that, but needless to say I’d have also got on that if the opportunity arose.
First she listed board certified behavioral analyst which was interesting to me as someone who analyzes behavioral in a real world setting through the base processes of mind in relation to circumstances. Contrasting with a board certified behavioral analyst who for the most part is trying to identify behavioral tendencies and see what category they fall into. I was interested in those conversations.
Second she stated Arab-Muslim but she had 3 dogs. A Muslim owning dogs is an indication that she isn’t very serious about her religion because Muslims are not supposed to own dogs.
She wrote it’s Free Palestine on her profile so my first message pertained to that comment. I stated that only the US and Israel have the power to implement a 2 state settlement and neither country has any interest in the creation of a state that is adverse to their interests so a 2 state settlement is not realistic. A one state settlement is also not realistic because then Israel is no longer a Jewish state and they are effectively handing their country over to Palestinians in that equal rights and a proportionally representative government will lead to Israel being half run by Palestinians after the first election. With those things in mind, I asked her what she meant by Free Palestine? Instead of responding this board certified behavioral analyst unmatched instead of responding.
I’m not pro-Israel. I know the history and how Israel came into existence through a coordinated effort to migrate to Palestine and lobbied and forged a relationship with the British government that led to the creation of the state. Prior to the Zionist movement beginning at the tail end of the 19th century only a few percent of the population was Jewish. When the state was created in 1948 Jews were still a minority of the population and owned a very small percentage of the land. Israel was awarded a majority of the best land and following the creation Palestinians 750,000 were forcibly removed from their homes in an effort that included destruction and abandonment of property, violence, murder, and rapes. From that period until the present there has been violence, arbitrary arrest, detention, and imprisonment. Siege in the control of borders, preventing economic development in the Palestinian Territories, occupation of the West Bank, with very limited freedom of movement, and the maintenance of conditions that leave Palestinians without opportunities for income, adequate and clean water, inadequate food, inadequate access to medicine among other deplorable conditions.
Israel in defiance of international law protected by the United States has continued settlement expansion into the West Bank and continued to expel Palestinians from their homes. The long term goal is to produce concentrations of Israelis in the West Bank until there are enough continuous areas of exclusively Israelis that can then be annexed into the state of Israel. Israel is playing chess, thinking long term, where it took about 50 years to create the state and it may take 100 years before they can expand the state into the West Bank. We saw that Israel was hoping to use and may still be trying (haven’t kept up on developments) to use the attack on Israel to expel Palestinians from Gaza.
A few years ago coming from a place of great respect and sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people considered these realities and how the quality of life for these people and their children could be improved. Eventually the West Bank will be absorbed into Israel. I proposed that the Palestinians sell Gaza and the West Bank to Israel, distribute the money directly to the Palestinians on a per head basis and for those families who accept the money to migrate to nations of their choosing. I don’t remember the exact amount but it was a total that Israel could afford with support from their allies and would provide the average household with over $150,000 to relocate. I outlined the entire process from establishing priority, logistics, estimated cost of administration, pledges from countries to fast track citizenship, and dispersal of funds. It’s a chapter called The Option in the book Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History 2019 to 2020.
The option allows the Palestinians to immediately improve their lives and opportunity while instantly gaining the rights of any citizen in any country they choose to go to, for land they’re going to lose anyway. For the Israelis it allows them to improve their image internationally, attract tourism and investment to the newly acquired territories, and to reduce military spending for immediate security among other positives that will otherwise be postponed for probably 50 years.
Since creating the option, although I’m sympathetic to a people whose country was taken from them and have been subjected to the tyranny without recourse that the Palestinians have been subjected to, I’m no longer very invested in the controversy/conflict.
Thought it was interesting that a behavioral analyst has a slogan on her Tinder Free Palestine but then when asked what that means she refused to provide an explanation. Interesting in the sense that she cannot provide an explanation for her own behavior but is board certified to analyze the behavior of others. Which isn’t really behavioral analysis as much as it is the categorization of tendencies. If your position is the Slogan Free Palestine, that should include some kind of solution or explanation. Instead she has it on her page like she’s supporting a sports team.
Overheard a man in Wendy’s talk about reading scriptures. Reminded me that his time spent reinforcing superstition could be spent studying humans problems which actually has benefit as opposed to further indoctrinating himself into a contradictory, unideal, magical explanation of existence.
In another conversation I overheard a man talking to another man about how when he was a child children didn’t listen to grown folks talking. He was trying to make a point about how a problem with youth is there’s no respect in the households leading to other problems. This is an antiquated idea about raising children, the idea that children should be conditioned through fear of consequence to subordinate themselves to others.
The problem is the understanding of parents is built on BS. Children can be motivated by reason but parents often lack the reasoning abilities to provide children with reasons why they should do the things they should do and shouldn’t do the things they shouldn’t do. Values are passed down through explanation, in children understanding why an act is or is not in their interest. This is a deeper subject than I care to jump into right now, but that is the basis.
When I saw Holly and Ava about 2 weeks ago, she mentioned that an old friend of mine was getting out of prison (Armed Robberies) after 15 years in about 7 months. He’s at minimum security prison and gets out for work release and has a phone. He asked her to give me his number. I told her if she talks to him to give him my website. This coincides with a few other old friends sending me FB requests.
Although I do miss my old friends, the history, the humor, etc, there’s no purpose in maintaining those relationships. If you’re not interested in what I’m doing enough to buy a book and cannot understand me, or have no desire to, I have no interest in maintaining contact for purely superficial purposes with people who can’t think anything else about me other than I’m crazy.
1/13/2024
I was at the gym in Shelbyville, IN. I had my headphones and the man to the right of me signaled to me to get my attention. I think he had down syndrome, and I probably didn’t know at first because he was in good shape so the typical facial features associated with the condition weren’t as pronounced.
He had 225 on the smith machine and was doing deadlifts but loaded the bar while it was on a high position and asked if I could put it down for him. I obliged. He was short and stauky but very lean, and I think he said he weighed 135. It’s a lot of weight for his frame and as high as the bar was he could have hurt himself trying to pick it up and put it down. Then he asked me to spot him but I told him I didn’t know how to spot him on a deadlift.
Later I saw him with a resistance band. Following this I saw another man holding the resistance band around his waist while he deadlifted, kind of spotting him.
I mention this because I thought about this experience and how he was processing information. ASC is always taking place.
He recognizes an effect of him trying to move the weight could result in injury.
He wants to lower the weight so he can perform his set. The value of the objective to perform the set creates the objective to ask me to help him lower it.
He recognizes that lifting almost 100lbs more than his body weight is a potentially dangerous lift. The value of performing the lift safely creates the objective to ask me to spot him.
When I tell him I don’t know how to spot him, he has a consequence comparison where he presumably concluded that the probability of injury was low and proceeded. He did 2 or 3 reps.
He recognized that it would be uncomfortable for a stranger to touch him to try and spot him on a deadlift. He recognizes that the band can produce the the effect of allowing someone to spot him without having to be intimately close and hands on. The value of the objective to perform the set safely motivates the act to ask someone to spot him with the band.
Except for lowering the bar which may have been a legitimate point of safety, the point of value for the spotting may have been different. I’m guessing the real point of value may have been the opportunity for social interaction, and maybe to show off how much he could lift. Which was impressive for his size. Whatever the point or points of value are, these are all things that he understands, cause and effect relationships of objects. Even if safety is a pretext to interact with others or show off he also knows that improperly lifting heavy weights can result in injury, and in his pursuit of his objectives he makes assignments of effect to the objects in his immediate environment. The band probably doesn’t produce the effect he believes it does as a spot, but then again the objective of the spot may not actually be about safety, it may be about the social opportunity and showing off his hard work. Showing off has implications for self worth because he knows people are seeing him lift and perceives them as perceiving him as being strong. Or it could actually just be about feeling safer.
I’m mentioning this because I’m curious about the limitations on intelligence for people with down syndrome. I typically exclude them from my general position on intelligence. Where the potential for intelligence among people who do not have serious genetic defects is relatively equal. Relatively equal because reality takes place through objects in motion within space and time. This means all complexity reduces to the definition of objects, and objects organized in cause and effect sequencing. The definition of objects reduces to other objects in cause and effect sequencing. Since all people can understand objects and cause and effect all people can understand all things that they’re interested in.
I wonder where the limits are for people with down syndrome? Are they limited in the length of sequence they can hold? Or is it a matter of attention where the disability may obstruct learning because it’s difficult to hold their attention? Is most of the disorder and it’s impact on intelligence more an issue of perceptual and emotional limitations?
I feel like those people could benefit from efforts to teach them ASC. I have a particular fondness for those people. I perceive them as being almost devoid of malice, full of empathy, pride in being good, among a number of other positive qualities. Sometimes it feels good to see them because of the positive stereotypes associated with their group, and also in knowing they’re not responsible for what we have on this planet.
As ASC is concerned I’ve been considering a conduit to understanding ASC, through another acronym Motion, Value, and Standards. Motion is perceived as objects in cause and effect sequencing, and the mind makes assignments of cause and effect to order objects and motion within sequences. Assignments of true and false are made according to consistency and contradiction. Assignments of value are made based on the feelings an object or objective produces or is believed to produce. Standards are values that are tied to self, general likes and dislikes including moral values that influence our behavior in pursuit of other valued objectives. The difference between a subjective standard and a moral standard that may be subjective is the subjective standard only applies to the individual, whereas the moral standard applies to everyone. Some standards are purely a product preference, or assignments of value rooted in feeling, whereas other standards are values through the motion they’re believed to produce and that idea produces positive feelings that serve as the source of value. I probably didn’t make it sound any simpler in this explanation because I’m talking about specific things very few people have a point of reference for but an expanded explanation can make MVS, a conduit for ASC and a better understanding of the conscious experience.
I have another interesting observation I intended to write about but it’s getting late and I have a lot going on tomorrow. It’s going to be very cold in Cincinnati over the next week. Highs in the teens, lows in single digits, and probably sub 0 windchills. I took a multi day job in South Carolina. I stopped in Lexington, KY to use the gym. I happend to have a tinder match just south of Lexington and asked the woman if she was interested in having company. Told her I’d bring something to drink, hangout, socialize, and put some good D in her life. She seemed like she was with it. Said she worked until 5 and would get back to me when she got off work. She didn’t get back to me and I was really looking forward to that because it’s been a long time. Other than my disappointment after fantasizing about the situation since it seemed like a real possibility, it kept me in Lexington after the gym waiting for her to get back to me.
A customer from AT in Florence, KY whose job I bid on earlier in the week messaged me and asked if I could put her treadmill together tomorrow, Monday or Tuesday. I told her I had work out of town next week but told her I could do it tomorrow morning. The other job I start Monday but it’s an 8 hour drive. I also need to pick up door hangers from the customer to distribute and agreed to pick them up tomorrow. So I need to get to Florence by 8am and hopefully finish the treadmill in under 2 hours so I can drive about 8.hours to pick up the flyers at a decent time (7 to 8pm ) to distribute on Monday. I also need to find some time in-between to show the customer where I’m going to distribute based on an income map of the area.
All that’s to say I need to go to sleep and can’t write about the other thing I wanted to write about.
1/8/2024
What a difference seeing family can make. I saw my daughter and her mother for the first time in too long. It was mentally and emotionally rehydrating. Elements of yourself that are leached away by your environment are restored, including focus. Focus I mean indirectly, where reconnecting with popular values fills out one’s perspective and redirects attention to underlying themes of importance. Helps you remember why you began in the first place. Questions about why I was as I was and why the world is how it is. Recognizing among the less fortunate that I could be them, they could be my daughter, or her mother, and then learning that what exists, isn’t a necessary byproduct of policy that best serves the people’s interests, and it isn’t mistake or mismanagement, it’s the intent of the policy.
After discovering that people choose to believe lies to reinforce false beliefs that allow the world to function in this manner, the empathy erodes as responsibility is spread out. It’s more difficult to feel bad for people when you understand the behavioral mechanism responsible within people that produce their circumstances.
Responsibility properly distributed doesn’t change the fact that the goal is essentially for families to be more prosperous, more free, more reasonable, and having more opportunities for positive moments. More broadly, I recognize that human beings have the potential to solve all their problems (maybe not climate change), to be exceedingly more intelligent, and to reduce the presence and influence of deception and ultimately lead to all people being freer.
Anyway, it felt profoundly good to see my daughter and her mother. There’s other reason aside from what I mentioned that I won’t go into here, but in addition to what I mentioned it also helps to bring yourself to remembrance, as the fuller representation of your values and character are reflected onto you through the people who know you. I hope I discover enough success soon that will allow me to spend something in the neighborhood of a weekend per month with them.
This mental and emotional hydration and increased clarity will carry with me and improve productivity in the short term. While I probably wouldn’t have written what I wrote in the previous entry had I seen them sooner, it doesn’t change that it was still correct and still applicable. I still hope for that justice, I just probably wouldn’t have written it because I feel better mentally and emotionally, so it isn’t at the forefront of my thoughts.
This brings me to something I want to address indirectly, because to address it specifically creates the potential for harassment that is difficult to address in person, and said harassment could be seen as coincidental and creates a basis to make negative claims about me. It’s beneficial in expressing moral truth.
Some people may be too stupid to realize that liberty as a moral code cannot be used to justify evil. This example would be efforts to irritate someone that otherwise isn’t considered imposition. The intent is to cause stress which is physical imposition, since there isn’t much distinction between a pain response produced through force or a pain response created in another way, with the requirement being that the response doesn’t require interpretation to cause the pain or stress. Of course, the effect can be cumulative when it’s a centrally implemented strategy that recruits the participation of others. If it is undertaken one time it isn’t going to produce the same level of stress it does the second or third time in a day, or 15th time in a week taking place on the forefront of other difficult circumstances.
This does not mean people have to refrain from speech that could be offensive or honest opinions that people may feel bad about, especially when it isn’t the intent, because those feelings are a product of interpretation and values. Outside of that, where there is an objective basis for an act to produce stress and it is the intent of the actor, this is morally wrong. It speaks to the moral standards and application of the actor who is a person who is willing to impose on others unprovoked. For me personally, in my situation it is incredibly difficult to respond to because the act can be written off as unintentional. When there is a pattern that appears then disappears, and then reappears and disappears it seems like a coordinated effort, but any act individually can be coincidence or unintentional. Times when I have responded the actors have taken that route in explanation which causes me to feel like I overacted to it, feels bad, and then puts me in a situation where it’s difficult to respond in the future. The place I’m prepared to go when I do respond to it demands that I’m certain about the intent of the actor.
I decided to ignore it when it happens since I cannot know the intent. It’s so cowardly, where whatever the problem is you’d prefer to do something to irritate me instead of addressing me directly or doing something that I can confidently respond to. Some would think it’s a small thing not deserving of existential repercussions but assignment of consciousness after death to a space of tyranny has very little to do with what you’ve done, and much more to do with why you’ve done it and how you operate. You show you’re a person who will impose on others that have not imposed on you, and even worse, someone who doesn’t intend to impose on others, except of course when required to prevent or remove imposition or as an element of justice. Certified ignorant pieces of shit whose thinking is one cause deep.
I’m nearly finished with the book on biases. I’ve completed the introduction and all the analysis, but I may add to an exchange where there was good content after I initially concluded the case, then I need read it again and add footnotes, organize and insert the screen shots of the exchanges, write a conclusion, and finally design a cover and upload it.
If I figure out an effective marketing strategy or gain enough funding and interest to implement a strategy with the right hires to aid in execution. How do you market through the interests of others that they don’t recognize and cannot understand 1: because their perception of reality is so far at odds with reality, and 2: because challenging information is avoided and rejected? This is a decade old problem for me and I’ve exhausted all perceivable outlets and become increasingly less able to begin any new campaigns due to my limited opportunities to acquire resources. Trapped in a world full of puppets, moved by feelings they don’t understand.
1/2/2024
23 states have minimum wage increases taking place in 2024, an average of $.77 per hour across all states. The first reason minimum wage increases are not a solution is because they’re implemented incrementally, and often the lower end of wage earners in the state are already making more than the minimum wage. For example, if you’re in Colorado where the minimum wage is going from $13.65 to $14.42, it doesn’t make a difference if the bottom of the labor market is being paid $15. $15 an hour isn’t enough for a person to support themself much less save money to improve their position in life. A minimum wage doesn’t mean much if it’s below what the market is already paying, and minimum wage legislation always lags behind the market.
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/26/1221521157/minimum-wage-states-raises-jan-1
Another NPR article mentions Vermont extending a $1000 child tax credit, which is obviously something I support but the article lied about the significance of it. Claiming that the tax credit in 2021 cut child poverty in half but then it shot back up when it expired at the end of the year. As if it was the child tax credit and not the 6 trillion dollars spent on stimuluses.
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/01/1220874994/child-tax-credit-bigger-states-2024-poverty
These are stories that appear in my google feed. It speaks to the ineffectiveness or lack of will to position people to have better income opportunities, and servicing the condition of being poor to attract the votes of struggling people, and ensuring people struggle indefinitely.
In the story they mention a woman in Vermont, married, with two children and two incomes. The family seems pretty well off, mentioning they recently bought a house which means they’re nowhere near poverty. Child tax credits should probably have different income or wealth thresholds to prioritize appropriations for those who actually need it. Otherwise it just exacerbates the problem, but helps buy votes from the middle-class.
Student loan forgiveness is another example of prioritizing the interests of advantaged people ahead of the interests of disadvantaged people. People who went to school, earn a higher income, and work in a field of their choosing are advantaged compared to the bottom 40 percent of income earners who are largely unskilled workers and probably not a lot of overlap outside of those who didn’t finish school.
There are no ideas from Democrats to provide low income people with the means or opportunity to improve their condition. The same shit they’re doing and trying to do is the same shit they’ve already done in different degrees before. We see what it accomplishes, it accomplishes circumstantially trapping a large portion of the population who may vote for democrats who will sponsor their poverty.
The Republicans don’t acknowledge the existence of labor markets because they challenge the sanctity of their country’s cliches. You can show them how many people are working and how much people are making and they’ll still claim that hard work is going to improve the wages of 10s of millions of people. Really just to say the Republicans aren’t doing poor people any favors either, except in as much as they’re not creating more problems with solutions that are not solutions.
I have had a rough past week. Sick off and on. Deeply stressed, although I made decent money over that span. I’m becoming consumed by hopelessness and crushed by the monotony of my predicament, I hope for justice at the existential level. I do believe in it, because justice is perceived through emotion, it exists. Not only as a human construct but even in animals. There are examples of Tigers taking revenge on humans who have harmed them. It’s counter intuitive since a human harming a tiger should cause the tiger to avoid the human since the human is associated with that harm. In one instance a tiger was shot and wounded by a hunter. The tiger over a two day period found the man’s cabin, destroyed everything that has his scent, waited for the man at the cabin and killed him. It’s reasonable to believe the tiger was motivated by feelings associated with harming the person who harmed him.
If consciousness survives death justice is a part of that equation because it exists as a feeling. Which isn’t to contradict spaces that exist to accommodate the two different modes of moral operation, just that the space of tyranny on an individual basis has to contain unpleasant elements to allow for justice for those who have been harmed by tyrants, and for the victims to witness as they choose. That would represent justice. Justice is always restoration and restoration is indirectly or directly associated with feelings. The suffering of those who made you suffer usually feels good and offsets the negative feelings associated with that suffering.
That isn’t to say that justice must always include revenge or that revenge will always produce justice but sometimes it is, and sometimes it is. I believe justice exists because it is an element of the conscious experience and the survival of consciousness in an ideal existence would include it. Otherwise, it could just as easily not exist. It exists not only in humans, but in several other species especially among primates, meaning there is a positive feeling that motivates the act.
I was dwelling on that while I was sick. I had real bad stomach virus type symptoms on the 24th. Lethargy, body and head aches, fever, and frequently watery stools. I felt better the next day and the following day but still had watery stools. For a day or so I thought I was over it. Then I felt a little bit of respiratory infection. On the 31st I went to the gym. Although my upper lungs were sore I was still able to vape comfortably by pulling in the vape with lower part of my lungs. Yesterday the upper part of my lungs were in excruciating pain when I would cough. I had congestion, and pressure in my head. It was brutal. I was feeling horrible thinking about existential justice for whoever was responsible for my trapping. Some may think that’s me but there’s more to it.
I vented that out, drank some water, and today I feel better. I still have some questions about my sickness, since I may have mentioned in a previous entry I rarely get sick. I wonder if the stomach sickness was the same virus as the respiratory sickness and migrated. I don’t know if a virus that infects the stomach can also infect the lungs. Or if it was a bacterial infection that spread from one to other. Or if it was just a virus that didn’t infect the stomach but produced watery stool and the onset of symptoms begins with what I began with and has the potential to produce other symptoms over time. Or, due to the recent stress, my immune system was compromised and I experienced two seperate infections that may not have produced any symptoms if I was at a better place emotionally. It just feels like I’ve been sick to varying degrees for about a week, feeling really bad on the 24th and 1st, and not perfect on the days in-between to present.
I don’t experience sickness of any significant degree very often, but in my situation it definitely amplifies the melancholy. To be in a horrible situation with seemingly no possibility of improvement is worse when you feel like shit.
I heard an interesting clip, Shane Gillis mentioned that Jordan Peterson told him the mind is constantly making assignments of value. Crazy to hear because I’ve written that in Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison. If psychology understands that, that’s one place where ASC can be understood by people in that field. That’s a big hurdle, where something can be applicable to a field but a person within the field may not have any advantage over anyone else in understanding it because they have no reference for what you’re describing. Hearing that psychology at least understands that value is constantly being assigned according to the perception of objects and the feelings being produced or the feelings they have the potential to produce is encouraging. Although in the clip Shane says constantly assigning value and the addition is how value is being assigned, and assignments are taking place in consideration of current objectives and potential objectives and objectives consist of assignments of cause and effect to objects, that are motivated by positive feelings or value.
12/24/2023
Physically sick, it’s been awhile. I was in the middle of assembling a basketball hoop when the onset of symptoms became noticeable. I was abnormally tired when I woke up, had a watery stool, and my nose was running when I arrived at the assembly. Didn’t think much of it but about half way through the assembly I felt exhausted, had pressure in my head, and body aches. The speed of the onset was unusual. Feels like the flu without the respiratory issues.
I intended to use these days where the gym isn’t open and people are gathered in celebration of their favorite myth to get some more editing done, but I feel like shit.
Break-
After the above mentioned portion I went into a diatribe but it was largely the restating of things that were stated better in other places. I saved the entry to my notes because there were a few examples that seemed worth saving, but would add to the redundancy of the journal.
My stomach is still in rough shape but the other symptoms have mostly subsided.
I haven’t done anything productive for the last two days. Yesterday I was sick. Today I played poker on a rigged site that I’m sometimes able to make some money on. Lost $15 but it’s good to distract myself. Relaxes my mind.
Because of my general resolve, standards, and resilience, I hardly notice my deterioration. Only recently have I begun to notice how the undercurrents of my general depravity influence value formation and objective considerations, and also how those considerations are actually efforts to change standards, to proceed with acts for the anticipated benefit. I don’t expect anybody to understand that, and any example will lead to speculation about the nature of those thoughts and considerations and I’d prefer not to share them. It’s sort of like if you’re running down a hallway with stairs and the walls are closing in you’re only thinking about what you’re going to do to get yourself up the next set of stairs, and you’re not thinking about the walls. But the walls are applying pressure which creates objectives to relieve that pressure. As the pressure increases the considerations become more persuasive gradually eroding standards, that would otherwise remain intact if not for the pressure. For the sake of accuracy and consistency, it would be like if the faster you moved down the hallway the slower the walls moved in and moving fast enough could cause them to reverse.
That’s what things have been. I left Milwaukee with $800, $550 of it I won in a poker tournament on a rigged site. First thing I had to do was find shelter. I rented a room. Then I needed to find work. After I found work I needed a car. After I had the car I had to earn money to fix the car and resume promotion. I found sustained work. I intended to save about 10k to finance promotion. Unfortunately after saving about $5500 I had to leave the job due to an incident that led me to believe I may have been facing serious legal problems. Morally and legally I didn’t do anything wrong but had what I thought happened have happened, there was a very real chance that it would have required a lot of time to resolve and I wanted to postpone that ordeal. I ended up speaking with the investigating officer and it wasn’t as serious as I had originally believed, and no charges were filed. From there just about everyday was some effort towards a promotional end, including a stunt, but it yielded no interest. It was also a short lived effort that had me back to working odd jobs trying to survive. Another opportunity arose for steady work. After I saved about 12k and felt like it was time to go I went. That was just another exercise in spending money without generating interest. If you see me, my rings were not purchased at that time, I’ve had these rings for a long time. I bought them years ago to have something to show for the money I was making at that time.
I left November 1st of 2022. By probably January, maybe February of 2023 is when I realized how trapped I really am. I won’t go into it here all of that shit has been chronicled and summarized previously, but when people cannot understand their own best interest, they cannot be honestly persuaded to act on their own best interest, or be appealed to through that interest. On the business, political, economic, academic, media, and non-profit side of it you cannot even get through to anyone, through phone, email, manuscript, etc. That’s just to say by January or February I was accepting that people’s conception of reality and thinking habits are so contaminated that any meaningful communication is impossible. A conclusion not reached through efforts of the last three years but the last 10, and learning the mechanism of denial through that time.
I’ve been making very little progress down that hallway because there is an insurmountable stair, and so efforts to proceed are a slow going process, always operating under the demotivating insurmountable stair. Continuing with the analogy, this pace means the walls have been applying a lot of pressure for a long time that I block out sometimes through focus on something I’m doing and other times through distraction.
Over the summer I had long stretches where I couldn’t find work. A few different times where I didn’t have money for food waiting on an Airtaskers payment. When my money drops below about $200 my focus changes to making sure I have money for basic necessities which for me is food, fuel, phenibut, phone bill, websites, gym membership. That produces a different kind of pressure that when relieved temporarily reduces all pressure, and then the pressure returns because there is no prospect for progress.
I’m always uneasy in the south just based on my perceived extent of a lot of people’s irrationality. Sure, 70 percent of the country calls themselves Christian, but southerners strike me as more committed to that idiocy. This doesn’t make them any less intelligent than people elsewhere whose reality is built on equally false ideas but it’s a reminder of their irrationality. The same as a BLM banner is a reminder of irrationality, or almost any thing people believe of any popular significance is built on inconsistent, contradictory, or willfully incomplete understanding in the promotion of bias and maintenance of values. There’s a lot of reminders of the Christian irrationality in the south
For example, not in the south, I believe it was KS or MO there was a billboard that quoted spare the rod and spoil the child. Your deity was too stupid to understand that children can be motivated by reason and need not be trained through fear of consequence. If you have to use the threat of physical pain to condition your child to do or not do things, that’s because you’re a shitty parent. You’re creating poor thinking habits within your child where the child processes the world more in regards to the consequences the act will have for them, as opposed to whether it makes sense to act based on the general consequences the act has to all interests and whether the act is consistent with their subjective standards.
Today I was at Walmart and someone had a rear window graphic that read Galatians 2:20. Before I address the irrationality of the quote, let’s look at the quote itself. Galatians is Paul’s letter to the people of that country. It predates all the Gospels and is one of the 7 letters that scholars agree was written by Paul, while the other 6 are believed to be written by someone else under Paul’s name. Differences in message, word selection, or writing style are too dissimilar to the other letters to be the work of the same author. I know they’re not concerned with sources, everything is divinely inspired, even in the beginning which contradicts everything that is observed on the planet and in the universe. They have faith in a deity whose explanation for physical reality is contrary to the technology they use everyday. They read the gospels like they were being written by people who were there as it was happening. Written by people who are unknown with varying speculation as to who they were, and written 30 to 80 years after Jesus was dead. But divinely inspired so it doesn’t matter who wrote it and when. 😂. It doesn’t matter if the earliest of many of the manuscripts do not contain passages that appear in later manuscripts, it just means the deity changed his mind to have someone else add to or take something away from the previous divinely inspired writer. Contradiction being an all knowing deity doesn’t think to add something later that he knew to be right when he inspired someone to write it. That isn’t my goal here. I intended to remind people that Paul never met Jesus outside of his own personal account where his entourage couldn’t keep their story straight, some saying they heard something others saying they saw something. And that half of Paul’s letters weren’t even written by Paul. Now for Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
He’s essentially stating that he’s abandoned his personal values and adopted the values of a person whom he has never met. First, he is saying he is his perception of the deities values since he doesn’t actually know the deities values. To say that you have died and another person lives within you is to say you like what they like, you dislike what they dislike, you apply their standards to your conduct, and live your life to advance their interests.
The more important part is the following that whole Christian stupidity is built on. The idea that Jesus died for his sins because Jesus loved him.
It’s a stupid concept, first, because the only life you have ever impacted has been the lives of others on this planet. When person A harms person B, Jesus has suffered nothing to forgive. Jesus didn’t die because some child broke his dad’s lamp in 1973 and lied about it, that event has nothing to do with what was probably a magician and a team orchestrating elaborate tricks to gain popularity that pissed off the wrong people. Nothing any of you do had any effect on Jesus dying.
More importantly is a basic understanding of what morality is and how it produces conduct (conscious motion) that leads to two categorically different potentials for motion. Christianity only offers two versions of hell for the survival of a consciousness. Eternal servitude or eternal torment. Relevant to the part of the passage that states the deity loves Paul, since he doesn’t love Paul as he loves himself otherwise he wouldn’t have created people for purposes he would not want to exist for eternal servitude/torment. The point is the passage states and Christians believe that heaven is a great place governed by a benevolent tyrant deity that anyone can go to so long as they believe Jesus died for their sins. Jeffrey Dahmer, a prison convert, entertaining the people he murdered in the deities glorious kingdom. Or maybe not, his victims may be unbelievers so they’re murdered and go to hell while Jeffrey goes on because of his murders to be saved. His divine plan was for Dahmer to murder people to go to heaven, making Dahmer blessed, and potentially his victims cursed.
Sin according to Christianity is what creates separation with the deity and since humans cannot live up to the deities standards, the deity had to become a man and die to redeem humanity of their short comings in his own eyes. We’ll start on that I’ll conceived contradictory premise. If you’re Christian you believe Jesus is god, and had to sacrifice himself so you could be okay with him. Again, if he counted your company worth the effort, it doesn’t require the effort since you’re worth accepting as you are. This is what determines if we like people. There are things they do we like, and things they do that we do not like and whichever is greater determines whether we like them or not. The negative is the effort. The deity only works in mysterious ways because that is the only explanation to maintain so many ideas that don’t make sense. If the deity is conscious it operates the same way as any other intelligent conscious being, the definition of objects, causes and effects, values, and the influence of values by standards.
What produces conscious motion? What you do is product of your perceived opportunities within your circumstances and prioritization of objectives based on value or what you believe has the potential to make you feel good. Obviously, what you do will be influenced by any consequence any act may have for other objectives, but it also has to be considered against subjective standards. There are moral subjective standards and non-moral subjective standards. These standards operate through self worth, and self worth increases or decreases based on consistency or inconsistency with these standards.
The difference between moral standards and subjective standards is that subjective standards only apply to the individual and moral standards apply to everyone and are typically more sturdy depending on the person. The stability of a person’s morals depends on how important self worth is to their well being versus entertainment. This is true with subjective standards as well, where adherence depends on the amount of self worth lost, and how important that is compared to external stimulation (entertainment) or, how much of a person’s self worth depends on their perception of how others perceive them. Part of a person’s self worth can be derived by how they perceive others seeing them. If the boost to self worth that comes from how they perceive others as perceiving them is greater than the loss of violating the standard, then their standards exist for the purpose of appearances only and can be violated without any negative consequence to their well being. Whether moral or subjective, if a person is most concerned with keeping themselves entertained, then standards will be compromised to advance entertainment interests.
Dave Chappelle in an interview stated that he was asked to wear a dress in a scene for a movie. He declined the scene. This was a subjective standard, where Dave’s perception of himself would change had he chosen to wear the dress for the scene, because wearing a dress isn’t consistent with a standard he has for himself. He did say it seemed like a Hollywood right of passage for black comedians to wear a dress in a movie, but even if the refusal was motivated in part by a general unwillingness to allow a group of people to feel like they were owning or trying to humiliate him in a small circle, it’s still in part motivated by a subjective standard that is in conflict with him wearing a dress. This is a subjective standard and only applies to him. He doesn’t believe it is wrong for other comedians who have done scenes in dresses, it just isn’t right for him.
From that same example we can also infer that Dave places a higher value on his personal standards than he does on entertainment, where his willingness to do the scene may have benefited his career, led to more roles, more money which presumably can purchase more entertainment.
A moral standard might be that a producer asks Dave to steal something. This may be something Dave believes or understands to be wrong and he refuses. As mentioned, the dress wearing will produce a negative feeling because it is in conflict with a subjective standard, where he has to see himself as a dress wearer and this perception will reduce his self worth. For morality, we have the exact same mechanism, where if he steals, he has to acknowledge that he’s done something wrong which reduces self worth. The difference is, if other comedians wear dresses it doesn’t necessarily change Dave’s opinion of them, whereas if they steal, this may change his opinion of them in having done something that was wrong. These are just examples of how morality functions, how subjective standards function, and how they differ. The actual Dave Chappelle in that context probably considers the circumstances of the individual and the circumstances of who is being stolen from, including prejudice against an industry that has stolen from him. Just an example to distinguish between subjective standards and moral standards, since they function the same way.
Sin is anything that violates the deity’s standards. The question is what is right and what is wrong, and what impact does different moral standards have on the motion of beings within a common area like heaven or hell?
The human constant is desire. This is the constant for all conscious beings, that at all times all beings want to do what they want to do. It’s ideal that all people be able to do as they please. Ideal morality, which is also objective because it serves all interests simultaneously without respect to any individual’s subjective preferences, recognizes that imposition is the basis for wrong action. So long as the actions of one do not prevent the actions of others then the action is good because it’s motivated by some positive feelings and doesn’t impact the liberty of others. That’s the basis, which is applicable and consistent to all conceivable acts. Beginning with the production of individual circumstances, since the first element of the decision making process begins with an assessment of the environment to produce an objective based on the perceived opportunity within those circumstances. The details of application are summarized in previous entries and explained most thoroughly in Liberty: The Definitive Moral Truth. I won’t re-summarize here because the points can be made through concept in the absence of the details.
Morality can be a motivator of action but it’s primarily a prohibitor. People typically do not create objectives that violate their morality, because violating their morality causes them to see themselves as being wrong for the wrong thing they did. This reduces self worth and there are lingering negative feelings attached to the perception. The subconscious doesn’t typically produce objectives that violate a person’s morality without provocation or imposing or trapping circumstances. When circumstances or provocation produce objectives that are inconsistent with moral standards there is typically a bad feeling, a threat response that creates a comparison between the moral rule and the potential damage to self worth (threat response) versus the fulfillment of the objective consisting of thoughts and feelings about the objective. The point being is morality is a prohibitor of conscious motion.
Prohibiting only acts that impose allows for all beings to do as they please, which is ideal, and creates the greatest potential for subjective expression. Claiming that something is wrong that doesn’t impose is the imposition of subjective preferences onto others. This is why morality is categorized as consistent with liberty or tyranny, because adding anything to liberty is the imposition of a subjective preference. Obviously imposing acts being counted as right is imposition. Not in the context of measuring.
The potential for motion in a space governed by moral liberty is much different than the potential for motion in a space governed by tyranny. In a space of liberty all the beings are doing anything they have the capacity to do. In a space of tyranny what the beings do is decided by what the most powerful being decides they can do. There’s potentially infinite possibilities for tyrannical modes of operation, depending on who ever has power and their subjective preferences. The problem is the acknowledgement that imposition is right to prevent and neutralize imposition, which means any assignment to an area after consciousness survives death can be made on no other basis than moral application, because the propensity of the tyrant to impose is in constant conflict with the propensity of the objectively moral to prevent and remove imposition.
Christians conceive reality as being lorded over by a tyrant deity who created them to fulfill his desire to control others. Abraham was considered to be righteous because he would be obedient even in the commission of evil. Eternal servitude or eternal torment is creation for the purpose of controlling others. That’s why they think something exists rather than nothing. Religion has always been an instrument to control, and unify for conquest. It isn’t that your deity seeks to have power over others, your deities are fake, the deities were created that way to fulfill the purposes of their creators and promoters.
If consciousness survives death there has to be two spaces to accommodate different moral understanding and application. A place absent of imposition and a place where people are able to impose. It is the only element of conscious decision making that is relevant to the motion of the individual and others. Dying for someone’s sins and then choosing who goes to your tyranny and who goes to another’s based on belief produces conflict in both spaces. Also demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of conscious behavior, morality, and peace.
There is no need for forgiveness because a person who applied tyranny and later understood and applied liberty is 1: no longer the person who applied tyranny. Meaning their understanding and application means they are fit to be in a space with others if the same mode of moral operation. And 2: forgiving the tyrant for their application of tyranny doesn’t change their willingness to impose on others to accomplish their objectives. It isn’t about reward and punishment, it’s about the facilitation of conscious motion.
Most of you cannot understand these things, not due to a lack of innate ability but because you have irrational thinking habits governed by feelings that you don’t understand that allows for the holding of all manners of contradictory beliefs. For those who understand in part may draw the conclusion that I’m saying the same thing as Jesus in the previous paragraph. That a person must be reborn, or become a new person. That isn’t what I’m saying, only that a person who operates out of a different understanding than they did previously is no longer the same person that they were. Most decisions a person made as a teenager they would have made differently in their 30s, and so on and so forth.
Jesus’ teachings are not ideal. It’s the promotion of tyranny, do not resist evil, turn the other cheek, do not defend your property, forgive in perpetuity when asked, and is essentially a message that promotes the subordination of people to others. The tyrant is only persuaded by consequence where the Christian doctrine encourages imposition through forgiveness and non-resistance.
As previously stated morality functions through self worth. A Christians self worth isn’t determined by their interpretation of their acts through the lens of their standards or even the deities standards as vague and inconsistent as they are. A Christians self worth is a product of how they perceive the deity perceiving them. Their perception of how the deity perceives them is largely based on what they believe the deity will forgive. It weakens or destroys the moral mechanism because they don’t feel bad for doing bad things. They don’t feel bad for doing bad things because they believe the deity forgives them and this their perception of how the deity perceives them doesn’t change. In some cases, religious or otherwise, people feel bad for doing something bad and this in itself restores self worth because they see themselves as being good for feeling bad for something bad they did.
I didn’t intend to go this far into this but it’s difficult to begin down the road of the dumpster fire that is most people’s foundation of reality and stop on a singular point. Christianity contaminates thinking processes by conditioning people to hold contradictory beliefs creating disorder in the mind that can be applied to everything else. In short, it conditions people that things don’t have to make sense to be true. It conditions to authority based thinking, facilitates tyranny, creates a belief in magic, and prevents people from being communicated with. All these things play a role in producing the results on this planet. To name just a few of the problems.
Galatians 2:20 is one man bragging to others that he is more Christian than they are. Making a false claim that the deity loves him, and an illogical claim that his belief has saved him from hell. Any person who advertises that is essentially advertising that they’re willfully ignorant and irrational.
A person need not understand fundamental aspects of human behavior to know this is wrong. The innate human ability to recognize consistency and inconsistency combined with a general interest, reading, and research into what they claim to believe is the explanation of existence will expose the contradictions. This is where some Christians will claim you can change their mind but not their heart. This is a product of that conditioning, and the social evolution of a broader defect. People decide what they believe based on how it makes them feel which prevents critical examination. The idea that someone loved them to sacrifice themselves to forgive them their wrong doing. These feelings are produced internally and often given external origins. They see a passage like Galatians 2:20, or something else and the idea produces positive feelings that they believe is the deity or it’s spirit interacting with theirs making them feel good. The deity becomes real and incontrovertible based the feelings they experience through things associated with the deity.
The average Christian isn’t researching the bible, the history, or even reading their Bible. They believe their irrational belief means they go to heaven and their deity’s opinion of what is bad and really bad is the same as their own. Deity forgives all the stuff that they do and doesn’t forgive the stuff that they don’t do. The personal relationship is the imagined deity which is an element of their psyche, who they pray to, praise, barter with, and is a mirror of what they understand to be good. A genie, who forgives their wrongs, grants their wishes, enacts justice against those they cannot get justice against, and loves them just a little bit more than everyone else. They want to know less about the deity, it’s origins, and evolution because they have a trove of suppressed doubts that they know are validated through research.
Everywhere there is just a different proportion of different brands of willful ignorance and stupidity, Christian Nationalism, Progressivism, and the ignorantly indifferent who don’t understand how the political and philosophical beliefs of others impact their own opportunities and the negative results observed throughout this species.
12/20/2023
I took a job to put together a trampoline in GA for $275. I figured since it’s getting colder I’d take that job and find some others along the way and work my way west and south. The guy says he wants to be there when it’s assembled so I offer to come at noon when he said he’ll be available. Instead he had me come at 10am and said the box will be by the shed.
I arrive at 10am and find two boxes, one of which is a small box containing a basketball attachment. I open the box and review the contents and there are no net poles for the net, no net, and no ladder. I do some research looking up the manual, reading some customer reviews, and looking at youtube videos and discover there is a separate box for the net, net poles, and ladder.
I begin assembling the trampoline and when he arrives I tell him there’s supposed to be a third box. I asked him if the other box may be coming that day because he originally told me the delivery was changed from Friday to Saturday. Then on Friday he told me it arrived. He said as far as he knows that’s all they sent.
Before I researched the issue I was suspicious, because he said he wanted to be there and then when given the option he chose to have me come when he wasn’t there. Add to that there was tape on two sides of the box and the rest of the box was held together with staples and I briefly thought they may have removed the netting so I couldn’t complete the assembly and he wouldn’t have to pay. Get a free 80 percent assembly. I don’t know.
He wasn’t like that. I initially agreed to come back, but knowing it would be unlikely that I’d still be in the area, I offered to refund some of his money in case I wasn’t available. He just said you can do it when you’re available.
The nearest rest area was 70 miles away from him. I stopped at a Walmart, then drove back to the rest area. I was there probably 10 minutes and he texted me that the other box had arrived. I told him I was over an hour away and didn’t feel like driving back just then, and we agreed I would return 9am the following day. He did offer to have me postpone my return because he thought it was going to rain.
Putting up the net and assembling the ladder were familiar but this was the first time I’ve come across this kind of hoop assembly. The back of the backboard had indentations where nuts could drop into and be tightened by turning the bolt. When I saw it I didn’t think of it like that, I thought about turning the nut and the but not lining up with the indentation when it reaches the bottom of the bolt. So it must go through the other side and the 2nd set of nuts attaches to the front. It still works but the bolts protrude through into the jumping area.
I didn’t realize this until after I left, as far as having assembled that part backwards. By this time after asking if it was possible the other package was going to come on Saturday, and already having to come back once, I didn’t want to drive another 140 miles round trip, 3 hours, some of it in Metro ATL traffic, to fix the mistake. I had to come back once because he wasn’t ready for the assembly. I didn’t have to, he already paid me before the second box arrived but I did. I covered his mistake so I decided to have him cover mine. I sent him a text message explaining the bolts and recommending that he purchase covers for the bolts.
There’s a lot going on while these things are pending, thoughts, and emotions. I was obviously very angry for the few moments I suspected him of opening the box, after discovering there are multiple boxes now I need to prove this to him so he knows there’s a box missing, then I enter into the commitment to come back knowing the only way I’ll be coming back is if it arrives that day or the following, and finally I’m able to resolve the job and have to accept that it was only about 98 percent correct. 4 bolts out of about 200 pieces. The last few months AT tasks have not been as satisfying as they were in previous months, little things here and there that resulted in the jobs not being 100 percent that have subtle implications to self worth.
After finishing the job I bid another AT job in the area and a few towards TX. No responses. This predicament of not wanting to stay where I’m at but having no place to go produces some stress and frustration. It produces thoughts about my general outlook, a sober assessment of my circumstances and the inability to improve them in a way that is satisfactory. Creates cycles of realizing just how fucked I am in this life.
Everything is really just kicking the can. Objectives whether working on a project or finding work is little more than a distraction from the overall trapping that consists of more than I share. I originally accepted a TH job back in Cincinnati for Tuesday on Monday. I can usually get two to three days worth of truck unloads there for about 140 to 210 dollars. I’m usually not too far away since each weekend when I leave I’m within about 400 miles. Shortly after my bid was accepted for Tuesday I withdraw the bid and planned on just heading west to see what I could find.
Tuesday morning I woke up feeling not great as is usually the case. I didn’t realize that when I bid for Tuesday I also bid for Wednesday, so on Tuesday I received a notification that my Wednesday bid was accepted. I decided to come back to Cinci and get that money for another two days and kick the can to figure out my next move.
The driving was beneficial.
I saw Elon Musk on a Joe Rogan clip talking about buying properties around his properties either to prevent commercial development near his dwelling or to or to otherwise be free of nuisance by owning adjacent property and leaving it vacant. There are probably those who have an improved perception of Musk because of these stories who think the exercise of power is cool. I share the opinion that the act is cool conceptually, the power, the exercise, the scale, for what probably amounts to a very small improvement in quality of life. Small improvement in consideration of the amount of actual distribance that is actually averted since some of these places you probably spend very little time at during the course of a given year. The act is more entertaining than anything else but it had no impact on my opinion of Musk.
I think about circumstantial imposition. It’s baffling to me that people could accumulate more money they can spend in a lifetime, and not ask basic questions about the overall state of humanity? The same systems that he has benefited so greatly from, and his beginning advantages relative to others, produce deep disadvantages, trapping circumstances, and every other negative result that he is insulated from.
He feigns human benefit from things that have very little human benefit that he’s interested in. He was recently quoted saying there should be a space station on the moon and we need to do more space exploration. We need to improve opportunities for people to have time and money which will reduce many undesirable results and improve the quality of human life, followed by addressing self deception to improve understanding and communication. His purchase of Twitter is as much about controlling a major medium of communication as it is about free speech, as well as the exercise of power in such a scale as is the purchasing of properties. The underlying thinking is about responsibility and how circumstantial responsibility increases based on an individual’s benefit from humanity’s organization. Where indirectly we are all responsible for the results that the species produces, but the degree increases with the more success you have, especially the degree of multibillionaires who contribute more to results in scale of spending, access to media and the ability to disseminate information, and the ability to invest in politics whether exercised or not.
I may have made an errant moral assessment today but I know why I did it. A young man I unloaded trucks with mentioned an idea similar to what Andrew Tate did, impersonating beautiful women to create online relationships that lead to gifts. There are a few different ways I see this, and some of it is subjective. First, the men are providing these gifts for at most the prospect of a romantic relationship. They’re also benefiting from the virtual relationship itself, evident by the fact they’re willing to send money to continue the prospect or continue the interactions. In a way I see it as providing a service.
I also have a personal dislike for the behavior, not in the objectification of women, but in how it impacts the market. Any woman can find a guy to have sex on just about any given night. Men obviously can’t do the same which means women can use sex or the prospect of it to get other things. Material things as well as things like attention, time, commitment, behavioral modifications, etc. And what women require is determined by what men are willing to give. Someone who is willing to give money for the prospect of a romantic relationship or because they like what is being said to them, represents behavior that adversely affects the market from the male perspective. It’s behavior I do not respect.
In this situation, I see any would-be victims as almost deserving of their fate, and as mentioned, I see it in part as a service. Meanwhile there’s a young man unloading trailers for $70, and while it may keep him fed, it’s not going to get him ahead. Could be worse I suppose, he could be an old man unloading trailers for $70 like me lol. The point being is it seems like a service because these men are going to find someone to exploit them. I was supportive.
Shortly afterward I thought about it, and albeit I like the idea of a person with limited opportunity benefiting from people whose behavior I do not respect, it is still the use of deception to obtain somebody’s property and therefore morally wrong.
We also have to consider that imposition is already occurring through circumstances that produce an objective to obtain property through deception. In this situation we know at least a few days a week $70 to unload the trailer is the best opportunity he has to make money those days. Money is an element required to improve income opportunities. Some of the responsibility spills onto the collective for the existence of such limited opportunities for income and time.
It may be morally wrong but it isn’t something I would advise against. Mainly because there is a willing victim, and I like to see people without money have opportunities to make money. In a different environment I may advise differently, but not the way things are now with a median adult household income share of about 30k, meaning half the adults in this country have an income share of less than 30k per year.
I guess what I’m saying is in this environment I see net liberty in the act, but only because the victim is a willing participant. Where if the act facilitates the overcoming of the circumstantial imposition that imposition is greater than what is imposed on the willing participant, where although there is the use of deception, the person is looking for an opportunity to buy the prospect of romance. It isn’t something I will do, but I wouldn’t discourage anybody thinking about trying it. I see net liberty in the act in this environment.
He also mentioned karma. I commented that the worst people in the world never have any major bad things happen to them. Politicians, billionaires, corporate execs, people born into major generational wealth and are the most responsible for what exists, including murderous exploitative foreign policy. He mentioned Epstein but for every Epstein there’s 1000s of Clinton’s, Bushes, etc. I said that karma is idea meant to content the underclasses. It is, where people think that all the bad that people do will result in bad things happening to them. It’s not true. There isn’t any other force acting on people other than the decisions that people make. For Epstein he broke the wrong law at the wrong time, and temporarily was able to buy his way out of justice in Florida. It wasn’t karma that killed him, it was a direct and foreseeable consequence of his actions, not a magical force.
I was thinking about how I would proceed if I had money. I’d have to hire a manager with a background in PR, marketing, and fund raising or experience, especially in the non-profit sector. I’d have to pay that person to learn material. From there I’d establish the School for the Advancement of Liberty and Truth(SALT), and hire a team to learn the material, some of whom could go on to staff OPL. Much more money than the 11k tried to do some of these things with and much more than I could hope to save through any immediate income opportunities.
Which is why I’m really at a loss right now, and have been since my investments failed to produce any worthwhile interest. Maybe I’ll submit A God’s Problem to another journal. I’ll finish this bias book, keeps me content but there’s no outlet for that once I finish it. Knowledge of that makes progress slow. I have two more days here. I may try to order some phenibut.
12/18/2023
My circumstances seemed rigged to prevent the introduction of novelty, as if to test my theory to see how long I can go before life becomes too much of a burden to bear. The main difference between a space where familiarity has made a burden out of existence and my situation is in the former everything that’s worth happening has already happened, and in my situation I’m surrounded by people I’m precluded from meaningfully interacting with based on mechanisms of self deception. Interaction includes correspondence, books, this journal, etc.
I’m not too concerned with people’s perception of me, which isn’t to say I’m altogether immune to how I perceive myself being perceived, but over all, it’s always contextualized by considering the source. A puppet, who walks, talks, and does things and doesn’t know why they do them. A people who believe things that they do not understand, hold onto positions they cannot argue, and have subjective and moral standards built on willfully ignorant perspectives. No recognition of consistency or contradiction, except consistency between false beliefs and the positive feelings the lie provides.
I’ve been working on this project and in many ways it’s a demonstration of human evil. A person who is committed to a belief and a deity lying to preserve the belief and the values it supports. The following consists of the first 5 comments and excerpts from the analysis. The subject begins frivolous, where the poster is speculating that the Buddha’s statement desire leads to suffering was a solution for people to lose their fear of death by not desiring to be alive. I speculate that the poster is projecting their own degree of fear of death onto to others, and proceeded to challenge the validity and significance of the principle that desire leads to suffering, which led to an exchange with someone who is not the poster. The project itself isn’t about my position being correct, it’s about the participant refusing to acknowledge information that challenges their beliefs. Demonstrating the mechanism through the content of these exchanges. These mechanisms are not limited to these exchanges, it’s across all mediums of communication, and it is why I am in the situation I am in, and it is why the world exists as it does with all the negative results it produces. This is a way I can isolate organically produced communication to demonstrate it.
The layout uses names, a letter and a number to identify the comments. In between a pair of comments is an analysis of that exchange. At the end of all the exchanges the analysis is more in depth revisiting the exchanges to identify exactly what took place based on the exchanges. This exchange has 17 exchanges. I’m only sharing 5 of those 17 as a preview to demonstrate how self deception functions and the consequence of how it is a barrier to communication.
Post: The Buddha said, “suffering is caused by desire”. *Opinion- The suffering the Buddha spoke of was the fear of death. The desire was the desire to live without the fear death. That’s why most religions promise an afterlife…
Orion Simerl B1
Seems like a projection of your own fear of death, or it was something that was important to you at a previous period in your life causing you to assume it is important to others. Desire isn’t the root of suffering, unfulfilled desire is the root of suffering whereas fulfilled desire is the root of happiness.
John Sisti B1
oh, there’s an old saying “the one thing is often better than having”.
Another one “Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.”
Obviously, the fulfilling of a desire is no guarantee of satisfaction.
I really thought this was pretty clear and straight ahead. Grieving over something you can’t have (and probably don’t need) leads to suffering.
B1: I state that the fulfillment of desire produces happiness and only desires going unfulfilled produces suffering. John states that sometimes the feelings produced by the fulfillment of desire fail to live up to expectations and tries to reassert that desire produces suffering by providing an example that only applies to unfulfilled desire.
Orion Simerl B2
The fulfilling of desire motivates all action, we act in anticipation of the action producing or leading to the production of positive feelings. Results will vary but the fulfilling of desire is what is always happening. Of course when one cannot fulfill their desire there may be dissatisfaction. There’s no joy and no conscious motion outside the fulfillment of desire, the exercise of will. Desire only leads to suffering when unfulfilled.
John Sisti B2
Men are biologically wired to win a woman’s favors and spread their seed. Or women on a primal level, seek to attract a strong provider protector for the children. These are biological imperatives, and they ensure the survival of the species. There are other biological imperatives that are associated with life functions. Although they may inspire desires, they in themselves are instinctive.
B2: I clarify basic human function that every action is motivated by the subconscious effort to produce a positive feeling. The implications being that within consciousness desire is ever present. I also restate where we agree that unfulfilled desire does produce dissatisfaction. John responds with what is essentially a non-sequitur that attempts to separate instincts from desires and implies that the innate biological drive to reproduce and have security motivate desires but are not desires. All desires are not motivated by what he calls biological imperatives, but even if they were, his response does not challenge the idea that desire is ever present within the conscious mind and is responsible for human function.
Orion Simerl B3
I’m not talking about biological imperatives, I’m talking about desire, subconscious objective creation. Like your decision to respond with something that doesn’t address the point that was made. Less specifically, your motivation for writing a reply you wrongly thought qualified as a rebuttal. I don’t know your motivation specifically, but it is rooted in the positive feelings that come from the reinforcement of self worth, as well as value preservation. Self-worth is reinforced when we do something that causes us to see ourselves in a positive light. For example, writing about biological imperatives causes you to feel good because you see yourself as intelligent, defending your values, and performing well in debate. That isn’t a biological imperative, that is the fulfillment of desire. Even if my assessment is wrong, the act was motivated by the anticipation of a positive feeling, possibly including the elimination or avoidance of a negative feeling, which is the creation of a positive feeling.
John Sisti B3
I will try and spell it out a little more simply for you. Human motivation is more complex than your simplistic point of view. Biological imperatives will often motivate attitudes and behaviors. I feel like I’m talking to a child here. You deciding you’re not talking about biological imperatives does not mean that they don’t influence you. Your analysis of my motivations seem to comfort you. They are not accurate, but I doubt that that has any concern for you.
Since we are taking liberties with assumptions about each others motivation, it seems to me that you are motivated by fear. By your postings, it becomes clear that you cling to an illusion that you have secret spiritual understanding that other individuals cannot share. This makes you feel superior to those around you, and when you are confronted with logic and science, your fear of your incompetence motivates you to write diatribes, such as those who have added to this thread. Apparently, you know that you are just spinning an image, and that they need that there is no substance. Buddha would tell you to give up the need to feel important and to just enjoy the beauty that you can find around you.
B3 My comment was somewhat condescending in tone due in part to my frustration that he either did not understand my previous comment or more likely, he understood it and was trying to divert the exchange away from the controversy. The explanations provided were intended as an example of how his decision to reply was motivated by a desire that was not a product of biological imperatives. Since the nature of the controversy is a Buddhist quote his participation in this exchange based on his position is the protection of values that derive value through that quote being true. Self worth impacted either in being wrong, or how that thing being false changes his values, and in changing his values changes how he sees himself through a lens of likes and dislikes. For example, when he sees himself as avoiding desire, it causes him to feel good, because he believes desire is the cause of suffering, where if he discovers that desire only causes suffering when unfulfilled, he can’t see himself as something he likes for all the times he’s abstained from desire.
In the absence of an argument he escalates the condescension and calls me a child. He claims that human motivation is more complex, and while the development of values is complex the mechanism of the constant pursuit of positive feelings (even the endurance of negative feelings in pursuit of long term positive feelings) is not, and much of those feelings are not the product of biological imperatives. He claims my assessment of his motivation is not accurate but fails to provide the basis for his motivation for being involved in the exchange. I didn’t claim to know specifically, but the point was that it stems from a desire that has nothing to do with mating or security.
He goes on to claim my motivation is based on a fear of incompetence when my false spiritual understanding that others cannot share is confronted by logic and science. There is absolutely zero basis for these assertions in my comments. It should be fairly apparent at this point that he understands that he is wrong on the point that desire leads to suffering on the basis that desire is ever present and the fulfillment of desire leads to happiness. He seems to be trying to antagonize me to take the conversation away from the subject where he may find some success.
Orion Simerl B4
1:What we have is my observation that action is a product of desire and desire is the product of subconscious objectives to produce positive feelings.
2:Since you have no rebuttal you avoid the point and introduce biological imperatives insinuating that human desire is purely a product of innate biological impulses to procreate.
3: I point out that you were motivated by some positive feelings to write your message and speculated on the origins of that feeling. Reinforcement of self worth or protection of values associated with the idea that desire leads to suffering and the implications of the fact that fulfilled desire is the root of all happiness.
4: Now what we have is a bunch of non-sequitur statements not supported by fact or explanation because you cannot accept that desire only leads to suffering when unfilled and desire is an ever present component of consciousness and fulfilled desire is the basis for happiness.
That is what happened.
John Sisti B4
You are hysterical!
Apparently you feel personally attacked and believe that the way you can salvage, your ego is to try and belittle me.
1 your attempts to belittle me, shows the weakness of your fundamental argument. You can’t support it, so you attack the individual who is pointed out the frailty of your logic.
2 trying to deny my rebuttals is a method of negating them.
3 this whole dialogue is an attempt on your part to protect your image and ego (self-worth) and that vulnerability apparently is causing you considerable suffering. Apparently you feel humiliated.
4 your inability to understand the statements that I made to you is your shortcoming. Trying to appear intelligent with a mediocre mentality that is incapable of understanding statements made to you. You can’t blame me for your ineptitude.
I you are apparently destined to be frustrated by your desire is to be “wise” are destined to bring you suffering
B4 To refocus the exchange back to the controversy I recap our exchange. I numbered the points to make it easier for him to respond to to allow him to challenge anything he didn’t agree with in my summary of the exchange to that point. He responds and numbers his replies but the content of his numbers does not address the content of my points.
Orion Simerl B5
I will address your new non-sequitur points.
“You feel personally attacked and believe that you salvage your ego by belittling me”.
An empty assertion not supported by the dialogue. To validate the assertion requires an example from my comment that is evidence of me feeling personally defensive or belittling towards you. There’s nothing in my comment that supports this assertion, I recapped what took place.
1: Again nothing I’ve stated is belittling. Interestingly it applies exactly to your comment, which does attempt to belittle and condescend calling my view “simplistic” without addressing any deficiency in it, “I feel like I’m talking to a child”, both statements that have no value towards any point associated with the controversy. Adding a straw man not supported by the dialogue claiming I act as if I have some “spiritual understanding” that causes me to feel “superior to others”. Which speaks to “the weakness of your fundamental argument”. That argument being that desire leads to suffering, which is the point of controversy and what you refuse to argue.
2: You haven’t provided a rebuttal to deny. Desire is an ever present element of the conscious experience and fulfilled desire is the basis for happiness. You have no argument against this. I don’t deny your rebuttal, you just haven’t provided one.
3: This whole dialogue is me responding with a few incontrovertible facts, that desire is ever present, the fulfillment of desire is the basis for happiness, and me following your non-sequitur arguments.
4: I’ve demonstrated my ability to understand your statements and followed them as they strayed further and further from the points of controversy.
John Sisti B5
it does seem to be supported by the dialogue.
It continues to be supported by your dialogue .
This, “Whole Dialog” is about what Buddha was saying about suffering and desire. I contend that he is saying that focusing on one’s unattained desires causes an individual unnecessary suffering.
I took exception to trying to dress up that fundamental truism with a lot of superfluous interpretations and the need of some participants to play out there, self images with their embellishments.
Apparently, you took this personally, which does seem to say a good deal about you. You identify with it so personally that you must continually badger me with your inane didactic rants.
B5 I addressed the numbered portion of his previous comment. He responded by making another empty assertion that what he stated previously is supported by the whole dialog. This is after I explained what was required to substantiate such an assertion and provided an example applying his statements to quoted portions of his comments. Interestingly, he admits that he took exception with my challenge to the quote. This confirms at least in part my assessment of his motivation that he initially claimed was inaccurate. ” protection of values associated with the idea that desire leads to suffering” John taking exception to information that challenges his beliefs essentially means he didn’t like it, and that created some discomfort most likely anger “…the act was motivated by the anticipation of a positive feeling, possibly including the elimination or avoidance of a negative feeling, which is the creation of a positive feeling.”. He responds to relieve the anger and protect his values that rely on the quote remaining true.
John’s desire to maintain his values that rely on desire leading to suffering uncontextualized by the full scope of the role of desire in the conscious experience prevents us from communicating with one another. For the most part he avoids the subject of controversy and attempts to shift the controversy to me with assertions that are not substantiated by the content of my comments. Communication is obstructed by the maintenance of bias. Based on the content of his replies, most being ad hominem not based on the content of my comments, and non-sequiturs, it seems likely to me that John sees the deficiencies in his position but refuses to acknowledge them.
He states in JSB3 , “it becomes clear that you cling to an illusion that you have secret spiritual understanding that other individuals cannot share.”.
In OS1 I comment about the poster and explain that only unfulfilled desire has the potential cause suffering, but fulfilled desires is the basis for happiness.
In OS2 I address the idea that sometimes we want things but don’t like them when we get them. I go on to explain that desire is constant within the human mind.
In OS3 I address the non-sequitur which at best was an attempt to reduce desire to biological imperatives. I used our exchange as an example, where he responding to me was a product of a desire not motivated by any biological imperatives.
Everything I stated was an explanation of physical existence, there was nothing even remotely spiritual. This accusation was repeated on multiple occasions despite no addition of anything that was spiritual in nature. In JSB3, JSB6, JSB7, JSB8, JSB9. Claims that my arguments were mystical, spiritual or supernatural were made 5 times and we’re all false, not supported by the dialogue.
In JSB4 he claims I’ve been trying to belittle him. In OSB4 the only thing I did was produced a number summary of our exchanges to bring the conversation back to the point of controversy. In OSB3 the only item that could be interpreted as belittling is saying he thought he made a point. In B3 I explain that this was a product of being irritated by his attempt to change the subject by talking about biological imperatives, or trying to reduce desire to biological imperatives. I saw his dishonesty. Other than saying he thought he had a point, nothing was belittling.
In JSB4 he claims I tried to deny his rebuttals. His rebuttals were that sometimes people want things they don’t like (JSB 1), and then he brought up biological imperatives at best to reduce desire to biological imperatives, and at worst to change the subject entirely.(JSB2).
In OSB2 I address the JSB1 point by acknowledging that sometimes things fail to meet our expectations, but we are always in pursuit of fulfillment of the next desire. I elaborate on this point later on in the dialogue, but the essence of my comment is that the fulfilling of desire produces positive feelings, even if sometimes its fulfillment fails to meet our expectations.
I address JSB2 in OSB3 using his comment as an example of desire that wasn’t based on biological imperatives to prevent the formation of desire from being reduced to biological imperatives, which is the only way his comment counts as an argument. He lied when he wrote that I have denied his rebuttals, I addressed his rebuttals and he didn’t provide an argument against those responses
In JSB4 he claims the whole dialog is an effort to protect my ego and image because I feel humiliated, and that I haven’t understood anything he’s said. This is also untrue because my comments pertain either to the controversy (desire leads to suffering versus unfulfilled desire may produce suffering is the controversy) or following what he has said. There’s nothing to suggest that I’ve experienced any humiliation or am trying to protect my ego and image because everything stated is related to the dialogue. You cannot claim what’s stated is motivated by anything other than the controversy when the content pertains exclusively to the controversy or something you’ve added.
In OSB5 I number his paragraphs and address each one, which shows I understand what he is saying. Those statements are also false.
In JSB5 he states This, “Whole Dialog” is about what Buddha was saying about suffering and desire. I contend that he is saying that focusing on one’s unattained desires causes an individual unnecessary suffering. I took exception to trying to dress up that fundamental truism…”
In OSB4 I stated “3: I point out that you were motivated by some positive feelings to write your message and speculated on the origins of that feeling. Reinforcement of self worth or protection of values associated with the idea that desire leads to suffering and the implications of the fact that fulfilled desire is the root of all happiness”. There are clearly values associated with the Buddha and this statement being true based on his admission that he took exception to the challenging of it. At no point did I dress it up, but later I show it to be irrelevant and harmful to individuality and subjective expression. He’s taken exception to the challenge because of the impact it has on his values.
The Budda and that idea being right and true is integral to his beliefs and those beliefs give value to the things he does in life. The feelings associated with taking exception to something are the same as a threat, and the information is a threat to the person’s values.
Self-worth can be involved for a few different reasons, in something as simple as being wrong and feeling stupid for it, or because the belief being challenged changes the meaning of things they’ve done. Self worth is tied to consistency or inconsistency with standards that are a product of what we value and understand. For example, he believes focusing on unobtained desires gives way to unnecessary suffering, which means it’s something he shouldn’t do. That’s a standard and his self worth will increase or decrease to some degree based on his consistency with that standard. This standard may have other ideas attached to it, for example if consistency with the standard is part of some higher goal. In this scenario his perception of his consistency with this standard not only increases self worth as he is more like he wants to be, but in doing so maybe it’s viewed as progress towards enlightenment, the idea when thought may produce positive feelings and may also increase self worth. In consideration of standards, if a person discovers the standard is wrong or untrue, they lose the portion of self worth that came through consistency with that standard. I’m not saying this describes John, I’m just providing examples to show how information impacts values.
In JSB3 he states “Your analysis of my motivations seem to comfort you. They are not accurate,”. That was in response to OSB3 “I don’t know your motivation specifically, but it is rooted in the positive feelings that come from the reinforcement of self worth”.
By stating he took exception to me “trying to dress up that fundamental truism with a lot of superfluous interpretations and the need of some participants to play out there, self images with their embellishments”, he’s essentially admitting he’s mad because I challenged his beliefs. In the absence of a sustainable argument he uses general descriptions as an argument that are not applicable to what I wrote. I definitely didn’t dress it up, or cause it to be something that was not in the quote. My interpretation is that the quote implies that one should avoid desire to avoid suffering, which means they should stop liking what they like. Even in the modified context of focusing on unobtained desires, every desire is unobtained until it is either obtained, or is deemed not worth the effort. Desire is a fact of consciousness, and the implications of the quote is that people should avoid desire to avoid suffering.
He mentions as much in JSB3 “Buddha would tell you to give up the need to feel important and to just enjoy the beauty that you can find around you.”. Irrespective of the assertion, the quote implies and his perception of the Budda is that the Buddha is for the abandonment of desire. As to the assertion, it’s pretty absurd. If my desire was to gain importance there are so many other things I could be doing that could make me feel important. Right now, I’m important to no one. I wasn’t participating in these exchanges to feel important. With no outlet for my ideas, insights, and discoveries, I participated in social media exchanges to introduce them to others and see how they’re responded to. I may have used this analogy elsewhere, but my situation is like if you imagined you were the only one who knew the earth was round and had the evidence, but people refused to acknowledge it because it challenges their beliefs, and then imagine the same disparity between fact and fiction between a round and flat earth with most things believed by most people, and I think that accurately describes my predicament.
End Excerpt
I’ll leave you with one final excerpt since the previous excerpts demonstrate self deception but do not conclude the controversy. The following takes place later in the dialogue and identifies the problem with this tenet of Budda philosophy. To support the assertion made in the final analysis excerpt referencing these first 5 exchanges. Where the belief that desire produces suffering has consequences to individuality and subjective expression.
Orion Simerl B 13
There are a lot of things that have a greater anticipated value than they do realized value. It isn’t suffering because a fulfilled desire doesn’t live up to expectations. At the most basic level all suffering is caused by some unfulfilled desire, a man on fire has the desire to not be on fire that is going unfulfilled. His suffering doesn’t end even if he gives up the desire to not be on fire. Fulfillment of desire is always the end of suffering, and new objectives emerge as old ones have been completed and the person has experienced the feelings from fulfilled desires.
Avoiding desire is antithetical to human function and decision making.
The decision making process begins with perceived opportunity within a setting, in consideration of all other objectives. Every act is in the pursuit of a positive feeling.
The avoidance of desire only has value in idea, in the reinforcement of self worth. Which is why the eastern religions are so funny to me. Every assertion of discipline is motivated by feelings generated from how they see themselves for behaving consistent with their values. When a monk completes a ritualistic fast although he doesn’t express it outwardly he is elated with pride, or ego as they would call it. That’s what the belief produces, a changing of values that isn’t beneficial to the individual or others.
For example, you said something along the lines of letting go of desire and experiencing the beauty of the world around you. Say someone tries this, what is actually taking place? What they’re doing is abandoning what they like and now looking for value in what they have access to under the bias that the world is beautiful. They go out and sit by a tree. They take notice of the color of the trees, the sound of the animals, and content themselves with contrived values to avoid desire to avoid suffering. You’re brainwashing yourself to be content with circumstances.
12/12/2023
I need to get some phenibut. It’s been increasingly difficult since UPS changed their policy. The last 3 times I ordered it wasn’t as straightforward as I would have liked it to be. I used to be able to order it and have it shipped UPS and pay to have it held at a UPS pick up point. The last two times they wouldn’t let me do it and I had to pick it up from the hotels whose addresses I used. Time before that I ordered USPS and had to call the post office where the guy told me he was going to leave a note for the carrier, but he didn’t sound like he was going to do that. He left the note but the carrier took the package with her. She planned on bringing the package back to the post office but I met her at the hotel to pick up the package.
There’s a lot of stress involved from the moment I make the order. Trying to check the status because the company makes the label and sometimes it doesn’t ship for another day. I’m trying to find out when UPS has it to call and have it held at a UPS access point. Last two times I couldn’t have it held, so then I’m constantly checking the status to see if it’s been delivered. Then I need to put together my story to prepare for contingencies. If they ask what room I’m in or something to that effect. In Michigan I just told the woman my name and showed her my ID. In Louisville, the woman asked for my room number. I intentionally used a hotel where there were multiple in the area. When I drove over there I thought about just telling them the truth, but then I’m relying on their sympathy and I don’t know what the legal ramifications are of using someone’s address to receive packages, so I didn’t want to lead with that. If they wanted to call me out on what I was about to tell them, then I could still go the sympathy route and tell them the truth.
I looked up the address of a nearby location before I walked in. When she asked me for my room number I told her the package was sent to the wrong address, I was staying at the same hotel but the other location. I said it wrong, I said they sent it to the wrong address when I meant to say I sent it to the wrong address. I think she understood what I meant to say and she gave me my package.
I have a shirt that says Truth Over Everything, and Liberty is Truth.
That’s a statement with a lot of meaning within it. Some of which applies to the previous scenario. The circumstances consist of me wanting to obtain a substance that allows me to feel better and be more productive within the unusual situation I find myself in, but only being able to obtain the substance online through parcel carriers. Having no address I use an address of a property (hotel) owned by someone else.
The act itself is technically imposing on his property by using it for purposes he has not given me permission to use it for. Effectively, there is no imposition in the sense that my use of the property didn’t deprive him of doing what he wanted to do with the property, before, during, or after, and didn’t create any wear or depreciation.
Obviously, I used deception in an effort to achieve an outcome. This demonstrates the part of the shirt that states Liberty is Truth. The woman believing I’m a resident of the same hotel who sent his package to the wrong location has what consequences to her liberty? It doesn’t have any consequences. It doesn’t affect her values. It doesn’t cause her to like what she wouldn’t like and do what she wouldn’t do. It also doesn’t affect her understanding of the world, doesn’t impact her ability to do anything. There’s no imposition in the deception itself.
We know that me telling her I was a resident from another location allowed me to obtain the phenibut. We don’t know if telling her I used the address because I needed something that I could only receive by mail would have yielded the same results. In what happened, there was no imposition and I was able to obtain the phenibut.
If I tell the truth I might not get the phenibut. Then I’m being imposed on because I cannot do something I want to do that does not impose on others. There was a quote from someone, maybe Che who said “It’s Just to Avoid Useless Sacrifices”. It is, because it prevents or neutralizes imposition on self. I have a shirt with that quote with a picture of Jesus intended to mock him, in the sense that his sacrifice was useless. Useless, because no one chooses who belongs where based on what they believe. Seperate spaces in the event that consciousness survives death if segregated will be segregated according to the understanding and application of morality since morality is a determinant of conscious motion. If someone imposes on others they should be in a space that allows them to survive in an environment where others do the same. Those who do not impose should be in a space with others who mean no imposition. When you mix them, the liberty applying seek to prevent and neutralize imposition whereas the tyranny applying seek to impose. Second, it’s just for the believers to stop imposing on themselves through their obedience and worship of a deity who provides them no benefit.
I don’t wear the shirt because I feel like it will be misinterpreted. There was a woman at a hotel bar with her husband who thought I was saying Jesus was the sacrifice so you don’t need to sacrifice. It may be good in creating conversation, but for every conversation it may bring there are thousands of impressions it will leave to the contrary. Also, I don’t want to feel like I’m being perceived as a pro-christian guy for those who don’t create an opportunity for clarification.
So anyway, Truth Over Everything. This applies to the individual in knowing what is true. Most of what people believe is directly or indirectly responsible for what they like. What they like determines what they do. If a person is committed to a false belief then they’re liking what they wouldn’t like and doing what they wouldn’t do. A person isn’t exercising they’re liberty when they’re committed to false beliefs, because they wouldn’t like and do the same things if they knew what was true.
It’s Truth Over Everything because self deception contaminates motivation, impacts know-how, and decreases intelligence since a person cannot learn things that challenge their beliefs. In this regard it seems like just a useless sacrifice, or imposing on one’s self for the opportunities to feel good that the false belief provides. Not only in the religious context, but all things. It isn’t only imposition on self because self deception is a barrier to communication, and has consequences for others as a contributor to the production of individual circumstances in the world that self deceiving people produce. Self deception prevents communication because it prevents the establishment of fact. Truth Over Everything is an ingredient for an environment free from imposition, and a free and intelligent people. It doesn’t mean that you always tell the truth. Because as demonstrated, sometimes telling the truth is wrong.
The human constant is the fulfillment of desire. All desire can be fulfilled so long as it doesn’t interfere with the desire of anyone else. Morally speaking, this produces the most satisfaction, in the most diverse subjective expression, and the most motion and creation. If telling the truth is going to cause you to be imposed on for something that is not imposing, and deception doesn’t impose on the person you’re deceiving, then liberty is greatest through the use of deception in that situation. Otherwise deception is imposition when it has consequences to a person’s motivation or know-how, and in which case Liberty is Truth there as well.
Secondly, all the results on this planet that are not a product of natural forces have been produced by the decisions of the creatures on this planet, and so Liberty is Truth.
I don’t remember when I ran out of phenibut. It’s been a few weeks. I stopped taking it while I still had a little bit left. I had maybe a dose left and the other day I took half of it. I felt very good that day, motivated, and read the study that I noted in the previous entry. Had plans for the following days related to a few projects and efforts that I haven’t been motivated to work on. Motivation is already in tight supply because there’s no difference before and after I’ve completed anything. There’s no outlet.
Observing my behavior over the last few weeks without phenibut, and then the day where I took some I think it adds to my understanding of what the phenibut does. My physical circumstances, shelter arrangement and income that is inadequate to provide for necessities, as well as the prospect that those circumstances can become worse is not overly stressful until I’m down to about $200 and money becomes the primary stressor. Otherwise I’m not considering objectives that I know I cannot finance, so there’s no stress there.
The general stress is more a product of not having an outlet, and nearly a decade worth of efforts at different times that are evidence of this lack of an outlet. That lack of an outlet is reinforced through the understanding of why I don’t have an outlet. From there, there’s other things that stem from this, like the fact that no one can understand why I’m in the situation that I’m in because to do so it requires understanding my material, and if anyone did, I wouldn’t be in this situation. These things are always in the background, influencing feelings, thoughts, and interpretations. The phenibut to some extent dampens that enough for me to be productive. Decreases the background anxiety that comes from surviving as I do with no outlet for novel discoveries, insights, and ideas.
Every once in a while I get a random Twitter notification. Sometimes I’ll scroll through and look at tweets. You read what people write and it’s astounding to think about how stupid so many people are based on things they write serving as a window into how they think the world functions and what is important. Entertainment aside. News reports are no better as the manipulators of bias, or television shows and what is implied to be true outside of the context of fiction. Facebook is as bad and worse than Twitter, but at times it’s also better as many have better comprehension skills. Which doesn’t make them good comprehenders, but better than average. Relatively good, objectively bad.
I was irritated with a comment exchange I had. Clearly wrong, he tries to remove quotes from context to make points that were already addressed in the comment the quote is taken from. He tried to isolate one element of the subject and reduce the entire subject to that one element, while failing to acknowledge that even in that element the cause is still what I identified it to be. Then he tries to use the point I made referencing his comments and apply it to me without referencing my comments which do not provide the evidence for the point.
He was trying to create associations with objective morality because he didn’t understand it enough to make a point about it but was opposed based on a bias towards his idea of morality which is inaccurate. He asks about what I believe the purpose of human life is. He asks because he thinks it will tie to objective morality and he can argue against something he doesn’t understand not through the content, but through a belief of human purpose which cannot be definitively known. Unfortunately for him, my understanding of human purpose isn’t attached to objective morality, where human beings fulfill their purpose regardless of their moral understanding and application, and irrespective of the consequences that moral decision making has for the individual. I point out what he is doing while he’s doing it.
I answer all of his questions and respond to all of his fragile points, sometimes more than once and show how him how his conception of morality and objective morality is at odds with the observed functioning and reasoning. His final comment accuses me of not understanding enough about Nietzsche. It blows my mind. You fucking moron. We’re debating 1: the basis for moral function. The subject is the Nietzsche quote fear is the mother of morality. Fear is not the mother of morality because morality is a subjective standard that produces positive and negative feelings through perception of consistency or inconsistency with the standard, which increases or decreases self worth. The difference between moral standards and other subjective standards is moral standards are applied to all whereas non-moral subjective standards are applied to self. There’s nothing understanding more of Nietzsche is going to change in that discussion.
2:. Objective Morality states that desire is the human constant, prohibiting only acts that impose allows for all non-imposing desires to be fulfilled which is ideal because everyone wants to fulfill their desires and no one wants to be prevented from doing so. Imposition is justified to prevent and neutralize imposition. To argue it is to show it isn’t ideal, through principle or through scenario. Instead he assumes people’s opinion about something he doesn’t understand (objective morality), that is about something he doesn’t understand (morality) as a rebuttal. Specifically saying warrior cultures would laugh at it, which isn’t an argument against it, and warrior cultures would be fine not to apply it so long as they didn’t impose on those who did which would justify prevention and neutralization of such imposition.
He refuses to address any point and just keeps adding nonsense to the exchange. Which is frustrating and speaks to my initial naivety when my ambition in life changed. Where I thought that identifying the causes and proposing solutions to problems would be easy to promote. I started from a place where I assumed people who believed things that are categorically false had an actual interest in the subject. A person isn’t adverse to challenging information if there is genuine interest in the subject because it enhances their understanding of the subject. They’re adverse to challenging information when their interest in a subject is based on that subject appearing a certain way to reinforce other beliefs that form the foundation of a person’s value system. That is what is happening in this exchange. He isn’t interested in what morality is and does, he’s interested in morality appearing in a way that reinforces his beliefs about Nietzsche’s philosophy. A philosophy that doesn’t contain an accurate understanding of what morality is and how it functions. This is an example of how bias limits intelligence.
It’s a revelation about an individual’s value of truth. Nietzsche’s philosophy and the values produced through it are more important to this person than the truth. In any controversy, whatever it is a person clings to that is contrary to indisputable observations, is something they value higher than the truth. And having a value system built on beliefs that consist of how you want reality to be, and how it is, is responsible for nearly all human problems.
In another exchange from the upcoming book there is an example of a disagreement on an uncertain topic where neither party’s position can be definitively ruled out. His position is that people self deceive but not all of them are responsible for the things they believe. In some situations I agree. For example, the people of North Korea are not responsible for the false things that they believe because they have no access to information and no ability to experiment to test the explanations they’ve been provided.
Any country where people have access to information, they believe things that are wrong because they want to believe them. Otherwise any effort to understand the subject would create contradictions between what is believed and what is real. Ultimately, people are invested in false beliefs for an internal benefit, and value that benefit more than they value the truth. I think people outside of an environment where access to information is strictly controlled are responsible for the false things they believe and the impact those beliefs play in their decision making and how it impacts others. Anytime I mention human evil generally, I’m referencing self deception.
—
I fucked off for a few days. Played poker tournaments a day and a half on a rigged site and lost $20. There’s no other explanation for the improbable happening as frequently and consistently as it does. Helped me to relax though. I put two days in at Tire Hub unloading trucks and have a bid in for tomorrow that hasn’t yet been accepted. If that doesn’t get accepted I need to figure out what I’m going to do tomorrow before I go to the gym.
Need to get back to work on this project. There’s no outlet. My circumstances will inevitably deteriorate further which will probably lead to some sustained menial work leading me back to this same situation, but there is satisfaction in the completion of these projects. My life will likely pass by unnoticed, but at times I view it as the lengthening of the rope. By that I mean although much of what I understand could have been discovered by anyone who was objective in their pursuit of truth, which creates responsibility for what people don’t understand, the fact that I lived, discovered, was ignored, and suppressed adds to that responsibility and the existential consequences. True or not the idea provides me some solace during frustration.
12/10/2023
I read Universal Basic Income: Short-term Results from a Long-term Experiment in Kenya. My biggest disappointment was that it did not include an individual income survey prior to beginning the program, and then again after 2 years when the data was collected. The most important question is how many people improved their income and by how much. UBI or a lump sum payment like a balance stimulus is an investment. It only works if those who are being assisted are able to use the funds to improve their income, and we need to know how many people improved their income and by how much. There are some valuable insights into UBI and lump sum payments from the study.
I was wrong about some of the details I remembered from the radio that I wrote about yesterday The study consisted a control group, a group who will receive a UBI payment of about $25 per month for 12 years, a group who received the same UBI for 2 years, and a group who received a lump sum of $500. The size of the study is significant, the control group is 100 villages consisting of 11,000 people. Long term UBI group is 44 villages, the lump sum group is 80 villages 5000 people, and the Short term UBI is 71 villages and 8800 people. If I remember correctly there were 300 and some villages in this county, averaging 118 people per village, the study includes almost two thirds of the entire county in control or receiving money. (Pages 9 and 10)
There are some things from the study that are generally meaningful and there are some things that may not translate as I mentioned in the previous entry, where this is a different culture, different level of development, and a different level of poverty than in the United States and many other places around the world. I’m going to share some of my notes and summarize their meaning at the end.
Page 6 Agriculture labor dropped but new self-employment exceeded the loss in agriculture labor which suggests the people working these jobs were enabled to create their own employment but no overall production was lost.
Page 38 The lump sum payments produced 4x as many new enterprises as the ST UBI, and 50 percent more businesses as the LT UBI. Villages in the LS group also had about 20 percent more net revenue than the LT UBI group.
Page 6 Consumer spending only increased by about 5 percent and primarily was spent on food.
Page 7 Land value increased but was not a product of increased demand.
PN: The researchers speculate that the value of land increased because these “treated areas” had become more desirable. This is possible since the total sum over 2 years for UBI and the LS wasn’t enough to purchase even an acre of land. The lowest price I found for land in Kenya online was about $2200 per acre. LS and UBI had little impact on the market outside of appreciation through development which the researchers stated could not account for the appreciation. The researchers at another point also note the relative value of the land to the supply of money, where increasing the supply of money through UBI and LS payments is going to cause the land to appreciate as a finite supply in proportion to the growing money supply.
Page 7 LS improves children’s test scores, and increases spending on health where there is no impact from UBI LT or ST on those metrics.
Page 7 LS and both LT and ST UBI improves well being, but UBI improves well being more than LS. PN: The UBI group has short term or long term security, whereas many in the LS group have investments that may or may not yield a return. This average so to speak of feelings of well being doesn’t tell us about the peaks and valleys, it tells us the sum. Meaning some number of people whose investments have failed after two years may have fallen on the scale they’re using to measure well being, while the improvements among others may have been substantial in having achieved income security through their investments. So the average is still above the level of the control group and prior to beginning the study, but the valleys bring down the peaks. It’s an important possibility to consider since people who will never read the study will quote that portion (as it was quoted to me on the radio) and not realize that UBI may produce a better average, but the average is a product of income security, where LS may produce a higher ceiling but the average is weighed down by investments that didn’t pan out resulting in renewed income insecurity.
Page 19 Those in the lump sum group’s income improved by 50 percent compared to the control group.
Page 20 Wages of agricultural labor increased. Those who created their own opportunities by saving their UBI or using their lump sums to , created demand for agricultural labor as they moved into other production.
Page 20 to 21
Self-reported alcohol use remained unchanged, which as the researchers pointed out could be a product of the respondents being ashamed of their own alcohol use, but people also reported seeing fewer people in their village consuming alcohol.
Page 21 The number of households and members of households increased in the LT UBI and in LS but not the ST UBI.
Page 22 LS group reduced domestic violence no change in LT or ST UBI.
Page 22 LT UBI felt disempowered.
First of all I was surprised that although 50 percent fewer enterprises were created in the LT UBI group than the LS group, and 4x fewer created in the ST UBI group, that UBI did lead some into business creation and did not produce a loss in productivity. These are results that may not transfer to a developed nation where the quality of life is higher and where UBI can be combined with other forms of assistance. There’s a big difference between people who live in an agricultural community who are given an amount to cover their basic necessities and what can be experienced through that income, and the daily necessities for someone in the US and what can be experienced through that sum combined with other aid. If UBI in the US started with 1000 dollars per month as Andrew Yang proposed, it could be combined with food share, utility assistance, and individuals could share household expenses and live a fairly comfortable life without working. By contrast, people in these villages even if the UBI is enough to provide basic necessities they don’t have the means or access to entertainment to be content in their current living conditions, where many Americans would. I don’t think the results of UBI not decreasing production in Kenya is something that will translate to UBI in a place like the US.
I also think business creation will be less likely for UBI in the US because of what I previously mentioned. That UBI with other aid has the potential to produce contentment. Still there would be some business creation and probably many more who would enter into some training to improve their human capital.
The LS improves business creation, but more importantly improved income by an average of 50 percent. This is where individual data is better than group data, to know within the group how many improved their income, by how much, and how. What did they do with the LS to improve their income? We know some started businesses, what did the others do?
I think an LS or balance stimulus would be much more effective in the US than it was in rural Kenya. It is important to note that the villages were within about an hour walk to the cities which is relevant in the sense that villagers have access to broader markets. It was also noted that a lot of the new business creation was in retail and expanding supply chains presumably from the city into the villages. I may be wrong, but if a person receives a lump sum it isn’t difficult to imagine them purchasing something to transport items from the city and selling them at a marked up rate within the villages where people who can afford it are willing to pay some percentage more to save themselves a two hour walk there and back, and whatever time and energy is spent trying to find the items they need in the market.
The United States has demand for a much greater range of products and services. What was provided to the Kenyans, and their economy within the villages being limited to what an agricultural community can produce and purchase there are very few businesses that can be created. While Kenya shows that people who are given lump sums will invest in education, will invest in starting businesses, and used the money to increase their income, I think an LS in line with a balance stimulus in the US should be expected to produce substantially more businesses because there is more demand for more products and services. I think there will be greater investments in human capital since there are more opportunities to extract value from the increase in human capital, and I think incomes among the bottom 40 percent of income earners will increase by more than 50 percent, although an average of a 50 percent increase among the bottom 50 percent of income earners would be substantial.
Using this study to say UBI or a LS(BS) will do elsewhere what it did in Kenya overlooks a plethora of differences, but it does provide us with some idea about what poor people will do when given a LS or UBI. It confirms in part what I argue for a balance stimulus that people would use the money to improve their income opportunities.
The biggest problem with this study for the lump sum aspect of it is the LS was given to the entire village. I would have liked to see the impact of the LS being given only to the bottom 50 percent of income earners.
Balance Stimulus OPL link: https://www.oplnow.com/balance-stimulus/
12/8/2023
I was on my way from Cincinnati, OH to Arlington, VA to assemble a trampoline, and I heard about a study that was recently published in Kenya about the effects of UBI and a lump sum payments to low income people . The report stated that there were two groups of poor people in Kenya, one group was given $50 per week and the other was given a lump sum. The report stated that both groups reported better well being, but the group who was given the lump sum was more likely to start businesses. The increased well being I don’t really care about, I mean no shit, people feel better when they’re being given money.
More important than money making them feel good, is that those who were given a lump sum were more likely to start a business. I submitted the Balance Stimulus Proposal to a few economics journals maybe a year or more ago. The idea was to provide lump sum payments to the bottom 50 percent of income earners based on a few qualifications to enable people to start a business, increase their human capital, or to overcome other income impediments described in the paper.
I used the available data on the median individual income share, wealth distribution, savings surveys, median household checking account balances, as well as a variety of other metrics to evidence the need for a lump sum payments to the bottom at least 40 percent of individual income earners to stimulate the economy, reduce spending, increase public revenue, and decrease the undesirable effects on the public from people living within trapped circumstances.
It’s a very simple and easily observable set of functions, and begins at the most basic idea about capitalism. Who decides what is produced? Capitalism begins with the idea that everyone can decide to produce a product or service to market. A person must have capital or the means to acquire capital which is money. Capital is essentially anything you possess that has the potential to be used to create a product or complete a service.
If you don’t have money you are your capital and you can sell your labor. The word human capital represents what you can do. The first thing a person with no money has to do is provide for their natural needs, food, shelter, transportation, hygiene, clothes, and any number of other things that require money that is considered necessary according to average means. First you have to survive.
The labor market functions through the observed wage people are willing to work a job in a particular area. Typically those who have no money are willing to work for wages that allow them to survive. This idea is supported by the data, in half of Americans not having any savings, in the individual median checking account balances, in the distribution of wealth which is often a good measure of surplus income, and the proportion of people who report living paycheck to paycheck.
If a person spends most of their time working a job that only meets their expenses they will never have the time or the money to improve their human capital, or to bring a product or service to market.
I submitted the proposal to distribute between 1 to 1.5 trillion dollars in lump sum payments to the bottom 50 percent of income earners not only to start businesses, but also to overcome other income impediments that I identified in the paper.
As I mentioned in the previous entry or near it, I did receive one rejection with explanations that I overcame in response, and the Balance Stimulus was one of those rejections. The following is one of his objections followed by my response.
Editor Growth and Change: A Journal on Urban and Regional Policy
“In Keynes’s statement, if poorer individuals have a higher marginal propensity to consume (MPC) than richer ones, then policies redistributing income towards the former and away from the latter, will tend to increase the overall propensity to consume and not saving to investment. Then, it is not guaranteed the poor people could create opportunities to make money.”
Orion Simerl Response
Higher MPC among lower income people is not applicable to the balance stimulus. The obvious cause of lower income people having a higher MPC when they experience increases in income, is because lower income people go without many of the items higher income people have, where the increase in income allows them to purchase what higher income people consider normal necessities. That speculation aside, receiving a lump sum that dramatically changes an individual’s circumstances where the individual is capable of creating lasting income opportunities, is much different than an increase in income that does not significantly change their circumstances. A lower income person may experience a large raise of $10,000 per year, maybe $30,000 per year if they are starting a new job coming from a place of unemployment, but that’s a sum dispersed incrementally that does not position them to start a business or improve their income opportunities through some of the ways I’ve expressed.
End Exchange
I haven’t read the study yet, but the headline report stated that those who were given a lump sum were more likely to start businesses. I’m interested in just how prevalent business ventures were among the lump sum group, but I’m also interested in income development. It’s just as important for someone who received a lump sum to be empowered to improve their income in another way. If someone entered into training, purchased a motor bike to access a new job, or if the money provided them security to find a better job, most of those will show up as increased income. I’m going to read that study when I finish this.
I don’t support any UBI because it does little more than decrease production and service the condition of being poor. While I do believe the number of people who increased their income and started businesses in Kenya is relevant in the sense that it shows what people will do with a lump sum, how many use it to position themselves to make money, I don’t believe the UBI statistics translate very well to developed countries. I don’t know what $50 buys in Kenya compared to what $50 buys in the US, but I imagine it’s more than $50. For example’s sake, say $50 buys 5x more in Kenya than it does in America, it’d be a UBI equivalent of $250 per week. If $50 buys food, shelter, and entertainment in Kenya none of that is comparable to food, shelter, and entertainment in the United States. Which means the Kenyan with UBI may be more inclined to apply the money towards something productive, because it’s a low quality of life. In the United States with $1000 a month UBI, food share, utility assistance, and maybe rent assistance a person has many more options with their little bit of money to content themselves. And sure rent assistance is rare but not multiple adults per household. Or men with women who get rent assistance.
I haven’t read the study yet so I don’t know what was observed and recorded in the study, but as UBI goes, increases in productivity does not necessarily apply, but decreases definitely would apply since people with a lower quality of life can be contented with small recurring sums, then people with higher quality of life through UBI in the US will lead productive.
It seems like I may need to resubmit balance stimulus to another journal, referencing this study.
—
I ended the final exchange for the book on denial and did the preliminary analysis. Then I responded to something the guy wrote thinking we were moving off of function and onto moral codes. That promoted a few back and forths that offer a great example of an inability to comprehend so I need to include that encore. After I finish that I’m going to go through each one again and create the cases based on our exchanges. For example, in the final exchange in the book the guy quoted a portion of my reply and tried to make a point that was refuted in the following sentences. I explained that he was doing this in the exchange but I’ll take the quoted portion, what he wrote about it, and then the quoted portion that refuted it to demonstrate the case.
I have a few things to do.
I had a little bit of a problem in the assembly today. Typically it isn’t a problem but it is if the customer has accessories and this customer does. On the oval trampolines they provide poles that go across the long portions horizontally at the top of the net. They have 2 yellow fabric rings, and there’s supposed to be a pouch at the other end. The problem is the pouch isn’t wide enough to fit the pole and it’s sewn closed after about half an inch. The only way to attach the horizontal poles is with zip ties.
I put the horizontal poles behind the customer’s hot tub fence. It’s just as functional, looks the same, but she’s not going to be able to attach her accessories so I anticipate getting a call or a text about that. I’m upset that Spring Free put me in that position, but I didn’t know she had an accessory, and as an assembler, I don’t want to tell her that the pieces do not fit. I think the pole is fiber glass and it has a plastic sheath on it and two plastic caps. I took off the caps and the sheath to fit through the loop, the problem is the pocket it’s supposed to slide into only goes in about half an inch. I pushed my screwdriver into it and it was sewed shut. It was the same thing on the other side. The only way to put it up is to zip tie it to the top of the net so the accessory can be attached to it. I imagine in the coming days I’ll be receiving that phone call or text and I’ll have to explain this to her. If I’m in the area and she wants me to do it I’ll buy a bag of zip ties and do it for her. I think I’m headed out.
I can’t take chances with this money. It had been about two weeks since I worked an Airtaskers job, and probably a month since I worked a worthwhile one. Last week 3 days at $70 a day unloading tires. Usually only 2 to 3 hours but that’s all I found. When I was in Dallas that’s a big reason I took the job for $225 and came back to Ohio, because if I couldn’t find anything worthwhile I could sustain myself for another week off of that $200. Yesterday, I finished unloading a truck at about 2pm and drove to Arlington, VA right after. About an hour and a half away and drove the last little bit this morning. I’ll probably get that money by Wednesday at the latest. If I complete an AT job Monday through Thursday I usually get the money the next day. If I complete it Friday through Sunday I may not get it until Thursday. Anyway, it cost me about $60 in gas to make $170, but with the tip I made $224 after gas.
—
I was chatting with a chic on Tinder that led to a realization in part. I mentioned a paper I submitted to a metaphysics journal. After a brief summary she stated that the paper relied on the assumption that the beings in an eternal space wanted to create and and experience. I responded that the assumption is any being in an eternal space is conscious, and the essence of the conscious experience is the fulfillment of desire, which reduces to creation and experience, and further to experience itself since desire reduces to objectives to produce positive feelings (experience) and creation in this context is to produce things and environments that produce opportunities for objectives that produce positive feelings.
Fundamentally, the assumption is that any space where there is even one being that exists forever is limited by their knowledge of objects. Even the concept of all knowing breaks down because knowledge, even foreknowledge, has its limits in what has existed or will exist and can be exhausted over the duration of eternity. Perpetual random creation is necessary to ensure eternal novelty, otherwise eternal existence becomes stagnant. That among other things is what the paper contributes to the advancement of metaphysical knowledge. Inferences about the unknown based on observations about what is known.
This morning as I was reading this entry before posting it I received the decision from the Metaphysics Quarterly which as usual was a generic rejections “Thank you for submitting your work. We receive many submissions and are able to accept only a very small percentage of them. I regret to inform you that your manuscript has not been accepted for publication in the Review of Metaphysics.”.
Except for the Balance Stimulus, this is what just about every rejection consists of. There is never an explanation, and even the rejection of the Balance Stimulus I overcame every objection and then received no response to my rebuttals.
I sent reply to the metaphysics quarterly:
” I understand. Across academia, philosophy or otherwise, fields ignore what they cannot argue against and hide behind generic responses to suppress challenges.”
Human beings are inaccessible. Corrupted through varying brands of indoctrination that serve as the basis for their values. Once a belief is accepted and forms the foundation of what they like they lose the capacity to recognize contradiction between belief and observation. I understand this thoroughly through my efforts over the last decade or so. Beginning from a place of ignorance I set out to answer questions why I was as I was and the world is as it is. During that period I learned my way into and out of wrong conclusions, but after identifying observed causes and developing solutions I thought that these things could be shared. They cannot, because human beings function through value preservation. They are not concerned with what’s true, they’re only concerned with maintaining a perspective that allows them to feel good doing the things they do, including maintaining false ideas for material benefits. I’ve known for awhile that there is no outlet. Not for objective morality, existential probability, ASC, political or economic function, proposals to address inadequate opportunities for time and money, or addressment of popular misconceptions that serve as basis for maintaining an organization of people that benefits few while trapping many and producing all the societal ills we see on a day to day basis in this country and around the world. I’ve known for awhile I’m fucked in this life which in it’s totality from my position is like an episode of the twilight zone.
I’ll probably submit this paper to another journal, I’ll finish this next book on bias, read this study, and maybe try to submit Balance Stimulus somewhere. I don’t think there is an outlet through academia, field are restricted to popular topics and interpretations within the fields but there is the small chance that something can be understood. As opposed to the general population who in reads below a 14 year old level, doesn’t know the difference between a fact and an opinion, believing everything is arbitrary, and make assignments of true and false based on how things make them feel. How information makes them feel is based on previous assignments of true and false. This represents a species who does not value truth which is indicative of a species who has subscribed tyrannical moral reasoning. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, where over the course of the universe and the random generation of life there will be multiple intelligent species who come into being, some of whom subscribe to liberty and others who choose tyranny.
11/30/2023
Writing more frequently awaiting the rejection of my submission to proceed to the next submission next rejection. I doubt the concepts will be understood enough to understand the significance. The paper identifies that an omnipotent being existing within an eternal space is limited by their experiences or knowledge of objects. Anyone who believes there are eternal spaces has to acknowledge that even an all powerful being in an eternal space eventually requires exposure to new things since over the course of forever all things that can be created and experienced will be undertaken so many times as to render them unstimulating. Eternal existence requires novelty, and novelty cannot be created within the space because what is created is a product of the experiences of the beings within the space. The universe is the perfect solution to that problem as an instrument to randomly assemble matter towards increasing complexity with the most complex thing it can produce being intelligent life. I can’t say for sure that the universe exists for producing the novelty required to sustain eternal existence, but if eternal spaces exist the universe is the perfect solution to a known problem of such a space. In the paper I discuss some existential implications inclusive of objective morality as a determinant of conscious motion. Mainly to show how omnipotence can be shared without creating a problem among objectively moral beings, but also to show the necessity and probability of separate spaces if an eternal spaces exist, which is a belief shared by the majority of the population.
I’ve submitted various papers to journals but they’re typically responded to with generic rejections, no indication that anything was understood and no questions for clarification. Sometimes it’s the wrong field, while other times it really doesn’t make sense. I submitted various versions of Liberty as the Basis to moral philosophy journals and received generic rejections. Not only is it a moral philosophy, it’s an explanation of moral functioning, the identification of morality as a determinant of conscious motion, completely consistent and applicable, and ideal based on the human constant which is desire, while identifying fundamental human moral failings that produce the negative results that we see on this planet. I’d have been fine with having those assertions challenged, either principally, or through scenario or example. I probably submitted ASC to the wrong journals. I submitted RUSC to several economic journals where it was rejected without explanation. The idea itself opens doors into economic research to forecast the effects.
The rejection of RUSC is a betrayal of academic duty on two fronts. 1st, it’s an idea that claims if implemented can substantially increase the wages of unskilled workers, increase tax revenue, and decrease government spending. The aim of academics is to increase knowledge for the betterment of humankind. Unless there’s something fundamentally flawed, the idea should be known to those in the field it pertains to, and it should be researched so the public knows the spectrum of what it could accomplish. If it is fundamentally flawed that explanation could be provided in the rejection and I should have an opportunity to respond to that.
There was one rejection for the Balance Stimulus where the editor provided a few paragraphs of criticism. I responded to and believe I overcame that criticism and he did not reply. In the American Prosperity Proposals I included that dialogue, his explanation and my responses.
I went through the first few sections of APP today but forgot to add the part I wanted to add. Two to three entries ago I had a YouTube exchange that answers the work and save to improve your income cliche. I wanted to add that. I have that other short book to finish that I was initially compiling as a research paper. I’ve been spending a lot of time yesterday and today watching videos and researching for an Airtasker’s job. The job looks pretty easy. From what I can tell it consists of bolting down two upright beams and attaching a few accessories to them. As for not resuming my work on the examples of bias book it’s difficult to be motivated to do something when there’s no outlet for it.
—
I found myself in another example worthy exchange which benefited me much more than the example of bias. It reminded me of another exchange I’m using as an example, where the participant tried to argue that the foundation of liberty is well being since a byproduct of objective morality facilitates desire, and the fulfillment of desire produces positive feelings which cumulatively represent positive well being. There were a number of things he failed to acknowledge like the well being of one being in conflict with the well being of another, how well being is uninformative morally, but most significantly, how you can say well being is the foundation of anything since all things are done for the improvement of well being. The example I used in analysis was that physics is ultimately studied for the purpose of well being, by the student and for the advancement of knowledge and practical application. The foundation of physics is well being. A physicist may say observations and math are the foundation of physics. He’d then ask but why are we observing and creating equations to measure motion? To advance knowledge for practical application to improve well being, well being is the foundation of physics. That’s how a lot of that exchange went and it was very irritating. 😂 At one point I told him if a horrible accident befalls him I’d be happy about that, but that doesn’t mean I would impose on him or want anyone else to impose on him to make the point that my morality and concern for his well being were not connected. I meant it too in the moment. There comes a point where I begin to suspect that the exchange has degenerated in an effort to antagonize. Sometimes it clearly is that and I have an example of that within this new book. It’s easy for me to get sucked into that shit because I’m working within the motion of the subjects, so just about anything someone says I know the relationship it has with the content and can explain it.
Lastly before I mention why I brought up this exchange, concern for someones well being or consideration for someones well being is not a moral product. Empathy is its own value sourced from different ideas about life and the human experience. Some people can imagine what it must be like to be locked within the circumstances of others and feel what they believe the person may feel. Some people can draw from their own experience being in similar unpleasant circumstances and remember what that felt like. On the other side of it, people can remember what it was like when someone helped them, and through those memories when they help someone they experience feelings comparable to what they anticipate the person will feel. In idea of what a person understands themself to be doing there can be positive feelings. I’m making these few brief statements on empathy because I stated that well being is not morally informative, where others who are empathetic or those who pretend to be for image promoting purposes would think their concern for the well being of others is moral information. Altruism does not exist, the feeling one experiences through an altruistic act is greater than the feeling they can experience in the moment through the substance sacrificed. Empathy, what parts of it are innate, what parts are from experience, and what parts are from idea, is still a subjective value. It can only be morally informative if an individual’s pride is attached to an idea about well being. It immediately falls apart as a moral standard in a setting where action or inaction will impact the well being of multiple people differently. In objective morality, well being is not informative.
The reason I brought that exchange up is because this recent exchange began to go down the same course. In the previously referenced exchange the participant basically accepted th
liberty as the basis for morality while arguing that well being was actually the foundation. In this exchange the participant acknowledges the functioning of morality through self worth, but claims fear is the basis for moral function. The reasoning being that immoral acts are abstained from because when a person commits an act they believe is wrong, it forces them to acknowledge they were wrong, changing their perception of themself, reducing self worth, and producing a negative feeling that can persist and recur. He basically agreed all of that is true, but claimed people abstain from the acts because they’re afraid of the reduction in self worth. I won’t go into all the ways that this reasoning is erroneous, obviously, it ignores the fact that even if moral prohibition was fear based, it’s only fear based because a negative feeling is produced through a reduction of self worth caused by a change in self perception. Of course it isn’t fear based. It’s based on pride, which is the reason it functions in decision making through self worth. A person doesn’t violate their morality because it’s behavior they’re not proud of, and they act in accordance with their morality because they’re proud of such behavior. It’s similar to other subjective value standards, I used fashion as an example where a person who wouldn’t wear a pink shirt doesn’t abstain from the wearing the color because they’re afraid of it, it’s because they don’t like it and are not proud of it. Other subjective values differ from moral values in that a person who doesn’t wear pink shirts doesn’t have a problem with a person who does, whereas a moral value is applied to self and others. For example a person who believes theft is morally wrong doesn’t just think they shouldn’t do it, they think no one should do it. That’s the distinction between moral standards and other subjective standards, both are connected to different degrees to self worth, but one is applied to the individual and the other is applied to all.
From this exchange I began to understand better just how much of human behavior is rooted in the maintenance and advancement of self worth, but also how of consistency with one’s morality is rooted in pride. I alluded to this previously in an entry dated to February or March of 2023. There were a series events throughout my time in Abilene, TX that I described as representing moral pride. For example, it was somewhat late and there was a truck in the right lane that was headed straight who saw me with my blinker on in the right lane behind him but at a distance. He put his truck in reverse and moved into the middle lane so I wouldn’t have to wait for the light to turn. I understand what motivates that kind of behavior. While we can insert empathy and there is some of that, or in some cases all of that, but either way, the act is motivated by how you see yourself for having done or not done it. Where if you don’t move you think about not wanting to be in the person’s way, and when you do move not only are you glad to not be in their way, but you feel good to see yourself as the kind of person who will put forth effort to not hold someone up unnecessarily.
Not to get too far off topic but this is a major problem I have with the tenets of eastern philosophy. What they call the ego is never tamed or broken, it’s just channeled into following the tenets of the philosophy or religion. Now the individual’s self worth is based on how consistent their behavior is with the tenets of the religion, and they feel good in consistency and bad in inconsistency the same as other subjective standards.
Monotheism functions the same way but with a buffer. Where a person who truly follows their religion which excludes most Christians, Muslims, and Jews, their self worth is based on how consistent their behavior is with the religion. The buffer is the deity, and what people call a personal relationship is essentially the uploading of the things they do, and they believe the deity will understand and excuse them. In monotheism, moral self worth is a product of how the adherent perceives the deity as perceiving them. This is detrimental to moral reasoning and application, because anything that is wrong but that they believe is forgivable, is essentially not wrong. It has no impact on their behavior because it has no impact on their self worth because they think the deity doesn’t care.
Self worth isn’t limited to moral application, or subjective standards. Some people’s self worth is more determined by how they perceive others as perceiving them, and this is the basis for what I call image promoting behavior. One example can be found all over social media. Comments on tragedy’s or celebrity deaths expressing grief is often an effort to show others they represent a popular value. In this case compassion, and they feel good in perceiving others as having a higher opinion of them because that perception increases their self worth.
After the maintenance and advancement of self worth there is entertainment. I’m using entertainment broadly to represent externally generated positive feelings. Within everyone there is some balance between the two, but in recognizing this distinction we can identify people’s moral proclivity through this balance. Internally generated positive feelings through consistency with moral and subjective standards in pride or self worth, and externally generated positive feelings through entertainment. To clarify, image promotion is an internally generated feeling as self worth increases based on a person perceiving others as having a higher opinion of them regardless of whether others do or do not.
I’ll provide a few examples of the difference in tendency. Using a previous example from the recently referenced exchange, a person wouldn’t wear a pink shirt because it conflicts with their value of masculine imagery, where a man such as they see themselves to be doesn’t wear pink shirts. The question is how much pride in that standard does the person have? At what point would they abandon that standard to advance a material interest? $10, $100, $1000, etc. The example is to say there are people who have very little pride and are content through entertainment. At some point for everyone depending on the subjective standard a person will capitulate if the value to abandon the standard reaches a certain point, but for many the value of maintaining standard is so low to rarely impact the decision making process. Moral standards function the same as subjective standards, with the difference being that a person will not abandon some moral standards for any price.
A better example came to me today watching a video of clips from the show scared straight. The clips featured kids who were not intimidated. The show disgusts me because fear shouldn’t be used as a tactic to gain compliance. It prioritizes authority based thinking which is another topic altogether I don’t want to unpack here.
In one scene an inmate opens up the top of his jump suit exposing his chest hair and another inmate hands a child a comb and says comb his chest hair while they yell degrading things at him. The child combs the man’s chest hair.
They move on to the next child but he refuses to do it.
The difference in the action is based on that balance between pride and entertainment or internal versus external stimulation. The first child has prioritized entertainment. It feels bad to be yelled at and threatened, and he is probably afraid so the quicker he combs the man’s chest hair the quicker they will leave him alone and he will feel better when they take their attention from him.
The second child probably knows they’re not going to do anything to him. But it doesn’t change the fact that he’s probably less comfortable with the men talking shit to him. He doesn’t take the comb because it violated his subjective standards that he as a man doesn’t comb other men’s chest hair. He will feel better about himself in enduring whatever he has to endure externally than he will to avoid the external and have to endure the perception of himself after having combed a man’s chest hair. There was a person in the comments section who wrote he was low key proud of him for not doing. I liked the comment, but there shouldn’t be any low key about it. I was proud of him.
That isn’t to say I was disappointed in the child who did it, he was younger, but also just developmentally immature. The problem is being put in such a position and responding as he did could influence his development into manhood, possibly predisposing him to being a less prideful person for having committed such a shameful act. We hope he can separate himself from that incident recognizing that who he was who did that was a different person than the person he will be in the future.
That balance is defining, and people who are consistent with their values have to be proud people even if they don’t show it. People who are not proud people are willing to compromise quickly to gain a reward or to avoid a consequence.
These are just some rough notes concerning the thoughts I’ve had about self worth or pride, versus entertainment or external stimulation.
Once you click a video on YouTube you’ll get other videos in your feed similar to that video. In the previous entry I reference a Jordan Peterson interview and reflected on a statistic he mentions. I see another video today and click it and he mentions how IQ is an indicator of whether or not a person will be successful. My first thought was that a person’s IQ is influenced by the economic circumstances of the household. I googled the correlation between household income and IQ. The first result was a study showing only a marginal difference which on the surface seems to contradict my initial thoughts. But upon closer inspection the study was a small sample size from Sweden, where the distribution of wealth and income is much more equal. The higher the number the more inequality on the gini scale. Sweden has a Gini coefficient of .30, and the US has a Gini coefficient of .41. To put that difference into perspective, the difference of .11, if you added .11 to the US the US would have the greatest economic inequality and if you subtracted it from Sweden, Sweden would have the least amount of inequality. This is to say there is a substantial difference between the environment of the bottom 40 percent of income earners in the US and the top 60 percent and the difference between the two groups in Sweden. Not only will the difference in environment be less dramatic in Sweden, and less dramatic on intellectual development, but Sweden may have reached the minimum income required to not produce disadvantages in intellectual development.
I searched again looking for a study that draws from the US. The study I found included over 14,000 participants, who were tested 9x between the ages of 2 and 16. The study found that those born into lower socioeconomic status had IQ scores at 2 years old that were an average of 3 points lower than those of higher SES. At 16, those from lower SES, on average had IQ scores that were 18 points lower than the group of higher SES. In the United States, IQ may be an indicator of success, but household income is an indicator of IQ.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4641149/
11/27/2023
I watched a Jordan Peterson interview and he mentioned that 10 percent of the population was people with IQs of 83 or less. Then he implies that it is nearly impossible to be productive with such a low IQ and uses the example that the military found that this was the point where a person wasn’t fit for military service. I commented that improving the environment would improve intellectual development and so the statistic shouldn’t be viewed as what are we going to do with 10 percent of the population who isn’t smart enough to be productive, the question is what steps are we going to take to ensure we can maximize the intellectual potential of our population, to reduce the number of people whose opportunity is limited by their intelligence?
By improve the environment I mean household income which means improving income opportunities. This is one large piece of the puzzle. The second hurdles are the popular misconceptions that form the basis of people’s perspectives, and it can be addressed externally or internally. By externally I mean information is accepted that shows what is popularly believed about most things is false. Internally means people become objective enough to recognize contradictions between what’s known about a subject and what they’ve been told about a subject. In either case, a more accurate understanding of the world increases the potential for intelligence because information isn’t viewed through a lens that’s built on false ideas about fact and function. Perspectives must be maintained to maintain values which is why popular misconceptions are particularly difficult to move and are intelligence limiting. Intelligence limiting because people cannot learn things that challenge their beliefs. A conceptual understanding of ASC has intelligence enhancing benefits by creating conscious awareness of the organization of objects and analysis of sequences.
I received a reply from a commenter who stated 80 percent of intelligence is hereditary. The implications of his comment was that low intelligence was primarily genetic. There’s obviously a few problems with that assertion. The first is that there is often disparities in intelligence measured by IQ tests between parents and children. Second, there is no way to know how much of the similarities in IQ are a product of inherited circumstances versus inherited genes. The child may have a very different potential for intelligence but his or her development is limited by their circumstances. Or the potential may be similar and both have a very high potential for intelligence that is limited by their economic circumstances that tend to produce desperate habits, coping behavior, and excessive value on social relationships. All of which has its own byproducts and creates an environment that is not conducive to the development of the intellect through productive interests and the absence of stress.
The primary reason that intelligence being 80 percent hereditary is irrelevant, and the statistic that 1 in 10 has an IQ of 83 or less, is we don’t know at any given time how much of a person’s generic potential for intelligence is represented in an IQ score. A person may have a 90 IQ score but how much of their genetic potential for intelligence is represented in that IQ score? If it’s 50 percent of their genetic potential they have genius potential. Obviously an exaggeration but we don’t know. Are there concepts they could learn, false beliefs they could disconnect from, circumstantial improvements to decrease the physiological limitations imposed on intelligence by stress? The example I used in comment is a 10 year old child who has spent half his life going to school is probably going to have a much higher IQ score than a 10 year child who has not, but the score itself only tells us about their current abilities and doesn’t tell us anything about their genetic potential for intelligence. The same as an estimated 10 percent of the population having an IQ of 83, doesn’t mean that 10 percent of the population only have the potential of an 83 IQ.
—
Raking leaves requires a lot more time than I thought it does. I estimated that it would take me about 6 hours to rake and bag a fairly large property full of leaves. It ended up taking 16 hours. I also didn’t anticipate how labor intensive it is but I did become ambidextrous with the rake. A lot of bending down and never ending repetitions with the rake. I bid it for $225, but he gave me a $50 tip which helped. I don’t really take breaks. Other than this morning where I needed to warm my toes up the rest of that time other than the occasional pull from my vape or drinking a water I’m completing some part of the process the entire time. That’s probably at least 20 plus hours worth of work for the average worker.
I had to break it up into 3 days. I may have completed it the first night but the homeowner wanted me to stop after it was dark. I was preparing to work until it was finished which would have been in the neighborhood of 2am. Although I may have stopped before then because I really didn’t know how much more I had on the first night. I couldn’t finish it on the second day because I already scheduled a job for that day at 1pm to unload a truck of tires. I did 4 hours from 8 to noon and then went to the tire job. I sat at the tire job for about an hour and half but the truck didn’t show up. Still received most of the payment though. I was considering going back to the leaves but I wouldn’t have had time to finish so decided to rest. My body was pretty sore from the previous day.
Did a light day at the gym, only doing 8 instead of 12 sets each for biceps and triceps. My biceps were somewhat sore from pulling the rake. Had to take a shower so I figured I’d do something.
I left Texas. DFW there’s postings but for the service jobs the money being offered ain’t shit, and CL postings I don’t know what’s going on. There’s listings, but I responded to one 4 minutes after it was posted. The phone went to VM, box was full, and he didn’t respond to my text. It’s hard to get to it faster than that.
I looked at the weather and the 10 day showed temperatures at night above 30 in the Midwest which is comfortable. Last night and today temperatures have been below that. Then I wake up in the middle of the night and have to turn the car on to kick the heat on. It’s supposed to warm back up for about another week. No need to resume that southern migration just yet, but eventually I need to figure that out.
I have a modification I want to make in the American Prosperity Proposals and although I probably cannot use the exchanges as a paper, I think I’m going to resume working on that to publish as a short book.
I’m pretty much out of phenibut and don’t feel comfortable spending money to order more. It’s a 60 to 100 plus dollar expense. I need to have more money on reserve to make the purchase. I’m worried about how that is going to impact my mood.
11/21/2023
Fox news reported on a TikTok trend of people reacting to Osama Bin Laden’s letter to America. There was a man who was talking about reeducation of children on 9/11. What would that consist of? Going into great graphic detail on the attack to create an emotional response against those who perpetrated it, while implying that they were motivated by religious zealotry? That’s definitely the way 9/11 is marketed, evident by the popular perception of the event.
Young people reading the Osama Bin Laden letter can be a very powerful thing to people who have a mainstream perception of the country they live in. Whether they believe it or not, it creates questions through the legitimacy of the grievances. When the nationalist bias comes crashing down it can lead to questioning and radicalization. I’m not talking about the nationalist bias of the right that sees this country as perfect in everyway, I’m talking about the general false assumptions about the country held by the left and the politically uninterested. Wokeness is a product of that, where the problem is when possibilities about the world open up they find a group and fill up all those possibilities with propaganda and become invested in a different lie.
My expectations of the curriculum is based on knowing education on 9/11 cannot go too deep into the history or cause without teaching the legitimacy of the grievances and demonstrating responsibility of US foreign policy for endangering the safety of the public.
If you read the Water Treatment Vulnerabilities paper from The Defense Intelligence Agency dated 1991 it states in great detail how the bombing and sanctions were going to produce the deaths of children and the elderly. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228467667_The_Role_of_Iraq_Water_Treatment_Vulnerabilities_in_Halting_One_Genocide_and_Preventing_Others
The sanctions were in place for 10 years and are estimated to have killed a million people over that time, 500,000 of which were children under the age of 5. If you Google the figure within the first few articles there are claims that Saddam lied about the numbers but the numbers came from UNICEF and we’re being observed by people on the ground, like Danni’s Halliday and his successor who presided over the oil for food program, both of whom resigned because they didn’t want to be in charge of a program that was producing those kind of results. Halliday reported that hundreds of children were dying everyday. The source below is not a source but had citations for these assertions within them.
https://www.worldfuturefund.org/Articles/madalbright.html
To justify implementing policies that were murdering children the US claimed it was to prevent Saddam from acquiring nuclear weapons. The policy was actually intent on punishing the population to try to force regime change. There is a lot of evidence to that effect, but if your strategy to prevent a country from building a nuclear weapon means killing hundreds of thousands of children that isn’t a viable strategy.
Osama Bin Laden was interviewed in 1997 by CNN’s Peter Arnett and was asked about targeting civilians. He said “American civilians are not targeted in our plan…a reaction might take place as a result of the US government targeting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600,000 Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and in other places.”
A US Air force planner was quoted in the Washington Post about the impacts of strategic bombing on the civilian population “The definition of innocents gets to be a little bit unclear, they do live there, and ultimately the people have some control over what goes on in their country.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/06/23/allied-air-war-struck-broadly-in-iraq/e469877b-b1c1-44a9-bfe7-084da4e38e41/
The US holds the same view of Bin Laden on civilian responsibility for the actions of their leaders. The difference of course is that Osama responded to the killing of civilians whereas the US is the one who began the practice. At any rate, interference in other places against Muslims is unlikely to have produced 9/11 since the interference in those countries and territories had been ongoing for decades and as of 97 American citizens were not targeted in their plans. Had the US removed the sanctions before 2001 it’s likely 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.
Iraq was a country of about 24 million people. Can you imagine if hundreds of children were dying everyday in Florida because of the actions of another nation, and Florida had no recourse? After 10 years of this, although you may not support the actions of people from Georgia flying planes into said nations buildings and killing civilians, you could understand why they did it. I obviously don’t support Osama or the 9/11 retaliation, but I understand why he did it, and it was ultimately a product of US foreign policy.
That’s what’s true and you can’t teach that US foreign policy knowingly killed a million people, the majority children, and 9/11 was the reaction to that policy. Instead you teach them extensively about the event so they develop sympathy for the victims and hatred for the perpetrators, emphasize religion and other less important grievances to leave the impression that the main cause was religious zealotry and maybe the US supporting Israel’s right to defend itself. It’s an easily spun subject.
Fox News viewers or non-fox viewer sees the report and hears the man mention how people in their late teens aren’t old enough to remember 9/11 and that’s what they walk away with. Stupid kids are reading the letter of a terrorist and finding his grievances legitimate because they aren’t old enough to remember 9/11 and need to be reeducated. People know nothing about a lot.
That’s one subject. Nearly anything a person believes outside of their vocation or hobbies is BS. That’s the world I live in, why I’m isolated and have no outlets for my material and ideas.
I was working on a paper using social media exchanges to demonstrate how bias obstructs communication and limits intelligence. I finished the first draft of analysis for 9 exchanges and for the tenth exchange I wanted to use a post about the problem with eternity, but I didn’t have an exchange that demonstrated bias conclusively within that subject. Over the previous days my morale was beginning to wane since even if the paper received any serious consideration it’s extremely unlikely that I would get consent from the participants in the exchange. Which isn’t required for publishing outside of an academic research setting but is required in that setting.
I decided to put together a paper on the problem with eternity. The idea is simple but a much more probable explanation than a morally inconsistent benevolent tyrant who created human beings to be his eternal servants or to be eternally tormented, which ultimately means the universe exists to stroke its ego through praise, worship, and obedience.
The problem with eternity is more probable than the universe existing for no purpose at all, and more probable than the eastern religious explanation claiming that the source is nothingness that experiences itself subjectively and the purpose is disconnection from everything to merge back into the source. An idea that denies that everything that happens in-between nothingness and the return to nothingness serves no purpose.
The problem with eternity is that the quality of existence is limited by the experiences of the beings within an eternal space. With unlimited ability to create, experience, and interact, eventually existence becomes a burden because everything that can be created and experienced takes place so many times that everything loses its appeal.
The universe began simple, as hydrogen and helium. Through the forces of the universe stars are produced that create heavier elements through their life cycle. These heavier elements produced planets and on at least one planet life was produced that increased in complexity to become intelligent. Fundamentally, the universe functions to increase complexity and the most complex product of the universe is intelligent life. The purpose of the universe is the random generation of intelligent life.
The universe is the perfect solution to the problem of an eternal space being limited by the experiences of the beings within that space. Anything produced in an eternal space is the product of the beings within the space where nothing truly new can come into being. The universe solves that problem by being the random generator of environments and life. Life that creates objects that can be incorporated into that space for creation by the beings within that space.
I go on into the possibility of survival of consciousness after death since the consciousness that comes into being could be incorporated into that space further enriching it. I also touch on the moral duality between objective and subjective morality as determinants of motion and the requirement of separate spaces to accommodate different modes of moral operation. It’s an ideal, consistent, and linear conception of existence based on the observable universe and the conscious experience.
The problem for me is that metaphysics is such a limited field and academic publishing requires such a long time to be accepted or rejected. Even if accepted, what kind of attention does it create? While proliferation of the idea, in acknowledgement if not widespread acceptance is a very small part of my overall material and potential contribution to improving this incorrigible species operating at such a minimal capacity. I’ll finish the paper and submit it in the coming days anyway.
I’ve been having trouble finding work this past week. As is typical I don’t really like where I’m at and my options are limited as we draw closer to winter. It’s strange because a year ago I felt a little bit better in this region. Spending 7 months in the Midwest I’m now uncomfortable here. It’s also difficult for me to gauge how impactful enduring the circumstances I’ve endured is on me. Maybe I can check some older journal entries to remember my state of mind and compare it to where I am now, but the point is, it’s difficult to know how much different I am compared to times when I had more opportunities for interaction.
As predicted, the glimmer of hope or convincing myself I was doing something worthwhile would soon be replaced with the acknowledgement that there is no outlet. Living in 1984 and understanding it profoundly with no way to penetrate the contradictory perspectives of the sleepwalking puppeted population. I do feel like I need to go. Usually when I feel like this I’ll find an AT job somewhere but there hasn’t been anything on AT lately that is worth the trip to an acceptable place.
11/15/2022
I do not feel good today. If you’re familiar with my circumstances over the last 10 years you may think this a regular thing but it isn’t. I typically feel fairly good, or at least not bad despite the acknowledgement that my situation is effectively hopeless.
Even during the spring when I thought seriously about suicide it wasn’t because I felt bad. Angry yes, and often stressed, some of it my own doing, but not bad, where I’m sad or experiencing low self worth. Suicide was more about how much sense it made. Makes sense because my life is completely stagnant and without possibility for improvement, but outside of that there isn’t much pain that I require escape from. I reached a point where as trapped as I am, I decided I’ll stick around and watch the idiocracy until I’m inspired to try something or naturally check out. There was some underlying reasoning behind that decision.
I ultimately reached the decision when I was surveying a location. When I reached the location it seemed stupid to me to find a location and not do it. Why find a place for a future date when if the place is suitable I’m there and have the implement?
I ended up just hiking in the area because while I was in the car I decided not to take the rope, because I’d feel fake to myself if I took the rope and didn’t do it. I remember the moment and that was the essence of what I thought.
The decision against suicide was essentially made in the moments preceding. In the car if I took the rope I may have been compelled to do it because I’d feel fake to have taken the rope and not done it. Apparently doubting subconsciously I was going to follow through, I spared myself the feeling of being fake by not taking the rope. Subconscious mind creates objectives to avoid negative feelings through the protection of self worth. My value of realness may have affected the outcome.
Had I taken the rope the comparison is between the feelings that come from the idea of being trapped versus the unknown, and the feelings associated with the implications of not having done it. This is to say, if I take the rope I may have done it, so not taking the rope was the decision not to do it, because the blow to self worth in returning to the car with the rope may have compelled me to do it to not have to return to the car.
Interesting ASC, but I only bring it up because I rarely feel bad. I rarely feel bad because my actions are typically consistent with my values, and nearly always consistent with my morality.
I do feel bad today. Some of it is the build up to the next rejection. I decided to use my social media log, old FB exchanges as the subject of research, where based on the responses bias can be shown, the inability to accept information based on the consequence it has to apparent values. I provide analysis and show interaction by interaction how the response fails to connect to or demonstrate an understanding of the previous reply or how it doesn’t pertain to the controversy. I have 8 case analysis rough drafts finished and at least 2 and potentially 4 more to go. After this I need to write methodology, possibly background section, a summary, an abstract, edit and organize the analysis’, conclusion, citations, and may need to try to get consent from who I reference as participants, which could in itself prove difficult since they make themselves look stupid. Then I submit to different journals and it will probably be rejected, probably without being read in its entirety. I think about that and that does not feel good.
Last night I accidentally scheduled a job for today installing handles on cabinets. I originally intended to schedule it for Thursday but I thought yesterday was Monday so I told the customer Wednesday which was today. I have installed handles and understood how to do the job but did not execute it very well. I had my measurements and was confident in my marks but the holes were not lining up. I had to wallow out the holes up or down to get the screws to line up with the holes. Not a big deal because the hole is covered by the screw on the backside and the handle on the front but it was changing the orientation of the handles so they were not completely plum.
The first 4 I installed weren’t perfect but passable. It was also taking a lot of time, but I figured my efficiency would improve. On the third set of handles I decided to use the handle as a guide for the holes. The holes still didn’t line up with the handle holes and one was very crooked. It wasn’t a good tactic and I had no way of straightening the handle.
At that point I decided to just concede the job. There were in the neighborhood of about 50 more handles, and I didn’t want to install 50 crooked handles in this guy’s new kitchen and bathroom cabinets. I showed him the crooked handle, and the others that were marginally off and told him I thought he’d be better off finding someone else to do the job.
After going to the gym I thought about the job. The main reason is it doesn’t feel good to not be able to do something, especially when that failure impacts someone’s property, and results in me missing money. Thoughts are produced to understand why it happened which may allow me to avoid a similar outcome and the accompanying feelings in the future, and also to restore self worth by understanding the cause of the poor performance.
I would have been successful if I would have had the foresight to purchase a T square. That would have ensured that my marks were accurate whereas using a tape measure there are more opportunities for something with the tape to produce an inaccurate measurement, where a 1/16th of an inch can be the difference in the holes aligning enough to reach the threads with the screws. Even though I know a T square would have facilitated success, I still don’t feel good about the failure.
11/7/2023
I had a comment exchange on YouTube that represents a familiar theme and my biggest issue with conservatives which is their refusal to acknowledge labor markets. I’m chronicling the exchange because it represents a rare instance where an individual begins with the perspective that income opportunities are adequate and at the end he acknowledges that they are not. I tightened up a portion of the argument in a way I haven’t done before which is also worth chronicling. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the opportunity to agree with him that democrats do not have solutions, use the struggles of poor and middle class Americans to advance the interests of their donors in service of maintaining poverty, and rely on the maintenance of struggling poor and middle class people to win elections. A different topic addressed in other areas.
There was a poll question asking what will it take to achieve peace?
Orion Simerl
Ensure all people have adequate opportunities to have time and money. Adequate opportunities means an individual’s income meets expenses, allows for a reasonable amount of discretionary spending, and accumulation.
Theoriginajohingait2450
Discretionary spending and individual’s income meets expenses? People should make their own way in life. Why do all these things need to be handed out like they are children or unable to work?
Orion Simerl
Who said anything about handed out? The fact of the matter is the median average income is about 30k per year, which means on average half the adults in this country have an income of less than $30,000. For an individual to improve their income requires time and money, to improve their human capital or to bring a product or service to market. When most of an individual’s time is spent working for an income that only meets their expenses they are trapped in those circumstances never having the time or money to improve their income.
Theoriginajohingait2450
That’s nonsense. People get what they want out of things. I have a family of four, a wife and two kids. When we had a household income of $80K we paid for EVERYTHING and made ends meet while our kids were in daycare, and paid for that as well. We never once needed anyone to help us out or went on any type of assistance. I know plenty of people who make $100K+ on just their income and don’t have anything to show for it. It’s because they spend their money on frivolous things that mean nothing and they don’t get anything in return. What people need to be upset about is the fast tracked inflation that has been going on and has been in play for decades That has nothing to do with businesses and solely comes from the government spend more than what comes in and then printing money they don’t have, which clearly devalues the dollar. It’s all basic economics.
Orion Simerl
Nonsense is asserting something is nonsense based on a person experience that is at odds with the reality of basic economics. 80k is median household income. That means half of households have less than 80k per year. (2.5 adults per household is an individual average share of 32k) Average wages of people working in retail and fast food is 27k per year. That represents 25 million people or roughly 12 percent of the workforce. Basic economics is how does one improve their income? They either invest time and money to improve their human capital or they purchase capital to bring a product or service to market. How does one get money if they have none? They invest their time working a job. And what determines how much someone will be paid? It depends what people are willing to do that job for in that area. Most unskilled people will work for a wage that allows them to survive. This is why many people are trapped in their circumstances. Realities, substantiated by the numbers. Things you cannot understand because your nationalist bias precludes it.
Theoriginajohingait2450
You just argued a case against yourself. What exactly is my “nationalist bias? I’d dying to hear that. Those people in retail and fast food are not a good example either. Lol
Orion Simerl
Saying I make a case against myself without an explanation or evidence is an empty assertion. Let’s see what you’re disputing and how you’re disputing it.
1: To improve one’s income requires an investment of time or money,
a: because income is derived through the sale of labor, or bringing a product or service to market, b: and increasing human capital requires time and money, and bringing a product or service to the market requires money.
What part of this do you disagree with and how?
2: the wages a person is paid is based on how much people are willing to work for in a given area. For example, if you were starting a roofing company, if you had the money to invest the first thing you need to know is the cost of labor. If you can find a guy who knows how to roof for $20 an hour, you’re not going to pay him $30 an hour just because you can afford to. Of course if you can’t find anyone to work for you for $20 next you’re going to offer $25. The labor market is determined by what people in a particular area are willing to work a particular job for.
3: When a large proportion of the population doesn’t have money, these people are willing to work for an amount that allows them to survive.
A: this is evident by half the adults in this country having an average income of just $30,000 per year. Half the adults in this country have an income share that is less than that.
Take me through that budget, where on 30k a year you can meet your expenses, have some discretionary spending, and how long does it take to save 20k to do something with? Half of adults have less than that (30k per year income share).
4: when a person’s opportunities for income require most of their time and their income only meets their expenses, they do not have time and cannot accumulate money.
5: I mention retail and fast food because I’m familiar with the volume and the average income these employees earn. Now we’re not talking about median average income share, we’re referencing specific individuals who make up close to 25 million hard working people. We can add hospitality workers, day laborers, and others who represent a substantial amount of the workforce and earn inadequate wages that leave them trapped within their circumstances. Do we want to have fast food, stores where we can buy things, hotels, and in some way or another all the things we enjoy on a day to day basis? If we do, people need to do those jobs. And if people are going to do those jobs they need to be paid wages that allow for accumulation, where today the average wage in those industries are not sufficient to meet expenses if they live by themselves, much less produce accumulation. The number of people who earn low wages proves the claim that people’s opportunities for income in this country are inadequate. You can’t have half the people in this country earning an income that they are incapable of living alone on, and claim the problem is people don’t know how to save. If I give you $100 for $110 item you can’t bring me change because there’s nothing left over.
As for your nationalist bias, it’s probable, based on your refusal to acknowledge that inadequate opportunities exist for income for huge swaths of the population. That acknowledgement undermines a perspective and value structure built on the greatness of your country. That’s one explanation for your denial. The second explanation, in the absence of nationalist bias, is a personal bias to protect self worth, where acknowledging that your success is just as much a product of your opportunities as it is product of your abilities, and others lack of success may be just as much a product of their lack of opportunities as it is a lack of ability, changes how you see yourself and your success.
Theoriginajohingait2450
Nicely done with the copy and paste feature! Then what’s the solution, professor?
Orion Simerl
There’s no copy and there, but there are a number of solutions that will increase wages, increase federal revenue, decrease federal spending and increase profits for businesses in certain industries. One is called the round up service charge tax credit incentive. https://www.oplnow.com/round-up-gratuity-tax-credit-incentive/
(Note). YouTube removed the comment for the link so I replied with a disguised link to oplnow.com
—
Fortunately I was able to find a few days of work last week at Tire Hub in Cincinnati that I should be able to stretch until I get paid from this job scanning items. I was hoping to wrap this job up early because if it wraps up by Wednesday and he releases the funds on Wednesday there’s a decent chance of getting it by Friday. That’s probably not going to happen.
I fucked up yesterday with my hand bumping something on my phone where items weren’t scanning. I wasn’t checking to make sure they were scanning I was listening for the beep that notifies you when the item scanned. Something came up from the menu and the scans were not recording. I lost about 2/3rds of an aisle and those aisles take 2 hours an aisle, some more or less depending on the type of items.
It seemed like a job you could move through pretty quickly focusing on the task but there are so many items it takes time even if you’re doing 6 to 10 items a minute. I think 10 items as an average represents the upper limit of what is possible since the barcode is in a different spot on different items. While you may be able to do 15 items in a minute when there’s one brand of similar items, the next brand may have the bar code in a different place, and you may spend 10 seconds just to find the barcode. This is a rough estimate, I didn’t time myself, but the point is, it takes a lot of time.
We have 17.5 aisles left unless there are still areas he has to add. I don’t know how everybody else is moving. It’s kind of a hard job to fuck off on because if you’re not scanning you’re just standing there and that’s the recipe for a slow day. Unless people are moving faster than I am, and they very well may be, we probably won’t finish tomorrow, but should have an early day Thursday.
Mark from Premier called the other day but I missed the call. He sent a text after it. I think it’s about time to do the shower doors on the second tower of the Urby. I have to presume he’s trying to get in contact with me about that. It’s tempting, since I do need the money but I’m really not interested in jumping back into that bullshit. Doesn’t seem like the vehicle.
I was thinking about OPL earlier as I make additions to this paper much slower than I’d like to. I’m writing an analysis on an exchange that shows a bias in ignorance, where a person doesn’t ask obvious questions about a subject because asking those questions challenges their preferred conclusion. This exchange also serves as an example of the development of a personal bias, since there is another exchange with this person who claims she’s concerned about improving wages and decreasing the wealth gap but provides largely non-substantive explanations for why she doesn’t support Round Up Service Charge that would increase wages by between $4 to $15 per hour for about 25 million people who make about half the median individual income on average. Also increases federal tax revenue, decreases federal spending, increases profits for affected industries, and increases wages through market forces for 10s of millions more unskilled workers, among other benefits that come from an empowered underclass consumer, and decreasing the demand for new coin currency. Her resistance seemed like it was more of a bias against me as the source given our history of disagreement, most notably the exchange I’m using as an example.
In thinking about RUSC (I think I mentioned a state adaptation in a recent entry) I thought about how well the OPL strategy was laid out. In prioritizing a proposal that has a direct impact on 10s of million of people who will directly and substantially benefit. Identifying perennially contested districts that on average are decided by 15,000 votes, and many far fewer than 15k, some 1000s, some 100s. Create the voter blocs in those districts that allow this marginal number of people to swing elections and swing the house and use that leverage to gain consent from both parties to pass legislation that serve popular interests. This would happen because neither party would want this group of people to be able to decide elections, so to neutralize that power both parties consent to and pass legislation. Gain consent of industries who will benefit from legislation and benefit from the ability to swing elections to one party or the other, as well gain funding from these industries. This creates a vehicle to pass legislation that serves popular interests every election cycle.
The easy part seemed to be gaining the interest and support of those who would directly benefit from RUSC, but canvasing priced ineffective as people were unable to recognize their own best interests. I couldn’t get a response from media, couldn’t talk to anyone of any value in industries that benefited from RUSC, couldn’t get any meaningful responses from the academic community, political parties, or economically interested activist groups. The point of the reflection is in the failures over this time I forget how sound the strategy was.
Now, I’m going to try the academic route which is a flimsy proposition since the educated are no less committed to their biases and no less limited by their scope of knowledge than is the general public. By scope of knowledge I mean they know their field deeply but their breadth is narrow and their ability to conceptualize new ideas isn’t necessarily much better than the general public. At least for the moment the process and prospect is motivating and contenting.
—
I was correct in my estimation. I finished Wednesday and have ¾ of one aisle to finish and 2 short aisles to finish that should take about 2 to 3 hours. Had I not messed up on Monday I may have been able to finish Wednesday, maybe working an extra hour. It is what it is.
I was a little bit bothered but it makes no difference either way so I’m not going to contest it just for the sake of contesting it. The guy I’m working for said he’s still going to pay me for the full day, but that isn’t the nature of our relationship. Airtaskers is a flat fee to complete a job. He’s already paid the $800 to Airtaskers and upon completion he releases the payment. In his description he mentions $25 an hour 9 to 5 Monday through Thursday to scan items, but the job is still scanning the items for $800. If it was completed on Monday it’s still $800 to complete the job. The result is same so I’m not going to dispute that detail just to dispute it. No sense in creating an unnecessary controversy that could impact payment or impact my review.
10/302023
I was headed to Texas for the winter. I was slowly making my way there looking for work along the way or work I could schedule. I also had a flat tire which ate into my money after finding a moving job in Rolla, MO. I made it to Springfield and my offer was accepted on a 4 day job in Indianapolis for $800. The problem is the job doesn’t start until the 6th. From where I was at it seemed like a good idea to get close to the area.
I’m a little concerned about the job because the poster appears to be out of state and hasn’t used this app before. His ad stated that he needed 4 people so he posted another ad on the app. Someone responded and he didn’t accept their offer. Of course he may have found the other three through another medium. With the app when you accept someone’s offer you have to pay the money to the app and then it goes in escrow and it’s released to me upon the completion of the task.
Today I was near Indianapolis where the job is starting on the 6th. It’ll be difficult to stretch my money that long so I’m constantly checking for postings on CL and other apps. This morning I check postings in Louisville and there’s a moving unload near Louisville for noon. I’m about 2 hours away and it’s 9 o clock. I reply and he says he still needs help but he has to get to the location with the truck to see if he can fit. He provided a preliminary address near the actual address. I drove to about 10 minutes from the area marker.
I text him before noon that when he knows if the truck will fit I’m 10 minutes away. Later he texts me an address and I reply I’m 20 minutes away. As soon as I reply he replies that two guys just showed up.
I called him a piece of shit for lying.
He contended he wasn’t a piece of shit that it didn’t make sense to have 3 guys. I explained that he was a piece of shit for lying and telling me he still needed help. If other guys are showing up at the same time you give me the address that means you already gave them the address and told them to be there. He told me he still needed help and made up the story about needing to see the location in case they didn’t show up. I was pissed off because it cost me $10 in gas to get down here, and it’ll cost me $10 to get back, and I didn’t make any money. After explaining that in fewer words I told him I was on my way. Not that I’d be completely unjustified if I went to the location and whooped his ass, but I’m not looking for the consequences that come with that. I had no intention of going to the address, but I thought I’d tell him that to put a little anxiety on him over the course of the job. Where he has to take a second look at people getting out of their cars and moving around the site.
Instead I worked on my paper just about finishing the point by point analysis for the second case study. It’s flowing pretty smoothly now, probably take a week to finish organizing the case studies, a few days to write the methodology portion, to add references, and edit and format. I should be able to finish most of it this week.
7 days until the job starts but it may be 14 days before I get paid. Right now after my phone bill is deducted I have about $200. Hopefully I can find something for $100 to $200 to get me to the 13th.
Then I’ll probably be headed back to Texas. I have considered going to CA. Mainly because one of the apps I typically find the best jobs through has more jobs posted in CA than any other place. The reason I plan to head back to TX is because it’s warm enough to survive in my current shelter accommodations, and I can usually find enough work during the winter.
I’m a little irritated with myself right now having wasted money on fuel and time heading out to TX and then turning around to work this job next week. I should have probably worked that other job (previous entry) for the few more days it was offered but 3rd shift, a lack of sleep, and other factors prevented that at that time.
Finish this paper. Submit it to a few journals, and maybe create a solicitation.
10/24/2023
I’ve been working on this paper and probably need to start over yet again. The content is simple. Identifying that reality consists of objects in motion, motion consists of cause and effect and since all people have the capacity to understand objects and to sequence motion all things can be understood by all people. Eliminating innate stupidity I identify the barrier to human intelligence and communication which are mechanisms of belief preserving behavior. The inability to communicate is the fundamental problem that human beings have since any negative result can be understood through the causes that produce it and eliminating the cause will eliminate the effect. The research aspect is using organic social media exchanges to show the barriers to communication through the responses from the participants. Participants who do not know they’re participants because the debates are organic. It shows how people who use this platform think and what they believe which is evidence for the mechanism of denial and how their minds organize objects.
The problem I’ve been having is in writing the intro it’s difficult for me to not go to the base components of reality, the perception of it, and the organization of objects and prioritization of objectives which consists of assignment sequencing and comparison. Previous attempts to submit ASC have revealed that people in those fields do not understand it. So I spent a few days writing an ASC summary which includes a lot of unpacking to feel like it won’t be understood, and if not understood they probably won’t finish reading the paper. It’s simple, and I articulate simply the significance of these simple observations. If the significance of what’s being stated is not understood it prevents the conclusions from being understood in their entirety. If you can’t understand how one thing is true, you cannot understand what the consequences are of that thing being true, in the things it causes to also be true, and the things that it precludes from being true. The writing is difficult from a motivational standpoint. I’m writing things I’ve already written and have written better in other places, it’s not an enjoyable endeavor, especially when the chances are very slim.that it will be understood. The sickening part of is it is as simple as it is accurate.
I’m going to need to rework the intro and start over on this paper. Maybe I’ll collect my examples first.
I’ve been thinking about other things as well. Education, the potential of ASC taught to children but even more so about what should be included in the compulsory curriculum. There is a lot that students are forced to learn that has no practical application for most of them, and I think specialization should be introduced earlier to allow students to focus on subjects they’re interested in or that apply to some specific ambition. Also modifying the environment to be less the conditioning of authority and more an opportunity to learn things based on utility, including the welcoming of objection. This requires a lot of research in learning the present curriculum and thought in proposing essential subjects and the degree that one needs to know them, as well as thought in how things can be added and the environment can be more conducive to learning. There’s no guarantee I’ll ever get to that.
I also thought about a different implementation for the Round Up Service Charge to be applied at the state level. Instead of offering businesses a tax credit incentive and exempting them from paying payroll tax on their employees RUSC income, a state could require business that meet the criteria of high volume transaction businesses to implement the RUSC and treat it like a tax appropriated as a benefit to not harm businesses through additional payroll tax. Essentially, it still functions the same where the business is collecting the service charge and distributing it to their employees, but the legislation will treat it like an appropriated tax processed by the employer so it isn’t counted as wages but would still be subject to income tax since it is part of an employee’s income even if not technically paid as a wage. For RUSC info https://www.oplnow.com/round-up-gratuity-tax-credit-incentive/
I don’t know what I’m going to do with the state adaptation but I do have an idea for it should there be an outlet for it. I originally created it the way I did because I wanted to incentive businesses to implement it to gain support from business in order to pass it federally. Something that benefits all parties, the employees, the public in labor market improvements, the public in increases revenue and decreased spending and the businesses in the tax credit. The problem was it was impossible to get a hold of anyone to gain their support. The workers at eligible businesses were unresponsive to in person solicitations. Political parties, universities, and economic justice groups were also unresponsive. No objections, no support, no feedback, just the complete refusal to engage with the idea, or it’s creator and promoter. Or even to engage with the associated idea of OPL, which is a tool to pass legislation.
In the previous entry after all the complaining about the job I recognized an industry inefficiency. Labor decides efficiency and when labor is incentivized there is the potential for the customer to have work completed faster, which means more money for the contractor, subcontractor, and labor. Some may look at that as a sign of a person being smart but it isn’t. It isn’t something that denotes any ability above what the average person possesses when their thought processes are not contaminated by biases and social concerns. It’s merely the perception of objects and the effects that they will produce.
The first object being the labor budget. The job was scheduled for 5 days with 3 laborers being paid $200 per day. Math represents cause and effect sequencing, which defines the labor budget as $3000.
This tells me that the contractor can afford $3000 for the labor on that project and still make profit. Simple objects and cause and effect sequencing.
The effects the labor budget can produce are forecast, where laborers (object) can be incentivized through the labor budget (cause) to complete work faster (effect). Completing work faster (cause) means (effect) the laborers, subcontractor, and contractor make more money, and the customer has their job completed faster. For the customer this may result in more customers or more (effect) sales within the store as the work increases the appeal of the store through an improved appearance (cause), or facilitates better productivity from their employees.
Recognizing an inefficiency based on 7 days of work and a few pieces of information is merely a product of being in reality and understanding the interests of those involved in producing the opportunity.
One of the greatest potentials of my work is the potential to improve human intelligence. Understanding the framework of the mind, what intelligence is, and the impediments of intelligence which largely consists of bias and authority based sequencing. No less important is objective morality, and the implications it has for understanding the nature of existence. No less important is addressing inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money. It’s all essentially one fabric, all connected. If I can attract attention through one thing it’ll open up doors for everything. The other day I just thought about how truly insane it is that these things exist, and I’m the only person who knows about them.
10/21/2023
My dilemma was likely solved through the first day at the new store. The dilemma being whether to work another week at a store about 60 miles east of the current store. In total, there are 7 registers and the jewelry display. The job entails unfastening the accessories on the counter, removing the panels, stripping material on the panels, cutting and adhering new material and putting everything back together. Yesterday we finished 5 registers, and at the beginning of the job scheduled for 5 days we were confident that we could finish it in 4. Stefan told us he would pay us extra if we finished in 4 days.
By the end of the day it was pretty clear that we will probably finish in 3 days. We have two registers, the jewelry display, and some odds and ends. Most likely we’ll finish the registers and probably the doors and drawers for jewelry display tonight. This leaves us the corner guard and strips on the exterior of the jewelry display for tomorrow and there’s no real reason why wouldn’t finish day 3.
After we were pretty well wrapped up Stefan asked Sean if there was an outback in Louisville. He affirmed that there was. He said if we finish day 3 he was going to take us to Outback for a steak dinner. I may be misinterpreting the gesture, but it seems like he’s trying to float the steak dinner in lieu of the extra money he said he’d give us if we finished early. The problem is he didn’t tell us what or how much he would give us for finishing early.
In consideration of this development, if he doesn’t pay us extra when we finish on day 3 I’m definitely not going to the next job. If you budget $3000 for 3 guys for 5 days, and they complete the project in 3, not only is he saving $1200, but 2 days of work, and then you want to give them a $40 steak dinner and take 2 to 3 hours of their time to do it, that’s pretty shiesty in my eyes and I don’t want to help such a person.
He’s also a bullshitter, so this may not be the situation as I see it. He appears to be a subcontractor for a larger company who has the contract for the renovations for these stores. That’s what the situation appears to be but it could be different than that. He may be more of a project manager for the stores who receives a set amount to complete the stores and the company pays his labor. The reason I suspect this could be the case is because someone calls the stores every night to ask how many people are there. There’s no other reason for this unless labor is a direct reimbursement, to make sure he isn’t padding his end of the deal by claiming he’s paying more in labor than he actually is.
Instead of him working off a budget, he may be working for a predetermined amount to complete the job and is reimbursed for labor and materials. If that’s the case, he doesn’t have the room to pay people extra without cutting into his own wages. While initially he may not have expected us to complete the job early which is why he offered the bonus, by the end of the night it became apparent that we would, so he offered the steak dinner as the bonus. For us, we’d be better off dragging ass and stretching it out for 5 days.
This is a suspicion, not necessarily a high probability, based largely off of the contractor calling the store and asking for head count every night. Maybe steak dinner is in addition to a bonus. If that’s the case then maybe I will do the next job.
The work is easy but I don’t like not getting enough sleep. I slept for 3 hours the first night back. Yesterday he said some as shit. He was cutting and I was fastening the corner guards behind him. He pointed out a piece that was short where the ends didn’t match up. He asked me to let him know if a piece a wrong. When we came in on this job there was already corner guards installed that we were replacing. There were gaps between some of the corners where the 45 degree angles meet and there was a caulk in between. I commented to Tim that if that was acceptable my cuts were good on the first job. When he told me I should be checking his work I told him I didn’t know it was wrong be ause there were pieces we pulled off that looked like that. But generally, this is my 5th day doing this work, my 3rd day exposed to applying corner guard, and it’s your vocation. Wtf do I look like telling you I think something you did doesn’t meet quality control standards? How would I know what is and is not acceptable? If you cut the pieces and put them on the table when I come behind you I’m thinking that the work you did is acceptable to you, otherwise you would have redone it. Instead of saying I fucked up we need to redo that piece you try to put it off on me like I fucked up for not catching your mistake that I have no way of knowing is a mistake.
While not influential in my decision to work one more job with him, he mentioned Israel Palestine again. It reaffirms what I talked about the other day when I was talking about American ignorance producing problems out of nothing. Seeking bias reinforcement through subjects that individuals have no interest in. I finished my yogurt and pasta salad and was leaving the break room when he told Sean two weeks ago everything was fine lol. People build conceptions of topics based on headlines, incomplete biased summaries and have no clue what the fuck is actually going on. There’s no purpose in launching into a long winded history of the conflict, the creation of the state, occupation, siege, the conditions imposed, and the maintenance of tyranny by the United States and Israel against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. He isn’t interested in that, he’s interested in appearing like he knows something by parroting propagandist headlines to people who are uninterested in the conflict to appear smart, and to reinforce his own biases. I’m not going to help him or anyone else understand or develop perspective about a subject they’re not interested in.
With all this said I don’t dislike him aside from my underlying dislike of fake self deceiving people which includes most people on this planet, but doesn’t interfere with how I interact with people which is based on their behavior. The work is easy, he’s easy to work with and get along with, and he’s very easy going. I’m also not trying to socialize with him because it doesn’t work. We met up in the parking lot and this particular parking lot has loud music playing through the speakers. There was that song stay with me on the speakers. We were commenting about it and I said something implying that he was playing the music, and said I don’t know yet if I’m going to the next job. To understand the joke you have to be aware of the suggestion that he’s playing the music because he wants us to do the next job with him. Without that awareness my comment just seems like I’m stating out of the blue in an exasperated tone that idk if I’m doing the next job. I started the evening feeling like a jackass.
–
We pretty much finished the job the third night, there were a few hours of work for night four and Stefan and Tim were the only ones working on the 4th day. I’m not upset Tim was chosen for the 4th day he clearly had the most applicable skill to job and should have had the first opportunity.
We saved somebody $1000 on labor essentially finishing 2 days ahead of schedule. As I suspected, Stefan is less of a subcontractor and more of an independent contractor to the contractor. He’s not providing the service stipulated in the contract as much as he is proving services to the contractor that includes fulfillment of the work in the contract. They provide materials and pay for labor and he gets some per job amount for completing the store. He offered to take us to Outback on Friday, but I didn’t respond.
He was BS ing about how investors demanded that Ross update all their stores and now he has more than he can complete. He says that the company he’s with mentions their crew in California completing stores faster but claims the difference is they don’t have to drive as far.
I don’t think this is the difference. If you have a 4 person team who knows what they’re doing you can probably finish a store in 1 to 2 nights. Perhaps the other crew gets a labor budget based on the job. Now instead of not being able to hold a crew together for $200 a night or incentivizing your crew to move slower you have a crew who is incentivized to finish a job for a set amount. At this store scheduled for 5 days that amount would be $3000. Each one of us would earn $1000 to complete the store. The first store had two fewer registers and was 4 days. The next store was the same as the first. There was 100 miles between all three stores and only about 20 miles between the first and the second. If we knew what we were doing there’s no reason we couldn’t have finished all 3 in a week, if incentivized by by a $2800 paycheck. Which is what would be paid out 4 days on the first job, 5 days on the second, and 4 days on the third job. Who knows how much he would make if he could complete 3 jobs per week?
I know these jobs could be completed faster. Despite our lack of experience and mismanagement we finished the second job in 3 days. He would shut down every night about an hour and a half before we could be let out. He also didn’t know how to prioritize tasks to keep us busy. The only reason there were still a few things to do day 4 is because he focused on tasks on day 3 (second job) that left one or more of us without anything to do for long periods of time. For example, instead of having more people than were required to prep for laminate, and replace base and tile, he could had Tim start with corner guards on the completed side and this would have been finished in 3 to 4 hours. Instead we were looking for things to do while he applied laminate and we spent about a half hour pulling and replacing base and about 20 minutes replacing tile. Maybe about 10 minutes taping. The rest of the time we were standing around. He likes to take breaks. We wasted anywhere from 2 to 3 plus per night
If you had 4 people who were effective in all aspects of the job I think you could finish most stores in a night. Mark, Adam, myself, and Chris could do a store a night, with a few weeks experience. I’m not interested in doing that. These are just my thoughts on the inefficiencies of the retail remodeling industry. If the laborers had access to the full labor budget per store, the company would complete more stores and make more money, the quasi sub would make more money, the laborers would make more money, and the customer would get more stores completed faster.
I made my decision not to return on Friday. Then I purchased the remaining things that I needed, laptop, eye exam, a few odds an ends, and a few months on both my websites. Ordered some phenibut the week before. Since deciding not to do the last store in Lexington yesterday I haven’t felt good about the decision. I could have made 400 to 600 dollars next week. There were a variety of factors that led to my withdrawal, and a subconscious insight following a better understanding of the decision.
As previously mentioned the work was easy, the job was managed poorly, and our efficiency was being taken advantage of. The shift was terrible for someone living out of their car. I get about 3 to 4 hours of sleep per night which wreaks havoc on my mind and body. While this part sounds crazy I had call it premonitions or a haunting about the consequences of continuing the work that consisted of details related to things that happened and that I expected to happen. I cannot go into details about those things, and any effort to attempt to sounds crazy. It feels bad not going to Lexington because $400 is about 2 weeks of security in expenses, where now I probably have about 2 weeks of expenses which could be less because I have nowhere to go.
Subconsciously, the work was motivated by the value of the things I needed to purchase, phenibut, contacts, a laptop, web hosting, and a few weeks of expenses to write my paper. Once I have that the comparison between all the negative aspects of continuing with the job and the additional security of making another $400 swings in the direction of foregoing the final store. Consciously the most notable signature is thinking I have two weeks to find another a job, where the subconscious is what is felt thinking about the different aspects of the decision, feelings attached to being offered additional pay that was reduced to a $30 steak dinner, the BS of the job, the sleep deprivation, and the unease that came from the haunting, all of which was not offset by the needs that I already met.
10/15/2023
Finishing the first project with the guy I’m working with taught me that we fuck off for the first 3 days and then hammer on the final day. At least that was the case at this store but some of that was because material didn’t arrive on time. There were parts of the job that we had to do a few times whereas if we had material we’d only have to do it once.
I’m socially off with this group. Some of that I’m sure is due to sleep deficiencies and probably a product of different life experience, perception, and values. Content, timing, and delivery are just off. For example, I knew there was an open box of screws and I was handed a box of screws. I asked if he wanted me to use the open box first and he said it didn’t matter. When I was working FF&E Mark was particular about using the open box. In that setting he might have 20 boxes of screws just to make sure we didn’t run out. At the end of the job he has 3 different kinds of screws and 10 open boxes of each that he can’t return, and he makes his money on how far below he comes in on the budget. The situation reminded me of Mark sarcastically joking one time that the Premier way was to open up a new box anytime you needed a screw so he could never return the excess. I tried to insert that to fit the dialogue but it can’t translate since the nature of Mark and Stefan’s businesses are different in that respect. Over the last few days like I said I’ve just been off.
When we were breaking Stefan was asserting conspiracy about the fire in Maui, money to Iran in a prison exchange, and finished by mentioning how NYC spent over a billion dollars to secure housing for illegal immigrants. I saw that NYC was spending a lot of money renting hotels, but at the time I saw it the billion dollar price tag was a projection of how much it will cost over the span of a year.
I was content not to insert myself into the conversation, first because he didn’t seem like he had any substance to his conspiracy theories, he was more or less speculating, so there’s no conversation that can take place there. Also, I don’t know much about the fire, and it was the first I heard of the prisoner swap so I’m not capable of having a conversation about those subjects aside from disputing details that are in conflict with other known facts. Of course illegal immigration and conspiracy in general I can speak on and had to when he said that I don’t have anything to say about that. This wasn’t a socially off moment, not completely crisp and I ended with an unrelated assertion I didn’t properly unpack, but I did lecture American ignorance from the right and the left producing an illegal immigration problem pretty well.
Since the topic generally was conspiracy, more or less government conspiring against the population I just stated that all acts (of the government) are motivated by the money behind them (industry). The implications being that the government doesn’t have its own interests to advance through conspiracy. I said it was the people’s fault generally because people seek to reinforce bias. Then I used the illegal immigration example to show how American commitment to bias reinforcement is producing an illegal immigration problem when there wasn’t one when it was initially asserted. It’s a post from a few weeks ago (IDK within the previous 10 entries) if you’re interested, I’m not going to rewrite it.
As of now if he calls me Monday as he said he would I plan on doing the next store with him but not the following. I was seriously considering not doing next week’s store last night. We started the day with a few hours of country music which has a self perceivable negative impact on my mood. Some of the music and singers sound good but the content is so disgusting, it bothers me to think how widespread the perceptions are of people who this music resonates with. Half the songs are about a shitty life and struggles within the greatness of America that they don’t understand is producing their struggles. Or over the top love songs, drinking, religion, and other how to be content with inadequate opportunity content. It’s almost like listening to someone chew their food with their mouth open as a parallel for an audible produced sensation.
I was also struggling with a task. About half the work we had left was cutting this plastic decorative corner bead and fastening it to the surface around the register. The first two pieces went together perfectly. Then there were vertical strips already in place from the previous day that were uneven so when I put the top strips in place they weren’t sitting flush. Then my 45 degree angles weren’t matching. Then somehow I kept cutting my strips short and was failing at the task. He asked me how I was doing and I let him know he’d probably be better to have me do something else. I didn’t want to waste time and materials. Later he did the cuts and I did the fastening and we knocked it out pretty efficiently but there was a lot of it. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 screws, pre- and countersink drilled.
The previous day I felt better about my performance having been pretty efficient in the disassembly and reassembly of the jewelry display doors. Efficiency aided by Tim who made a few key observations in the slot to install and remove the sliding door guides, and locating the track on the reinstallation.
My sleep is very important to me at this stage in my life and although the pay is good considering the difficulty of the work, it isn’t above what I can earn through Airtaskers, or even other CL work, if I were to find a few jobs in a week. The difficulty is finding the few jobs in a week. Which is why I’m pretty committed to the next store which is in a city about 10 miles south of where this store was.
Another minor irritant was Sean taking a tool I was using when there was another of the same tool in the inbox. I brought it to his attention and he acknowledged that he should go to the tool box to get a tool instead of borrowing the one I’m using. Seems like a good natured dude(doesn’t intend to be harmful), something I mention as a person who considers the intent of people’s actions.
Everyone performs their role well and I feel fortunate to be working with Sean and Tim.
Stefan irritated me towards the end of the night. There were about 5 corner pieces I needed to drill pilot holes for, counter sink divets, and screw in. Stefan asked Sean to go behind me and screw in the screws where I would just do the drilling. Maybe earlier in the night that could have been a good strategy but I’ve already done 90 percent of using 200 fasteners and had a good system. Sean does one piece and then Stefan put him on something else. When I finished I was tempted to not go back and screw the remaining pieces but ultimately didn’t have anything else to do at that time.
The country music, failing at the task, and most importantly my sleep and desire to get back to this paper had me feeling pretty confident for the first half of the night that I wouldn’t be back on Monday. But by the end of the night and considering what the money means to me right now I think I intend to work the following week. It means phenibut, contacts, laptop, OPL web hosting, and a few weeks of security if supplemented by intermittent work. Right now I have about enough money to make those purchases.
I slept another 4 hours last night. I went to the gym yesterday and my workout was shit. I’m hesitant to go to the gym today based solely on how tired I am. I’d rather rest today, then get a good workout tomorrow and Monday.
10/13/2023
There were two random happenings in succession of one another one that were seemingly the introduction of the same moral dilemma, but very different in terms of circumstance and consequence. If I didn’t delete all my posts about the subject, the following is an example of events in my surroundings that feel like they’re manufactured. That isn’t to say that these events were more than coincidence, it’s just an example of the kind of thing I’m referring to in past posts about feeling experimented on through the manipulation of my environment.
There are more important lessons from these experiences.
In the first experience I went to a vape shop to purchase a coil and vape juice. The total was $24 and some change. The clerk told me I could get a 10 percent discount if I provided them basic information for marketing purposes and brand loyalty. I did and I tipped him a dollar since he presumably saved me about $2.50 on my purchase.
In my vehicle I noticed I had two coils. I went back and forth for a few minutes in comparison, in going back in and returning the coil, the effort, as well as the price even after a supposed 10 percent discount where the products were being sold above market value. I ultimately decided to keep the coil because of a perception. That perception being that the act would be seen as image promoting, or doing something to improve yourself worth based on a belief that others have a higher opinion of you for the act. The value was to preserve self worth from the anticipation that I would perceive the act as being perceived that way, and I believe the price paid was fair market value since I’ve often purchased those products for much less than $27. The company didn’t lose money even if through error the company didn’t get the full asking price. Secondly, it isn’t wrong that I kept it because you cannot impose on my liberty to correct your error. Even if it is just a minute or two and a 30 yard walk round trip. You don’t get to make me do. That’s retrospective, in the moment I didn’t like the anticipated feeling of looking like I was trying too hard to be good, the idea had self worth implications.
Immediately after the vape shop I went to Walmart. At Walmart I scanned my items and was about to pay cash at a self checkout. I reached into my wallet and grabbed a bill but when I went to insert it there was already a $20 that someone must have left behind. I grabbed it and looked for an associate. I saw the associates but they were too far away to holler out to.
I decided I would pay for my items and walk the $20 over to them. The store associate saw me looking around as if I needed assistance and asked me if I needed help with something. I explained the situation and gave her the $20. She said “oh my tip”.
We know why I made myself the benefactor of the vape shops error, I didn’t like what it looked like to correct it, and I felt their prices were above the market average. In this situation I’m thinking I don’t know how bad the person who left that $20 needs that $20. The money loses its value to me because I could have made somebody’s life very hard by keeping it, and the value of the $20 is not greater than the feeling that comes from having created the possibility that such a person could reclaim their money after thinking they had lost it.
—
I’ve had 3.5 hours, 4 hours, and 5 hours of sleep the last 3 nights. Yesterday I was too tired to work out, that fact manifested through the justification that sleep deprivation compromised immune function so I should avoid additional stress from exercise to minimize my chances of getting sick. Rarely sick, but I am very conscious of the impact on my mind and body from not getting enough sleep. Yesterday I decided that I’ll stop stressing about it, where it’s a subject of attention and a priority. Where I’m spending 2 hours or more per day with my eyes closed trying to fall asleep. I’ll sleep these upcoming days off, work the following week, and then I have a decision to make.
There’s a third store and another week of work about 75 miles from next week’s store. I honestly don’t know if I’m going to do it. Obviously if it was next week today I’d say yes I’m going to do it, but I’m in bad shape from not sleeping well over 3 days, so there’s no telling what I’m going to feel like after next week. It’s just the 3rd shift and my circumstances are least conducive to that shift because it’s bright outside during the day. I really don’t want to miss that money either though. I think I ended the last entry on that same dilemma.
10/11/2023
A man asks generally if others have been keeping up with what’s going on. It was in reference to the recent developments between Israel and Palestinians in Gaza. He said they’re decapitating babies, they cut 40 babies’ heads off. This immediately struck me as Israeli propaganda. I searched for the source and the source is the IDF. The IDF took journalists through an area that was attacked and told journalists that they found decapitated babies.
Men, women, and children were massacred but the claim that 40 babies were decapitated is not true. In fact the daily mail reported that 40 young children including babies were killed. This isn’t to minimize the appalling nature of the event, but there’s definitely a difference in the implications, especially when taken in isolation. As awful as this incident is, people should have that same level of repulsion to it when it has been done on a much larger scale to Palestinians. In operation cast lead homes, buildings, schools, and other civilian infrastructure was destroyed. 1400 men and women were killed including 300 children. That’s one example among many, to say they haven’t done anything to Israelis, that Israelis haven’t done to them. I’ll condemn the Palestinians for their atrocities, when others condemn Israel for theirs. That isn’t to say I ever condone the harming of children, just that I think I can I understand it. When a nation has killed your children, I imagine that such an experience would cause people to want to kill the children of that nation.
First you don’t turn on your TV and listen to your favorite brand of propagandist news and understand the nature of the conflict. It has nothing to do with religion, prior to the early 20th century there was no animosity between Arab Muslims and Jews in the region. At the end of the 19th century Theodor Hertzel created Zionism based on his book the Jewish state intent on establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Jews from around the world began to migrate to Palestine, buy land, and build Jewish communities. They also lobbied the British government which was important as WWI put Palestine under British authority.
During the rise of Hitler and WWII Jewish immigration to Palestine increased dramatically. By 1948 about 32 percent of the population was Jewish, but Jews still owned only 6 percent of the land. In 1948 while the world was sympathetic to the atrocities suffered by the Jewish people Britain made good on the Balfour Declaration and created Israel, a homeland for Jewish people in Palestine. Israel was awarded 56 percent of the best land and the Palestinians awarded 42 percent.
The Palestinians didn’t agree with the UN decision which led to a war and a myth. The myth being that Israel supported by their deity stood up to all the neighboring Arab forces and was victorious. In actuality Israel’s ties to Britain left them superior fire power and what little support Arab nations did provide the Palestinians was uncooperative because the goal wasn’t the creation of an independent Palestinian state, the goal was for each supporting power to get something out of the victory. Under the British mandate Jews supported the British in putting down insurrections and the Palestinians were disarmed prior to the conflict.
Israel used its victory to expand its borders. After expanding its borders forcibly expelled the Palestinians, people who had lived there for generations on a moment’s notice were forced to leave their homes. There were massacres and rapes.
For the last 30 years or so the West Bank has been occupied and under siege and Gaza has been under siege. By under siege I mean they have no official interaction with the outside world that isn’t regulated by Israel. Israel continues to expand settlements in the West Bank. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”.
The United States has forged an alliance of mutual interest so international law doesn’t apply to Israel, since the US has a veto in the UN Security Council, and is the dominant military power in the world by a large margin. The position of the United States is that a two state solution can only come through direct negotiations. Israel has no interest in the creation of a Palestinian state.
For decades this has left Palestinians under the complete control of Israel. In the West Bank Palestinians do not even have freedom of movement, are subject to arbitrary search and arrest, are murdered by the IDF, are murdered by settlers, and are still being expelled from their homes as Israel continues to expand into the territory. Neither Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza can freely import or export. If you remember the Gaza Flotilla years ago where efforts were being made to send humanitarian aid were being turned away by Israel, and one vessel was attacked 10 civilians were killed.
There’s an ebb and flow of Hamas responding to Israelis’ tyranny, followed by the bombing and invasion of Gaza. What else can they do? They cannot develop and have any decent quality of life. They will never have a two state settlement, and eventually Israel will annex the West Bank through settlement expansion. You have no freedom and your oppressor murders your children and your people. It’s one thing to not understand savagery when it is unprovoked, and it’s another when it’s reciprocation.
No one should ever consider themselves incapable of an act that hadn’t been perpetrated against them. What would you do if one day you had to pull the bodies of your wife, child, and your neighbors out of rubble from a bombed out building? If those responsible for it denied you to develop economically, to import and export, to have basic necessities like piped water, clean water, or water that didn’t cost a large percent of your income? If they said you couldn’t have a country, and we’re actively taking the territory that is at least yours in name. There are few jobs, very little money, many people without enough to food to eat, on top of repeated bombings, detentions, and massacres. Living with no freedom, and no prospect of freedom.
It isn’t necessarily that the Palestinians atrocities are right because their actions are reciprocation. It’s that Israel is responsible for the nature of the relationship. Israel refuses a two state settlement and is content on maintaining siege and occupation and absorbing the relatively small peeps of retribution while they expand settlements and can eventually annex the West Bank. The Palestinians can do nothing.
I haven’t been following developments because the subject has become irrelevant to me. Israel and the US have no interest in creating a Palestinian state so no two state settlement is possible. A few years ago I left the subject proposing the only realistic solution to peace and prosperity for both Israel and Palestine.
I proposed that the Palestinians collectively sell the land nationality to Israel and distribute the money to the population on the condition that those who receive money take up citizenship in a country abroad. Nations would make pledges to fast track citizenship for Palestinians who accept the offer. 360 Billion dollars is a per head allocation of roughly 84 thousand dollars per head. This means the average household would leave with 528 thousand dollars. Likely more because unused funds due to the preference not to participate will be distributed to those who did participate at the conclusion of the program. The program costs 5 billion dollars to initiate which includes travel, and administrative costs. This figure represents about 60% of the annual Israeli budget. If needed Israel could borrow the money for this investment or raise the money through the sale of land for development by international investors. Considering the savings on security and defense in the coming years the price will be recouped and then some.
Palestinians may not accept this, but if Israel made the offer, at least they would have an option. Otherwise, the Palestinian future will be the same as the Palestinian past, culminating in Israel absorbing the West Bank and Gaza.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, which will be determined by how effectively Israel can market the attack. The next step may be the occupation of Gaza where Israel may try to establish a West Bank situation in Gaza. This was unsuccessful in the past which is why Gaza has essentially been left to drown in its own swaller, aided by intermittent invasion and bombing. I don’t know if it could lead to anything more than this, but convincing large portions of the world population that Hamas is worse than Isis creates consent for a lot of action, including the potential annexation of the Palestinian Territories.
—
As for me, I am tired. I found a multi-week project paying $200 a day but it’s a long 3rd shift, 9pm to 7am. I slept about 3.5 hours. I have the opportunity to work about 12 days out of the next 3 weeks. I’m pretty sure I’m going to work the next two weeks to catch up on expenses and have a little bit of a cushion until the next job comes up and I work on this paper. I need to pay my OPL hosting in a few weeks, I need an eye exam and contacts, phenibut, a laptop, a new hat, and an oil change. Then I’ll probably be headed south for the winter.
I am aware of the impact of sleep deprivation on my mind, mood, and health. I worry in part about how the paper could be affected through this work and the duration of my participation. Based on expenses and the opportunity for temporal security I probably need to work the next two weeks, but with the opportunity to work a third week it is difficult to leave $800 on the table, so I’ll see when I get there.
10/2/2023
Money is running low and worthwhile opportunities have been minimal. My circumstances continue on a cycle of not being, and being stressed about upcoming expenses. A very small amount of money determines how my mood and values are impacted. If I have over $200, despite my circumstances generally being as they are, I don’t feel stress from the impending inability to meet my expenses. Very basic expenses like food and fuel. I’ve been semi stranded a few times waiting for money from jobs I get through Airtaskers. Above $200, although what I can do is obviously limited by my lack of funds, mood isn’t impacted by stress that comes from the impending inability to meet basic necessities.
Above $100, but below $200, the stress is introduced, but it’s caused by a different perception. It isn’t the inability to meet upcoming expenses, it’s the anticipation of being below $100 and the stress that accompanies that situation that produces the stress at the intermediate level. Essentially, I know how it feels under $100, and the stress is a product of feeling what you anticipate you’ll be feeling in that situation as you see it on the horizon.
Under $100 the stress increases as my money decreases and may increase more when I have a phone bill, gym dues, or website hosting upcoming (10 days or less).
There are times where I’m momentarily well above $200, but the problem is expenses I put off have to be caught up on, tires, oil changes, phenibut, contacts, etc. I’m almost out of phenibut and there’s no reason to believe I’ll have the money to order some anytime soon. I was without it for at least a few months and that had significant perceivable impacts on my mood. We can isolate that and understand that there is stress in knowing soon I’ll be without phenibut. There have already been many quality of life reducing transitions that have been made in the last 9 months. Each impending is its own separate stressor, all of which are worn together as general financial stress.
I’m down to about $40 and the under $100 stress is present. It’s actually compounded by the anticipation of the $100 to $200 stress, since I do have about $100 coming tomorrow or the next day from a patio furniture assembly I did on Saturday. I haven’t been able to find anything else since then.(Today is Tuesday 10/3 job was 9/31).
There was a CL post in Columbus about loading junk I saw too late on Sunday, and it was reposted Monday. I recognized the ad from some of the content as having been posted a few months back when I was in the area looking for work. There’s a line that’s very telling where the poster states he doesn’t want to see anyone’s underwear so if their pants aren’t worn as he wants them to be worn he’ll tell them to fuck off. It may have been this ad and it may have been another where a dress code is prescribed as cargo pants and some other goofy shit that doesn’t have anything to do with the service.
I did respond, but only because it was the third time I saw the ad and each time I saw it I thought what a cunt. I wrote that it was no wonder why he couldn’t find anyone that wants to work with him because he seems like a cunt based on the ad. If he found anyone who did good work and wanted to work with him the day before he wouldn’t have posted the ad the following day, and if he found anyone a few months prior he wouldn’t have posted either of the ads.
First, if he doesn’t want to see people’s underwear, maybe he shouldn’t be looking at people’s ass and genitals, and then no matter how people were wearing their pants he wouldn’t be seeing anyone’s underwear. It isn’t something that matters to the service, but seeks to establish authority over the individual. He thinks he is or he’s trying to pay someone to do what he says, when he should be trying to find someone who will load and unload junk.
What quality of workers are you going to find who are interested in that arrangement? You’re going to find people who are either very desperate at the moment and they may give you one good day, or you’re going to find people who have low levels of pride. Someone who doesn’t have pride in themselves and in what they do, is a person who is going to do the minimum required to get the money. By trying to impose subjective preferences you immediately reduce the field of workers to those who are least likely to perform well or least likely to return.
In interstate moving I hired multiple people who worked well who sagged their pants. People who I took on the road I let know I didn’t care what they did so long as it didn’t compromise their performance on the job. I had two young dudes with me who drank 211s in the morning on the way to a pick up. When we got there there was no one indication that they were drunk, had been drinking, and we completed the job efficiently and with the appearance of professionality.
In construction I supervised multiple crews on multiple jobsites and rarely had to tell anybody to do anything, outside of how things needed to be done. A lot of weed smoking pants sagging mother fuckers did good work.
My pants are typically worn on my waist so the rule doesn’t apply, but I don’t provide do as you say services, I provide labor services, so that wasn’t really an opportunity for me.
This entry was really just to chronicle the spectrum of financial stress, where it begins, how it evolves and compounds, and the objects generally and specifically that produce the feelings through the thoughts.
Addition
I didn’t want back to back entries about the impact of financial stress and the influence it has on behavior and perspective. I wrote the preceding on Tuesday, today is Friday.
Thankfully, I did find a job that didn’t pan out but I was still paid for it. Otherwise I had that $100 from the furniture assembly that was half gone on food and gas. Which has put me in a position where I have a matter of days to find a job or I am going to be without everything. That does not feel good. With nowhere to go, nothing to do, and no way to influence the outcome I want, I put more and more time into unproductive outlets that remove the feeling not only of being trapped, but trapped on a conveyor belt headed towards increasingly worse circumstances. Acknowledgement of immediate and impending circumstances, and experience the stress of both.
Putting together a new project and believing it is going to generate any attention is a longshot with a proven track record of the opposite. When I have enough money the project takes on life because it seems worth doing. When every moment has the underlying feeling of impending dread, this influences your thoughts to feel like it’s not worth doing. That’s a subconscious objective to remove the negative feelings imposed by the circumstances. One manifestation has been playing more phone games. The justification is over time you earn some money, and it has helped me out, but the motivation now is more about being engaged in the game and experiencing the positive feelings from that engagement, which temporarily suspends awareness of the circumstances that produce the stress. Playing spades online has been my highest valued objective because I can’t find work, so it’s the subconscious identifying the game as highest valued objective within my circumstances, to create a positive feeling within negative circumstances.
On Tuesday when I wrote the first part of this entry, I felt pretty good for only having $40 on me, but I knew I had the $100 coming on Thursday. Now that that has come and passed the pressure has kicked up in a way I did not anticipate on Tuesday.
The hope is something will come along soon. If not we’ll see what happens. I’ve mentioned in previous entries why this happens to be the best life has to offer me, because you cannot market truth to a people committed to biases and values that rely on a false understanding of reality. I can’t sell a book, sell a class, gain support for legislation that benefits all impacted interests, or gain funding in the organization of those ends. I work to save money to promote and nothing happens. Or I survive in the interest of the possibility that something will change knowing the probability that it will not. General ignorance denies the market value of my discoveries, insights, and ideas, that doesn’t change the value they’d have to an intelligent species that prioritized intelligence.
Addition 2
It’s unfortunate I didn’t write the thought down yesterday, but I was going to add that this stress can pass instantaneously. One job that puts me back to a place where I have basic expenses covered for about the next week while looking for jobs immediately relieves the stress and changes perception and prioritization. My mind shifts to potential outlets and the procuring of needs past due. I need contacts, a laptop, phenibut, and have a big expense next month for OPL website hosting. I like to have the money I have now, then the cost of an expense before I make the purchase. Otherwise the cost of the purchase puts me back into financial stress.
It’s also somewhat important to note that I did not take any phenibut yesterday, which probably played a role in amplifying the stress. Amplification through deduction, where without the phenibut there isn’t enough of a boost to my mood to interrupt the cycle of negative thoughts and negative feelings. Contrived optimism isn’t helpful because the circumstances are real. I imagine if I subscribed to the notion of positive thinking or faith contributing to outcomes as is the superstitious fad, then each time I’m approaching the brink of collapse I would think the positive thinking had something to do with it.
Before I found this job I was going to take a poor day. Spend no money, eat a few pb sandwiches, clean out my car, and monitor CL and the other apps I use to find work. It essentially buys me another day for something to come up. It seemed better to do that when I still have about $100 than to do that when I have $20. When you’ve been looking everyday for a week and nothing has panned out there’s nothing to say that you won’t have another week like that.
It comes on incrementally and passes immediately. It’s the slow boil of the frog in the sense that it builds as circumstances deteriorate but it’s easy not to notice until you reach the boiling point. At the boiling point or near it the aggressive responses that it produces if the circumstances are not addressed fuels more aggressive responses. There were a few minor incidents over the last few days I didn’t chronicle because it could be perceived as braggadocio, but any of these 3 incidents could have quickly escalated into something very consequential
9/30/2023
I began compiling for a paper to demonstrate how biases asserted to preserve values obstruct communication and limit intelligence. Including authority based thinking which is in part a product of bias. What that means is I intend to use social media exchanges to show how people are prevented from understanding things that challenge their beliefs. This possibility of an outlet is a boost in mood over the duration of the project. If it proves ineffective then I’ll add another book to my website and resume my despondency at that time.
I don’t have an elevator pitch. Had a brief conversation at the gym with a man who asked me about the website on my shirt. I made a few points but wasn’t as sharp or pointed as I should be. This is due in part to the breadth of the subject matter, but probably more so because I haven’t been promoting in awhile. Since everything is novel, everything requires a summary explanation that has to be unpacked but can rarely be unpacked through a casual conversation. A sub par performance, but not too bad considering the circumstances.
The last few days after beginning to write and compile, I broadened the scope of the aforementioned paper. As I was about to write the core elements from the foundation of assignment, sequencing, and comparison, I realized I was recreating content that has not been understood previously. The protection of value through biased governance is the defining characteristic of human beings, and ultimately the source of all human problems, so I’m going to limit the scope of the paper to demonstrating barriers to communication through social media exchanges, and identifying the causes through deduction.
I’ll also be defining intelligence since some findings of bias could be challenged on the basis that some people are not smart enough to understand things. This is for the most part BS. Obviously people who have physiological impairments or disease may have a limited capacity for intelligence, but absent physical cognitive impairments all people are capable of understanding all things. What a person knows is a product of values and biases that direct attention and prevent them from learning things that challenge their beliefs.
How do I know this? Reality as perceived through the conscious experience reduces to objects in motion within space and time. Motion is the product of cause. Everything that is, is because of some preceding cause. This means all knowledge reduces to objects arranged in cause and effect sequencing. Absent biases where a person refuses to accept an observation because of the impact it will have on their values, all people have the capacity to understand all things, because all complexity reduces to objects assembled in cause and effect sequencing
Half of intelligence is the unbiased ability to identify causes, and the other half is the ability to understand the effects objects can produce in utility to some valued end.
I was on FB collecting some exchanges and there was a Neil Degrasse Tyson post about people denying the existence of metaphysical spaces. I supplied an explanation for the most likely cause of existence based on the conscious experience and the function of the universe. I deleted it the following morning. The main reason is because it will be mostly understood at the margins and this understanding can create prejudice against me. Where people do not fully understand the explanation and think my main goal reduces to this explanation when it isn’t a priority. Priorities are the promotion of liberty and truth, to correct self deception and inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money, elevating the general intelligence of human beings and producing quality of life improvements. The existential explanation is just the most ideal and probable explanation for existence.
On every subject where something cannot be known definitively, a person’s preponderance of evidence leads them to believe one thing or another about it, even if they don’t share the position with others.
Everything that is, is the result of some preceding cause. To understand what caused the universe to exist we can identify why the universe exists based on what it does.
I’m not an astronomer or physicist but when the universe settled into its current state it began as one element. This element through the forces of its environment combined and created stars and these stars created more elements. These elements combined to create more complex structures. Fundamentally, the universe exists to create random complexity. The most complex structure the universe can create is life. The universe exists to create life randomly.
What purpose does the random creation of life serve? Many people believe that a tyrant deity created human beings to stroke his ego and serve him for eternity, or be tormented for eternity. They hedge that bet through praise, prayer, worship, and obedience. While specific beliefs are internally and externally contradictive, generally there is no evidence for such deities existing, and logically such behavior is irrational.
There’s no evidence of any result on this planet being produced by supernatural means. This fact has two major implications. The first being praise, prayer, worship, and obedience serve no material purpose. The only purpose those acts serve is the positive feelings generated by the false beliefs that motivate the acts. Second, it demonstrates that the creator doesn’t impose on his creation which suggests morality and purpose.
Morality in the sense that supernatural intervention into human affairs even when benevolent disadvantages all relative to the benefactor, it’s essentially circumstantial imposition, but also imposes on human will generally by denying human beings the opportunity to produce their own results.
Purpose is implied because absent a moral principle preventing supernatural interference, supernatural interference may be abstained from I’m order to not contaminate the results.
Morality, what is believed to be right and wrong is a determinant of conscious motion. People typically abstain from action they believe is wrong. Understanding morality as a determinant of conscious motion creates a core moral duality.
Desire is present at all times. The human constant is that at all times all people want to do what they want to do. In the absence of imposition all beings can do as they please which is ideal. This means objectively, right action is unimposing and wrong action is imposing. It also means any moral code that claims an unimposing act is wrong, or an imposing act is right is the imposition of a subjective preference. There is one morality of liberty, and there are an infinite amount of moral codes based on tyranny because there are an unlimited number of subjective preferences that can be imposed from one to others. There is a lot of unpacking of liberty to demonstrate it is 100 percent applicable and correct to all possible circumstances in all possible spaces containing two or more conscious beings.
The deity belief is now irrational for two reasons. The first is the observable fact that there is no supernatural intervention taking place on our planet. The second relates to the question of the survival of consciousness after death. If consciousness survives death and there is a heaven and hell so to speak, these separate spaces exist to accommodate the motion of different modes of morality. One space all beings are governed through liberty based morality and do anything they want that does not impose on others. In the other space beings impose on one another as they please, presumably competing for supremacy. Deity belief is irrational because if consciousness survives death, and if separate spaces exist, people go to the space that is consistent with their moral understanding and application, not to the place some benevolent tyrant deity places them based on their efforts to stroke its ego.
Personally I do believe consciousness survives death and I do believe there are separate spaces. I will explain momentarily why I believe consciousness survives death, but I believe there are separate spaces because one space for both modes of morality would produce eternal conflict as the Libertees propensity to prevent and neutralize imposition would be in constant conflict with Tyrant to impose. It’s unlikely the universe would come into being in that scenario. Whether consciousness survives death and separate spaces exist for the habitation of consciousness is irrelevant to morality and behavior. Separate spaces shouldn’t motivate moral behavior because liberty is ideal for human beings, it is inherently beneficial, and doesn’t require the fear of consequence, only acknowledgement of self interest.
The idea that a tyrant deity created human beings to be his servants for eternity or to be tormented for eternity projects evil onto a creator. These are circumstances the creator would not want to exist within, and purposes it would not want to exist for. Deity worship is irrational because the deity doesn’t benefit people while alive, doesn’t benefit people if consciousness survives death, it assigns an evil purpose to existence, and is unideal. Why would you believe in an all powerful deity who is evil and unideal, since being all powerful he could be ideal? The deities can also be exposed through the details of their doctrines, in internal and external contradictions, and the dictates even if universally followed not producing human behavior that is beneficial to human beings, or being at odds with inherent human desires.
The general conclusion concerning a creator, is that the creator cannot create beings for purposes it would not want to exist for. At most a conscious creator creating conscious beings is reproducing.
Why does the universe exist to randomly produce life? Whether 1 creator, or an innumerable amount, an all powerful eternal being or beings in an eternal space of limitless potential have a problem. Imagine you were in a space where you could create and experience anything. How long would it take you to create and experience everything so many times that none of it was worth doing? It doesn’t matter how long because you exist for an eternity and what can be created and experienced is limited by the experience of the beings in that eternal space.
To overcome this problem requires the existence of something that is able to create life randomly, to add to the experience of the space. The universe is exactly the solution to the problem of a space of limitless potential being limited by the experiences of the beings who inhabit the space. The universe is the facilitator of perpetual liberty by ensuring the beings have access to new experiences and new beings that are not the product of their experiences.
In this, there is also perfect reciprocity between creators and creation, and a certain irrelevancy to moral governance beyond what that moral governance produces for the species. Reciprocity in that everything created by the creation adds to the enrichment of eternal spaces. A species that is entirely tyrannical still benefits eternal spaces through all the things they created which can then be incorporated into the spaces of limitless potential. The consciousness that survives death will all be incorporated into the space of tyranny as they’ve chosen but that doesn’t prevent a space of liberty from benefiting from everything they have produced.
I believe consciousness survives death first because of the utility it has to eternal spaces, and due to moral necessity. Any creator would not want to exist and then cease to exist, so to create a universe that produces consciousness only for that consciousness to cease to exist is essentially creation for the purpose of murder. Obviously, the more beings a space of limitless potential has whose moral understanding and application is liberty the more that space can create and the beings can experience, so survival of consciousness has utility within this most probable existential theory.
9/27/2023
Illegal immigration is a clear example of how the American people’s commitment to biases produces problems. It was a bipartisan effort. People in this country from the left and the right developed strong opinions about a subject they weren’t interested in understanding.
In 2015 when Trump was running for office he campaigned on the issue that illegal immigration was a big problem. He campaigned on this idea first because it was politically advantageous since people on the right have been conditioned to believe that illegal immigration threatens their way of life, as well as a justification as to why poor Americans are not doing better. Secondly, to give a bunch of public funds to private companies to build a wall.
If anyone from either side had any interest in the subject they would have looked at the historical trend. In 2000 there were 1.6 million cbp apprehensions at the border. From 2009 to 2015 there were less than 500k each year with most years remaining below 400,000 apprehensions. As apprehensions increase or decrease presumably the number of people who are attempting to cross the border has increased or decreased. If people wanted to understand the problem they’d have discovered that there was no problem with illegal immigration when republicans were promoting the idea that there was.
Second, they could have researched the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the United States and would have discovered that there were a million fewer illegal immigrants (2015) from the southern border than there had been several years prior, representing close to a 10 percent reduction in the estimated number of illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration wasn’t a problem when Trump and republicans campaigned on and convinced their supporters that it was. It takes all of about 10 minutes to research the correct position.
How did half the country believing illegal immigration is a problem produce an illegal immigration problem? Since the republicans drew attention to a problem that was not a problem the democrats took an extreme opposite position to create support against the republican position and absorb new fringe (illegal immigration) proponents into their party. The election of Biden and rhetoric and policies removed the deterrent of being deported and encouraged people to begin immigrating illegally. It still wasn’t a problem until 2021 where we jumped to over a million apprehensions, and in 2022 we had over 2 million apprehensions. Significant since from 09 to 2020, the US averaged 438,000 apprehensions per year.
A prime example of how the ignorance of the American people produces problems for the American people. If republicans do not promote it as a problem when it was not a problem we don’t have the democrats federally promoting rhetoric and policy that led to what appears to be an illegal immigration problem.
Great for Trump(or Desantis) 2024, especially since democrats are reversing on that rhetoric and policy, and bussing immigrants to blue states has produced images that are very effective propaganda. Bussing exaggerates the problem but I think it is an effective tool to discourage rhetoric that produces border insecurity. Exaggerates it in the sense that if you concentrate the number of people in an area it’s going to create a problem that wouldn’t exist in natural disbursement.
American ignorance has created a spike in illegal immigration. It’s the people, not industry, politicians, or the media, just the people’s choice to believe what feels good instead of what is observed.
–
The following are just comments I had about two irrelevant stories I saw.
On Twitter, Megan Kelly commented on how the Senate changed their dress code and they should just put on a suit. There were a number of tweets supporting the message. I commented it was another thing to add to the ever increasing list of things Americans are concerned with which are irrelevant and have no impact on their interests. Kelley knows people generally have a negative opinion of the Senate and commenting on that thing in a negative way will draw attention because it reinforces her audiences negative stereotype of the Senate. Not necessarily knowingly, she probably takes the position because it reinforces her own biases that will resonate with her audience.
Yesterday while I was at the gym I saw a news channel reporting on Russel Brand being charged with sexual assault. It’s covered because Brand has been a vocal opponent of the news station. I’m not a fan of Brand, but reporting the allegations is irrelevant to the interests of the American people but it’s reported to discredit him, and because it will resonate with people who have a negative opinion of him. It makes them feel good to know something bad has happened to someone who they don’t like. Otherwise, completely irrelevant to their interests.
9/16/2023
I still receive FB notifications from a group I haven’t participated in in months. Participation is little more than an irritant when what’s being stated isn’t understood evident by the replies and exchanges. I saw a post that was essentially lamenting self deception, or the refusal to acknowledge information that challenges beliefs. This is the defining feature of this species that takes place through mechanisms I am very familiar with. I consider that human feature to be responsible for my circumstances.
I made the following comment on the post
Comment:
The worst part about it is it’s difficult to know if a person cannot accept a point because of the implications the point has for their perspective, where the response is a product of conscious or subconscious denial; or if the person cannot understand the point because their ability to think has been contaminated by making assignments of truth based on feeling, and now their reality and ability to comprehend is completely arbitrary. I don’t know if anybody in this group comprehended anything I wrote in it. Criticism or praise showed comprehension at the margins that failed to demonstrate an understanding of the points being made. Lost zero arguments in this group, but stopped participating because there is no benefit in arguing with people who do not understand what you’re saying.
Self deception, which is what people do when confronted with information that challenges their beliefs is rooted in subconscious function. The subconscious is always set to objectives to produce positive feelings. This is why people consume information that reinforces beliefs (a person’s truth is associated with their identity and identity is the basis for self worth(1))because it produces positive feelings, but also avoid challenging information which produces negative feelings. The negative feeling is a threat response because a person’s value of objects is under threat. The first object being their value of self where if they do not have a high enough value of the truth(2), they will feel bad for being wrong, and may lose a part of their identity. For example, if a person has a nationalist identity and learn the country was not founded on the principles they believed it to be founded on that’s a huge blow to their identity. The same as a racial justice activist discovering that race is not a source of disadvantage takes away a great portion of their identity and takes the joy out of a great deal of things they do in life.
1: Being right is validation of what we know and what we are. When something builds on what we think we know speaking to an underlying point of something we believe that validation causes us to see ourselves as being right, having knowledge, or being intelligent which is the basis for positive feelings rooted in the increase of self worth.
2: Identity is a product of values, we are what we like, unless the truth is the top identifying value, seeing ourselves as wrong can reduce self worth. When truth is a high or the highest identifying value there typically isn’t the negative feeling and self worth improves as the individual recognizes their truth becoming more complete. The quickest path to right is abandoning what was wrong. A high value of the truth, in understanding it’s utility, causes truth to become an identifying value, and self worth improves through the discovery of something believed to be true actually being false. Self deception is caused by a person being ignorant of how truth serves their self interest, the moral implications of self deception, followed by material benefits they may get from maintaining a lie, and an inflated value of the perception of others. The last point meaning the maintenance of a belief appearing to be true to others is believed to improve others perception of them, and perceiving others as perceiving them better improves their self worth.
The 2nd aspect of denial is maintaining our value of objects. Much of what people like and do in their day to day life relies on their perspective and their perspective consists of what they believe is true. Changing what they believe is true often takes away what they can experience joy from because values rely on our beliefs remaining intact. If the racial justice activist discovers their cause has no basis, they can no longer be important in that group, no protests, no blog posts, no moral affirmations through those efforts, and for many, huge material losses in the money they made through the promotion of the cause. Worse still, there is the negative feeling that comes from all previous efforts being for nothing resulting in a loss of self worth.
Often people will become angry, fearful, or disgusted and remove themselves from the controversy. Or as was my situation in this group you become frustrated because people cannot comprehend and you remove yourself because there’s no satisfaction in being unable to convey any information.
The last form of denial is conscious denial where a person may comprehend the points but pretends that they do not.
There is the will not. But there’s also the cannot. That is pretty much how I summarized it earlier. These are people who are scatter minded(3). When they receive a piece of information they’re often unable to connect it with succeeding pieces of information to understand what is being stated. Often to protect their beliefs which they may perceive as being challenged based on comprehension on the margins they will try to challenge that piece removed from context while failing to recognize how their challenge means nothing to the central point one way or another.
3: In digging into past perspectives, inferences from observing others and comparing those things to my present perspective scatter minded I would best describe as unconnected patches of short sequenced objects. In other words, in the sea of a person’s mind there are all these blocks of a few pieces of information, their understanding only goes a few causes and effects deep and most of it cannot be connected to form a cohesive picture. New information is contaminated by how it relates to these blocs of understanding, but it isn’t perceived as the object that it is and isn’t connected to succeeding pieces of information. There is no innate capacity for intelligence beyond inborn physical cognitive defects. Reality consists of objects in motion and motion consists of cause and effect sequencing. All complex things reduce to simple objects in cause and effect sequencing. Which is why I’ll sometimes call people stupid, because it isn’t an innate disadvantage, it’s a choice of values.
The worst part about not being able to communicate information that challenges beliefs is you don’t know if it’s subconscious denial where the preservation of values prevents comprehension, if it’s conscious denial, or if they cannot understand due to a lifetime of poor thinking habits.
9/13/2023
I’ve written on several occasions that every place is a different proportion of different ignorance. I mention this because I’ve never itemized what those different brands of ignorance are. There are democrats, and republicans, and there are those who don’t understand that their indifference to government affairs impacts their circumstances and the circumstances of others. Why I cannot support republicans comes down to 3 core elements, and a few issues stemming from those 3 core elements. But the core elements consist of false beliefs tied to the nature of existence and identity.
I do believe the Republicans are the lesser of the two evils because their platform is not divisive and they are far less the party that is promoting problems that are not problems, and enacting policy that impose on the liberty of citizens. Liberty isn’t distinct from security but inclusive, as in to be free from having your person or property imposed on. I cannot support republicans because the evil in that lesser evil is significant. If the Republicans got everything they wanted we would still have the same problems we have today, which is a lesser of two evils since if the democrats got everything they wanted we would be worse off.
The biggest problem I have with Republicans is their refusal to acknowledge labor markets and the inadequacy of income opportunities for many people in this country. A rising median wage is only of consequence if the increase is higher than inflation which hasn’t been the case long term, and especially not in the short term where in the hysteria created around COVID we mortgaged the future in a vain effort to extend the lives of people who were already knocking on deaths door. Supported by all brands of ignorance to one degree or another and where those who opposed often opposed for the wrong reasons. That’s another topic altogether discussed more in depth in The COVID 19 Media Project.
When median income is mentioned the number provided is the median income of people participating in the workforce, not the median income of all adults which grossly exaggerates the median income. While the median income of adults included in the workforce is about 50,000k per year, this represents only about 60 percent (workforce participation rate) of the adult population, half of which make less than that, and many substantially less. Not all of the additional 40 percent of adults not included in the workforce are retirees. Some are gig workers, others earn incomes that do not qualify for taxation and do not file, others are discouraged workers who have been unemployed for a period of time that qualifies them as not included in the workforce. The median income for all people is the house hold income divided by the number of adults per household which is 2.44 last time I checked. The household median income as of May 2023 was estimated to be 81,454, divided by 2.44 is 33,382. This represents the individual median income for all adults including those not in the workforce.
Even for those working and right in the middle. What does a 50k per year income provide in most places? Monthly take home is $2950. Average rent for an apartment in the US is $1700 per month. Average utility bill is $185 per month. Average cost of fuel per month is $175. Average cost of groceries is $400 per month. After food, shelter, and energy consumption the average person has $490 a month or $123 per week for whatever other expenses they have.
These are averages, and obviously those who have lower incomes will find apartments that are below average, will use less electricity and gas, will travel less, etc. But the proportion of their income they spend on below average expenses will be the same. Or they’ll be forced into roommate situations, some probably relationships they otherwise wouldn’t maintain if not for financial dependency.
The point being is many people in this country, likely more than half earn an income that is roughly equal to their expenses. They live within trapped circumstances where the income they earn requires most of their time and only suffices for expenses where no accumulation can take place to position themselves to earn more money. This is a product of labor markets since companies no matter how successful they are or become know the amount that people will work for to perform a particular job in a particular area. They’re not going to pay more just because they can afford to and their employees are responsible for their profits. I’m not criticizing industry for paying employees the market rate since people typically won’t pay more for a product or service just because that product or service is going to make them money. For example, if a person is selling their home and a contractor makes a repair for $500 that increases the home value by $10,000, the homeowner isn’t going to contact the contractor after the sale and give them more money.
Minimum wage increases and universal basic income are not solutions to this problem. The latter with federal implementation will likely cripple the economy and the democrats limited implementation, often race based with a small sample size in different places tells us nothing. It’s propaganda to attract votes by creating the idea that if elected they’ll give poor people money, but it does not improve income opportunities.
That is my biggest problem with the Republican party, their refusal to acknowledge how labor markets produce inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money, how this inadequacy produces most societal problems, and the need to address this problem to increase the liberty and prosperity of all people including reducing the byproducts of the problem. The Republican’s refusal to acknowledge labor markets typically stems from my second problem with Republicans which is nationalism.
They don’t know history well enough to know that what you see today, is exactly what the founders envisioned. The American revolution wasn’t a transfer of power from the king to the people, it was a transfer of power from the king to wealth and economic elites. Today the economic elite are represented by industry.
Your patriots, the important ones were patriots for their own interests, and the common patriot was a mercenary. They teach you in grade school social studies that the war for independence could not be maintained without paying the people to fight. There are letters from soldiers who state they enlisted for the prospect of food, money, and land, not ideal. A revolutionary fights for ideal, a mercenary fights for money.
The United States began as and remains an instrument of industry to decide important matters of the state, granting concessions as is required to maintain the contentment of the masses. The attention of the masses is directed to things that are unimportant and directed according to their subscripted biases. This isn’t a deviation, this is an organization that has been passed down for generations.
I don’t think systemic changes are required, the current popularly obstructing mechanisms of power can be used to pass popular legislation. Except that 1: the public is too oblivious to reality to recognize and act on their own best interests. Oblivious due to their biases that directs their attention towards largely irrelevant matters, and 2: nationalist biases that rely on maintaining the belief that the United States was born out of undefiled principle, and not out of advancing the interests of those who were responsible for creating it. A belief that has been disproven through the statical analysis of the founders interests and voting tendencies by Robert A. McGuire. A belief that is disproven through the founder’s words and actions.
Nationalism is a problem because nationalist are precluded from recognizing there are serious problems that need to be addressed, outside of what they’ve been trained to believe is a serious threat from the other business party. The slogan make America Great Again is a stupid slogan, that’s supported by other stupid slogans. It’s a stupid slogan because there is no point in this country’s history, when the country was great. What measure would you like to use? People are conservative and nationalists because things haves worked well for them, and people typically associate primarily with those of the same socioeconomic status, so things are good for others too as far as they can tell.
Most problems stem from inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money. The false belief in the fairness and infallibility of the US economic and political systems prevent the address of inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money.
Finally, republicans generally subscribe to the Christian fiction and this fiction influences their social legislative agenda. You believe in an unjust, hypocritical, and contradictory benevolent tyrant that skews your perception of reality and limits your understanding, through bias that prevents you from accepting things that challenge that belief. I’ve summarized these things so many times I’ll leave you with the entry date and link to the journal that proves those assertions (DJ 2: Entry 1/7/2023. Also see Liberty: The Definitive Moral Truth for more thorough explanation). If you’re a Christian reading this, the assertions themselves have produced some level of anger, fear, or disgust that will prevent you from following the link, but it has been demonstrated. That scenario is an example of how people following their biases produce their ignorance, which is why people can be responsible for their ignorance.
Those are the three main reasons why I do not support republicans, otherwise both parties point the public at social issues, irrelevant controversy and reality TV like narratives while carrying forward the interests of their donors and selling those interests to the public through vague terms that cause the public to believe it represents their interest.
Most of my agreement with republican positions is represented in what I despise about the democrats, which is nearly everything. Disagreements on specific policy either stems from religion influencing matters of the state or strategy for accomplishing a stated goal.
For example, if Texas passed everything they were trying to pass a few months ago with the 10 commandments in schools, prayer periods, and at school chaplains this is a clear violation of the separation of church and state but more importantly it’s harmful to the development of children. At least equally as harmful as the teaching of gender identity and school psychologists.
An example of a stated goal but different strategy would be border security. Illegal immigration from the southern border is not currently a problem but it could be on the cusp of becoming a problem. It’s on the cusp of becoming a problem because it has long been an issue used to activate the republican base. Used as a scapegoat for why low income Americans are not doing better, and used as a threat to the way of American life. Under Obama when the estimated number of illegal immigrants began to reach near 12 million, Obama implemented policy to secure the border and sent ICE to arrest illegal immigrants. He also had policy in place for repid deportation. Immigrants spent 2 to 3 weeks (don’t remember the exact figures, compared average detention stay under Trump and Obama) less time in detention under Obama than Trump. I looked this up since longer stays produce overcrowding and exaggerate the problem. This is what has put us on the cusp of an illegal immigration problem.
Not the longer detention stays, but the exaggeration of the problem. Trump in 2016 campaigned on the idea that illegal immigration was a serious problem after Obama had decreased the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the country by about 2 million from close to 12 million. In part because as previously mentioned the issue is successful in activating the republican base, and second because construction companies would make billions to build a wall. Made possible by a mass of people incapable of critical thinking who believe things based on how the things make them feel, and their feelings are determined by whether the thing is consistent or inconsistent with what they already believe. Don’t worry, the other brands of ignorance do the same thing, which is why people hate the truth.
We may be on the cusp of an illegal immigration issue because republicans made the issue important when it wasn’t, and democrats used it as an issue to rally their base by being opposed to it, then using rhetoric and implementing policy that encourages people from other countries to immigrate illegally, and limiting the power of CBP, ICE, and the courts from preventing, apprehending, and deporting illegals.
The solution is very simple. A return to Obama immigration policy with an increase in resources as needed by CBP and ICE to respond to any increase.
We know that as long as the illegal immigrants population from the southern border remains below 12 million, illegal immigration does not impose on the opportunities or social services of Americans.
If you want to know how much of a problem illegal immigration is, don’t be emotionally moved by pictures and statistics you have no context for. If you see a report that there were x amount of encounters and arrests by CBP it means nothing to you unless you know the historical trend. Over the last 20 years in that month how many encounters and arrests are there? If there have been more in that month in the past then you can begin to understand what that number means. If it’s unprecedented by how much and then you can begin to develop a conception of the problem or if it is a problem.
On to the democrats.
Both parties represent the interests of their industrial donors and then sell the public on how the service to those interests is actually beneficial to the public. Republicans typically do this by conflating the interests of industry with the interest of the public, and deception related to that end. Tax cuts cause poor and middle class republicans to believe they’ll be keeping more money while it primarily benefits wealth and industry. Or measures that benefit industry are said to benefit the public, where the more advantageous the environment is for business the more investment takes places, jobs, etc. Democrats often use this same line when they’re pissing away hundreds of billions of dollars into renewable energy subsidies using public funds to build privately owned infrastructure, and they talk about all the green jobs that will be created. Democrats are worse in that while the Republicans deception or ignorance pertains to the outcome of their carrying forward industrial interests Democrats rail against industry while carrying forward the policy that benefits their industrial supporters.
Democrats pander to the struggle and hopes of the underclasses while providing nothing of benefit except when it will benefit their donors. ACA was a prime example where health care was provided not through a public option but through a voucher system where indigent Americans could use public funds to purchase private health insurance at premiums where 15 to 20 percent of the cost went to profits.
The latest fad is universal basic income, which is essentially the return to welfare. UBI does nothing to increase the income opportunities for people and in many places where municipalities are testing it, it’s nothing more than a PR stunt. The tests often consist of less than 100 people receiving benefits and there is no plan for widespread implementation or a funding mechanism for widespread implementation. The tests encourage ignorant poor people to vote for democrats based on the prospect that the government will give them money.
If UBI was federally implemented, in accordance with Andrew Yang’s plan it would produce economic contraction. Yang planned on placing a value added tax on all products to pay for it. This value added tax would be passed down to consumers increasing the price of everything. More importantly, it would lead to a great decrease in production as many people would live off of the UBI, supplemented by other government benefits and wouldn’t work. That’s the main problem with UBI is it doesn’t create opportunity for people to have better incomes, it just services an impoverished situation.
While the democrats rhetoric is geared towards economic inequality, they’ve driven a wedge between underclass goals by making disadvantage synonymous with superficial differences that are not indicative of disadvantage.
The most significant partitioning of people is through the misrepresentation of facts to claim that race is a source of disadvantage and the assertion that systemic racism is a problem in the United States. The greatest source of disadvantage in the United States is a lack of opportunity for people to have adequate incomes that allow them to accumulate wealth. If you don’t have money or adequate opportunities to make money this disadvantage will predispose you to nearly all possible negative outcomes.
Since proportionately, black people are more likely to begin poor as the succeeding generations of people who did experience systemic racism there will always be racial disparities that are not caused by racism, but are caused by a larger proportion of black people beginning poor. When you compare statistics by race it will show white people as a whole having better outcomes because there is a greater proportion of white people who start from economically advantaged circumstances. When income is controlled for these disparities are greatly reduced and in some cases eliminated. I addressed many of these things specifically in the Racial Perceptions.
POC has become synonymous with disadvantage and white has become synonymous with advantage despite the fact that white people not only represent the majority of poor and impoverished people in this country, but there are more than twice the number of white people living in poverty than there is black people living in poverty.
There are black people who are poor today because of past systemic racism. But they are not more disadvantaged today than poor white people who are poor because their families’ income opportunities were relatively equal to their expenses and so they had nothing to pass down to succeeding generations. In the book Racial Perceptions (short book) I address popular misconceptions coming from studies and narrative to demonstrate that race is not a source of disadvantage, and that poor black people today are living with the same difficulties that poor white people have been living with for generations. Obviously better than poor black people from previous generations who were denied education, housing, income opportunities, equal protection under law, and services public and private, supported by political and social systems. We have pre civil rights act rhetoric in a post civil rights act world, where the social environment has long caught up and surpassed the spirit of the law.
Poor black, white, Latino, indigenous, Asian, etc all have a common interest in policy that prioritizes the creation of better income opportunities. Race is one of many tools used by the left to fragment the underclass and maintain a poor population in this country. The maintenance of a poor population is important to many industries in preserving a desperate workforce to keep labor costs low, and because if people have quality income opportunities they are more likely to become conservative accumulating property to protect, income that is taxed, and a system that they personally benefit from. If the Republican Party wanted to destroy the democrats they’d have adopted my legislative agenda and eliminated the democrats base by eliminating the poor through the creation of opportunity. They can’t because they’re too invested in nationalism, where acknowledging systemically created stratification contradicts the myths they hold supreme about this country and these systems.
Obviously there are many upper middle class and affluent white democrats who subscribe to the narrative that systemic racism exists and race is a source of disadvantage. Their subscription to the idea comes from the tendency of people to only associate intimately with people of a similar socioeconomic status. In the same way poor people in primarily black neighborhoods see primarily black people and think poverty is a product of being black, affluent whites see other affluent whites and think being poor is a product of being a POC. Of course others support the narrative for social and material benefits, and don’t really care whether it’s true or not. It’s true to people so they can use the issue to improve how they perceive others as seeing them which improves self worth and is a source of positive feelings.
We have the creation of the concept of gender identity which is used to instill biases that can be used to manipulate people. I explained this about a week or two ago in another entry. The human mind is directed by values, which are the assignments of feelings to objects, in simpler words what you like. Every object can have a masculine or feminine stereotype attached to it. And what one considers masculine another may consider feminine so it is subjective. This means all gender identity is, is the assigning of masculine or feminine stereotypes to your values, and for that sum to be what you identify as your gender. Which is why non-binary is the most ridiculous identity since ultimately your values fall one way or another.
If a man wants to wear makeup, talk like a woman, change his body, wear dresses, and anything else he has the right to express those values, but it doesn’t mean he’s a woman. It means he likes those things and so he does them.
The problem is gender dysphoria is being promoted and the importance is manufactured. Teaching children that some boys are girls, girls are boys, and some are neither, and that the distinction matters. Then allowing a child and/or ignorant parents to change the hormonal balance and genitalia of children who have been prompted to make gender identity a central focus. These people should be in prison. It is exactly brainwashing, to create a fictitious concept and teach children that it is important. But then again, so is the introduction of religion into schools but the difference is the harm isn’t as easy to track.
While I agree there are some states that have passed laws that impose on the rights of people to express values associated with the opposite sex, I also believe that many of these laws are push back from a trans agenda that imposes on others. In the promotion of gender identity itself which doesn’t exist outside of being a social construct, but also in efforts to de-gender bathrooms, biological males competing against biological females in sports, and generally claiming that gender identity is a source of disadvantage.
I agree with laws that put age minimums on hormone therapy and gender surgeries, but to the extent of 18 to 21, where Oklahoma’s efforts to raise the age to 24 or 26 seems like an excessive burden for an adult who is interested in changing their genitalia or using hormones to allow them to better express the values they’re trying to express. Tennessee passed a law that a man cannot perform in public impersonating a woman under the pretext of protecting children. This law has already been ruled unconstitutional in a federal court. It’s been demonstrated time and again that LGBT people have equal protection under the law.
Gender identity is not important. Your behavior is what it is irrespective of your gender identity, which is your assignment of masculinity or femininity to your values and calling the difference your gender. There’s no genetic basis or hormonal imbalance that predisposes someone to gender dysphoria. It’s a learned concept, and the values that constitute it are developed. And again, there’s nothing wrong with a person expressing values associated with the opposite sex, but no boy has ever felt like they’re a girl and no girl has ever felt like they were a boy. Evident by the fact that being born the gender that they are there’s no way for them to know what the opposite gender feels like.
The democrats have seized on the opportunity to manipulate LGBT people through the idea that gender identity is important and gender identity and sexuality is a source of disadvantage. LGBT people are not denied educational opportunities, housing opportunities, employment opportunities, services public or private, and when they are they have protection under the law and there is remedy according to the application of the law. LGBT is a brand, a division, and a distraction that prevents attention from being paid to matters that impact people’s quality of life, including LGBT peoples.
Just reiterate the main point since the introduction of logic into the issue means I’m a bigot because they have no rebuttal, if you ask any trans person what makes them trans there’s only two responses, 1st how they feel but we’ve already established they cannot know what the other gender feels like because they’re not that gender, and 2nd, they can list the things they like that are commonly associated with the opposite gender. Gender identity is a person identifying their gender based on how they perceive their values as being more masculine or feminine. And most people don’t care so long as the expression and promotion of those values doesn’t interfere in their lives.
You cannot force people to participate in your fantasy. As I stated in the previous entry discussing the subject, if the costume is convincing I’ll typically refer to a person based on the image they’re projecting, especially in reference to others since the pronoun of the projected gender more accurately describes the appearance, but they and them is reserved for describing more than one.
I agree with democrats on abortion in that women should have the right to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term. I don’t believe a fetus has rights since a fetus has not been born, and believe the argument that the state has an interest in the probability of life has to be shown to be harmed by the number of abortions that occur.
I am a proponent of a woman’s right to have an abortion not for legal reasons which I’m not well informed on, (I’ve skimmed Roe. v. Wade and my impression of the case was that it was more about doing the right thing than it was applying the constitution) but moral reasons. First, there is no imposition taking place because a fetus has no experience that it is being deprived of. It isn’t conscious, and therefore it experiences no harm or loss in being aborted. 2nd, I’m a proponent of abortion because a child born into a disadvantaged situation with parents who lack the resources and capabilities to properly raise a child is predisposed to having a low quality of life and becoming someone who imposes on others. The 2nd moral reason is to limit circumstantial imposition that often leads to a person imposing on others.
If people are truly interested in preventing abortions they should be interested in ensuring that all people have adequate opportunities for time and money in an effort to eliminate the primary driver of abortions. The effort is for ignorant and irrational purposes, but that is the best way to fulfill those purposes.
If you are a proponent of abortion it isn’t currently a federal issue since the only federal effort to ensure a woman has the right to an abortion is through a constitutional amendment and there is no chance of passing a constitutional amendment anytime in the near future. It’s an issue of the states or it’s an issue of the courts.
Since the democrats cannot address the failings of policy aimed at reducing gun violence in general, or the elements of American culture that produces people who want to kill others indiscriminately they align themselves against the implements. They avoid gun crime rate statistics that show gun control has no and limited impact on gun crime and focus on gun death rates where deaths produced through self defense is included with deaths produced in the commission of a crime. They fail to demonstrate that stricter gun control prevents mass killings or reduces the number of casualties, yet promote and have convinced ignorant people that it does.
They make silly arguments against the 2nd amendment claiming that technological superiority of the US military can put down any insurrection while failing to acknowledge that the control of territory requires men with rifles. Where should the government ever become an entity that is at odds with the constitution the people of this country are afforded the right to possess the means to defend themselves against such tyranny. More importantly, morally, and legally, people have the right to defend their persons and property from perpetrators and imminent threats of perpetration.
As previously mentioned, since the republicans made illegal immigration an important issue when it wasn’t, democrats seized the opportunity to rouse the lemmings they’re leading to take the opposite position. Rhetoric and policy is increasing the number of illegal immigrants in this country. That position changing since states along the southern border began bussing migrants to sanctuary cities who are not only asking those states to stop sending them, but are telling migrants not to come to their cities because they don’t have the resources to accommodate them.
We know fewer than 12 million illegal immigrants from the southern border (natural migratory disbursement) does not impose on the opportunities of Americans or overburden social services. At some point above that it will. I recognize that migration from Latin American countries is primarily a product of over a century of US foreign policy towards those countries that have produced the circumstances that cause people to want to seek the better opportunity in the land of the exploiter. I wish the best of luck to any of those people who want to take that chance in pursuit of a better life. But, the interests of the American people, including Hispanic Americans must be protected, and immigration law must be enforced. The Obama Administration did an excellent job in the enforcement of immigration law reducing the number of illegal immigrants from the southern border when the number began to approach 12 million.
The climate change policy of the democrats isn’t intent on reducing emissions but intent on funneling public funds to their industrial donors. Subsidies, contracts, funding private research and development, and regulating industries that are not aligned with the democrat party. If the democrats were concerned with reducing emissions the first step is grid energy and instead of subsidizing private profits by using public funds to build private infrastructure, they’d have built the infrastructure outright as Sanders proposed; selling the power to utility companies at a rate that allowed for profit to build more infrastructure and transition to renewable energy. Instead Biden and Obama spent 600 plus billion on privately owned assets, and less than 14 percent of US grid energy is generated through wind and solar. As I’ve mentioned before subsidies can reduce renewable energy investment since a republican administration may not pass a large renewable energy subsidy and companies involved in those industry may wait to invest in renewable energy until the public is going to pay for most of it.
These people are almost unimaginably stupid. I say stupid because it is the habit of accepting things as true without any understanding of whether the thing is true or not. Not only democrats but most people in this country. For democrats they can see 3 controversial uses of police force during the course of a year and claim there’s a problem with police. Don’t have the objectivity or common sense to ask what would constitute a problem? How many police contacts occurred during the span of this handful of sensationalized incidents, that you now believe represents policing? Worse still, you are usually wrong about these incidents because you don’t know the law, where the officers actions are in accordance with the law. You form strong opinions over captions and pieces of events. Anybody who claims they’re concerned with law enforcement but doesn’t know the law isn’t really concerned with law enforcement, they’re concerned with how law enforcement appearing a certain way can benefit them socially and materially.
On the state level and locally not enforcing the law is not a solution to crime. I know, I was a criminal for about 15 years who associated primarily with criminals. No bail and no jail or prison time there’s no deterrent. Some criminals will notice and appreciate this and vote for democrats. Another example of keeping disadvantaged people disadvantaged because crime remediation begins with efforts to eliminate the he circumstances that produce criminals. Being born to households that have inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money. Democrats rely on maintaining.a large poor population and want to service the condition to maintain the base. Free money that doesn’t improve opportunity, legalized criminality that doesn’t improve opportunity, student loan forgiveness in the prioritization of advantaged interests over disadvantaged interests, and the assertion of problems that are not problems does not improve opportunity, and divides the underclasses obstructing the obtainment of better opportunities.
It’s everywhere. I skimmed an article about the mass shootings in Jacksonville and read how the white house has identified white supremacy as an important national problem. Then cites 4 incidents linked to white supremacy over a 5 year period. No one who subscribes to that brand of idiocy has the wherewithal to think how high 4 incidents in 5 years ranks in terms of a national problem, or can think of any other examples of it personally or publically as evidence that it’s a problem.
I cannot be a republican, and I cannot be a democrat. Both factions rely on the biases and ignorance of the population to manipulate them into a false perception of reality to gain consent for policy that remunerates their industrial donors who select them to be candidates you can vote for. I really haven’t scratched the surface on the particulars of my issues with either party. In 2019 and 2020 I was covering current events on a daily basis including some of the soap opera narratives. But it didn’t attract any attention and was ignored as is everything else that exposes holes in people’s perception.
The remainder of this country who is politically disinterested believe some of the same stupid shit the politically interested believe, or some other stupid shit, astrology, energy, ancient aliens, or are focused on some goal to improve their circumstances while oblivious to how political, economic, and social systems limit their opportunities and the opportunities of others. Maybe the kind of people who just want to vibe because they’re too unaware to understand what makes them happy or lack the ability to articulate it. People with warped and incomplete understandings about reality, people who are more concerned with appearance than they are with what is.
The point is, everywhere is a different proportion of different types of ignorance, and the ignorance is willful. There’s no place in particular I want to be, because I’ve been everywhere and people are all the same. Great variations of ignorance and stupidity, but it all falls into those categories.
9/7/2023
I finished reading the study I mentioned a few days ago about comparing the methane increase from natural sources from 2006 to 2022 to past glacial termination events and it seems more probable to me that we’re in the midst of a GTE now than it was after watching the video and reading the first few pages.
The driver of methane emissions from natural sources is an expansion of air currents and increases in ocean temperature causing more precipitation in tropical areas, and the increase in precipitation and warmer temperatures is producing increased microbial activity generating more methane emissions. This is the main source which is being supplemented by increased activity as northern regions in central Canada, Alaska, and Siberia warm, increasing methane emissions from active sources (microbial processes) and decomposition from frozen sources as permafrost melts. This is what happened in previous glacial termination events.
The most concerning aspect of the comparison is the numbers. According to ice core data a driver of these glacial termination events and rapid warming of the planet was a rapid increase in methane caused by the same processes mentioned in the previous paragraph that are happening today During the IA glacial termination event a total CH4 reached 150 ppb and the increase was about 6ppb per year. Right now we’re estimated to be at about 150 ppb and since 2006 methane levels have been rising as much as 14.5 ppb per year on average.
The glacial termination events referenced have methane totals ranging from 150 to 400ppb. At 14.5ppb per year we can be at the upper end of all glacial termination events in less than 20 years. The 14.5ppb is not static, there has been annual growth. 14.5ppb as an average of the last roughly 15 years does not mean the next 15 years will average 14.5 ppb increase, it could average 16 to 20.
The main differences between today and previous GTEs is the anthropogenic element of our modern climate. The increase in anthropogenic methane is insignificant compared to natural methane emissions representing about 15 percent of the growth in methane, but the anthropogenic C02 emissions are significant. The key driver of natural methane emissions is temperature in the warming of oceans producing a greater amount of evaporation and precipitation, expansion of that precipitation as air currents expand, and a higher temperature playing a role in microbial activity in wetlands driving methane emissions. Increases in natural methane emissions are being driven by anthropogenic warming, and the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and methane are creating an environment that is unprecedented in the rapidity of changing atmospheric conditions, and the potential for radiative forcing (warming).
In Anton’s video he mentions 4 degrees C of warming within decades. This was alarming to me because 4 degrees C of warming in decades means the collapse of human civilization. The core elements of survival, food production and water availability will decline precipitously in a 4 degree warmer world creating massive shortages that will lead to a breakdown of society. However, although the study states that previous GTEs have had rapid warming followed by cooling that takes 1000s of years there’s nothing that states 4 degrees C global average temperature increase in decades. There is a quote that stated there was a rapid 6 to 12 degree C increase in temperature that led to a huge increase in methane in the following decades. That 6 to 12 degrees C of warming is 9 degrees C of warming with 3 degrees variability that occured within a decade about 12,000 years ago, but that increase was not a global average increase and occurred during a period where that area (Greenland) was much cooler.
My conclusion of the potential for a rapid shift in climate occuring in decades instead of a century based on the video and only reading a few pages of the research was premature. This doesn’t change the significance of the study or the probability that we have precipitated and are in a GTE that will be different than any other in earth’s history due to the anthropogenic element.
The study is significant because reducing emissions is not going to avert a level of warming that will prove catastrophic for human civilization. In 2020 (Understanding Political Functions Through Recent Political History) using historical data and projecting it I found that a 4 degree C increase from the pre-industrial global average temperature would likely be reached within the first decades of the next century. Roughly a 100 years from the time I researched and wrote it in 2020. That estimate and projection included the current rise in global emissions and emissions from melting permafrost. What I did not know then but now understand better through this research is the rapid growth in natural methane emissions and how that growth corresponds to rapid warming occurring at periods in earth history where the climate reorganized. The study itself mentions how climate models are primarily projections from anthropogenic sources of emissions and are not properly accounting for this rapid growth in natural methane emissions.
It seems plausible considering the unprecedented change in atmospheric composition from anthropogenic sources creating this surge in natural methane emissions comparable to what has been observed during GTEs that we could experience catastrophic levels of warming within decades instead of a century. Even if we have 100 years, we’re past the point where emissions reduction is going to avert catastrophic warming, and even the near elimination of anthropogenic emissions (impossible) is not going to stop the growth of natural emissions driven by the warming already taking place. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek to reduce emissions, which is still important, but we ultimately need to figure out how to cool the planet.
There was a study I mentioned where a group claimed they could preserve polar ice through the introduction of aerosols. This has been met with criticism since the decay of these aerosols will destroy ozone which will lead to human beings being irradiated by the sun.
Conceptually the goal is as follows. The sun produces heat and between the earth and sun there is space, and atmosphere. We need to introduce something either in orbit or into the atmosphere to reduce the amount of heat that reaches the earth. Otherwise, we need to remove CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere to allow more of the heat coming from the sun to escape the planet. We may have 10 to 20 years to figure out a solution or 40 to 80 years to figure out a solution.
Given the organization of society especially in the United States there will be no solution. This study references other research that has been ongoing from 2015, 2019, 2020, and 2021 that isn’t receiving mainstream attention and isn’t part of the mainstream narrative. Democrats are not more concerned about climate change than Republicans, they’re concerned with using climate change to regulate industries that either don’t support their party or support republicans more, and to channel public funds to subsidize the industries that do support them under the guise of addressing climate change. And if the growth of natural methane and the comparison to glacial termination periods of the past does become part of the mainstream narrative it will be used by republicans and their supporters to deregulate industries that support republicans and for the rank and file to deny CO2 emissions as a driver of climate change.
The human moral failing is the value of short term personal interest including the maintenance of bias over the truth. A few days ago I thought that the growth in natural methane corresponding to the growth of natural methane from glacial termination events meant a 4 degree C rise in global average temperature may be 4 decades away. Now I know that it isn’t certain but is still a possibility. At that time I stated I didn’t have a problem with the chickens of tyranny coming home to roost. By that I mean that the indifference to human problems, that is produced by ignorance, that is produced by the commitment to bias, has created a situation where rapid warming precipitating the collapse of human civilization is what humans get back from what they send out.
I speculated a few years ago in the book Liberty: The Definitive Moral Truth that climate change may be a moral check on intelligent life to prevent the perpetuation of tyrant species. The reasoning being that tyrant species would be incapable of responding to climate change due to widespread deception and the address of climate change being in conflict with dominant interests. What we observe. While some people believing the collapse of human civilization is imminent (30 to 80 years) may become zealous in creating awareness and promoting solutions to avert the catastrophe I am indifferent to the prospect. I see it as just another human choice. I see it as mercy from a morally and intellectually stagnant species that has reached its ceiling. I see it as justice, where the wrongs that currently exist will cease to be perpetuated on future generations.
Existentially, as a person who believes in the survival of consciousness after death and understands that morality is a determinant of conscious motion necessitating that there be a space for liberty based morality, and tyranny based morality, there is no purpose in perpetuating a tyrant species where a vast majority of its members will be populating a space of tyranny. There is some purpose since I believe the universe exists to solve the problem of a space of unlimited potential being limited by beings of limited experience. That means if you imagine a group of beings who can create and experience anything at will with infinite time, those beings will eventually create and experience everything so many times that existing will become stale. So the universe randomly assembles matter producing life that creates in that randomly generated environment and what they create adds to the experience of the beings who exist in the space of unlimited potential. So existentially there is some benefit to the perpetuation of a tyrant species as what they continue to create can be incorporated into the eternal existence, even if most of their members’ consciousness will survive to a space of tyranny based on their moral understanding and application. At this point in technological development I think enough has been created and produced to adequately serve that purpose from this species. In a lot of ways despite what will eventually be a period of widespread dramatic suffering, there is some positive in catastrophic warming from an existential perspective.
9/4/2023
My registration is expired and I’ve been pulled over a few times in this situation. It’s obviously stressful because it could end in a situation where I lose my car and then I essentially just am where I am. Today I was pulled over and had some marijuana in a state where marijuana is prohibited. To add to the stress I smoked some out the window of the car less than an hour prior to being pulled over. Anytime I smoke I use eye drops, hand sanitizer, and spray air freshener but it’s difficult to know whether I’ve adequately masked the odor. My stress level increased when the officer asked me if I had anything illegal in the car. It’s not a question that’s always asked during a routine traffic stop and when it is asked it’s usually because the officer has a suspicion based on some circumstance, like he smells weed.
I mention being pulled over because the experience is actually a net positive on mood despite the stress of the interaction. It’s like roller coasters, skydiving, or some other high stress activity where much of the pleasure is derived from the introduction and release of stress. I realized after being pulled over that I felt much better than I did prior to being pulled over and as the cycle of mood functions, this improved the kind of things I was thinking about, the way I was thinking about them which in turn improves how a person feels. Interaction produces thoughts and feelings, feelings influence thoughts, and thoughts influence feelings and perception.
I was also thinking about the base source of feelings, where feelings are generated by external stimulation where objects and objectives feel good, and internally through idea, interpretation, and application, as well as through the perception of threat, but the possible development is whether all internally generated feelings, in regard to the motivating and prohibiting of action is rooted in self worth. Morality, subjective preferences, truth, and identity all generate feelings from ideas connected to self worth.
This causes me to question the motivation of the subconscious response that produces denial of information that challenges beliefs. The response itself is feelings of anger and/or fear. My understanding is inclusive of two explanations that may be present simultaneously. The first I cite is the subconscious protecting a person’s values of objects. What a person does is based on how the act is believed to make them feel. How many acts cause them to feel is often dependent on what they believe is true. The subconscious produces a fear or anger response since the discovery of a core belief becoming false means they will have fewer things to derive positive feelings from. The emotional response to challenging information may be the subconscious protecting an individual’s value of objects, since the subconscious is always set to an objective to produce a positive feeling.
While this is true, and the preservation of perspective is required to maintain a person’s values of objects, a person’s truth is their identity which is tied to self worth, including moral values. The subconscious is protecting against a threat to a person’s values of objects, but is the only object being protected self worth; and the value of objects that rely on their beliefs remaining intact just a byproduct of the mechanism to protect self worth?
The protection of the value of objects I think is more relevant to conscious denial where critical thoughts are met by fear, pushed down, or inadequately justified to avoid discovering a central belief is false. In these situations in my past experience a person is more aware of the implications to their interests of discovering that a belief is false.
If anyone is familiar with my observations and assertions on subconscious processes they may note how I believe the subconscious is responsible for the production of thoughts. Oftentimes we can know based on circumstance and why we are thinking what we are thinking. The question would be how can the subconscious produce critical thoughts and also produce feelings and thoughts to justify or suppress the thoughts that it produced?
The mind has to have consistency. There is a built in mechanism of truth, and contradiction is often identified and has to be resolved. Many people’s minds are held together by road blocks where contradiction is supported by some absolute or unanswerable question that supports their organization of objects. An objective is created to achieve greater certainty or consistency when something prompts the person to consider a contradiction, but then is met by a response to suspend objective inquiry based on the ramifications of discovering the belief to be false.
The mechanism that organizes objects isn’t preempted by the mechanism that prioritizes objectives, but engages when object organization creates a threat to the value of objects.
I can say with certainty based on past experience that conscious denial is a product of protecting a person’s value of objects based on the thoughts that occur in response to critical evaluation. Thoughts pertaining to how information impacts interests. The question is, does the mechanism engage when confronted with challenging information as a threat to a person’s value of objects sometimes excluding value of self, exclusively based on value of self, or both some of the time, or all the time?
The problem with human beings as it relates to denial has a few different causes that are intertwined. First is a concept I reference as deity. I call it deity because it refers to the approval a person seeks, and often religious people seek the approval of their deity. It isn’t static and people often have many deities including their deity, self, and others, and the value of approval will often decrease or be justified depending on the value of objectives that may be in conflict with maintaining or advancing approval.
For example, I did a landscaping job a few days ago and was responsible for the disposal of a few bags of yard waste that took up my entire backseat. I chose a minor moral infraction in service to my immediate interests. There was a house under construction with a rollaway dumpster. There was a sign on the dumpster, property of some company you’re on camera.
The infraction is minor because although I’m essentially using his rented property without permission, limiting the space he has to dispose of waste he paid for, that isn’t occurring to any significant degree. 4 bags of weeds once construction material is placed on top of it is going to compress into a space that’s so small as to not have any effect on what he can place in the dumpster. In other words, anything he could fit in the dumpster prior to me adding the bags he will still be able to fit with the bags in there. I imposed on his property but he suffered no loss of liberty. It’s a moral infraction conceptually but not materially.
I seek approval of self which requires right moral application, but chose an immoral act to relieve the circumstantial burden but maintained approval of self and self worth through knowledge that the bags should crush down into a space that doesn’t limit what the owner can fit in the dumpster.
As this relates to self deception, many people place a very low value on self approval. They’re more concerned with consequence and benefit from external stimulation, where acting consistent with truth, morality, authenticity, or their own subjective principles doesn’t produce strong enough feelings to compete with external stimulation or having fun. Self approval is usually less about approval of self internally and is instead a reflection of their perceived approval from others, including their god or deity.
The value of the truth is evident in how self deception imposes on motivation and intelligence, and obstructs communication which has consequences for others. People don’t understand this so unless it’s others being truthful to them in some areas of interest it doesn’t become a conscious value. If it isn’t a conscious value that is tied to self worth, and if self worth isn’t tied to self approval, the subconscious will impose feelings to protect value of objects, and value of self when a person is confronted by challenging information or when critical thoughts are produced to gain consistency of mind.
9/2/2023
I watched a video by Anton who is the owner operator of the What the Math channel and read a few pages of the study that is the subject of the video. The implications of this paper are more important than any story covered since its publication. Throughout earth’s history during periods it was habitable for life there have been cycles where warmth and cooling take place. There are several predictors of warming periods with the last stage being a rapid increase in methane succeeded by a rapid increase in temperature.
The study compares the increase in methane from natural sources to other periods in the earth’s history where methane rapidly increased, and the data suggests we are entering into a period of rapid warming that cannot be stopped. Essentially, every other time natural methane emissions have risen as they have been observed rising since 2006, the planet entered a period of extreme rapid warming. Not 2 degrees by the end of the century, but potentially 4 degrees in the next 4 to 5 decades. If this happens it will produce the collapse of human civilization.
Before I express how I feel about that, there are solutions that require a changing of focus. First and foremost we need to finance research to develop technology to cool the planet, and offer ridiculous compensation for those who can measurably reduce the temperature of the planet. That has to be the goal. This is something I advocated for before this study was published, the only difference now is we may have only decades whereas I previously believed we had about 100 to 120 years based on historical data.
The second solution to prevent a rapid rise in temperature would be to eliminate the source of methane. The study cites biogenic processes in tropical wetlands as being responsible for the increase in natural methane emissions. I presume this refers largely to microbial activity so I have to imagine there is a way to sterilize these areas and whatever the consequence is to the wetlands is far better than a 4 degree increase in the global average temperature in the span of decades.
I mentioned the story to my daughter who is an occasional watcher of What the Math. She’s a senior in highschool and she is exceptionally intelligent. She has been nationally recognized for academic performance and has taught herself AP classes like chemistry and biology and received college credit based on her test scores. It’s her, the book, independent research on the material, and the tests. I was considering telling her she may want to think about a field of study that would position her to figure out a solution to cooling the planet since it may be a challenge that has to be overcome to ensure the perpetuation of human civilization. I don’t want to put that on her shoulders or steer her into a field of study that she isn’t interested in. I think she could do it though.
As for me I recognize that impending disaster could be beneficial to the advancement of objective morality and the existential implications of objective morality, but like my material it isn’t likely to be covered without powerful interests benefiting from it. I have some ideas for it.
Outside of my personal interests, which is the advancement of liberty and truth, I don’t mind the idea of the chickens of ignorance, indifference and bias, the assets of tyranny, coming home to roost.
Below is the link to the video, and in the video description is the link to the paper.