Daily Journal 2

The content of this page consists of reflections on my day to day life, some of which is necessary to reduce stress, other times to express insights about human behavior, the application of morality, or analysis of , articles, and narratives.

This is the successor to the Daily Journal page that goes back 5 years.


This entry begins with a brief exchange I had with a person who responded to a comment I made about a non-binary identifying comedian who was making a joke about her parents not understanding her.  I received a notification from some comedy feed I have through YouTube and the title of the joke did not convey the idea that the joke was about that.  Since I had to watch it I decided to respond to it.  The punchline is she came out to her parents as non-binary and her father gave her a hug and said “you’ll always be our daughter”.  And then she says “no”, since she doesn’t identify as a female she isn’t a daughter in her mind.  

As I’ve stated repeatedly I don’t have an issue with people who identify as trans or non-binary, but I do recognize how gender identity is ridiculous, non-binary being the most ridiculous, and how people are manipulated through these biases and the consequences to the collective that these distinctions have in the prioritization of issues.  

My first comment is brief and the subsequent comments in response to the replies elaborate.  

Orion Simerl:You identify as non-binary because you have nothing more relevant to serve as your identity and you’ve been taught gender identity is important.  Non-binary is ridiculous, since for one, everything has characteristics that can be interpreted as masculine or feminine.  Much of this is subjective, but everyone will like some things that can be associated with one gender and the other.  If you don’t feel like a man or a woman all that means is the amount of feminine things that you like are relatively equal to the masculine things you like.  It doesn’t make a difference how you identify, except that the broadening of your perspective could help you develop as a comedian since the funniest thing about the bit is you thinking your gender identity is important.

South Honey: Could have shortened this whole comment down into “i dont understand this” and it would have gotten the same point across.

Orion Simerl: @southhoney  No because I clearly do understand it and if you understood my comment you’d have a rebuttal to the content not an empty assertion that I don’t understand it.  Why would I say anything other than what I said?  Behavior is a product of values, all values can be considered as being masculine or feminine, and a person’s gender identity is essentially the difference between the two.  Non-binary doesn’t exist and it’s an insignificant distinction that people are taught is important so they can be manipulated through that identity to serve the interests of others. 

Buch4620: Just let him be he will be a bigot

all he wants some people will really never learn

Buch4620: @orionsimerl6539 reddit mod moment for sure if someone is not hurting anyone else for being who they want to be then why be angry at all.

Orion Simerl6539: @buch4620  Creating meaningless things for people to identify by creates collective prioritization and perspectives that impact the lives of others; because individual circumstances are determined by systems (political, economic, and social) and systems function through collective decision making.  When people believe things are important that are not important it causes them to prioritize unimportant things which leads to the neglect of important things.  It also creates divide and obstructs communication since bias forms through the faction, and individuals have values tied to what that faction consists of.  For example, without the idea that gender identity is important you cannot derive the pleasure you derive from calling someone a bigot because they demonstrate that gender identity is not important.  This is why bias obstructs communication because discovering something believed to be true is not true takes away the ability of the things that give them pleasure in life from producing that pleasure.  Gender identity is unimportant, it’s a created brand that allows people to be manipulated through the biases associated with that brand.  People do what they like doing, and their behavior is what defines them, and it isn’t important whether that behavior is associated with one gender or the other and what gender the person is that likes the things that they like.  There’s no genetic distinction between gender identification, because it’s the assigning of masculinity or feminity to developed values and a person identifying themselves according to how those values are either consistent or inconsistent with their gender.  I doubt you have the capacity to understand this because if you’re subscribed to the idea that gender identity is important you’ve probably lost the capacity to recognize the explanation of motion, coming to believe that reality is arbitrary and feelings and popularity is an instrument through which truth should be established.  I mention this because you call me a bigot because you don’t understand what is being argued, you only know that it undermines your beliefs.

Buch4620: @orionsimer16539 if gender identity is unimportant why care so much about it? Their gender doesn’t define their personality. I fully understand what I’m talking about I’m just not really into being an ass to people around me even if don’t believe or feel they way they would.

Orion Simerl6539 @buch4620  The fact you asked  if gender isn’t important then why care so much about it proves you didn’t understand my comment since I just provided the consequences that emphasizing the importance of gender has for others.  Gender itself is unimportant since people are defined by their words and behavior and gender identity is nothing more than assigning a label to the sum of your values as you perceive them as being more masculine or feminine.  Since you don’t understand this, you call me bigoted.  Of course nothing I’ve stated is bigoted in that I’m not implying inferiority, superiority, unequal treatment, or anything that is derogatory about a group of people.  

NOTE: Buch had 2 comments she deleted.  The exchange took place two days before I had time to screenshot and post it.  On my comment it lists 14 comments but only 11 are visible.  At least 2 were hers and I’m not sure about the 3rd missing reply.  It is important to my last comment because it’s in response to those deleted comments where she accuses me of calling non-binary and trans people mentally ill, which clearly I’m not doing.  I’m calling them victims of indoctrination that have created biases that prevent them from critically examining their beliefs.  She also said instead of writing what I have written it would be easier just to call people by their pronouns.  She said what I was doing was for self validation.  That isn’t altogether untrue since there are a great deal of ideas that are rooted in self worth, and the promotion of those ideas reinforces self worth which is essentially self validation.  We see ourselves doing things we understand to be good and this increases self worth which feels good.  The subconscious creates objectives to produce those feelings.  Addressing a popular misconception produces a positive feeling, as well as recognizing the utility of it if understood.  There’s other subjective things involved like knowing you can and will address and invalidate every rebuttal because you know the motion of the subject.  It’s also a strange assertion coming from the position that people need to use a person’s chosen pronouns instead of their biological pronouns which is completely self validation.  The following is my final comment addressing her deleted comments.  I don’t know if she is a she, I’m making that presumption based on the name Buch which suggests that she’s a lesbian and the position from which she’s arguing.

Orion Simerl6539 @buch4620  You have no conception of the value of the truth suffering from a well being indoctrination that believes lying to self and others is good if it makes people feel good, but it ignores the consequences the deception has for others.  As pronouns go if the preferred gender is apparent or convincing I may use their preferred pronoun because its more comfortable to call a man in make up and a dress she than he, and is more accurate according to appearance where others will better understand the person being referenced based on appearance.  I’m not changing words, they and them is in reference to more than one person, and the distinction is meaningless.  Even defined according to values, the sum falls one way or the other.  Whether or not someone references you according to your chosen gender identity has no bearing on your opportunities, what you like, or how you behave based on those values.  It’s something people attach to who do not have more interesting things about themselves to identify by.  It’s an opportunity for a non-marginalized person to enter into a group that promotes itself as being marginalized.  

You’re lying in your comment claiming I embrace the stereotype that LGBT people are mentally ill.  There’s nothing in my comment promoting that stereotype.

There’s nothing hateful about my comments either, which is more evidence of your ignorance where you think you can call a position that accurately describes the basis for gender identity, why it isn’t important, and the consequences it has for others hateful because you don’t go have an argument against it, and the position invalidates ideas you’re invested in.  You call it bigoted and hateful and make claims that I have said things that I have not.  

The comment exchange is another example of a person who is prevented from comprehending or refuses to acknowledge based on bias and a desire to keep their beliefs intact.  It’s willful self deception evident in how she approached the debate and the deletion of comments.  She calls me a bigot despite nothing in my comment being bigoted, and accuses me of supporting the belief that LGBT people are mentally Ill, likely to prompt me to take the position to give her something she feels she can argue against.  When you know your position and your position is true you don’t need to resort to those kind of things to demonstrate that.  When your position is based on opinions and feelings and your self worth is tied to that position or the ideas are essential to your perspective a person will resort to those tactics.  

I was in Michigan for a few days avoiding the heat in the area I was in previously: Omaha and Des Moines.  I found a job to change an alternator in Superior, WI, and to finish a trampoline in Kansas.  Close to $500 after fees, but also the cost and time of driving 1200 miles.  Drive, allow some music to boost your mood, and think.  Unfortunately the thoughts are much less productive than they used to be, always preoccupied by circumstance.  

The alternator was scheduled for Saturday and the trampoline scheduled for Monday.  I got lucky and found a moving job in Grand Rapids, MI.  I briefly thought I had a moral infraction because I threatened to slap the shit out of this dude who was ducking work.  This dude was making every effort to not carry items from the truck to the house.  Started unwrapping furniture and folding blankets while we still had half the job to unload.  He was repeatedly striking up unsolicited conversations with the home owner to avoid work.  I try to be pleasant, and joke and comment in passing but I’m working while I’m doing it.  He was taking items from the truck and setting them outside the truck which wasn’t necessary because we had a ramp to bring the hand trucks into the truck.  

The confrontation was born out of me grabbing this large bed frame down from the top of the stack.  I said you want to take this with me real quick.  He said I have to do something and stood there fiddling with a fanny pack.  I said anything to avoid doing some fucking work.  He said not on your time.  I reminded him that he ain’t been doing shit all day, called him a lazy piece of shit, and told him I’d slap the shit out him if he kept talking shit.  He had some other remarks in there that led to that.  

At the end of the day I was going to apologize for threatening him and explain that it wasn’t for him but for me in the satisfaction I get from acknowledging that I’m wrong and say he was still a piece of shit.  That was my initial internal reaction.  I didn’t have the opportunity to execute  it because he left before the job was finished. 

Later I’m reminded that imposition is justified for imposition and it was his imposing acts that produced my imposing act.  This was amplified by the fact that the homeowner gave us a $160 tip right when we started.  That should be motivation to finish the job quickly and take care of his stuff.  Seemed unappreciative of the act.  Him fucking off when there is only him, the driver, and myself, means he’s imposing on our time including the homeowner by making the job take longer, and imposing on the energy of myself and the driver as we need to move more after he agreed to provide those services.  I don’t ask anybody to do as much as I do, or work as hard as I do, but I do expect a person to be consistent in their effort.  

A more thorough moral explanation is as follows: first we have prevention or neutralization of imposition.  If the threat has the potential to neutralize imposition the threat is justified.  Shortly after this he seemed to be working a little harder.  I remember him carrying like a particle board shelf which was the biggest thing he took by himself occurring shortly after the threat.  He seemed to work pretty steady after that.  Even if it didn’t work, the imposition of the threat is justified because of its potential to neutralize the imposition.  If someone shoots a robber but the robber still steals his stuff, the victim isn’t wrong for shooting him because he failed to neutralize the imposition.  In the same respect a threat that doesn’t encourage someone stop avoiding the work they agreed to do is still justified because of its potential to. 

Second, since being imposed on negatively impacted me in creating more work and causing it to take more time to complete it is just that I am made whole.  And the potential of putting some fear in him is an idea that feels good in consideration of what he has done to me, that I would not do to him.  I’m entitled to the restoration of my well being before I was imposed upon unprovoked.    

Third, there is causation which often isn’t a justification for imposition but may be.  Causation is in the fact that had he behaved differently I’d have behaved differently towards him and would not have threatened him.      

I may have been justified in slapping the shit out of him.  He was probably 5’9 and 160 lbs which was one of the main reasons I didn’t.  That isn’t to say I won’t put my hands on someone smaller than me but there typically has to be a physical action or threat, or some serious imposition in regard to money or in defense of another.  I did radar up.  Just the term I use to describe my focus when I’m thinking about hitting someone.  Focus on the place you’re thinking about hitting them.  There’s a chance he could have said the wrong thing and I’d have slapped the shit out of him.  

If not for the pattern of behavior dodging work all day if he said he had something to do and didn’t want to take the frame I wouldn’t have said shit to him about it.  I did want to take the frame which was basically 4 fabric padded side rails taped together.  First because it’s a fabric item I didn’t want to get dirty setting it down in the truck, and second because they were long and took up a lot of space if left on the floor of the truck.  

I contrasted this experience which was overall a good opportunity with my previous moves in Iowa.  The first preceding move I worked with a guy who was great.  He had no moving experience, worked at the Amazon warehouse from Amkey (thinks it’s Amkey just north of Des Moines).  He was steady moving shit, often both of us for about 5 hours clearing out a finished basement.  He was living up to his terms of service and I was so appreciative of his effort.  I felt lucky to have gotten such a hard working get the job done kind of person.  There’s no reason to believe that we wouldn’t have been there much longer had it been someone other than the guy that was there.  

The move before that I unloaded about 1000 cubic feet by myself except for the couch.  The driver helped with the couch but nothing else.  I didn’t have a problem with it because he’s paying me to perform those services.  The customer was great.  She was trying to be helpful and I was reminding her that she didn’t have to do anything but tell me where stuff goes.  We had friendly conversation and comments in passing.  Isn’t noteworthy in itself but I’m aware of the positive impression that I probably left.  Drove away thinking about the full spectrum of my behavior and how it couldn’t be ascertained through that interaction.  Where she wouldn’t think based on our interaction that the same guy would be threatening to slap the shit out of somebody for imposing on his time and energy roughly a week later.   

But that’s who I really am.  A person who treats people with respect, who is honest, and generates a great deal of satisfaction from helping others.  A person who  likes to contribute to an environment where people feel free.  This chic I used to see in Denver (I was messing with her 2017 2018, I hung out with her December 2022 and she fell off) gave me a great compliment when she said she feels free around me.  That’s the goal of my behavior, and more broadly of my agenda, because people who are controlled through biases rooted in false beliefs are not free, and people who do not have adequate opportunities for time and money, or do not have opportunities to be productive in a chosen vocation are not free, they’re slaves to the maintenance of those circumstances.    

But I’m also someone who recognizes imposition and seeks to impose consequences for imposition and seeks to prevent and neutralize imposition.  My behavior towards a person will change if I suspect they’re trying to take advantage of my kindness or see my kindness as a weakness.  I lose the feeling from what ever my kindness may be liberating you from through the perception that you feel entitled to it, or that I’m supposed to or have to do it.  In other words I can’t give it if you’re trying to take it.  That’s why my behavior will change towards a person who I believe is taking advantage of me, is trying to take advantage of me, or thinks the kind behavior is born out of weakness.  There’s the person I am and then there’s the person I’m forced to be because so many people are pieces of shit.  It feels best to be kind and helpful to those whose behavior is appropriate for such treatment, but it feels better to withhold from those who think they are taking or trying to take.  

When I was working for Premier one incident among others, I was distributing panes of glass for the shower doors.  There were 27 floors, 15 rooms per floor and 17 showers per floor because 2 apartments had 2 showers.  The process of bringing up the glass which was 70 some inches tall and varied in width from about 20inches to about 40 inches wide, about a half inch thick.  We’d load a floor or two onto the elevator and set them outside the elevator.  

One of the painters who were also doing the wallpaper in the elevator landing area told me I needed to move the glass because they needed to do the wallpaper.  I told him I had to finish bringing up what we had to the other floors but I’d distribute on that floor first.  I finished getting the glass panes up and went to that floor to distribute.  I walk over to the panes, (I think I had my hands on them.  Probably wrote about this after it happened.  Memory was probably colored about what I told the guy who told me to move it initially) and a paint crew supervisor told me you need to move that glass now.  I told her I was just about to move it, now I’m not moving them.  I wanted to move them so they could do their job but there was no way I could let her think that that’s the way she’s going to get things done with me.  Like I was doing it because she told me to, not because I wanted to do it.  I can’t give it, if she thinks she’s taking it.  

There were a few misunderstandings with the painters but I felt good towards them overall, in that they were mostly accommodating with me and I tried to reciprocate whenever possible.  After a few misunderstandings we had.  

It is still strange to me that I threatened the guy on the Michigan move.  It has to be about the first time in a decade or more that I threatened someone. 


Saturday I woke up at a rest area in Superior about 1:00am to a loud clicking coming from my dash.  I noticed my charger light was off.  I pushed it in to make sure it was pushed in all the way and it was still off.  I put the keys in the ignition and nothing happened.  Apparently I unknowingly turned on my parking lights and this drained the battery.  

I woke up 6:45am. Got my jumper cables out and popped my hood.  One car pulled in and it was an older man sitting in his car reading the paper.  I didn’t want to interrupt him while he was reading but I  checkrd periodically to see if he stopped.  Eventually the porter arrived at work and I asked him for a jump.  He gave me a jump and I threw him 10 bucks because I was very appreciative since I had the alternator replacement in 2 hours.  

I thought it was easy money but it ended up being a beast of a job on an 07 Jetta.  No room to do anything, half the bolts are torcs screws, I had to buy about $30 in additional tools.  What’s usually an hour to two hours job on most cars took me all day.  I might have spent 3 hours on removing the the bolts that held the wires on the back of the alternator and putting them back on, and on the 3 torc screws that held the tensioner pulley taking them off and putting them back on.  There’s like one perfect angle of space to get a socket on the bolts or star screws and break it loose or tighten it.  It looks like I backhanded a blast of bird shot from forcing my hand in-between pieces of steel.  I have no plans to do anything else on a Volkswagen.  

The following day I’m driving to Manhattan, KS for a trampoline assembly.  I cashed $27 out of my just play account and checked my debit account and it had about $30 in it.  I had $101 in cash.  Close to Sioux City where I planned on using the Planet Fitness my low tire pressure light came on.  I viewed the tire pressure and one of my tires read 3lbs of pressure.  

I stopped at the planet fitness because it was closer than a gas station on the off ramp.  I saw that the tire was flat but the source of the problem was not apparent.  I hoped it was just a slow leak that I could repair with a fix a flat.   

I drove to the nearest gas station and there was an air pump.  As I filled up the tire I could hear air coming out of it and the side wall was deformed with protrusions forming as I filled it up.  I needed a new tire and I was about 250 miles from my destination.  Too far to ride on the spare and if the spare pops riding at a speed and distance it’s not designed for my situation has just become dramatically worse.  

It was Sunday close to 5 pm.  There were no used tire shops open.  I went to Walmart expecting a cheap tire to cost me about $100 with installation.  That was if they had a cheap tire in stock.  The last time I purchased a tire from Walmart they only had the Good Years starting at $109.  

I get to Walmart and they have a Douglas for $86 plus tax, plus $11 to put the tire on the rim and $16 to put it on the car.  I’m looking at about $120 which is just about all my money.  I won’t have enough gas to make it to my job in the morning.  

I texted my dad and attached screenshots showing I had money coming this week from the alternator I did on Saturday, and that I had a job the following day on Monday and asked if I could borrow some money for a few days to make it to this job.  This is the first time I asked my dad anything since about 2016.  Over the last 3 months or so he began emailing me and recently sent a list of things I can do to make money.  I was critical of that seeing it as false concern, motivated by an obligation of conscience.  

It was important to me to make it to this customer because I said I was going to be there.  I figured I’d send him a text explaining my situation to see if he’d help me out.  He didn’t respond.  

I need to make a purchase to get the money off the card so I can buy the tire.  I intend to get $16 knocked off the price by taking the tire off in the parking lot and putting it back on myself.  Then I checked my debit card balance to see exactly what I had on the card.  This time the balance showed $56.  The money from the just play cash out didn’t reach my account when I checked it earlier.  

By taking off the tire myself and finding out I had an extra $26 I had enough to make it to the job the following day.  

I didn’t think much of my dad not responding or being unwilling to help me out.  Wasn’t a big deal to me and it confirmed that he wasn’t actually concerned with my circumstances and my opportunities to make money as he tried to suggest with his previous BS email.  As I said (previous entry) he’s not obligated and doesn’t have any responsibility to help me out.  I wasn’t upset that he didn’t respond and my only problem with him is the fake concern that he might not even know is fake.  I explained the evidence in the previous entry on the topic.  

I’m at the gym after finishing the trampoline assembly and receive a text from him 21 hours later joking “how do I know you didn’t just walk up to a car and take that picture?  Lol.  I’ll stop worrying about you.”. 

I pointed out the contradiction between pretending to be concerned by writing an email about ways I can make money but then not helping me get to a job.  That’s regardless of any offense taken by what I wrote about his email in my journal.  

After I point this out to him he said he didn’t know I was asking for money.  Claimed that he just skimmed the message looked at the pictures and thought I was sending him this to say I was doing good.  The following is the original message.  This message was succeeded by a screen shot showing I had money coming, a job the next day and a flat tire.  

” I’m on my way to a job in Manhattan, KS, I’m in Sioux Falls.  Yesterday changed an alternator (Volkswagen Jetta not fun) and I have $300 coming from that job between Tuesday and Thursday. (Screenshot attached takes 2 to 5 days to transfer from app).  I have a flat in Sioux Falls and $135.  There’s no used tire shops open so I’m going to Walmart and expect a tire and installation to run me about $100.  Leaving me with about $35 probably not enough for gas to make it to my job in KS.  Can you CashApp, Venmo, or Walmart me $100 and I’ll give it back when I get paid from these jobs probably Wednesday no later than Friday.” 

He said he put his phone on the charger before 5pm Sunday, and didn’t check it until 1pm Monday.  I find it difficult to believe that he didn’t go to his phone for anything for 21 hours.  Then he checks his phone and sees that I texted him, skims the message, sees the pictures, and thinks I’m doing good, and his response was a joke about the tire and saying he won’t worry about me anymore, like I was doing good.  I’m still inclined to believe that he saw the text before that and he was trying to joke about my situation and say since I said I his concern isn’t genuine he’s not going to help.  Then after I showed him what that means about him he concocted a story to absolve himself from the contradiction that reveals his motivation.  If I was sending a message about how good I’m doing why would I include a picture of a flat tire?  I didn’t call because I wanted to show I had money on its way, a job in the morning and a flat t it re.

It is of course possible that he really didn’t read the text despite this being the first time I texted him outside of a response to him texting me in over 5 years, suggestive of something important, maybe worth the minute it might take to read the paragraph I texted him posted above in this entry.  

Even if he be wasn’t being the asshole he seems to have been taunting my circumstances and then trying to gaslight me about it, it speaks to my main point and grievance that he’s expressing fake concern, or concern not motivated by a desire to see my circumstances improve, but motivated by the appearance to himself that he’s fulfilling some parental obligation by sending me emails, possibly clearing his conscience or for some other satisfaction that does not include my well being or improvement of my circumstances.  Otherwise, if I send a text he would at least read the text.  After he finds out that I had just about enough money to make it to the job and it may be a few days before I get my money from these jobs, if he was concerned he would ask me if I needed to hold a few dollars until I get my money.  I had $6 on me.  Thankfully, I received the money from one of the jobs on Tuesday, but that usually isn’t the case.  

The point being is I don’t like that fake shit.  It’s fake shit either which way it happened and even without this situation altogether.  Otherwise I don’t have any I’ll feelings towards him.  I don’t feel like he’s obligated to do anything for me and looking back at my childhood he did as good as he could.  Came through for me in some key moments, and did things with me when I was younger on a very limited budget like took me fishing and hunting which were experiences other children I grew up with didn’t have.  While not completely the same as I think I have probably a broader range of humor, I got my sense of humor from my dad which has probably been the single most important element of my being in perpetuating my life; because even in enduring difficult circumstances there’s always an abundance of things that I find humorous during the day.  More than anything I’m appreciative of his effort when I was a child and the moments in the past when he’s helped me out.  I just don’t like the illusion of concern when I can tell through his actions it isn’t genuine.  


On the 18th I was able to find another moving job through CL.  It was physically taxing (packed, wrapped and mostly loaded about 3000 cubic feet 3/4th of a semi trailer) and went from 7pm until 12:30am but I made $300 on that.  This allowed me to change my oil, buy a used tire and get away from the coming heat.

I was around Des Moines and the temperatures were projected to be over 100.  I can handle the heat of the day but I can’t handle a mostly 80 plus degree night.  Sleep is important to me, I need 6 to 7 hours.  I know how difficult it is to fall asleep when it’s above 70 degrees.  I went to the closest tolerable place that had decent weather for the next few days.  I may order some phenibut tomorrow.  I don’t anticipate finding any work here on preferable terms so I may take a day or two just to edit the journal.  

I bought a little bit of weed and edibles, spent $15 for two grams of flower and 10 10mg edibles.  It’s like taking a breath.  The general stress is relieved and I can think a little more clearly.  Thoughts become less dominated by immediate and impending circumstances and this allows me to have more productive thoughts.  If nothing else it encourages the production of objectives that improve well being.  Otherwise objectives become occupied by trying to improve the immediate circumstances and avoid the impending.  Something I notice after not consuming any THC in the last two weeks.  The same explanation I’ve supplied for my consumption of marijuana in the past.    

I may head further east in the state since there is a major metropolitan area where I have a better chance of making some money, or I may stay here for a few days since the next job I find is probably going to be west of here.  Maybe I can catch a trailer unload or load over there, but if not, then I’ve pretty much just wasted about 250 miles or more round trip when I could have just stayed put for 2 days until my phenibut arrives and I find a decent assembly somewhere.   And edit this journal since there are typos, auto correct errors, and other things.  I usually write at night and when I finish I’m too tired to read it over before posting it.  


My last I don’t know how many entries have been on the ongoing deterioration of my circumstances and that bothers me more than the deterioration of my circumstances.  Most of this journal contains systemic and behavioral insight, analysis, dialectics, and moral application among other useful and interesting information that has become blanketed in the chronicling of my misfortune.  I probably have no fewer than 15 pages of other entries I’ve written and have not posted.  My hardship is only relevant if my material ever reaches public consciousness, and there’s no reason to believe that it will.  

In summary, after 8 days without any work and a desire to leave Ohio, I drove 700 miles to do a treadmill assembly for $212 ($250, but $212 after app fees).  When I left I thought I had $100 but actually had about $20 less.  I remember checking my debit card balance but I must have checked it before I made roughly a $20 purchase at Walmart and didn’t realize it until I was about 200 miles from my destination.  This left me in a very uncomfortable predicament that fortunately resolved itself better than I anticipated.  

Roughly about 120 miles from the job and having about enough gas to make it to the job I had $17.  I also know I need fuel to get around after I finish the job and it takes 2 to 5 days before I’m paid for the job.  I started to put $12 in the tank, and then $15, but thought if I put $15 in the tank and I need the extra 15 miles that $2 will buy I really don’t want to ask for $2 on pump whatever.  I put the whole $17 in and set myself up to be without any money, and only a jar of peanut butter and about a dozen slices of bread for 2 to 7 days since if I don’t receive the money on Friday, it isn’t going to come until Monday and possibly not until Tuesday.  

There’s no telling with this app.  There’s been times I’ve done a job and it’s there in 2 days, and other times I’ve done a job on a Sunday and haven’t received the money until Friday.  I wrote about those incidents that put me in similar difficulties but neither as difficult as these circumstances could have been.  After completing the job the customer has to release the payment and this customer did not release the payment until later in the evening.  

Tuesday and Wednesday I was rationing my peanut butter and bread, pretty hungry for most of both days and based on my recent experience receiving payments through this app I was planning to be without money until Monday.  Today (Thursday) I checked my account and the money arrived.  Immediately after I checked Craigslist and found a moving job to unload a truck and made $80 and received a $100 tip. 

Some may wonder why I don’t pawn or sell my rings instead of going hungry? I won’t pawn them because of the risk that they could be lost or something could happen that would  prevent me from getting them out. I won’t sell them because I’m not going to get what they’re worth. Jewelry is not an investment. I bought them during a time when I was making money but didn’t have any time. I was interstate moving (2018) and everyday was work and sleep. Had money I had no time to spend which was good because I was saving, but I wanted to have something to show for those efforts and I liked the way the rings looked and the diamonds reflected the light. A pawn shop is only going to offer the price for the metals, which is probably about $100 on the white gold and $20 on the silver. Retail it’s $1500 worth of jewelry that I paid $800 for, that has an immediate market value of $100 to $150. I bought them because I liked them, and it also serves as an indicator that I’ve been in positions where I’ve had some money, but more importantly you can rule out drug dependency as an explanation for my circumstances since anyone with a drug dependency serious enough to lead to them being homeless and socially isolated would exhaust all exploitable resources to satisfy their craving for the drug.

I also received an email from my dad where he offers advice about how I can make money which isn’t for my benefit but for his.  It’s for his personal satisfaction in feeling like he’s expressing concern and trying to help me where his continued indifference to my struggles that I publish may reflect poorly on him in appearance and may make him feel bad from time to time.  An email and some advice creates the appearance of concern and effort and keeps his conscience clear.  His conscience should be clear, I’m a grown man, he bears no responsibility for my present predicament and circumstances and is not obligated to help.  

It’s irritating not so much because of the motivation of the correspondence, which can both be proven and denied, but because it reveals that he understands nothing about me or why my circumstances are as they are.  He projects his former ambition to make money independently onto me, as if my goal is to make money independently.  It isn’t about money or self employment.  I had opportunities to make money.  I saved $12,000 in 5 and a half months, and had I approached the job just a little bit differently and not left I could have kept working and making good money. Had I wanted to make money independently I would have invested that 12k into a business knowing that the efforts to promote my material and organization would likely end up as they have.

Had I been committed to the job they’d have paid for me to get any certification I needed for any construction jobs they did, taught me to use any piece of equipment, and put me in a position to do what Mark does and make contract money at a cut.  Essentially, they’d bid more jobs and give me a budget to complete the jobs and I’d keep whatever was left over from the budget from the job.  I obviously wasn’t able to do that at the time I left but I could have been there by the time I left if that’s what I wanted to do.  Otherwise I could have continued as an installer making $30 an hour plus the possibility of bonuses, perks, and would have likely received incremental raises over time.  

What does the money buy?  I worked and saved the money I saved because I thought the money could be used to promote my material and through that promotion the human condition could be improved.  I made some mistakes in my approach and appropriations but not enough to account for the complete lack of results I experienced.  Given the inability to overcome human biases, except through maybe direct payment to people to learn the material which is a sum that I cannot reasonably save, I’ll ask the question again: what does money buy in consideration of the human aversion to truth?

The most satisfying expenditures I had while making money was probably sending money to my daughter.  After that we have higher level of basic comforts, food, mood enhancers (phenibut, marijuana, occasional drink), dates with women, and the security of having money.  What does more money buy?  More money to send to my daughter, increased level of comfort, better car, etc.  

My irritation with my dad’s email is he has absolutely no clue about what it is I’m trying to accomplish, or the substance of what I was promoting.  Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison is a completely novel discovery of the functions of the subconscious mind identifying all the fundamental ways objects can be assembled, organized, and perceived and how objective formation takes place down to the production of thoughts.  There’s nothing in psychology or neuroscience that contradicts ASC, and there is plenty of research that is explainable through ASC and ASC is evidenced through thoughts, feelings, and behavior but on an individual basis.  

Objective morality is incontrovertible, and in some instances of exchange I believe people have realized this so they’ve maintained their resistance by denying that desire is ever present in the conscious mind only to be denied their denial through the optimization of motion and maximization of the expression of subjective values.  Which is to say morality is a determinant of motion because it prevents actions believed to be wrong, which means only prohibiting imposing acts allows for the most motion and most subjective expression as well as the fulfillment of the most desire despite those who would ask for proof that all people have desire as ridiculous as that sounds.  And it is objective because any moral code that claims an act is wrong that does not impose is the imposition of a subjective preference onto others.  

All human problems can be shown to be a product of objective moral shortcomings, individual and systemic. Explanations of systemic function and legislative solutions are shut out by political soap operas where the biases of the public are manipulated through these 24 hours narratives of deception and irrelevance that ignorant people of all political affiliations and leanings pretend to be civically engaged through.  

An organization that could create a power that can only be neutralized through the passage of legislation and if not neutralized will produce the passage of legislation, if people understood the mechanism being referenced and just how greatly their interests will be served materially, if the present legislative agenda moves forward; and what can be accomplished in the future when the public has a tool that can be used to advance their interests. I’m talking about giving the public a seat at the real table, with industry and their representatives, who are talking about contracts, subsidies, regulations, tax credits, and other legislation that has an impact on their interests. Meanwhile the public’s focused on Trump being charged, Hunter Biden, that country music video (I wrote about it cannot remember name) and all manners of things they have strong manufactured opinions about that have no impact on their interests. In recognition of their own best interests not only are they able to advance those interests, but it broadens the popular perspective on politics and systemic function. OPL has the potential to change politics in this country forever, positively.

In objective morality and truth of motion there are existential implications that invalidate popular notions and superstitions about what life is that have profound effects on the human condition generally.  

“Some men see things as they are, and say why. I dream of things that never were, and say why not.”. Robert Kennedy

I have 7 books and a screenplay on the same website my dad occasionally trolls to read about the chronicling of my misfortune.  He hasn’t bought a book to even know what it is that I’m committed to that has led to the production of these circumstances, only skims the journal chronicling these circumstances and thinks he’s fulfilling some parental duty by sending me advice about ways I can make money.  That’s the proof of the motivation for the emails being for his benefit and not mine.  He has no duty or obligation, but I’m irked by the inauthenticity of the effort. 

About a month ago I received a call from Chris from Premier I didn’t answer.  A few days later Mark texted me a funny video of 3 ladders zip tied together and said it reminded him of me.  He stereotyped me as the zip tie guy because one time I had an idea to use a zip tie on a repair we were doing on a ceiling, and another time  some contractor left his ladder in our way so we zip tied the ladder together so he’d have to cut the zip ties to open it.  I could call or text Mark and tell him I’m ready to commit to Premier and probably go back to work for him.  The problem is money can’t buy me what I want. To address a previous assertions about my income opportunities calling Mark is not an income opportunity. It would require a commitment that I’m not interested in making.

Obviously I don’t want to continue living within these circumstances but these circumstances are preferable to the alternative.  If I’m going to be ignored by people who don’t have an argument whose conceptions are inconsistent and determined by how information makes them feel, I’d rather live in subsistence, with general human incorrigibility responsible for that situation than enter some semblance of assimilation.  

As for the idea that I should make money and ignore the ignorance around me, it’s similar to telling someone in a room full of tambourine and trumpet players that they should just enjoy themselves in that setting.  It’s the same for me except the world is the room and the ignorance of the people and what that ignorance produces is the trumpets and tambourines.  

Everybody can claim their life is great and repeat cliche slogans that they’re living their best life.  But I know how much you make, how much you have saved, and how much you have in your bank accounts.  Half of you have no savings accounts, half of you make less than 29k per year on average individually (house hold median income divided by the average number of adults per household), and half of people have less than $1400 in their checking account individually.  Median checking account balance individually is 1416, and I imagine the drop off comes pretty fast and steep.  It’s also likely that what was  in people’s  checking accounts at the time the Fed did the survey, was already allocated to some bill in the near future. 

People are content through their bullshit.  Anything that challenges and threatens those beliefs is shut out, hence the position I find myself in.  

I don’t write about my circumstances for the purpose of someone seeing it and being sympathetic.  I write about it in part because it should demonstrate that there are things I know that make the unbearable bearable.  I’m 0 to probably 35 years until I’m out the door and probably closer to zero than I am to reaching average life expectancy.  Life is a short affair and I have a high level of certainty about life based on what I know.  I am confident that upon death people are going to find out what life is and what they are.  They’re going to hate that more than I have been made to hate this brief existence on this planet.  There is some solace in knowing that.    


The last job I was able to find was on August 5th.  This shit doesn’t make any sense.  There are 3 mediums I use to find work.  One rarely works, and two are intermittent.  On one of the mediums there have been plenty of postings for jobs I usually get but no one has accepted my bids and most haven’t even responded to me which is what doesn’t make any sense.  There have been 8 trampoline assemblies I’ve responded to.  I have 9 completed trampolines through this app and 5 star service reviews on each assembly.  What’s even stranger is these customers have ignored my response and reposted the listings. 

There was a basketball hoop assembly, I have a basketball hoop assembly with a 5 star rating.  The customer responded stating they found someone to assemble the hoop presumably outside of the app since I’m the only person who responded but stated they would get back to me if that person didn’t show up.  The next day the listing was reposted but the customer didn’t respond to me.  

It isn’t as if there’s strong competition and as I stated in most of these listings I’m the only person to respond.  I see the competition when there are other people bidding.  Outside of GA, and CA where the app has a strong presence most of the people bidding on these jobs either have not done a job through the app and their responses are poor, or they have sub 5 ratings meaning their previous customers were not completely satisfied, or they don’t have 100 percent completion rates meaning they bid on jobs they couldn’t do.  

There’s one customer who responded to me who is 700 miles away for a $250 job.  I keep about $210 after the app takes their fee.  I have $100 and it’ll cost me $70 to get there assuming my car holds up.  As I mentioned about 700 miles ago I have a tire that can go at any time.  It’s been in that condition for probably the last 3000 miles, no tread, like a racing slick.  I haven’t been able to make enough money to afford the 50 to 70 dollars to buy a used one.  

Another app I use has listings but I bid on the jobs and usually they’re not accepted.  I’ve only done a few jobs through that app, none of them recently, and the app doesn’t allow you to introduce yourself.  The company sees your skills and rating and that’s it.  I had two 5s and a 0 which gives me a low rating.  The 0 came because I bid a job but found something more lucrative through CL.  At the time it was $85 for a 5 hour shift at Good Will or a moving job where I made in the neighborhood of $250.  

That app is primarily manufacturing jobs and warehouse work.  I’m seeing jobs in Ohio and South Eastern MI and it’s very telling about the labor market.  Most of the listings are $13.to $15 per hour, one was $10 per hour.  In my desperation I bid on some of these and I’m still not selected.  Which shows that people are responding to and working for these paltry sums.  The puppets are contented by their bullshit.

I’ve postponed my demise through an app where I can earn small amounts of money by playing mobile games.  I’ve made about $60 in the last 10 days which I clearly need.


I called the township of Nazareth, PA about the ticket I received.  In the previous entry I stated I received the ticket in Bethlehem, or Easton which is the Google Maps location of the Walmart but the ticket went to the Nazareth township.  The clerk told me I have a $50 fine and the total costs were roughly $200.  The only way to dispute the citation is to send the plea form back with $50 and then I’d be given a court date.  I have about $130 on me, I haven’t been able to find any work for 5 days so I just won’t be back in PA.  

What upsets me most about the situation is some piece of shit with a law degree reviewed the citation to determine the fine.  He’s clearly incompetent or does his job with such a level of unenthusiastic indifference that he sees physically offensive and does not realize or care that in order for an act to be physically offensive it has to directly impose on the senses of someone, which clearly the act does not, since there were no people present in the area where it was poured.  (See case law previous entry).  I won’t have an opportunity to present the case law and defend myself so it is what it is.  

Important to recognize as I have chronicled on previous occasions that my race, gender, and sexuality served no advantage in the avoidance of this outcome.  The only circumstance that could have changed this outcome is if I had more money or opportunities for income.  There are countless ways the interaction wouldn’t have occurred or could have occurred differently but if all things occurred the same way, if I have even $500 to my name I’m in a position to send back the form with $50, and appear for a court date to have the ticket dismissed.  Instead I’ll have a warrant in PA because I cannot afford to have the law upheld on my behalf.

If I survive long enough I’ll be headed back down south soon.  Or maybe to the wretched west coast and take advantage of whatever homeless programs that are offered.  Probably not.  I’m on a very long circling the drain trajectory.  In addition to all the other obstacles I face I’m confined by a conspiracy with unknown participants who have contributed to me being in this situation.  The aim is suppression and I rarely mention it because I cannot prove it.  Mentioning it absent details, and my refusal to provide those details makes it appear as a product of mental illness or a fabrication, but the problem with that conclusion is there’s no evidence of it in any of my other behavior.  Where if it’s schizophrenia or paranoia conspiracy is at the forefront.  Instead it’s just duly noted patterns of behavior and circumstances that create a preponderance of evidence that my environment is tampered with.  Serves as motivation to continue surviving but is also demotivating in recognition that all outlets have been and will continue to be denied.  I suppose that’s the logical response to someone who seeks to improve the intelligence and opportunities of a species where the few who benefit the most from this organization, rely on the stupidity of the species to churn out mindless drones who can be manipulated and controlled through biases and generally contented through bullshit.

About two weeks at a rest area in Morrisville, PA I woke up to find a man leaning against my car smoking a cigarette a few feet from me.  I sleep with the windows down when it’s hot outside.  I said can I help you?  He apologized stating he has a white car and thought he was leaning on his car. Clearly bullshit but he was walking away so no force was really warranted for him standing next to me as I slept.  The following day there were no fewer than 5 cigarette butts by my rear tire, all the same brand.  This man smoked 5 cigarettes before I noticed him.  Strange, the kind of thing someone might do who is contemplating stabbing somebody in the neck while they’re sleeping.  

I’ve been out of Eliquis for about a week now.  I don’t think the blood clots ever went away.  The resting pain of the clots has subsided but when I’m on the treadmill I can still feel them in my calf. 


I’ve lost all chemical mood enhancers that reduce stress and acknowledgement of hopeless circumstances and create windows where I can become inspired and be productive.  I haven’t been able to afford phenibut and an officer in Easton, PA, confiscated my marijuana.  

I slept at a Walmart parking lot in Easton near Bethlehem, PA. The following morning after stowing my sleeping bag and pillow in the trunk I emptied my piss jug in the storm drain.  I returned to my car looking on Google maps for a place to do my laundry. I was approached by an officer who asked what I dumped down the storm drain.  I told him I spent the night there and had to use the bathroom and emptied a piss jug.  

He asked for ID which I provided to identify myself as is required per his investigation.  He asked me to step out of the car which I complied with as I am required to do for officer safety according to Pennsylvania v. Mimms.  Although the case law is applicable to a traffic stop and this was not a traffic stop it contained the same elements and is probably applicable, since I am in a car and the officer is conducting an investigation the same as if it were a traffic stop.  

At some point while waiting for my ID to come back from dispatch he informed me that he saw a marijuana stem in the car.  He asked if he could search and threatened to walk the the K9 around informing me of the full extent of the consequences if I refused.  I said doesn’t the marijuana stem constitute reasonable suspicion to search?  He said yes but still asked if he had my permission to search.  

In hindsight, he has reasonable suspicion to search but must investigate that suspicion in the least invasive way possible.  That means he has reasonable suspicion to walk the dog around and conduct an open air sniff, and if the dog alerts this would provide him reasonable suspicion or maybe even probable cause to search the vehicle without my consent.  

It would have been a crap shoot that I probably would have lost.  Earlier in the morning this officer drove behind my car while I was parked and I only knew he was there because I turned around to hear his dog barking.  It’s possible he had the window down and the dog already alerted on my car.  He couldn’t act on that because he had no reason to be investigating me.  

I told him I had a small amount of marijuana and a pipe in my center console and gave him permission to search.  He confiscated the marijuana and then wrote me a ticket for dumping piss down the storm drain, saying he couldn’t let me get off scottfree for the marijuana but didn’t want to write me a ticket for it because the state would have an issue with him for not charging me with it especially since I’m from another state.  

He gave me a state citation for disorderly conduct but the act doesn’t meet the letter of the law.  He wrote “the defendant did create a physically offensive condition when he dumped his urine bottle down the storm drain.”

5503.  Disorderly Conduct

(a)  Offense defined.–A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

(4)  creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. 

The citation is in reference to subsection 4, the first three subsections are clearly not applicable and this is what the officer mentioned in his citation.  

Physically offensive requires a direct assault on the senses or an invasion of privacy.  

Com. v. Williams, 394 Pa. Super. 90, 574 A.2d 1161 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990)

“Although a precise definition of “physically offensive condition” is elusive, this term encompasses direct assaults on the physical senses of members of the public. A defendant may create such a condition if she sets off a “stink bomb”, strews rotting garbage in public places, or shines blinding lights in the eyes of others. See Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 250.2 commentary at 347 (Official Draft and Revised Comments 1980).”

Dumping a urine bottle down a storm drain only qualifies if the urine is smelled by other people otherwise there has been no direct assault on the physical senses for the act to be considered physically offensive and meet the definition of disorderly conduct.  

The storm drain was located in a portion of the parking lot where there were neither cars nor people over 100 yards away from the entrance.


I have a number to call to dispute the citation.  It’s a non traffic sliding penalty citation so there has to be some kind of hearing either via phone or video call to determine the penalty and during this time I should be able to dispute it.  

Otherwise it should be thrown out if I’m able to talk to whatever state attorney handles these citations.  

It’s a strange situation where I’m upset that he 1st probably violated my civil rights by driving through the parking lot with the window cracked and essentially searching my vehicle without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.  Second that he used the pretext of a marijuana stem (I don’t know if there was or wasn’t I assumed there was since I smoke weed in my car) to search my car to seize my property and impact my mood when he could have left me the fuck alone.  

Marijuana prohibition is immoral because it imposes for an act that is unimposing, where the act of possessing marijuana doesn’t impose on others and the consumption of marijuana does not create behavior in users that increases the likelihood that they will impose on others.  I still support marijuana prohibition where it is still illegal because it creates an opportunity for disadvantaged people to earn money and have time through the manufacture and sale of marijuana. In states where it is legal this opportunity is taken from the poor and handed to those who have the resources to comply with state regulations, and legalization destroys the market.  


 One thing that phenibut did for me is dampened the stress of my circumstances.  Made them seem less overwhelming which increased the possibility of becoming motivated.  I’ve been engaging in a lot of distractive behavior over the last month, and really since December when I left Vegas and all efforts to be acknowledged proved fruitless, but more so in the last month, last weeks.  

I’m aware of how the subconscious mind functions.  Always set to an objective to produce a positive feeling including avoiding objects and objectives that produce negative feelings.  And comparisons between positive and positive feelings, and comparisons between positive in the immediate or the future being worth negative feelings in the immediate or.the future. 

In 10 years, through every conceivable medium available to me, in person, phone, email, etc, every act fails to produce the desired result which of course has negative feelings attached to it.  Subconsciously efforts I consciously consider to be productive are avoided because of the mountain of impressions where the lack of results have produced negative feelings.  

These feelings are not caused by rejection. They come from knowing you’re not being understood, and learning why you’re not understood, which is largely the preservation of bias through both conscious and subconscious mechanisms.  This is consciously unmotivating because I know people’s attention and interest in things is motivated by feelings (that they do not understand) and information that challenges beliefs will turn them away, and often will prevent the information from being understood.  This puts me in the unenviable position of being the promoter of beneficial information, insights,  ideas, and discoveries, that cannot be communicated because of biases.  

After Vegas (last location of canvasing promotions, but did some phone and email solicitations following Vegas), I don’t know what to do.  When people who stand to earn $5 to $15 more per hour through legislation that serves all affected interests are not interested in what you’re promoting, the impossible task (convincing people to understand and act on their own best interests) seems that much more impossible.  An impossible task for people to recognize and act on their own best interests.  

I’ve explained these things more thoroughly in other areas of the journal.  The point of returning to it is just to express that I don’t know what to do, because everything that should work with rational people does not work with the people in this country, and probably the world over.  They’re not motivated by their own interests, they’re motivated by maintaining their inconsistent, contradictory, and incomplete beliefs.  These things are required for the maintenance of their perspectives that allow them to experience joy from the things they experience joy from in life.  

The one big mistake I made was not hiring someone when I left Premeir.  I was very paranoid, worried I would be hiring and firing uninterested and unproductive people.  The one high point was a few years ago I put an ad on CL to read a few paragraphs and answer the questions and who ever answers the questions the best won some money.  It only yielded a handful of responses but one person answered every question correctly except for a bonus question that wasn’t in the material.  It demonstrated an understanding of the material, or at least the ability to connect the questions with the answers within the material.  For example, you could read a few paragraphs on physics and answer questions by finding the answers in the paragraph without really understanding what it means.  It could have been that, but the point is people can at least become interested through their interest in money, and not spending half the money I had to float 6 to 8 weeks of an assistant/student at $500 to $600 per week was my biggest strategic regret.      

For a while I enjoyed comment exchanges through FB until you realize that bias precludes people from understanding.  I can answer every question, I can show the deficiencies and inapplicability of an argument, but it doesn’t serve any purpose if people do not understand what’s being stated.  There are several exchanges where people show they don’t understand the post they have an opinion about.  Some of these are in this journal while I planned to create a project around these exchanges.  They’re organic arguments that demonstrate biases and strong opinions about things people do not understand.  I believe I started writing the intro awhile back but haven’t returned to it because of a lack of motivation.  I’m writing it for what?  To add another unbought, and unread book to my catalog?  That’s the kind of thing phenibut helps with, that little bit of mood enhance that pushes me to resume and I at least enjoy the activity.  I mention FB because impressions from the many long exchanges have caused me to abandon that the same as in person, phone, and email solicitations.  On FB it’s worse, because there are points I reach where it seems impossible for a person to be that stupid, so I think they do understand and are pretending not to just to aggravate me.  

There have of course been positive exchanges but the depth of even these people’s understanding cannot be very deep and is often agreement on the margins.  Evident by the fact they haven’t purchased any books.   

I wrote an email the other day I didn’t send that was a pretty sober assessment of my circumstances.  

“I know why I’m at where I’m at and am no longer trying.  10 years of promotional efforts, in person, through phone, through email etc and being unable to even get a response that demonstrates that anything has been understood or in some cases knowing I’m not being understood produces negative feelings and its difficult to motivate yourself to keep doing the same thing that doesn’t feel good.  In consideration of what I understand about this species there’s nothing else to do.  So since I can’t do what I want I’m doing nothing.  My options are to waste my talents, insights, ideas and discoveries while being productive in a menial capacity to maintain comfort, or to do the bare minimum to survive and waste myself.  

Soon I’ll be doing less.  Car isn’t going to last forever and I cannot find enough work independently to sustain myself.  Not willing to work a regular job and endure all the BS that comes with it since the upside of the comfort isn’t worth the downside of the commitment.  I’ll be back to a bag, state benefits, on the streets or in a shelter.”

I assembled a trampoline today, hopefully something else will come up tomorrow or the following day because I need to order some phenibut to regain some motivation.  I also need a new tire.  My driver’s side rear tire has been damn near completely bald for about the last 1500 miles.  I often think driving down steep declines and turns like through 68 across West Virginia that I might be doing real bad if this tire goes at that moment.  Especially when I’m in that situation and next to a semi.  I think if this tire blows at this speed and decline it might fling me underneath a semi.  It’s not scary, I just think about it matter of factly.  Most of the time I’m in that situation because I’m trying to maximize my mpgs.  

I probably need about two weeks worth of steady work to get caught up on necessities, phenibut, tire, oil change, contacts, laptop (my Chromebook doesn’t turn on anymore) and a little bit of financial security to regroup.  Or about 8 decent app jobs within about a 2 week period.  


NPR was still on from the day before.   There was a psychologist who expressed vague opinions about parent adult-child relationships, a story about the Russian coup attempt, and the third story was about republican redistricting in the 2022 midterms in Alabama that as expected was made about race where there were no racial elements present.   

The story of interest is the conflation of race with political party.  NPR reported that Alabama republicans drew up a district map that fragmented black votes.  The democrats do the same thing trying to move the line on contested districts into areas that primarily vote democrat.  Is it racially motivated when they do it or are they trying to gain an advantage in elections by including more of their likely voters for contested seats?

For example,(not based on actual districts), if the Republicans have certain victory in district 1 and district 2 is contested, if they’re redrawing maps they’re going to want to move the line from district 2 into district 1 which will give them more republican voters.  Second, if they know they’re going to lose district 3 they could move the line from 3 into an area of 2 that votes mostly democrat.  Maybe the area of district 2 that district 3 moves into is urban and primarily black but also primarily democratic voters.  Then yes, republicans have fragmented the black vote by funneling their votes into a district that doesn’t need them, but that isn’t the intent.  It’s not racially motivated, no one from the party is thinking how do we marginalize black voters, they’re thinking how do we have fewer votes for democrats in a contested district.  What area has the highest concentration of democrat voters where we can create a justification to move the line.  It implies racism when the act isn’t motivated by race.  If republicans accused democrats of trying to marginalize white voters everyone on the left would know that gerrymandering is intent on changing vote totals, not marginalizing people based on race.  

I’ve had a lot of posts lately in response to race lately.  This isn’t me choosing to cover the topic, I’m responsive of to my surroundings.  These posts represent the frequency with which race is promoted where I’m responding to what I see and hear, not seeking out the information to challenge it.   

I just recognize race promotion as the greatest obstacle to the achievement of class goals that aim to improve income opportunities for the bottom 50 percent of income earners.  


I was listening to NPR today and there were two stories that were both efforts to make something appear other than what they were.  A country musicians song and video being promoted as racially inflammatory and offensive, despite the lyrics containing nothing that is overtly racist, and the song essentially being an anthem of country folk looking out for one another, where if what was taking place in a lot of big cities across the country was tried in some of the small towns the community would defend itself.  

When you cannot show racism in law enforcement, criminal justice outcomes, employment opportunities, housing opportunities, in the application of law, or access to services public or private,  it has to be interpreted into existence.  Some would contend that race can be shown to correlate to the aforementioned, but all of those racial correlations have economic causes.  Income produces disparities in outcomes, and since a greater proportion of poc begin poor there are racial disparities but caused by inadequate opportunities for income.  Which means a greater proportion of poc are disadvantaged but not because of race and face no greater disadvantage than the poor white people who begin in similar economic situations who outnumber them 2 to 1.  

Racism has to be interpreted into existence as is being done here.  A man writes a song and it’s interpreted in a way in which it was not intended.  But it keeps people’s minds on race.  It’s  a product of those who seek to reinforce that perspective, they’re looking for opportunities to call something something that it isn’t.  Even if it was it isn’t any indication of how poc are treated in this country and doesn’t represent a barrier to opportunity.  Obviously it’s not, because the song is about treating people based on their behavior.  What would happen if people behaved like that in a small town?

You have something that clearly isn’t racist based on the content of the song, but people who want to believe that it is believe that it is, and they add it to the safe of false things believed to be true that distort their perception of reality.  This  causes them to prioritize problems that are not problems, while the real issue of disadvantage which is inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money are ignored.  They cannot be communicated with, because facts that challenge their beliefs cannot be established.  They’ll be biased against everything that serves their interests just because you are the source of advancing those interests, because you’re also the source of information that challenges their beliefs.  There’s a debate with a person named Tammy Gibson about the round up service charge from a month or two ago that seems like an example of that.  

It’s easier to market race and frivolous legislation geared towards addressing the problem that isn’t a problem, than it is to market substance.

The second story was about whether there were civilian casualties in a raid of an Isis chief in Syria in 2019.  NPR reduces the question to one example and the example is poor.  There was a van near the compound that contained civilians.  The US military fired at the van because they wanted it to stop.  Of course that can have the opposite effect and it did.  When it did it was fired on it, kept going to get away from the gunfire, and then was blown up by a helicopter with a rocket.  Two of the passengers died and one survived.  

They obtained the pentagon’s report about the incident and then had an expert opinion about the report that can be summarized as the pentagon’s sticking to the story of what the soldiers believed at the time and not acknowledging what’s known retrospectively.  

The report is state propaganda, because it paints the US as making mistakes in well intended missions.  Typically the US doesn’t make mistakes, in a hostile area during the Obama Administration any combat aged male was considered a combatant.  This was the same idea promoted by the media about Vietnam, that it was a mistake strategically, not that it was morally wrong to deny people their right to self determination and kill 2 to 3 million of them in the effort to deny them that right.  

Whether the US accidentally killed 2 civilians and injured a 3rd in a raid on an Isis compound is only relevant to the survivor trying to sue for damage.   It’s no indication of US concern for civilian casualties if a foreign policy objective can be accomplished through the death of civilians.  

Isis and the civil war in Syria were both created by US foreign policy.  Syria held a referendum, 55 percent turned out and the people passed a new constitution addressing the demands of term limits and non Baath party members serving in government.  Instead the US and other western governments supported Islamic militants that fueled a civil war.  Many in Syria were joined by others in Libya who the US supported to remove Qaddafi, and also the removal of Saddam Hussein who contained radical elements in Iraq, and in decimating these places leaving people without jobs and income also drove people into radical militant groups.  The US armed, trained, and supported these groups.  

I was able to do another quick gig in New Jersey, that makes the trip worthwhile.  May have a few others upcoming.  Cash App played me out of $30.  Yesterday I put $15 on my poker account and there was just too much BS going on so I cashed out $29.99.  Cash App received the BTC but then refused to put it on my account telling me I had to reverse it.  I sent it back to the poker site and today I played like shit and lost it.  Starts with BS then I play like shit.  

I haven’t been doing shit lately.  Distracting myself with video games that pay a little bit of money to play them.  I’ve fallen behind on necessities.  In the short term this occupies my mind and creates the potential for long term goals but I’m yet to reestablish any confidence in promotional ideas for L&T material, motivation for the creation of new material, or the promotion of OPL and its associated causes.     


I did a job in New Jersey, I was inclined to make the trip on a trampoline assembly for $200 because it seemed like there were other jobs in the area.  Or maybe I thought things were closer than they actually were.  I did the assembly and went to a rest area in New York.  Now I’m waiting for that money to hit my account to figure out what the next move is.  

I went to a Walmart and there are no plastic bags at checkout.  What do they think they are accomplishing?  Whats happening, that is going to stop happening because the state of New York has prohibited retailers from supplying customers with plastic bags?  The explanation from NYSFocus.com is that “plastic bags pollute streets and water ways, block storm drains, and hamper the municipal recycling efforts.”. Do you know what else does the same thing?  Every other potential piece of litter.  Are any of those objectives accomplished through a plastic bag ban?  No, because every other potential piece of litter, which by the way probably becomes more prevalent without plastic bags, pollute the streets and water ways, block storm drains, and hamper municipal recycling efforts.  

All you’ve accomplished is inconveniencing your citizens and possibly increasing the incidence of litter for a law that will encourage stupid people to vote for you.  Insane.  The area I’m at, almost no one brought bags with them to the store.  I kinda like that in em, although I may be reading intent into the action that isn’t there.  Without knowing, I see the act of people not bringing bags for their groceries as saying they don’t agree with the policy.  They may not be, but it seems like that otherwise you would think more people would have made a few dollar investment into some reusable bags.  

I don’t like the topography out here either.  It’s difficult to gauge distances and everything takes longer to get to and more gas as opposed to flatter areas of the country.

I do not feel good being off of phenibut.  With phenibut I’m aware of the impending disaster but I don’t feel it.  Without the phenibut I feel it, and it influences my thoughts, and I feel uneasy.  Decision making seems more difficult.  Not having caffeine is also rough.  I should have got some instant coffee.  

The customer for the trampoline had an odd story I wanted to mention because there’s an implied expectation. He said his wife raised abused rabbits and did something to do with cancer with them.  I don’t know if she did or didn’t, but I thought to say I bet that makes her feel good, but didn’t want to risk him understanding that I was saying the act doesn’t improve my opinion of his wife.  I didn’t see his wife or the rabbits.  As bad as I needed that money I didn’t want to risk it.  Also didn’t want to risk my review since half my pitch is 5 star rated.  

He said he wanted to put it together with his kids to teach them life skills, but if they have ambition and money they may never need them.  They can just rent the skills of others when they require them.  This guy had a 1 number address. His kids will probably be alright without life skills. 

Very friendly guy though.  He started putting it together himself but put the first piece on upside down and stripped the Allen head.  I used pliers to take it off and put it back on.  Wasn’t a big deal and I didn’t put it in his customer review.  My customer reviews include the good and omit the bad.  I don’t know if they see my review before they leave their review.  I might have 4 starred him because his communication habits created a little bit of anxiety for me.  It took a day for him to contact me about a day and time, and then I had to remind him to send me the address the night before the job.  If my circumstances were different these things probably wouldn’t have had that effect.

Today through the site he was offering $200 to organize two closets.  I presumed if he wanted me to do it he would have called me, but I sent him a text asking anyway.  Would have been nice.  Missed a moving job today.  It was only an $80 load but right now, especially until that payment goes through, $80 greatly expands the things that I can do.  I need to find something so I can catch back up on my necessities. 


I was 3 days in Michigan after the job and hospital.  There was maybe one CL gig I might have missed because I wasn’t checking during that time but there really wasn’t much going on.  I’m in need of money, and began looking on Air Taskers nationwide.  I made some offers about 500 miles away and one accepted my offer.  I sent him a message but he didn’t respond yet which makes me uneasy, when I’m investing about a third of my money in the trip.  There’s a lot of Airtaskers stuff going on in that area.  

Finding work through these mediums has been difficult for awhile, where in Denver in 2017-2018 I could find enough work to accumulate money.  In Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, over the last few months I’ve averaged at best two days of work a week, possibly less.  It’s been unsustaining.  I don’t have money for phenibut and I already feel that in my mood.  I usually begin my day with a scoop of pre-work out and phenibut.  Yesterday I ran out of both and while I could have replaced them it’s an expense that will create financial insecurity.  My vape stopped working.  I decided to buy a pack of cigarettes to hold me over until I have 40 expendable dollars to buy a vape and juice since I’m low on juice.   Disposable vapes often only last about a day. 

I bring the cigarette purchase up because there was a biased thought either based on something I heard or something I heard that wasn’t related to vaping.  I thought I heard and should therefore look up if vaping can cause blood clots.  I was smoking a cigarette while I was thinking that.  I recognized almost immediately that the thought was a product of a desire to smoke cigarettes.  

Even if there were a general correlation observed through study, in my case I vapes for 14 months and did not develop blood clots over that span after I had the blood clots that led to a pulmonary embolism.  Each time I experienced blood clots was some time after living out of my car and not moving enough.  Subconsciously, cigarettes are valued objectives, so my subconscious will create thought objectives to influence my conscious mind to choose cigarettes which produce a better feeling than vaping.  

I typically don’t smoke because when I have a vape, vaping is cheaper.  Vaping also doesn’t seem to increase blood pressure and decrease respiratory performance the way that cigarettes do.  That’s important especially when you’re performing a lot of labor intensive work.  We can’t all be Nicolino Locche.  I also don’t like to smell like smoke.  

I’ve needed contacts for about 4 months now.  I’m down to one that has a piece torn off the side of it.  The other one ripped a few weeks ago and is unwearable.  

Conventional wisdom states that if I cannot afford my expenses through my current method for income that I need to work a regular job.  It’s a decision that comes down to the commitment not being worth the benefit.  Previously when I’ve worked regular jobs it’s been about accumulating money to promote the material.  I’ve done that and still can’t make it past being ignored.  Efforts chronicled through this journal.  

I cannot commit to the indefinite service of someone else’s economic interests to for contacts, phenibut, and the security of a regular income.  That’s essentially what it is.  I’m hanging in here waiting for a new promotional strategy but it’s unlikely that anything is forthcoming.  

Deception sells, the truth does not.  I have the most comprehensive understanding of the role morality plays in human behavior, I’ve identified objective morality and the principles of applications, I’ve identified the subconscious decision making process and subconscious functions down to the production of thoughts, I’ve created an organization that could pass legislation at the federal level if people were aware enough to recognize and act on their own interests, I have several legislative proposals that would improve income opportunities for the bottom 50 percent of income earners, as well as other legislative ideas to address impediments to individual liberty, I have explanations of political and economic functions, and popular issues, and I also have the most likely explanation of existence based on what we observe in the universe.  

I live in a world dominated by bias, people choosing facts based on how the information makes them feel.  To tie it into the original idea, people want to smoke too much.  Just parallel from my thoughts about smoking which were clearly the product of my desire to smoke.  The difference is I can recognize it, and people cannot.  

Seems like rough weather ahead, figuratively, because after fees I’m only making $170 on the job I’m driving 500 miles to do.  After fuel about $100 to $110.  Otherwise I do what?  Sit where I’m at, hope something comes up spending 10.to 15 dollars per day?  Hopefully I can find a few jobs out that way and get myself caught up.  Vape, phenibut, contacts, oil change, tire, website, and phone bill, and enough financial security for a week or two to form a new plan.  


I began to experience an unmanageable amount of pain from the blood clots in my left leg.  I went to ER to see if I could get a dose of Eliquis which can provide pain relief from the blood clots.  To my surprise they were going to treat me with intravenous blood thinners but then decided that they would provide me Eliquis  from their pharmacy.  

It’s only been a day, but previously when I’ve been given Eliquis the pain begins to subside within a few hours of taking it.  Today after a workout of biceps and back I stepped on the treadmill where I typically do a fast incline walk for about a half hour.  After about two minutes the calf was on fire and maximumly pumped.  There was a good degree of pain present that didn’t recede for 15 minutes when I decided to cut my cardio short and get off the machine.  

Not in a particularly good mood today.  The day started off poorly playing poker.  I took 4th in an Omaha high low tournament I usually make the final table on maybe 1 in 5 attempts and won $135 on the $10 tournament.  I cashed out $110, finished paying back Holly, and kept $25 to play with this morning.  It may be coincidence but I had some horrible luck on the tourneys I played with that $25.  I feel like I should have cashed the whole thing out, and then made another deposit next the I wanted to play.  Could be coincidence, but had super unlikely things happening much more frequently than they are supposed to happen.  Flop is A 2 4 rainbow and I have 3 5 for the straight.  My opponent raises I reraise and we jam.  He has a pair of aces.  The turn is a jack and the river is a jack.  I won that hand probably better than 9 out of 10x.  People hitting flushes calling with garbage on rainbow flops and catching runner runner suits.  Non-stop dominated and then they river a second pair or something.  

After this I had a few things I wanted to add to Liberty the Definitive Moral Truth.  I grabbed my laptop and it no longer turns on.  I did some of what I wanted to do through the phone but the problem with the phone is I can’t tell the distance.  I don’t know where the words are in relation to the page and instead of the footnotes being at the bottom of the page they appear at the end of the document through phone application of Google Docs.  I need to buy another laptop.  

I also only took two scoops of phenibut today because I’m just about out.  I tried ordering more today but the website wasn’t working.  It’s also going to put me very low on money, in the neighborhood of $150 if I do.  But  phenibut plays a big role in allowing me to hold myself together while I either try to regroup or I don’t.  I’m not going to start going down that road here since I’ve explained exactly why I’m at where I’m at now and why I don’t believe my circumstances can improve.  I agree, it makes sense to check out of a hopeless situation, but as I’ve also written before there’s no emotional pain, so there’s nothing really driving that objective, other than it making a lot of sense in the recognition that the truth cannot penetrate bias, and so a man attempting to communicate truth cannot be effective in communication among a species whose understanding is built on bias.  

I see all these grifting organizations with ads on FB, sometimes I comment as much.  Someone asked me yes or no response to my comment this was in reference to the poll the organization was promoting, is systemic racism driving mass incarceration?  

Orion Simerl The answer is no.  Poverty drives mass incarceration evidenced the median pre incarceration income of inmates being about half the median income of the general population.  Also evidenced by the fact that the lower the household income a male is born into the higher the chance he will be in prison in his 30s.  Income is the greatest predictor of incarceration, as it is the greatest predictor for most negative outcomes.  Since black people disproportionately represent lower income households due to PAST systemic racism they commit more crimes and the disparity between black and white incarceration rates is incorrectly assigned to race.  Of course white people in whole numbers are more than twice as likely to be impoverished than black people and commit more than twice as much crime overall.  More evidence that race is not driving mass incarceration is studies on criminal justice outcomes.  Although whites typically have better outcomes than blacks Asians have better outcomes than whites.  If criminal justice proceedings were influenced by race whites would have the best outcomes.  Asians have the highest median income in the country which is why they have the best criminal justice outcomes.  There’s a lot to unpack in that explanation I won’t go into here.  

What the grifter does is take a cause out of context to capitalize on the popularity of the cause and use it for their advantage.  They’re not concerned with racism or mass incarceration or they would study it objective to understand the problem and propose solutions.  I’m doing so they would recognize that all problems are rooted in self deception and inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money.  Oplnow.com

Ross Nesbitt Obviously racism drives mass incarceration.  

Orion Simerl You have no argument, explanation, or evidence for your position.  It’s the equivalent to me saying Sasquatch is driving mass incarceration, it means nothing.  Meanwhile I cited three different studies demonstrating the correlation between incarceration and income showing that mass incarceration is driven by inadequate opportunities for people to earn money.  Then I pointed out that since a disproportionate amount of black people are poor it will produce a racial correlation, but racism isn’t the reason black people are disproportionately incarcerated, it’s the disproportionate amount who are poor, which drives crimes, which leads to incarceration.  This assertion is supported by the study that Asians have the best outcomes in criminal defense proceedings.  If criminal justice proceedings are influenced by race then white people should have the best criminal defense outcomes.  They do not because Asian people have the highest median income.  

Additionally, I was incarcerated for 6 years between the age of 14 to 24, in juvenile and adult facilities, at the county and state level.  Shawshank Redemption is just a movie.  People talk about their cases constantly especially if they’re still going to court because they want people to tell them things are going to be okay when they go to court.  I can’t recall a single person in that time  who was locked up because of racism.  I know the idea that racism is driving mass incarceration is  bullshit based on the data, and from having  been a criminal.


The following is a comment left on a video produced by a YouTuber Decoy Voice where he provided commentary and reported on clashes between climate change activists and LGBT people at a pride parade.  It was reported that climate activists were protesting because LGBT people didn’t denounce fossil fuels.  Strange, because I didn’t know there was an authority that serves as the representative of what LGBT peoples positions are.  

My Comment

Is there anything better for the climate and emissions than a group that doesnt reproduce?  No one is in any position to accuse LGBT people of not doing their part on climate change.  You ask one of these activists what happens if the United States and the world stops using fossil fuel and they dont know the consequences.  The world runs on oil and will increasingly run on oil peaking in 2040.    The only thing that happens if we dont produce enough oil is the price of oil goes up.  Its also foolish to restrict US companies since global demand will be supplied regardless of whether Anerican companies will make money supplying it.  The electric car industry sells hundreds of thousands of cars which tells us manufacturing capacity isnt much greater than.that even if consumers wanted and could afford the cars.  Oil can only be phased out through demand.  

Grid energy should be priority in the reduction of emissions since even though it matters some, it doesnt matter much if people are driving electric cars powered by coal or natural gas electricity.  There was a way probably 20 years ago to have a rapid transotion to renewable energy and only if followed globally could we have reduced emissios to avoid catastrophic warming by next century with no mitigation efforts.  

It is still important to reduce emissions but we’re probably past the point where we can avoid major changes to what areas are habitable on the plant by addressing emissions alone.  The permafrost is already melting much more than it was supposed to by this point and the permafrost holds about 400ppm equivalent of carbon for the atmosphere after  ocean scrubbing.  

There was a recent study that claimed aerosols could be safely used to reduce the temperature of the poles to preserve the polar caps.  Cost about 9 billion dollars.  Its reasonable to  believe that this process can be used to cool any area of the planet.  A big part of implementation will be for commercial interests to find a way of benefiting from a cooler climate in an area and then government will fund the effort.  Maybe insurance companies in Florida could fund a study that discovers of the temperature over the Caribbean or south the atlantic was few degrees lower there would on average 50 percent fewer damage causing storms they could lobby comgress and market it as a public good for people in a hurricane prone region.  I’m not saying theres any correlation between temperature and storms, just an example of how weather modification could serve a commercial interest and get the government behind it.  

Shortly after the study I mentioned was published it was announced that the whitehouse financed a 5 year study on using aerosols to cool the planet.  

These activists know next to nothing.  Their position is based on opinions they dont understand accepted as fact and the position gives them opportunities to feel good through the improvement of self worth morally affirming behavior.  It creates social opportunities and the activities themselves creaye opportunities for status within the group.  Its not about the cause or addressing the cause but about feelings associated with the position and activities, and opportunities for social interaction.  

Funny that they can’t see how LGBT people are already the greenest people on the planet since they’re not giving birth to new carbon footprints in most cases.  

This was a comment on a post by someone who stated that atheism was the answer to the question so you believe there is a god?  Why do religious people want to make it something more than this?  My initial comment was kind of a challenge to the idea that religious people try to make it something more than that.  I think religious people do well in debates with atheists by only making it about the question and not bringing the specifics of their deity into the debate.  

There’s my comment, a reply from an atheist on my comment, and reply to his response.  Following this there was some back and forth on my third comment but I’m not going to post it because it’s essentially him making claims he doesn’t support with fact or reason and refusing to acknowledge the evidence provided.  

Orion Simerl Atheism has no explanation for existence.  Like religion it’s the assertion of something that is not known.

I think religious people do well in debates with atheists when they make it about not knowing the cause of existence because it’s the one rational point they can make without bringing their irrational and contradictory deities to the table.

Tom Marting  that’s correct, atheists look to astrophysicists and cosmologists for explanations of existence.  They don’t make unfounded assertions, they have lots of mathematical and empirical evidence backing up their claims.

Orion Simerl Except for atheism itself because atheism excludes a possibility without any evidence.  It’s reasonable to believe that a universe that exists to create conscious beings was created by something conscious.  Atheism rejects the notion without any evidence.

The universe exists to create life.  Beginning as hydrogen and through the four forces stars develop and in exhausting their fuel and sometimes exploding, create heavier elements that create more complex structures with the most complex thing the universe can create being life.     

I’m not an atheist in the sense that I do not reject the idea that consciousness existed prior to the universe but I also reject the idea that there is a god as people conceive it.  

Why does a universe exist to produce life?  

What’s the problem with a space of unlimited potential?  The problem is that eventually you will create and experience everything you want to and then existence becomes a burden.  Even if there are billions of beings in that space who interact, the space is limited by the experiences of the beings within that space.  It’s a problem that cannot be solved by creating beings within the space because new beings are a different assembly of values but are still limited by the preexisting experiences. 

To create new beings and new experiences requires something that produces random results with the potential for life.  That is what the universe does.  

Based on the purpose of the universe as is observable, I see the universe as something that solves a problem for many beings, not something that was created to stroke a creators ego to be worshiped, obeyed, and praised by his creation, but I also don’t see the universe as the cause of existence but rather an effect of something we don’t have the ability to observe, but may have the ability to deduce.  


Independence Day commemorates the day the wealth of this country formally declared the intent to create a nation where money would direct public policy.  To their credit, they were wise enough to protect themselves from the government they were creating I’m case it ever came under the control of popular rule, and in doing so protected the public through the bill of rights.  

The United States gets a lot of credit for offering a higher quality of life for it’s citizens than most countries.  Most of this is a product of the industrial capacity the US gained as a result of world war two and the global monetary policy that came out of Bretton Woods followed by the petrodollar, and succeeded through global dollar proliferation, trade, and the reliance of the world economy on a strong US economy, notwithstanding some BRICS plus countries but certainly China.  The point being is the quality of a country isn’t measured in the agreement of rights and the average relative quality of life compared to other nations that didn’t benefit from being the global hegemonic power and bending the world to their will as the US has.  This is to say that some of the credit for the relative success of the US system is a product of abundance achieved through force, overt, covert, direct, indirect, militarily, economic, diplomatically and propaganda.  

I am a proponent of capitalism, and think there are a lot of good things about the systems of government and law.  Not a fan of the people, in how they function or how business, media, and governments function but the organization is sound and the functioning can be fixed by correcting imbalances and correcting the functioning of people.  

By correcting the functioning of people I’m referring to mechanisms of bias that restrict intelligence and prevent communication.  This can be addressed through assignment sequencing and comparison.  

Inadequate opportunities for time and money need to be addressed.  The Declaration of Independence proclaims that a US citizen has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Liberty is defined as the capacity to do as one pleases.  And what is required to do?  Access to areas and resources which reduces to money, the time to do it, and the know-how to do it where know-how is gained through time and money.  

I have several legislative proposals to ensure all people have the opportunity for adequate amounts of income that will position people to achieve social mobility.  

The Organization for Popular Legislation is a tool that can be used to pass popular legislation so long as the legislation being proposed is economic in nature and there are enough people in this country who need to benefit from it. 

The other way to correct imbalances of political power are through Centers for Economic Planning.  Essentially corporations with ownership locked to the residents of a jurisdiction, that will invest under the direction and authority of those resident owners.  The CEP will grow it’s assets and the public can use their CEP to invest in politics the same industry does presently.  This isn’t a priority to me, but it is a way to exercise popular power in a government that operates through political investment.  It wouldn’t be good with this people and this environment of biases.  

Two groups of people who are directed to issues and given positions that are wrong about most of these ill-prioritized issues.  Opinions they like about subjects they do not understand are counted as fact because it reinforces their flimsy perspectives which feels good.  They’ve memorized some number of things they heard about people expressing contrary opinions so if the subject is discussed they can shift the argument to the source rather than the subject.  They’re scatter brained which means they can’t follow function, they perceive life as things to be believed, and this has two consequences: first it severely limits their ability to learn because what’s being stated to them isn’t received as it’s being presented.  They don’t follow one point to the next and connect the pieces like a puzzle to form the broader picture.  It also means they don’t know the difference between fact and opinion or understand the requirement of causation for knowledge.  I literally had an exchange with someone who stated the opinion of an expert is a fact and had no explanation as to why what they believed was true.  

There are a lot of people in this country who do not understand how the things they are indifferent to, play a role in shaping their circumstances and the circumstances of others.  

Almost all of them suffer from the belief in magic, deities, energy, etc that they believe influences happenings on this planet despite never witnessing anything result that cannot be explained through natural means.  I live in a world of normalized insanity.  This includes the previous paragraphs on bias as well as supernatural delusions.  Their only evidence for their beliefs are misaasigning the cause of their feelings.  When they they think about their deity or other superstitions the ideas make them feel good.  They associate these feelings with being caused by the supernatural because that’s the idea they have during the experience.

It doesn’t matter.  I’m on my way out, this species is on its way out.  It’s produced many times more for tyranny than it has for liberty.  You cannot be morally aligned with liberty and deceive yourself and self-deception is evident in people’s positions, reasoning, and the results this world produces.  

There’s nothing I can do.  My current situation is unsustainable, mentally and physically in terms of income opportunity and maintenance of assets.  Maintenance of assets  really just means this car isn’t going to last forever.   


Yesterday I was assigned two trampoline assemblies I made offers on on CL about a week ago.  I was going to cancel the gigs because it’s a third party situation where the guy either works for a company who sells this brand of trampoline and offers installation that he subs out, or he contracts with the company to handle the installation and he’s subbing it out.  I was going to cancel the jobs immediately based on my distance except that there is two of them at $200 each (I get $170 each after app fees).  He gave me the numbers for the customers.  I called the first customer and the call went straight to VM.  I left a VM stating I was assigned to his trampoline installation and I was trying to schedule a day and time to assemble it.  Then I sent a text stating the same thing.  All day, no response.  I contacted the app to see if I can cancel these tasks free of consequence since it’s third party.  

I’m wearing down.  Circumstances, including the heat, and feeling foggy based on the constant stress.   


Today I woke up and was monitoring CL ads between three cities I  was near enough to get a job in.  A job popped up about 200 miles from where I was and stated it was for today and tomorrow.  I told him I could get there by about 2pm.  He said to text him at 2pm to see if he wanted me to work today but he would definitely lock me in for tomorrow.  

So I had to spend $20 of my $32 on fuel.  At 2pm I sent a text.  When he didn’t respond I called the number.  When he didn’t pick up the VM stated it is a Google number.  Which means this job probably isn’t a job.  And now I’m 200 miles from the job prospects I had and also in a smaller market for work.  Of course looking back on the area I was in there were multiple jobs on CL in the time I’ve been driving and I received a response from a prospect that I probably could have done tomorrow for $350 and now I cannot get there.

Shortly after writing that I texted Holly asking her if she was busy?  I knew she had recently received her bonus and was in a position to help me out if I asked her but there is nothing I hate more than accepting help from her.  I had $12 and no work.  She texted that she would call me in about an hour.  

When she called me I had a chance to settle into my circumstances a little better.  I wasnt much worse off than I was previously, I had $12 instead of $32 which limited my range of work, but I could still just wait it out until some work came up.  I gave her the run down of my circumstances and she wanted to help me out.  

As soon as she did I secured the job for $350 but it was 500 miles away and scheduled for 10am the next morning.  I drove about 400 miles stopping at 1:45am with about 2 hours left to drive in the morning.  It reminded me of interstate moving.  I drove about 230 miles from Chicago to St. Louis and then 400 miles to get to this job, and had another 120 miles or so to drive when I woke up. 

The job went smooth, and the generous customer gave me a $50 tip on top of $296 out of $350 I received for the assembly.  It’ll take a few days for that money to hit my account but at least I know it’s coming.  Hopefully I can find a job tomorrow or Tuesday.  

I’m incredibly tired right now.  I woke up probably at 5:45am after falling asleep a little bit after 2am. Not to mention driving 630 miles the day before.  Too tired to be productive.  

People don’t want to be good, They want good to be defined by what they already are.  

People don’t want to know the truth, they want the truth to be defined by what they believe.  


This is an interesting position I find myself in.  It’s a position I should have seen approaching but I was too focused on the immediate circumstance of getting a battery and the mild trauma of my car flooding, witnessing, and trying to remedy those situations.  If the $187 from the Airtasker job didn’t arrive today, I wouldn’t have it until Monday which meant I wouldnt be able to pay my phone bill until Monday and would have to be around Wifi to use my phone to potentially find a job over the weekend.  You can imagine my initial excitement when I checked my account and saw that the money arrived.  

With the cash I had on me that put me at about $210.  $55 was taken for my phone.  Next order of business was the battery.  I called a junkyard yesterday who wanted $50 for a uses battery but it was 50 miles in the other direction.  I called another junkyard and the guy told me they didn’t have a battery.  Then I thought about the risk of buying a used battery where if it fails in a week or month I’m not going to be near where I bought the battery.  Even though I couldn’t afford it, I bought a new battery for $75.  I put $25 in the tank.  Needed vape juice $17, and before I really understood where I was at I bought Taco Bell $7.

My L&T website is $20 and that’s due on the 2nd or the 5th but I get a 7 to 10 day grace period on that.  

I headed in this direction because there was a $300 trampoline in Minneapolis, and a $250 trampoline just outside the NW Chicago suburbs area.  The woman about the $250 trampoline responded today but I didn’t change my location on the app so she asked if I was in the area.  I lied and told her I was.  Moral lie since I could be discriminated against, imposed on through the denial of opportunity based on location, when where I am is irrelevant to if I am going to be there and complete the job, and the lie doesn’t significantly affect her perception of reality.  Prevents imposition and doesn’t impose.  Moral lie.  

My original plan based on what was on the board before the battery went and the IL trampoline popped up was to do the trampoline in MN, then go to Utah for a job that was paying $1000 to basically dig a ditch 6 inches wide and1 foot deep around an area about the size of a football field described as 1000 linear feet.  After that I’d take a few days to work on my projects or I was thinking about this job in Oregon for $5000 to hang up clearance bars.  I sent him a message and guessed about what he was talking about, describing it as 3 bars either anchored to the floor or the ceiling.  He sent me the pictures and it was what I thought it was 6 yellow bars, probably hollow steel.  That job essentially comes down to 2 things.  The first is if the customer will rent a scissor lift, and the second is if the weight of the polls is manageable.  Outside of that I don’t think it would cost much more than about $200 in rented tools and material to complete the job.  

I’d use ratchet straps to hold the pole to the scissor lift.  There’s probably a bracket that fastens to the pole to allow the pole to be attached to something from the bottom. Presuming a concrete ceiling I rent a hammer drill and drill pilot holes into the concrete.  Then use an impact and some large concrete anchor bolts to fasten the pole to the ceiling.  That’s 80 percent.  Mounting the cross bar would probably consist of cutting a hole in each pipe and connecting it with a chain.    

That’s where I was a few days ago before the battery situation and before the MN trampoline stopped responding.  Now I’m hoping the IL trampoline goes through tomorrow or Sunday.  I might not get it until Tuesday or Wednesday but I can survive until then.  In between now and whenever I’m checking CL every 10 minutes or so to find a gig.  

I have $12 cash, $20 on my debit card, about 200 miles until empty in gas, 4 pieces of bread, and about 1/5th jar of peanut butter.  To be fair I did have $34.20 on my debit card but I thought Id throw 14.20 on poker and see what happens.  I now have $20 on my debit card is what happens 😂.  In fairness to the decision I cashed out $45 from $15 a few days ago so I’d have less money overall if not for the last time.  The other decision that could be criticized is the purchase of the nicotine juice.  I’d much rather be hungry than be without nicotine.  The decision I criticize the most was the taco bell.  I could have applied that $7 to another loaf of bread and peanut butter.  

I guess I still can but that $32 is precious until I get some more.  If for example I see a gig in St. Louis, same day cash where I can make over $100 I need that money for gas.  Even if I do the trampoline this weekend I still need that money for gas because it will probably eat up 2/3rds of my gas since there’s some city driving involved if I return to where I am now.  The peanut butter and bread is also important because I can go without food when I’m not doing anything but when I find something I’m going to need energy for that.  My strategy is to not do anything until I’m about to make some money.  Stop eating now and just drink water until something happens.  

Last few days I haven’t been to the gym because of my battery situation.  Some people probably don’t have a problem with it but I didn’t want to go to the gym and then find someone to give me a jump start when I was ready to leave.  Now I’m going to be without gas and energy for the gym until I find something. 

I’m waiting.  I never really think about fasting because it seems like such a useless exercise.  But circumstances are necessitating it.  


As I’ve stated before my circumstances fluctuate between bad and worse.  Today has been a swing towards the significantly worse.  Last two days I’ve woken up at rest areas and my battery has been dead.  I’ve gotten a jump in the morning and the battery would hold a charge while I went to the gym, worked out, went to Walmart, and then went to another rest area.  I’m waiting for money from my last AirTaskers job to hit my account.  I don’t have enough money to purchase a new battery until then which could have been yesterday, today, and since it hasn’t happened then hopefully it will happen tomorrow.  

I stopped at Walmart and bought some distilled water hoping the levels were low on the battery and refilling it may allow it to hold a charge longer.  After refilling it I drove about 20 miles to a rest area which should have charged it.  I had a ticket to play a poker tournament, planned on playing the tournament, going to the gym and hoping the money shows up in my account tomorrow, and/or hoping the water fixes my battery issue.  

I rolled my windows down upon arriving at the rest area.  Prior to adding the water the battery as I stated the battery held a charge for at least 3 to 4 hours.  It began to rain.  High wind storm.  I put my key in the ignition and there was nothing.  I asked a few people if they would pull next to me to jump my car and they refused.  It has been raining for about 2 hours by now and will continue to rain for 1.5 to 2.5 more hours according to the weather.  Last I checked I had about 3 inches of water on the floorboard of the back seat.  

My clothes are completely saturated down to my socks.  Now I’m waiting for the rain to stop and after that I’ll probably get a jump but my car is soaked.  Bad to worse back to bad, but never good.  

What do I mean by good?  It means opportunities to teach and promote my material and advancing the OPL legislative agenda while earning an income that supports expenses and a reasonable savings.  I could accomplish the second part, an income to improve my circumstances but if it is impossible to accomplish the first part, then it serves no purpose putting effort into the second part.  That is the plight of my existence, that human beings cannot understand things they don’t want to understand.  They don’t want to understand things because it forces them to acknowledge things about their beliefs and themselves that change values.  They cannot like what they like, do as they do, and be as they are without their current beliefs being true.  Ultimately, everybody’s BS eventually comes into conflict with the truth and prevents them from learning and understanding.  

That’s the difference in my life today compared to my life at previous points.  There’s always been a certain degree of impossibility offset by the potential of a tactic.  The longer I proceed the more evident it becomes that this species is incorrigible in matters of truth, which is the underlying cause of failed tactics, and the more certain I am that my ambition is impossible.  

I have a few projects I’ve been meaning to start but it’s very difficult within these circumstances especially knowing there is no outlet for it.  I plan on putting together a paper using these social media exchanges to show how bias prevents communication and obstructs people’s ability to understand. 

 I want to restructure the brief chapter in Liberty The Definitive Moral Truth on Islam, using the names of Allah to show what Allah must be for those descriptions to be correct.  For example, Muslims say that Allah is most merciful.  Allah cannot be most merciful unless his morality is based on liberty.  Because all beings want to do as they please which means so long as each individual’s liberty doesn’t interfere with the liberty of others all people can do what they please which is ideal, and most merciful.  Prohibiting something that doesn’t interfere with anyone else is cruelty without cause, and is not most merciful. That’s a bare bones example, but since liberty is true and the basis for objective morality most of these ascribed attributes applied on scale will reduce to liberty.  

 A third paper I was thinking about has to do with AI and how to create a self directing robot.  

I don’t remember the last time I was really relaxed.  The other aspect of feeling defeated is there are no breaks in the stress during moments of optimism.  Its having a noticeable impact on my behavior and mental sharpness.  


It’s a sorry understanding of moral behavior to claim that a deity, religion, or authority is required for people to behave morally.  Religious morality doesn’t function the same way as non-religious morality, and religion serves as a vehicle for immoral behavior.  

The essence of morality, right and wrong is tied to self worth.  When you understand something is wrong, committing that act reduces self worth through the acknowledgement that you are wrong for doing wrong.  

Religious morality is a little bit different.  It isn’t  doing wrong and feeling bad because of how you perceive yourself, it’s you doing wrong and feeling bad because of how you perceive the deity perceiving you. 

But the deity is forgiving.  So most religious people have a very fluid morality, where morality isn’t understanding right and wrong, morality is I can do the wrong things that the deity will excuse.  

I don’t speak for anyone else, but whenever I question my behavior due to some imperfection, moral or subjective, there has to be a resolution.  Was the act wrong, or in subjective judgement, did I perform as poorly as I believe I did.  If I was morally wrong I need to know why I committed the act, which will require analysis of my circumstances, including remembrance of thoughts and feelings.  While I don’t always remember exactly what I was thinking, there’s usually a general idea and a general feeling associated with an event that has moral significance.  Whether moral or subjective, I need to understand why I did the thing either to be prepared for those circumstances in the future, or to adjust a value to produce different behavior.    

After that if it’s something I can make right I’ll fix it.  If not, and it involves someone, I’ll typically be extra kind to that person to atone.  

There has to be a resolution once I recognize that I’ve acted outside of my moral or subjective values.

For example, I was recently retained to assemble a standing baseball hoop.  There was a faulty part that prevents the hoop height from being adjusted.  I did everything I could and assembled it to the manufacturers specifications.  This job was through an app and I have a perfect 5 star rating which helps me get jobs.  Second, the money is paid to the app and it is held until the customer releases.  

I told the customer to call me and I’ll come back and replace the part once the new part arrives, but I did so knowing it is extremely unlikely that I will be in the.  Why did Iie to him?  Because I couldn’t provide him the satisfaction I wanted because the product was faulty, and I needed the money, and wanted to maintain my perfect review.  

If I’m 500 miles away or more and it is difficult or impossible for me to make it to him what will I do?  There’s only two things I can do.  1: I’ll make the trip.  If I can afford it feelings produced through honoring my commitment and essentially making the lie true will be worth the time and money.  If I cannot, or if I do not want to I’ll tell him the truth as to why I told him I would come back even though when I said it I knew it would be unlikely that I was in the area.  

Religious folk, if they thought about it are thinking I only said it because I need reviews and money, the deity understands and forgives.     

Religious people don’t typically think about their behavior, they think about how to convince the deity that they’re sorry enough to be forgiven.

Last two nights I woke up to a dead battery and had to get jump started.  I have cables but hate having to ask.  Tomorrow morning will be the same and hopefully the basketball assembly reaches my account tomorrow so I can buy a battery.  Otherwise it should be there the following day.  

As I mentioned in the previous entry I do have ideas for some projects that will make me feel good.  I don’t know if I’m going to get to them or not.  Apparently my dad has read some of my recent posts and he and his girlfriend did some research pertaining to how I could get free blood thinner medication to address the clots.  What he didn’t get then that he may get now is I’m pretty sure I don’t want to live anymore.  It’s just difficult to make good on the act because I’m not sure in the moment.  Eventually these clots are either going to stop the flow of oxygenated blood to the body or stop the flow of blood to the brain. It allows me to punch my ticket without punching my ticket.  

My circumstances are not going to improve the way I want them to improve, and I don’t presently have enough joy to make living worthwhile.  Ill digress from that, I have about a solid week of those kind of posts.  


I woke up before 4am after falling asleep around midnight.  It’s been like this lately.  Very difficult to sleep.  I don’t know if I took the entry out but I mentioned how events produce feelings through perception and how those feelings influence the kind of thoughts I have which in turn influences feelings and so on and so forth.

It isn’t always events.  If I’m not distracting myself with some BS, it’s pretty difficult not to think about some circumstance that stirs the pot.  About a year and a half ago I was able to maintain myself by playing poker tournaments.  I think I made about $1500 for the month but it was enough.  I threw a little bit of money on the online poker site and I don’t know what they did, but it seems rigged.  

Super unlikely occurrences happening over and over again.  On the flop I’m 99 percent going to win the hand, commit chips to the pot and then lose the hand.  Insane.  Playing Omaha pot limit.  Flop comes J 6 6.  I have J J.  I check to him because he’s been aggressively raising.  He raises and I reraise, and then he jams.  At that point the only hand that is ahead of me is if he had 6 6 which is unlikely.  He doesn’t even have a 6.  He has A J.  The only way he can win is if the turn is an A and the river is an A.  Turn comes and it’s an A.  River comes it’s an A.  If you want to know how unlikely that is take my hand and his hand and the flop out of the deck.  And then flip the turn river reshuffle and repeat and see how long it takes to come up A A.  It’s going to take a long time.  

Another example I’m playing holdem.  I have 9 7.  The floor is 6 8 10.  I flop the straight.  I check, he raises, I reraise, he jams, and I call.  He has QQ.  The only way he can win is to hit a Q and for the board to pair.  Turn comes Q, and as I immediately expected upon seeing the Q on the turn the river was a 6.  Deal that out and see how long it takes to hit the Q and a 6 8 or 10.  

There was a lot of that.  Only lost a little bit of money and I’m not upset about the money, I’m upset about it seeming like BS, not randomly generated results.  The first hand I mentioned with the runner runner As, the fact that he even called was suspect.  This is Omaha, we have 4 cards, even if you don’t think I have the 6, I called a big preflop raises I could have Qs Ks or As.  At that point calling with a J when I have about 85 percent of your stack is crazy unless you know AA is coming.  There’s a lot that seems like that.  

A few days ago the beginning of the previous entry was something I posted in the philosophy group on FB.  This is something of a double edge sword, because I enjoy responding to the comments, but many of the commenters are pieces of shit.  Their comments often fail to demonstrate an understanding of the post, some try to pull sentences out of context and try to challenge an element, then when their objection is overcome, they won’t acknowledge the point, they’ll just move onto something else shifting the controversy to something that often no longer pertains to the subject.  I’ve had people who have tried to dispute things that are not even relevant to the points made even if they were right.  Other people waste my time because I overcome all their objections, and instead of being grateful, they impose on my time through a bunch of BS I feel compelled to respond to because what theyre saying is wrong and I can explain it because it’s all motion. 

 I wrote somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 responses, and every objection is overcome and none of my responses contradict each other.  How is that possible?  It’s possible because everything is motion.  No matter what is stated, even if it doesn’t pertain to the subject I know what it is and how or why it does or does not produce what’s implied.  Like I said it’s very rare someone understands the post well enough for us to actually have an exchange about the subject, most of this is people who are making general assertions and not explaining what qualifies something in the post as that assertion.  Generic statements that say nothing because without an explanation it’s something that can be applied to any post.  Even so, I respond by showing that the content doesn’t meet the definition of their assertions.  This is a philosophy group with members who try to claim there is no truth, and it’s good for people to lie to themselves.  

As I mentioned in previous entries that although frustrating in that exchanges often devolve into me addressing nonsense, the exchanges in themselves are not  a source of hopelessness but they are a reminder of human evil through willed ignorance or self deception.  Those reminders influence my mood.  

My money is running low which is also a source of stress especially near the end of the month.  There’s an app I use to find jobs and people post tasks across the country.  I bid on a job that was 450 miles from where I was and my bid was accepted.  It’s only a $200 job and after the app takes their fee I only get $170.  Since I have no attachment to where I was at, it seemed better to drive 7 hours to make about $120 than to wait in an area and make no money.  I received responses for two other jobs on the way to each other if they go through.  One is a trampoline assembly for $300 I get $255, and the other is a 1000 linear foot trench, 6” wideband 12” deep for $1000.  I’m hoping to do the trampoline Thursday and the trench Saturday and Sunday.  This will give me some financial security, and then I have three projects to work on.

The trampoline assembly has not responded and without the trampoline I don’t have money to make it to the trench.  


I drove past a giant church that had a sign that read “just believe”.  Believing something does not make it true, and things that are true can be known and do not require belief.    

After thinking about the  foolish advice I thought about the morality of deception through willed ignorance. People contaminate the reality of others with false information because they refuse to critically examine their beliefs.  The only reason people do not subject information to critical examination is because so much of what a person likes depends on their beliefs being true.  They lie to others because they like the way the idea makes them feel; otherwise they would know better and that’s where the responsibility comes from.  

I believe in most situations, whether religion, politics, advertising, academics etc, that a person who spreads false information they believe is true without critically examining it is responsible for that deception.

It would be interesting if people understood that unknowingly deceiving others is morally wrong.  Interesting in the sense that people would gain a better understanding of how most people in this world are not good people.  Unfortunately it wouldn’t change habits through social norms, because there are far more people who prefer to believe things than there are people who want to know things. 

I returned to the gym after missing a few days.  In the previous entry I was trying to go all in on suicide and going to the gym seemed counterproductive to those ends.  Most of the reason I workout at the gym is for mood enhancement. 

When I first became serious about the act I gave myself a few things to complete to prepare for my departure.  I was going to write a eulogy, compile and edit my journal, read through my books, and then put the books and journal on a flash drive.  Then I was going to send the flash drive and my rings to my daughter.  

I was in Cincinnati alternating between the rest areas on 75 north, 71 north, and 71 south in Florence, KY.  I considered resuming a campaign in Cincinnati since the 1st Congressional District of Ohio was decided by about 15k votes in 2022.  Then I began reflecting on previous canvassing experience and I already knew the results of canvassing.  I decided to leave the Cincinnati area with no particular destination and still no plan.   

I exited shortly after the rest area on 71 north cutting across to 75.  On that route there are two hiking areas near a lake with places to park on either side of the street.  I stopped to go for a little hike.  By this time I abandoned the tasks, the eulogy will be irrelevant, and I don’t want to create attachments to momentos with my daughter in sending her my rings.  

I took my rope and cut off about a 20 foot section.  I was entering an area where there were trees and seclusion so there was an opportunity to get myself out of this situation.  

I left the car and did not take the rope.  I couldn’t get to a solid point of intention.  I couldn’t take the rope with me hiking without feeling prepared to use it.  It felt fake to me to bring it with me.    

It makes so much sense for me to kill myself, but it’s hard to do.  It’s hard for me because I don’t have the sorrow or emotional pain that people typically have who have endured similar circumstances for such prolonged periods of time.  There’s no pain driving me to get away from it. As my circumstances continue to deteriorate I can probably get there. The main preventer in the moment is the impossible possibility, to get this shit off the ground.

Otherwise punching my ticket makes a lot of sense, since my only option in life is to do menial work to earn money to be more comfortable, because people are incapable of comprehending or accepting information that challenges their beliefs and most people’s perception of the world is built on layers of misconceptions.  People are so biased in their interpretation of information they cannot grasp basic elements of fact and reason, cannot understand, recognize, and act on their own best interests.  

There are a few different elements that played a role in me wanting to set a date so to speak.  The long day of work and thinking why am I still doing this?   Coupled with remembering my experiences canvassing, remembering what I felt like afterwards.  Going from place to place and in most cases knowing the people I was talking to didn’t understand what I was saying.  To tell someone I have a proposal that will add 5 to 10+ dollars per hour while advancing the interests of every affected party, and for those people to not be interested is insane.  It’s worse when you feel like they suspect you’re running game, when I’m exactly the only mother fucker out here who is not.  And if you weren’t so fucking stupid you’d know that.  You’d know that every other organization is trying to sell you on the cause and has no solution or plan to realize a solution, and most of these causes are not actual problems or shouldn’t be priority.  Whereas I provide every detail of how something will work, the problem, the solution, the strategy, contingencies, and no one is able to understand basic things.  But they’ll support something that’s vague if the rhetoric is appealing.  Not limited to these things, but other things as well that there is no outlet for.  

The point is my circumstances fluctuate between bad and worse, and it is unlikely to change based on the thinking habits and behavioral functions of this species.  So it makes sense to remove myself from this trapped situation.  But in the moment, it’s like why now?  There’s the recognition of everything I understand and have become and how there’s still a chance however remote that something could happen, even if it seems impossible based on my experience which has killed my motivation and drive.  

I’m going to go to the hospital in a little bit to get the confirmation on these blood clots.  This is the third separate occasion I’ve had them, I know the symptoms and what it feels like.  Maybe they’ll give me an IV of the good blood thinners which could be enough to break them up.  My concern is stroke.  Obviously I’m not concerned about death but living with cognitive impairment would be horrible.  

I went to a hospital that was supposed to be top 50 rated in the country but there were two locations and I may have chosen the wrong one.  Staff were friendly and mostly competent, but the facilities were pretty run down.  I only have two complaints, one was minor the other one is potentially more serious.  

I have pretty big veins.  The nurse’s first attempt she stuck the vein and I don’t know what happened but no blood came out.  Then she stuck another vein and I’m pretty sure she went right through it.  It hurt, there’s a big hematoma and I became hot and started feeling dizzy and nauseated. 

Another minor situation was they supposedly lost my blood.  They said the lab told them they never received it.  

It seemed like this hospital had just enough people that knew how to do their job, and the rest were temps.  Like somebody went down to labor ready and said hey does anybody want to work in a hospital?  They asked my height and weight.  They only took my temperature right before I left.  It felt like there was a Waffle House somewhere that was short staffed so that this hospital could have a full crew.  

They told me they were going to do an ultrasound and a CT scan if they found anything on the ultrasound.  As expected, they found blood clots through the ultrasound, but didn’t do the CT scan.  The CT scan is important because if there are blood clots in my leg, and if as I believe they’ve been there for a week the CT scan would show if they’ve migrated anywhere else in my body.  

As predicted, they gave me a dose of Eliquis, and a prescription for Eliquis and sent me on my way.

I think there’s some kind of connection with my outlook and blood clots.  On the three separate occasions when I’ve developed blood clots it’s all been during periods where I’ve really had enough of this shit.  Recognizing that there’s no improvement coming, there’s no way to reach self deceiving people, and you can be ignored, dismissed, and isolated without explanation or anyone showing any understanding or deficiencies in what you’re saying.  


The following is an exchange that shows both a position by the left and a position by the right to be wrong.  The post is a response to the assertions that black people are shot more by police.  In the post the man rightly claims that twice as many white people are shot by police as black people but fails to recognize that the ratio of white to black people in this country is about 4 to 1 not 2 to 1.  I provide the leftist position in my comment as perpetrated by Ian Thomson of Northwestern University that black people are over twice as likely to be shot as white people.  Then I compare the number of arrests by race to the use of deadly force by race which shows that both races are shot in about the same proportion that they commit crime.  

Orion Simerl Twice as many white people are shot by law enforcement in total numbers but that isn’t the story.  The response to that is that black people represent 13 percent of the population but 28 percent of police shootings, and claim black people are shot twice as much as is proportionate to their numbers.  The whole story is that black people commit roughly 30 percent of crime and represent about 28 percent of police shootings, and white people represent about 55 percent of crimes and represent about 55 percent of police shootings.  This means the determining factor in being shot by police is through exposure to the police through the commission of a crime.  Black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime because a disproportionate amount of  black people are born poor due to PAST systemic racism.  White people are still a vast majority of poor people in this country.

Samuel Strings correct, it isn’t about population size, that’s a incomplete statistic with no bearing. It’s about interactions with the police and black people are more than 10 times as likely to have interactions with police than white. Thus white people are actually shot by police at more than 20 times the rate of blacks.

Orion Simerl What do you do read 1 sentence and then reply?  What did I say?  “This means the determining factor in being shot by police is through exposure to police based on committing crimes.  You’re making up 10x whereas I have the sources for my numbers because I actually research my questions.

Research conducted by and promoted by Professor Matthew Miller of Northwestern University asserts that black suspects are shot at a rate that exceeds the proportion of black people in the general population.  He found that black people make up 12% of the population and represent 25% of police shooting deaths, and white people represent 62% of the population and represent 54% of police shooting deaths.   The proportion of crime committed by black people is also greater than their proportion to the general population, and roughly equal to the proportion of black people shot by police.(1)

Black people represent 25% of police shooting deaths and represent 26.6% of crimes, and white people represent 54% of police shooting deaths and 55.5% of crimes.(2)  A white criminal is as likely to be shot and killed by police as a black criminal.  

1: Ian Thomsen 7/16/2020, The Research is Clear: White People are not More Likely to be Killed by Police than Black People”.  Northwestern News.  https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-clear-white-people-are-not-more-likely-than-black-people-to-be-killed-by-police/

2: OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Estimated number of arrests by offense and race, 2018. Available: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2. Released on October 31, 2019.  10.3 Million Arrests 2018, 2.8 million were black suspects representing 26.6% of crimes.  Previous citation (FN20) asserts black people represent 25% of police shootings but represent only 12% of the population.  Black people are shot by police proportional to contact.  White people are also likely shot proportionate to contact.  Hispanic ethnicity is not separated from white in BJS records.  However, hispanic people represent roughly 18% of the population and commit crimes at a rate that is higher than white people but lower than black people.  A conservative estimate that 20% of the crimes assigned to white people (7.1 million) in this data is committed by hispanic people leaves white people responsible for 5.7 million out of 10.3 million crimes representing 55.5% of crimes.  According to Thomsen white people represent 54% of police shootings.  It’s also interesting that the hispanic crime rate is above whites who have a higher median income than hispanics but lower than blacks who have a lower median income than hispanics.

Note previous paragraphs excerpt and footnote from book Racial Perceptions: Addressing Popular Misconceptions that Contribute to Racial Divide.  

-Interesting that you claim whites are more likely to be shot by police, Ian Thomson thinks black people are more likely to be shot, and I show that you’re both wrong because race plays no role in being shot by police, the commission of crime does.

Samuel Strings this is still incomplete data. The real statistic is in the number of interactions with police. Per 100 interactions with police white people are shot at a significantly higher rate. Population doesn’t matter at all. That’s false statistics.

Orion Simerl This is data from Bureau of Justice Statistics and disseminated through “Arrest Data Analysis Tool, a system that logs arrests as people are arrested.  It accurately represents who was arrested, it isn’t a false statistic.  

I believe Ian’s source was the FBI who tracks police shootings.  

People of different races are shot in the same proportion as they are arrested for crime.  That is a fact whether you acknowledge it or not.  

Although you assert that interactions are more indicative of shootings that doesn’t make any sense and you have provided no source for your claim.  Force isn’t required in all interactions, so there are a variety of interactions where force will never be required, taking a statement from a willing witness for example, and one group being witnesses more than the other group could then cause that group to seem less likely to be shot, because they have more never violent interactions.  

More importantly, force is only used to gain compliance or neutralize a threat to life or great bodily harm.  A person can only be non-compliant when they are facing detention or arrest.  Committing crimes is the only way to increase your chances of being arrested, and being arrested increases the likelihood that people will be non-compliant and the use of force will be required.  Then there is presumably some portion that will result in the use of deadly force.  This correlation shows that race plays no role in the typical use of deadly force by law enforcement.

Samuel Strings I don’t need a source is fundamental logic which you seem to lack. Use your brain, the more one interacts with those accused of doing the shootings, the higher their chances of being the one shot.

Orion Simerl LOL just provided the most accurate sources that show the number of arrests by race and the number of shootings by race showing they are about the same.  Then I showed that arrests are the only interactions that can produce the use of force because it’s the only situation where an officer may force compliance.  It isn’t the more one interacts with law enforcement the more likely they are to be shot because as I already explained, many interactions never result in the use of force.  Which is why I know things and you do not.  

You do need a source for your claim that based on interactions white people are 10x more likely to be shot by police.  

You’re exactly what’s wrong with this species.


I’ll probably chronicle more exchanges because they do demonstrate how people cannot accept things that challenge their biases.  With this individual it seems less about maintaining his belief that white people are shot by police 20x more than black people, and more about him not wanting to admit that he is wrong.  Self worth preservation where either he cannot understand the distinction between our positions, and how arrest creates the requirement of compliance, and it’s only in that environment that force can be used.  Or it’s image promotion in not wanting to appear to anyone seeing the exchange that he changed his position.  Where he thinks it will lower others opinion of him, the perception of which reduces self worth and feels bad. 

I haven’t went to the gym for 2 or 3 days now.  The first such stretch in 8 months.  This was in part because I was on legs and shoulders and I have blood clots in my left cav.  I can feel it, it’s a constant pain and my cav swells up and becomes hot when I walk on it.  It’s hard to work legs when your cav hurts from blood clots.  The other reason of course is I think it’s done.  Exercise began as a means to feel good to keep my mood elevated.  Now I don’t want to elevate my mood because there’s only one way out of this hell. 

These social media exchanges don’t have much impact on that decision, it’s more previous efforts and understanding that I cannot communicate with people who understand information through feeling, and whose feelings are rooted in false beliefs.  And even if communication is possible there seems to be external forces involved that I am unable to know the source of and that I am unable to address.  The social media exchanges just serve as evidence of willed human ignorance, or the inability of people to understand things that they don’t want to be true.  

On the positive side of things these blood clots are going to kill me, probably pretty soon.  I don’t need to do anything on that front.  I may want to go to the hospital and then maybe my daughter can sue when I die based on indifference to a serious medical condition, where I don’t have access to treatment for a life threatening condition.  I cannot qualify for any state insurance because I’m not really a resident of any state.  The ER will give me a dose of Eliquis, write me a prescription for Eliquis that I cannot afford, and provide me with a referral to a doctor who I cannot see because I do not have insurance.  Eventually these clots are going to move as they did before and prevent my body from receiving adequate amounts of oxygenated blood.  I’ll become dizzy, short of breath, eventually I’ll collapse, and then I’ll see what comes next.  

There’s no reason to be here with this self deceiving tyrant species.  Most everything that I’ve discovered could have been known at nearly any point in human history through a truly objective human being with questions about how the world which includes people functions.  The fact that these things are not known, morality, political function, reality through the function of motion, etc, is evidence that nobody has approached these problems with completely pure intent.  The fact that nobody can understand these things is evidence that I haven’t found anybody approaching those questions with pure intentions.  

It’s not preferable to me to continue on with no outlet for my discoveries, insights, ideas, and ambition.  To be dismissed without being understood and shown to be wrong.  Everything most people see in the world is something they’re unsure about, whereas most of what I see in this world I understand to be bullshit.  You can’t imagine what it’s like to be surrounded by BS at all times and knowing that people are emotionally invested in BS they cannot be logically moved from.  

I’m trapped through inadequate opportunities for money.  

I’m trapped through the inability to communicate with irrational people who interpret information through feeling instead of through fact.  

I may be trapped by an external effort to kill and suppress my material, or to kill and exploit my material.  It’s proving to be an effective strategy, especially since I’ve mentioned it, cannot prove it, which draws my credibility into question by creating the illusion that I’m paranoid.  

In 10 years of peddling truth as demonstrated through functions of motion, through every outlet imaginable and there is 0 understanding or interest, that’s a pretty good indication that nothing is going to improve without changing ambition.  Ambition cannot be changed because an individual cannot abandon certain truth for certain lies.

Maybe that’s it.  It isn’t about the masses.  The masses exist in their evil to produce a small number of people who can recognize and resist it.  Their ideas and visions are never implemented but they have obtained the understanding required for eternal liberty.  And masses of tyrants for eternal tyranny, having preferred the bliss of ignorance to intellectual development.  Even when I was as ignorant as anyone else and as biased as anyone else my first 28 or so years of life I always understood that the only thing that I take with me everywhere is what I know.  That will probably prove to be the great failure of life for most people, the preference to maintain pleasant ignorance over the truth.   


I mentioned a reset so to speak in my last entry.  The reset essentially means disregarding my experience that informs that my life and ambition is hopeless.  I’ve written about this before so there isn’t much that can be stated about the elements that evidence my hopelessness that hasn’t already been stated: human behavioral functions, avoidance, rejection, and the inability to understand information that challenges beliefs due to the consequences that information has to their value of objects.  Way over 99 percent of people on this planet are closer to non-intelligent life than they are to intelligent life by virtue of how they function, led by feelings they don’t understand and do not want to understand.  Puppeted through biases by those who benefit from this organization of society.

On Friday the 16th, after realizing I happen to be in a contested congressional district decided by less than 15,000 votes 2022 I thought about resuming activities that already proved ineffective.  Public canvassing and flier distribution.  I momentarily fooled myself into believing I had a new approach.  Previous OPL canvassing efforts were directed at creating awareness among people working in retail and fast food, and among owners of these businesses.  The idea being it was the easiest group to develop interest in and create word of mouth buzz.  I guess I was stupid for thinking that people would be interested in and would tell others about a proposal that would lead to them earning $5 to $10+ per hour.  That they would go to the website, sign a petition, and maybe post links to the website and petition pages to their social media.  

 I thought in Vegas after the failure in Elgin, a new approach can yield different results.  Of course Vegas results were the same as Elgin, after about 4 to 5 hours going from store to store and speaking with managers and other employees it was clear I wasn’t being understood, and later it became more evident when the canvassing efforts produced no signatures.  It’s also possible that these efforts were contaminated.  I park and begin walking into retail and fast food stores and someone enters before me and tells the people I’m coming and to disregard what I’m promoting and not to engage with me.  There’s evidence of these kinds of occurrences and people are too stupid to question any narratives that are presented to them.  That sounds crazy but it isn’t all me that I’ve been out here 10 years and cannot reach anybody.  Otherwise, back to the initial conclusion that people are too stupid to recognize, understand, and act on their own best interests. 

I figured this time can be different because I’ll focus on the general public.  I forgot that prior to OPL I had L&T flyers that looked pretty good and contained summaries of the proposals that are either predecessors of the OPL proposals or are OPL proposals.  During that time I was earning a living playing online poker tournaments on Bovada and distributing flyers from Arizona to Alabama.  Sometimes hand to hand including oral introductions and conversation and sometimes leaving them on car windows.  Some places generated more web traffic than others, but it only generated 1 comment that failed to demonstrate any understanding of the content, generated no book or merchandise sales and essentially no interest.  I did this in  AZ, NM, TX, OK, AR, TN, and AL.  Maybe MS too but I think I stopped after AL.

I push that experience out.  I was going to create a new handout and begin canvassing again in this new area. I think I’m done with that. My time will be better spent preparing myself mentally to get off this planet and get to what comes next.

Saturday I saw an ad on CL for a moving job and thought it made sense to try to make some money especially since I anticipated having some new expenses through the resumption of promotion.  The ad said 4 hour minimum so I presumed it would be a 2 to 3 hour unload.  

The job was actually about 3000 cf which is roughly 3/4ths of a semi trailer.  The carry was 30 to 50 yards from the trailer to the home depending on where the items were going. It was the driver and myself who unloaded most of the truck and the homeowners also helped for the first 2000 cf.   

After about an hour someone pulled up who was supposed to help.  He pulled up and sat in his car for a few minutes.  Then he drove off and waited for another few minutes about 20 yards away.  Then he pulled in front of the semi and waited another 5 to 10 minutes before finally getting out.  When he did finally get out and approached us I said you can tell when somebody shows up and they ain’t going to be shit.  I made the statements because no one who wants to work typically pulls up to the job and waits 15 to 20 minutes before getting out of the car to start working.  He took a few trips to the house with some boxes on the hand truck dolly and then left.  

After 4 to 5 hours more help arrived.  I thought we only had a little bit of stuff left because the driver told me the job we were unloading stopped at the door (side door on trailer) but it actually went a 1000 cf or so past that.  I also didn’t know what time it was because I left my phone in the car and the driver told me prior to the help arriving that we’d only been there a few hours. 

 When they first came I thought we had maybe an hour left and thought that meant we would be finishing at about 4 hours total for me.  I initially had mild resentment or jealousy in that I had been busting my ass to unload the truck and they came for the last hour and we would receive the same for vastly different amounts of work performed.  

As it turned out, what I thought was hour 3 was actually hour 5, and there was a lot more on the truck including two massive safes and a lot of furniture.  These dudes were fantastic, had these harnesses and a strap that connected to the harnesses that made it easier to take two man pieces.  They took most of the two man pieces and my appreciation for how much easier they made the last 4 hours cannot be overstated.  

We waited until the end to move the safes.  These were Liberty Safes, so the weight of the safes are from the manufacturer, not my personal estimation.  One weighed 900 lbs the other was 600lbs.  

We slid it from the back of the trailer to the ramp.  They were both close to 6 feet tall, probably 4 feet wide, and about 3ft deep.  First we tried to use their harness strap system  to see if it could be lifted up with the strap.  It seemed possible, 2 guys essentially deadlifting 450lbs but only far enough off the ground to waddle with the safe while myself and the driver stabilized it from the sides.  

They couldn’t get it up.  The safe was attached to a pallet kind of structure on the bottom which proved helpful on a few occasions.  I took a strap put it under the safe and wrapped it around my hands.  The idea was Joe Smooth (one of the helpers) and Izzy (I don’t remember his name it was something like that) would use their strap underneath the middle. I would use a strap on one side and the driver would use a strap on the other and then we have about 225 lbs each.  The driver didn’t get in position but the other guys and myself tried and we were able to tip it.  

We tipped it on its side to make it more stable going down the ramp.  We put blankets on the ramp to slide it down the ramp because using a 4 wheel dolly and having it standing tall would make it more unstable and probably impossible to control.  There was a lip that the safe had to go over to get it on the ramp.  I was able to lift it up with the strap to clear the lip and they pushed it onto the ramp.  From there we pushed and pulled to get it down the ramp.  

At the bottom of the ramp we had a lot of deliberation but most of it was focused on what we were going to do when we made it to the grass.  I wasn’t paying attention since we had about 30 yards before reaching the grass.  We put the safe on a 4 wheel dolly and we’re able to roll it to the grass.  

The next part we were going to use the truck ramp and a platform to roll it on the ramp and then reset the ramp.  This would have been challenging because there was a steep hill.  Instead Joe Smooth suggested we try to use two hand trucks and then we just put 2 people on each hand truck.  This worked well. 

Once down the grass hill we had an area with a gate that we couldn’t fit through with the safe the long way on the 2 dolly system.  We had to get the ramp from the truck and position it along the grass through the entrance and put the safe back onto the 4 wheeler onto the ramp.  This was very challenging but it worked. 

We rolled it to the entrance through some sliding doors.  We had to lift it through the door and push it into the house.  The problem we had is the safe wouldn’t slide across the carpet.  We had to put it back on the 4 wheeler.  This was a cool moment for me.  We put the strap underneath the safe.  I grabbed both ends of the straps and had to pretty much deadlift it about 2 feet off the ground so they could slide the 4 wheeler underneath it.  Obviously it isn’t the whole 900lbs since it’s only one end of the safe coming off the ground but I felt pretty strong that I was able to do that. 

We were able to get both safes where the customer wanted them.  That was 9 hours of very hard labor.  

I slept very poorly that night and was tired all day Sunday.  Slept poorly again last night.  I’ve had pain at the base of my neck for the last week or so as well as pain in my left cav that I think is blood clots.  Also have the regular pain in my right knee where 7 years ago I had an

MRI showing that my meniscus was mangled and I had cartilage damage and a frayed ACL.  Sleep has been becoming very difficult.  I suspect the pain in my neck may be related to the blood clot in my leg.  I’ve been taking low dose aspirin twice daily hoping maybe this will break up or at least prevent more clots but that’s unlikely.  I have some other issues too, a history of dislocations in my left shoulder due to lax ligaments that has led to varying levels of constant pain in my shoulder blade, but the point is the pain in my neck and leg is impacting my sleep. 

If the pain in my left leg is blood clots, and I’m pretty sure it is, I’ll be dead soon anyway.  If I go to ER, they’re going to x-ray or ultrasound my leg to see if there are blood clots.  If there are blood clots they’ll give me a dose of Eliquis and give me a prescription for Eliquis.  I have about $350 and the prescription costs about $600.  

It was December 2021 when I had my pulmonary embolism.  I wish I still had all my footage from my camping trip because you could hear how out of breath I was in the days leading up to it.  My cavs were hurting and I couldn’t figure it out.  I thought my difficulty breathing was due to the elevation when in fact it was due to blood clots obstructing my pulmonary veins limiting the amount of oxygen rich blood could get into the system.  Until the obstruction became so severe that it couldn’t sustain normal function.  

There are a few scenarios I fear.  Either a stroke caused by the blood clots, or a pulmonary embolism that deprives my brain of oxygen that will have the same impact as a stroke.  The other scenario having the same basis as the aforementioned, a scenario where a suicide attempt leaves me with brain damage.  My greatest fear is brain damage.  

I’m a few days now with a limited amount of low quality sleep.  Last night I went to sleep at about a quarter to 11, then I woke up at 3:45am and couldn’t fall back asleep.  That isn’t too bad, roughly 4 hours sleep, but it’s coming on  consecutive nights where I got about 3 hours sleep each night and a day of extreme physical exertion.  

I probably don’t need to drag this entry on too much further.  There are few things I can say that haven’t already been stated.  I see constant advertising of causes on FB and usually point out that they’re grifts.  Any promoted cause that doesn’t state specific goals is about using a popular cause to benefit the organizers not the cause itself.  

Recently I received a response from someone whose reply to my response was that they believed the people in the group were working hard.  It’s so irrational, because if they were working hard, in this example for women’s reproductive rights they would tell you what it is they’re hard at working doing, a specific aim, and how they plan to accomplish it.  It’s insane to me that people are so drawn to empty rhetoric and not substance.  

Meanwhile, everything I promote seeks to convey a functional understanding of the problem, how the solution addresses the problem, how it serves the interests of affected parties, and how the solution will be accomplished, and no one is interested in that.  They want to hear the rhetoric they support and that is the depth of their understanding and what is required to gain their support.  

I support abortion and my position is rooted in morality, in that there’s no imposition without consciousness because the thing has no experience and no likes or will to impose on.  If a child is going to be brought into the world and the parents are without the resources, ability, and will to take care of the child the child is unlikely to have a very high quality of life and this obviously is going to impose on the lives of the parents and maybe the public as a whole as the child grows up reacting to disadvantaged circumstances.  I’m very pro-choice.  

Of course as pro-choice as I am, I am much more pro-liberty, and pro-sovereignty.  I recognize that Roe v. Wade was a decision that was less the express letter of the constitution establishing a woman’s right to an abortion and more a ruling made to serve the greater good in giving women the right to have an abortion.  The reversal of the decision through the Mississippi law being challenged and brought before the supreme court was not really a stretch from a legal perspective.  

I believe that people within different jurisdictions, wrong as they may be, have the right to impose on themselves, and it’s up to the people in those jurisdictions to change those laws or to move to be around people who do not want to impose on others.  

I mention this because after pointing out that this organization was a grift since it presented no plan to address the cause it promoted I also discussed the significance of the cause itself.  The overturning of Roe. V. Wade doesn’t prevent women from getting abortions in states where abortion has been outlawed, it just changes the distance to access, where the nearest clinic is across state lines.  There’s no federal recourse at the moment.  There’s not enough support among the states to pass a constitutional amendment which I would support.  There’s presently no legal interpretation to challenge what exists in the constitution to give women those rights.  So any effort to promote women’s reproductive rights is a state level campaign that has to target states that have passed legislation prohibiting or excessively restricting abortion.  

I mentioned some of these things in comment and the idiotic responses I received were about as expected.  One guy messaged that my privilege was showing.  I’m one of the worst examples to try to make a case for white or male privilege.  I guess it was in response to the idea that my white male privilege leads me to believe that people have the resources to go out of state to get abortions, since I pointed out that the overturning of Roe v. Wade is a matter of logistics not a matter of prohibition.  If a person has $700 or whatever it costs these days to have an abortion they can probably come up with another $150 for a roundtrip Spirit  or Frontier airlines ticket to reach the clinic and go back home.  

The other response was from some ignorant cunt who thought I was a prolifer who said I should carry a baby to term in my nutsack.  Just demonstrates her inability to understand what I was saying in my comments.  My arguments were centered on the organization using the cause to promote their own interests since they had no specifics, and showing the cause isn’t as important as they pretend, not anything stating that I don’t believe women should have the right to have an abortion.  

That person’s profile pic had text stating hetrosexuality isn’t normal, it’s just common.  That was telling to me.  It shows the limited capacity the person has for recognizing consistency and critical thinking.  The statement is intended to promote LGBT sexuality by calling it unique and different but fails to recognize that the definition of normal requires commonality, meaning if something is common it’s normal, and something cannot be common without being normal.  That’s something that’s small and insignificant on its own but also very telling that someone would use a contradictory statement to promote their cause and represent themself.  

That is the world I find myself in.  The whole country is different proportions of a few different brands of stupidity and their biases prevent them from understanding better, being more intelligent, and recognizing and acting on their own best interests.  

Where does that leave me?  

It leaves me misunderstood, struggling to survive among a population full of stupid, stupider, and stupidest, who think I’m stupid because they can’t understand me.  

Suicide Explanation is 2/27/2023 Entry


Deleted a few entries that seem better left unpublished. Had to reset myself so to speak because shit has been getting to me lately. Recently I had a comment exchange where I used the basic questions to describe an event as a point of reference for establishing reality. I expanded on those points of reference to show the frame work assignment sequencing and comparison. If you don’t understand this there are other entries that deal with things you may be more familar with. Below is the expansion that I posted in a FB group Philosophy & Wisdom – ( The Original & Authentic Forum )


I often try to explain reality as objects in motion observed through space and time and the feelings they produce within conscious beings, and motion consisting of cause and effect. Truth is the identification of causes within sequences. This goes much deeper as the subconscious mind is a reflection of the reality it exists in, but this post pertains to qualifying objective reality which is the first step in the identification of what truth is. Think about the questions used to understand an event, and these questions serve as evidence of reality.

What is in reference to an object.

Who is in reference to a conscious object.

Where is in reference to a point in space.

When is in reference to a point in time.

Why is in reference to a cause.

How is in reference to a sequence of cause and effect.

From understanding reality objective morality can be understood.

Truth can be understood as the identification of causes that produces the effects we observe.

The universal potential for intelligence can be understood since all complexity is nothing more than the definition of objects assembled in cause and effect sequencing. And the main impediment of intelligence is bias.

Reality takes place through impression. Impression contains all details gathered by the senses including the feelings within the impression and thoughts occuring during the impression.

Feelings represent the value of objects and motion. The subconscious mind organizes objects according to assignment and comparison.

Objects have assignments of value based on the feelings they produce.

Objects have assignments of cause and effect depending on context.

Value is influenced by morality according to what a person understands as being right and wrong. Morality consists of sequences that begin with a cause that benefits everybody, or a cause related to an authority which can changes the function of morality but that’s another topic. An objective that has value can lose value and not proceed because it is in conflict with morality. An act that has no value can gain value if a person understand the act to be right.

Sequences have assignments of true and false based on consistency and contradiction. A person believes things are true if what is being stated is consistent with other known sequences. A person recognizes when a sequence contradicts a known sequences and will initially create an assignment of false to the new sequence.

This is the framework for the reality we exist in and the subconscious processing of reality which is evidenced through the observable universe (with the exception of quantum physics) and through thoughts, feelings, and decison making.


I may have already summarized part of this exchange in a recent entry, but the contents of the exchange are important for several reasons.  First it answers challenges to RUSC that others may put forward.  Second, it shows how a person who claims to be for better opportunities for the working poor, does not want to help those people unless it directly helps CNAs.  It seems to be an example of bias since every objection was overcome and the person still resisted the proposal while otherwise supporting the goal of.the proposal.

The post was the text from the RUSC petition page you can click the link below.  I didn’t want to post it in the journal because I think I had it in another entry recently.  

Tammy Gibson Anything but make the employer pay fair wages. Make the consumer pay the wage. I am not persuaded.

Orion Simerl You cannot make the employers pay fair wages.  Employers are going to pay what people are willing to work for for any particular job in any particular area.  Interesting that you think people should have higher wages but like industry you’re not willing to pay more to ensure wages increase.  An insignificant amount, where the average cost of inflation from 2021 to 2022 was $433 per month per household, and the average cost of RUSC will be in the neighborhood of about $5 to $7 per week for the consumer.  Not persuaded by a proposal that serves every conceivable interest, substantially raising wages for the bottom 50 percent of income earners, and will add about 500 billion dollars per year to federal budget because it also helps industry.  Who you have more in common with than you realized since you both claim to want higher wages for low income people, but neither of you want to pay for it.  Lol.

Coming from a person who recently posted they make efforts to acknowledge their prejudice but their prejudice prevents them from supporting legislation that will produce the greatest wage increase for the bottom 50 percent of income earners in history.

Tammy Gibson The problem there is the employee is also a consumer. You gain nothing when prices go up. Supply and demand should determine prices, not how little can I pay someone to work for me. That is especially true in a Constitutional Republic with labor laws. Another problem you have is sometimes business is slow and that will mean an unsteady income. An income that is difficult to budget because it fluctuates. Just pay a person living wages or don’t try and be an employer. I work for a doctor’s office. We don’t do change. What about managers that earn salary  and work 60 hours a week? I don’t think you’ve thought this through. That little jab at the end is out of place here. I was talking about bigotry, hating people based on stereotypes and such. That has absolutely nothing to do with why I’m not persuaded. Your argument fails because you want consumers to pay for wages. I am a consumer. My work does not use change. Even if we did, rounding up change at an optometrist’s office that sells about 10 pair of glasses a day is not going to amount to much. That’s why I am not persuaded. Hotels do not use change either. How will your proposal offer more income to room attendants? Currently making around $14 where I live in a tourist area. Hotels have seasonal peaks and lows. Your idea here is not going to work for them. 

Orion Simerl RUSC guarantees the bottom 50 percent of income earners will experience substantially higher wages, it will increase federal revenue, decrease federal spending, increase the profits of businesses who participate, and all the byproducts of people having more money, less crime, less drug dependency, children developing better habits and interests.  

If that isn’t persuading you’re not concerned about these things.  If you’re not concerned about these things then you’re putting your biases ahead of human interests.  Your prejudice against me, or your prejudice against industry.

Note: The summary clearly explains how other unskilled workers benefit from increases in wages for retail and fast food workers.  Companies who use unskilled labor will have to pay more to compete with the higher wages paid in retail and fast food.  Even if it didn’t, why would you want to deny higher wages $5 to $10 more per hour to 25 million people all earning below the median individual income level, because it doesn’t improve all wages?  As I stated it does, and will have an impact on the labor market as described. 

Tammy Gibson It doesn’t guarantee anything, because of peaks and lows in the market for many business types. A toy store is going to have more demand around Christmas and get cold after Christmas. This is not steady income. It is income that will fluctuate based on peaks and lows. It’s not persuading, fix your argument. Don’t insult your audience.

Orion Simerl That’s your argument? That during the year there may be slower seasons where they only make an extra 3 to 5 dollars more per hour instead of busy periods where they may make 5 to 10 dollars more per hour so it isn’t a guarantee that they will make more money? That’s a ridiculous position. You’re arguing that since the amount they make will vary based on traffic they’re better off making less? You have no argument. You just don’t like it because it serves all affected interests and didn’t reach you through a source that appeals to your biases. The only argument against RUSC TCI is the cost to consumers which is negligible, where most cash customers are already paying RUSC because their change sits in their cars, couch cushions or is somewhere else doing nothing.

Tammy Gibson There are high-end retailers that don’t sell quantity as much as quality. For example, once upon a time I worked for a bowling and billiard supply store. Somedays we sold diddly squat. Other days we might of sold three things for $6000. How would your plan help their current $9@hour employee?

Consumers can easily add things up, so their total is over $.90.

I’ve also named hotel employees. How would your plan help them?

What about CNAs? How does your plan help them?

Orion Simerl In the complete outline in order for a business to qualify they have to be considered a high volume transaction business defined as averaging 5 in person transactions per employee per hour. A bowling and billard supply store probably isn’t going to qualify.

RUSC benefits other unskilled workers through the labor market. Most retail stores and especially fast food and gas stations have a lot of transactions per employee. If people working in these jobs are making $20 to $25 per hour these jobs will be in demand by unskilled workers. Other jobs that use unskilled workers will be competing for labor with High Volume Transaction Businesses and will have to pay closer to what these businesses are paying to find help. There’s currently a shortage of workers in retail and fastfood. People don’t want to work these jobs. As soon as people in these jobs begin earning $20 plus per hour, unskilled workers will flock to these jobs.  In the complete outline in order for a business to qualify they have to be considered a high volume transaction business defined as averaging 5 in person transactions per employee per hour. A bowling and billard supply store probably isn’t going to qualify.

I don’t think consumers can easily add items to make their totals higher. There are very few items sold anywhere that cost less than a dollar and people typically do not know their totals with tax until they check out. I don’t think it’ll be worth the effort. People are not grocery shopping adding up each item they’re putting in the cart, getting a total, adding tax, CRV charges in some instances, then arriving at a total that has a change amount and looking to save 20 to 60 cents on a round up fee that benefits workers. The savings doesn’t justify the effort.

Other unskilled workers such as those working in hotels, again many will benefit from the effect of RUSC on the labor market. Even if they do not benefit it’s ridiculous to say that 25 million people who work in retail and fast food, 15 percent of the workforce making below median wages shouldn’t have their issues addressed because it doesn’t benefit all workers. Some hotels would qualify as high volume transaction and could implement RUSC.

RUSC is one proposal that will dramatically improve wages for about 15 percent of the workforce, and will significantly improve wages for about a third of the workforce by changing the labor market for unskilled workers. Following RUSC there are other proposals to address other industries.

RUSC is the first step towards a Balance Stimulus.

Tammy Gibson UBI is reliable and seems like a better idea because it helps everybody. Isn’t 100% better than 15%?

Note: UBI stands for universal basic income, the idea to give everyone a certain amount of money every month.  

Orion Simerl: First UBI isn’t passable. 2nd UBI doesn’t increase the proportion of income of the bottom 50 percent of income earners relative to the top 50 percent of income earners. UBI will produce inflation as production drops because many people will quit their jobs and figure out ways to survive off of the UBI and other programs. RUSC produces wages that people will be able to accumulate money through to invest in their futures as well as raise their quality of life. As mentioned, it isn’t unrealistic for some high volume transaction businesses to do 30 transactions per employee per hour putting wages for unskilled positions in the 25 to $30 an hour range.

Andrew Yang is the only person who has proposed a comprehensive UBI. Yang’s $1000 a month guaranteed universal income, does not solve inequality because it doesn’t increase the proportion of money held by the bottom 50% relative to the top 50%. $1000 per month a month guaranteed universal income. Does not solve inequality because it doesn’t increase the proportion of money held by the bottom 50% relative to the top 50%. $1000 per month

guaranteed income increases the proportion of money to goods and causes the price of goods to go up. The income is partially paid for through a value added tax applied at different stages in the production process. This cost will be passed down to the consumer which will also increase the cost of goods. Although the cost of the income will exceed what is collected through the tax, if the basic income was equal to what is collected through the tax the idea itself is less the providing of a guaranteed income, and more the subsidization of all goods and services to cover the cost of the price increase caused by the tax and increasing the supply of money. His universal income is a universal price increase coupled with a universal subsidization of that price increase.

Tammy Gibson: There is no such thing as an unskilled worker. That being said, employers are responsible for employee wages. Full. Stop.

Orion Simerl: Unskilled workers is anyone who works a job where training or experience is not a prerequisite of employment.

You would rather poor people remain poor than support a solution that guarantees substantial wage improvements for the bottom 50 percent of income earners, based on the idea that employers are responsible for employee wages. Employers are responsible for employee wages and where do employers get the money to pay their employees? From the consumer. RUSC Incentivizes employers to guarantee a portion of the proceeds from the consumers goes directly to employee wages, and adds a bonus for workers on days they perform more work as the more transactions they process the more they earn.

It’s impossible to be for higher wages for low income workers and be against a RUSC.

It’s impossible to be for increasing federal revenue and against RUSC.

It’s impossible to be for decreasing government spending and be against RUSC.

It’s impossible to be for eliminating the byproducts of economic inequality (crime, violence, mental health issues, drug dependency. etc) and be against RUSC.

You would rather harm workers and harm the public to spite industry. Which the rejection of RUSC doesn’t actually accomplish since industry will continue to profit regardless of what workers are paid.

The unfortunate thing is is if RUSC came to you through MSNBC or one of these grifters your brand of indoctrinated people adore like Bernie Sanders or AOC you would be promoting it and making similar points to naysayers that I’ve made here.

Your opinion isn’t based on principle, it’s based on associations.

Tammy Gibson Your opinion isn’t based on principle, it’s based on association.

It’s not opinion to have concerns about an idea. You haven’t satisfied those concerns. Therefore, I am not persuaded.

You think it’s an opinion that the person earning the profit from your labor should pay the wages. That seems like a fact about the market, not an opinion.

What skills are necessary for training? There’s no such thing as an unskilled worker. You cannot train a person to smile and be friendly. They need to know basic arithmetic.

Multi-tasking is an essential skill. You cannot train someone to multi-task.

CNAs literally get a certificate.

Your plan will have these pre-trained workers waiting for the labor market to pay them more than fast food and convenient store workers. I’m pretty sure, if you leave the field to go work fast food, your certificate expires. Who will take care of our parents and grandparents during that period?

If you increase profits for businesses, how are you shrinking the wealth gap?

Orion Simerl RUSC doesn’t deviate from the employer paying their employees. It creates an incentive to ensure workers are paid a portion of the revenue they generate, and also ensures that when they perform more work as measured through transactions they earn more money. Some people are more interested in the fake war against industry that they’ve bought into that they don’t approach problems with consideration of all affected interests. You can say a company should just pay workers more based on their existing profits. That isn’t going to work because a company isn’t going to pay more than what workers in an area have shown they will work for for any particular job. That’s how labor markets work. There are also no other ideas that will have anywhere near the impact on as many workers that are close to the feasibility of RUSC. Having an issue with RUSC because you think the employers should just pay more is equivalent to saying that workers shouldn’t make more money because employers are not going to pay more than they have to for labor.

Unskilled workers is a term used to describe positions where workers don’t need any prior experience or specific training. It’s an economic term. It exists and describes probably 50 percent of the workforce regardless of whether you accept it or not.

Your argument against RUSC is that since it doesn’t help CNAs that the bottom 50 percent of income earners shouldn’t earn more? How does it harm CNAs?

On your other comment you ask how does increasing company profits close the wealth gap. We’ll take Walmart as an example if Walmart implemented RUSC since I have the numbers.

Walmart employs 1.6 million store associates in the US. Average salary is 24,960 per year. With RUSC the average salary would be 37,960 per year. A difference of $13,000. 13,000 x 1.6 million is 20.8 billion dollars going to 1.6 million people.

Walmart would receive a 495 million dollar tax credit divided by 2.7 billion shares.

Tammy Gibson: Rounding up is not part of the profit they generate. It’s an extra charge for consumers.

There is no war against industry.

That’s just hyperbole. It’s interesting tho that you admit there’s a wealth gap and have this plan to fix it. Are you at war with industry? See, it doesn’t follow that demanding better pay means war with industry. Should I call RUSC a war on consumers? Didn’t think so.

Have you heard of The Principle of Charity?

Short staffing problems demonstrates people are not willing to work for those wages. Also these employers have lousy retention and extreme employee turn around. I don’t think RUSC will Rounding up is not part of the profit they generate. It’s an extra charge for consumers.

There is no war against industry.

The term unskilled worker is not rational whether you accept it or not.

CNAs do not have 5 transactions per hour. I did not say it would hurt CNSS. I said it doesn’t help them unless they quit CNA and work for fast food or convenient stores. Then we have no one to take care of our elderly folks. That’s what I said.

If you are generating profits thru RUSC for employers, how does it shrink the wealth gap? Keep in mind also that employees are also consumers paying more for stuff because of rounding up.

Rounding up goes to charities and it’s voluntary. You want to force consumers, employees are consumers, to round up. You have not told us how you plan to force RUSC onto consumers. Some consumers take that change home and put it in a jar. They use it for all kinds of things. It only takes 4 quarters to have a dollar. I put mine in my grandson’s piggy bank and he has enough to buy both parents something for Christmas. I decide what to do with my $.75.

Orion Simerl: Each number corresponds to the number of paragraph from your reply.

 la: What is the difference between an employer raising prices to cover the cost of a wage increase and applying a round up service charge? The difference is a price increase will cost the consumers more, the store will sell fewer items and lose money, and the store will become less competitive relative to their competition.

1b: As far as companies paying more from their existing profits this is something they cannot do and does not make sense to do. The company has a duty to their shareholders to maximize the return on investment. The value of their shares is determined by their earnings. If Walmart gave their employees a RUSC sized wage increase out of pocket it would cost them about 25 billion dollars and instantly reduce the value of their shares by about 20 percent.

Other companies cannot afford raises. The largest Burger King franchise owner a few months ago declared bankruptcy and is closing all 90 of his stores. In many cases there isn’t enough money being made by the businesses to cover the cost of a pay increase for their workers. In fast food many franchise owners are averaging about $200,000 a year in profit. If they have 10 full time employees and 5 parttime employees to run their store and give them a $3 per hour raise that’s $3 x 10 x 8 hours in a day for $240 per day plus $3 x 5 x 4 $60. $2100per week.

That’s $110,00 per year. Then we add 7 percent for payroll tax on that additional income which is another 8k. The cost is $118,000 to give workers a $3 wage increase. In that scenario is it worth it to tie up the money required to operate the business to make $82,000 per year? RUSC increases wages where it is otherwise impossible to increase wages

2: Since the cost of the round up is negligible, and your position is industry should just pay more despite some industries being unable to and others violating their obligation to shareholders to do so; and you claim concern for closing wealth/income gap, it appears your position is motivated in part by a bias against industry. It’s a bias that is popular in the rhetoric of your party despite your party being subordinate to the industries that select them to run for office. Maybe you’re motivated by that bias, maybe you are not, it just seems to fit the contradiction of a person being for 10s of millions of low income people experiencing substantial wage increases, but being against RUSC which accomplishes that objective.

3: Charity accomplishes little more than servicing the condition of need. It doesn’t address a lack of opportunity to eliminate people being in need. As far as whatever the principles of charity are, which I presume is some short sighted line of reasoning that if everybody does x it’s good for everyone, it doesn’t change the fact that human beings are motivated by and act on self interest. That is what I appeal to. That is what RUSC appeals to. The self interest of workers to earn adequate wages, the self interest of the public to benefit from the byproducts of low income workers making better wages, the self interest of the public to increase public revenue and decrease public spending, and the self interest of industry to earn more profit. You see a problem between different interests and choose one over the other. I see problems involving seemingly divergent interests and find a way to make those interests converge.

4: Yes, worker shortages are an indication that not enough people are willing to work those jobs for the amount of money being paid. $5 to $10 per hour pay increase, a 50 to 75 percent increase in pay. $200 to $400 per week more is going to increase the desirability of those jobs. How can you acknowledge that labor shortages are a product of low pay and in the same paragraph say increasing pay won’t solve the problem? It’s baffling. It’s like saying a person’s headaches are due to them slamming their head into the wall but you don’t think the cessation of slamming their head into the wall is going to help their headaches. The disdain for easily observable cause and effect is stunning. 

5: Why are we restating things that have already been addressed instead of responding to the address of what was stated.

Unskilled worker is a term used to describe people who work jobs that do not require any experience or previous training.  That’s what that means, objectively. Your interpretation that it means a worker has no skills is irrelevant because that isn’t what the term means. It is used to describe a level of human capital that distinguishes the group from other workers. A carpenter is a skilled position, because you have to know how to do the job before you get it. A carpenter apprentice or laborer is an unskilled position because you don’t need any experience or training to get the job. The only argument against the term is claiming that there are no jobs that meet this criteria, but there are, and it represents probably half if not more than half of all jobs.

6: RUSC does not help CNAS directly but may have some impact indirectly. A CNA is a skilled position but a relatively low skilled position. A 6 month to a 1 year program to be a certified nursing assistant? The amount of time required is relevant because it’s an easy and popular way for people without skills to increase their human capital and enter a field of their choosing. With that being said, many people who become CNAs as an easy route to skilled employment may decide to get into retail, fast food, or other unskilled work that is paying more to compete with retail and fast food for unskilled workers. There’s a finite amount of retail and fast food jobs. Currently about 25 million people employed in those industries, maybe 30 million max could be employed if all the positions were filled. This means not every one from every industry who earns less than $20 an hour can get a job in retail and fast food to make 20 plus an hour. As wages increase for retail and fast food, and consequently for unskilled workers in other industries competing for unskilled labor, the wages for skilled workers increases since skilled workers can work unskilled jobs. As low income people earn more money and spend more money this benefits people in every other industry since more products and services being sold means there is more room to pay workers when it is required to attract them to a field like nursing assistance.  With that being said, many people who become CNAs as an easy route to skilled employment may decide to get into retail, fast food, or other unskilled work that is paying more to compete with retail and fast food for unskilled workers. . RUSC isn’t the be all end all of addressing inadequate opportunities for people to have money. It just happens to be the most impactful, least controversial, first step and a prerequisite to other proposals.

7: As I already mentioned in my previous comment, it shrinks the wealth gap because workers are getting 40 to 1 what the company is getting. Walmart would make 495 million off of the tax credit where workers would receive 20,8 billion total. $13,000 of additional income per year on average for Walmart workers

8a: Yes employees are consumers and again, think I already addressed this where those who are the least able to afford a RUSC will benefit from increases in wages that vastly exceed the amount RUSC will cost them.

8b: How do I plan to force consumers to pay a RUSC? How does an airline force consumers to pay its charges? It is a cost imposed through store policy, where owners are incentivized through the tax credit to implement a service charge policy. Consumers pay more for bags in stores that force the sale of bags than they will pay through round-up. 

As far as implementation goes, initially there will be some retail and fast food stores who will not implement RUSC. First these stores will have a difficult time attracting quality workers. Next these stores will lose socially conscious consumers to stores that do implement RUSC as those consumers would rather pay a round up to support higher worker wages. Lastly, they’ll face internal pressure as workers in those businesses have something to organize around that can drastically improve their quality of life. Eventually all retail and fast food businesses will implement RUSC.

8c: Not all purchases you make are from retail and fast food businesses or businesses classified as having a high volume of transactions. The reason you’re able to give your change to your grandson is because the amount is inconsequential to your normal expenses. Which proves that the cost to consumers is inconsequential. Unfortunately you’re unable to see how the Round-Up investment will better serve the interests of your grandson, his parents, and others.

That’s fine, you can keep waving your donkey flag for the promotion of problems that are not problems, and unrealizable solutions that don’t address actual problems. Things are unlikely to change. People are essentially the same, they just have different circumstances and opportunities that create justifications for allowing what should be unacceptable to remain the same.

Tammy Gibson: If you can refrain from the personal attacks, that’d be cool. People that are hearing about this for the first time are going to have questions about it. It doesn’t mean they hate poor people or want to maintain the status quo. It just means I have questions. 

1- I do not see how your “la” addresses my paragraph 1. My point in paragraph was that wanting better pay for workers and/or shrinking the wealth gap does not mean you are against industry. I did not ask what the difference is between RUSC and employer wage increases. My response to you is that supply and demand are suppose to produce fair pricing that will attract consumers. Profits should determine wages because the worker produces that profit.

 2. Employers also have a duty to pay fair wages, not the minimum people will work for. That’s called exploitation. Raging wages will not hurt profits because workers spend that money right back into industry. Workers have kiddos that need clothes, food, diapers, medical care, etc, and love MccyDs, go on vacations, they spend. Profit sharing is the way to go. It motivates people to work hard because they benefit substantially from it. Consumers are happy because the product has quality. Employers earn more profits because they get more consumers and less refunds or warranty replacements. Whether it be from profit sharing or hourly wage increases business owners will gain profits. It does make sense for them and their shareholders especially if employees are also shareholders 

3. You should have looked that up before responding. The Principle of Charity is a logical term used to define the act of interpreting an opponent’s response with the most charitable interpretation. I asked because I’m tired of you interpreting my questioning as “I hate poor people” and “I hate industry”. That is not a charitable interpretation at all. It only serves one purpose- preservation your ego.

4. I do not have a problem with incremental increases. am pretty sure we are seeing that happening now. We are already seeing the CNAs leave that industry. Either they cannot afford the childcare or they are working at Chic-Fil-A making $19 an hour with a flexible schedule. Nursing homes are struggling to find CNAs. am not just making this up to give you a hard time. This is a real concern. We need CNAs more than we need junkie fast food. Fast food has already substantially increased wages to attract employees since covid shutdowns. Why are we having a national shortage of CNAs? 

https://www.nahcacna.org/cnas -cite-low-wages-burnout-lack-of -respect-as-key-contributors-to -staffing-crisis/ 

Orion Simerl It isn’t a personal attack to recognize the consequences of positions.  

1a addresses your statement “rounding up is not part of the profit they generate, it’s an extra charge for consumers”.  That statement is born out of the idea that businesses should increase wages through their existing profits.  1a explains that the businesses who could afford to do it would tank their stock price and lose investors upwards of 20 percent or more of their investment which is illegal. Some companies cannot afford to pay workers more and others would not make enough money to justify the investment required to maintain their business.  

2: Employers have no duty to pay fair wages.  Their only duty is compliance with federal, state, and municipal minimum wage requirements.  

3: Principle of charity isn’t violated in my interpretation of what you wrote.  I didn’t interpret your words as meaning you intended that you have an issue with poor people or industry.  Those assertions were made as a consequence or the motivation for what you said, not interpreting what you said as meaning you hate poor people and industry.  Ego has nothing to do with it.  Those statements are an inference of motivation for your resistance.  

A CNA working in a nursing home is a shitty job.  In the article you supplied 84 percent of respondents said they would return to the field for better pay.  The average nursing home has 87 residents and the average national rate is $297 per day.  The average nursing home daily revenue is $26,000 per day.  The average operating cost is close to $300,000 per month for a 40 unit nursing home.  Presumably the operating cost for an 87 unit facility is $652,500.  Monthly revenue is 780,000.  On average, a nursing home makes about $125,000 per month in profit.  

The average CNA wage is about $20 per hour but there is a low ceiling on wages where CNAs with 5 to 10 years experience only average $22 per hour.  

A nursing home typically requires millions of dollars in initial startup costs, not to mention overhead in the early goings that probably exceeds revenue as the home is trying to fill beds.  

With $125,000 per month in profit how much does it cost to increase wages by $4 per hour?  87 people requires about 5 CNAs per shift, 3 shifts per day is 5x3x8x4 is $480 per day or about $15,000 per month x 7 percent in additional payroll roll tax roughly $16,000 per month.  It seems like most nursing homes have the room to pay higher wages than they currently pay. 

While nursing homes report staffing shortages these shortages are not preventing nursing homes from staying open and providing care.  This is a market issue that will be resolved on a case by case basis when a shortage of workers prevents facilities from maintaining resident capacity.  Otherwise, the shortage isn’t a problem and nursing homes have no incentive to offer better wages to attract people to the job.  

Maybe RUSC attracts would be CNAs to retail, fast food, and other unskilled work which creates a shortage that impacts operation and creates a wage increase that attracts more people to the field. 

Tammy Gibson: 5. Untrained makes more sense. The prefix “un” literally means “not” unless it is attached to a verb (ie untie, unwrap). Unless you are taking away skills the word itself is not a rational word. Let us not forget most Americans spend their childhood in school learning skills. Therefore, they have skills that took years to gain. 

6. I have spoken my mind on the lack of interest in this plan for CNAs and I am glad you are aware of this problem, but regret you have no answer for it. _____________________________________________ 

7. Are you calculating the increase of profits generated by more people having extra money? I want to see that equation that gets you 40 some billion for employees. Thanks. ___________________ 

8. Which also increases profits for the employers and why I reject your 465 million profit amount. I also don’t agree with tax incentives for participation. It is a contradiction to your motive that I understand to be- decreasing the wealth gap. ______________________________________________ In conclusion, I don’t like plans that involve force. Employers should be persuaded by logic and reason alone that it is, in fact, in their best interest (and their shareholders) to pay a living wage at bare minimum. For example, the impact that higher wages will have on crime is a benefit for ALL Americans. Profits will increase because more people have money. Employers will have well-trained employees because more people will go to college because more families can afford it. If it does not get better, it will get worse. History bares out the consequences of labor disputes in blood. The Labor Movement in this country should be a strong motivation for employers not to take advantage of people. Nobody wants to work for a tyrannical dictator. It’s not just about wages. It’s about finding happiness which we have the right to pursue. It’s what these jobs do to a person especially going around calling them “unskilled” when “untrained” is available. That is insulting to its core as well as irrational after at least 11 years in school. They already know how to count change and run a cash register. Training takes 3 days tops because new hires already have skills. Happy employees make better burgers and fries. Happy employees take better care of your grandparents and parents. Happy employees do not go on strike, spit on fries, pee in your chair. I do not see why employers cannot be persuaded with logic and reason.

Orion Simerl Offense is subjective.  The same thing can be stated the same way to 10 people and 1 is offended and 9 are not.  The 9 do not need to change language to accommodate the 1 who interprets offense when no offense is intended.  Unskilled is exactly the correct term to define people who work in jobs that don’t require prior training or experience, where the basic skills required to do the job are presumably possessed by all.  A skill isn’t a skill if everyone can do it.  Google unskilled workers definition and you can find dozens of articles.  Here’s one.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/unskilled-labor/amp/

Tammy Gibson: They are not unskilled. They are inexperienced. If you are going to make up a word for something, it should represent the something accurately. 

Do workers have skills- yes. 

Do workers have experience- not always. I’m not denying the use of the term. I’m denying its rationality. The term only serves 1 purpose- to legitimize paying low wages. But I’m the one who hates poor people? 

I’m not offended. Ad populum is a logical fallacy. The 1 person could be right and 9 people be wrong, but stubborn.

 A simple Google search will reveal I’m not the only person that knows the term is not rational.  https://www.businessinsider.com/where-the-term-unskilled-worker-comes-from-2022-1 

Orion Simerl You can dispute whether the term is offensive to be people who have been trained to be overly sensitive and find offense in irrelevancy, but you cannot dispute that the term is rational.  Unskilled workers represent a group of people who work jobs that do not require previous training or experience.  The worker is unskilled because their work doesn’t require a person to possess skills that are applicable to a particular job, where the skills required for their job are possessed by everyone.  It’s rational, it makes sense, and it’s an important tool in distinguishing this group of workers from others to compare them to other groups, to isolate issues that impact this group and not others, and to understand the labor market mechanics of this group compared to others like I have done in RUSC and in other places.  It’s irrational to create an irrelevant controversy in pursuit of a phony social justice goal while ignoring the most promising strategies to improve this group’s quality of life.  

Your business insider article first of all makes a false statement that unskilled workers are called unskilled workers because they perform repetitive menial work which is not the definition of unskilled workers.  You endorse the article despite knowing the definition is wrong because it reinforces the idea that it’s wrong to use the term.  Second, the article is criticizing the mayor for saying people who work in these fields typically do not have the academic skills to have a corner office.  This is probably also true with very few exceptions. 

You don’t see how backwards it is, to reject a proposal for unskilled workers that will greatly improve their quality of my life by increasing their income because it doesn’t help skilled workers (CNAs) and will cost consumers an insignificant amount (demonstrated by you giving your change to your grandson) but you’ll fake outrage on their behalf over your interpretation of the word used to distinguish them from others to address their problems.  The creation of a fake problem to distract from an actual problem.  Amazing how well you’re trained through the propaganda you consume.  The subscription to information that uses this process conditions the consumer to apply this process in perception.  That’s an interesting, that you not only follow the tactic of your party but use the tactic of distracting from real issues through the creation of irrelevant controversy.  

It can’t be ad populum because it’s subjective interpretation, and the incorrect interpretation because the term isn’t intended to be offensive and doesn’t mean anything that should offend a person.  

You ever find that mirror?


I’ve had work for the last few days.  Didn’t have time to put together what I plan on putting together but I do have a positive comment exchange to post.  For anyone who has read these entries this topic comes up a lot, so some of it will be repetitive for some.  I do get excited when I’ve stated something more precisely or more concisely, or I state something that was only previously implied.  The post is below

Mahmoud M. Nahawandi Due to several conversations it seems to me, as if the ongoing controversies what is the better economic or political system are all pretty much pointless and nobody seems to have the most basic idea, to create a complete new one. We know what worked with one or the other and we also know what didn’t or doesn’t work now, why then are we not using this data to create a new system, designed to serve the majority of people in a better way? Thoughts, possible challenges or advantages, what is your opinion?

Orion Simerl There’s no new system that can be created.  The fundamental questions of economics are how do we decide what will be produced and how will what is produced be distributed?  Either individuals decide what they will produce and trade is the distribution mechanism, and money is the medium used to facilitate trade; or it’s a collective decision. 

There’s only capitalism and socialism.  Socialism is inferior because collective decisions on production and distribution means many people will not be able to decide their educational opportunities, their employment opportunities, and the products available to them.  The problem is money is required to bring a product or service to market so most people are left to the mercy of labor markets which often are inadequate for the accumulation of money required to purchase capital.  

In short what we need is not a new economic system which is impossible given the nature of the economic questions that systems answer, but the correction of inadequate opportunities for people to have money.

Mahmoud M. Nahawandi Fair enough, but here is a question, how did your options happen? What you also just ignore, you compare a political system with an economic system, why that? That’s seems to be a loop, not allowing agreement to some details ever and with that, there is no progress possible at all. Different approach then, are you happy to agree, that capitalism always will favour the wealthy and is designed to deliver the result, that the vast majority must suffer to provide for the luxury of the very few, yes or no?

Orion Simerl Socialism is deciding production and distribution as a collective decision, and collective decisions are made through government.  It’s impossible to have socialism without the government.  

I agree capitalism will always favor the wealthy, and most important public policy will always be decided by industrial interests.  It isn’t about ensuring everyone will be a millionaire living off of passive incomes which would collapse the economy immediately, there would be no production.  Adequacy is required for income, and some people need a lump sum to have the opportunity to participate in the personal decisions of production to improve their income opportunities for the betterment of public life as a whole.  All problems are a product of self deception and in adequate opportunities for people to have time and money.  When a persons income opportunities require most of their time and the amount earned is only sufficient to meet weekly expenses it means they will never have the time or money to improve their income.  To invest in something they’d like to be doing by improving their human capital, or bringing a product or service to market.  The three elements of liberty, or the capacity to do as one pleases is determined by an individual’s opportunities to have time, money, and know how, to do what they want to do.  If a person cannot improve their income, they cannot improve their liberty.  It’s a circumstantial imposition, because systems produce circumstances and people’s consent and participation produce systems.  There are solutions, my websites are posted on my FB page.   

I don’t agree that capitalism has to deliver the result of the few living extravagantly, and many with very little, others maintaining a reasonable standard of living but with no real accumulation taking place, and few more who are doing a little better than most.  There’s a point in income where an individual has enough for basic needs, a reasonable amount of discretionary spending and can accumulate money.   If we’re able to reach that standard for all people, it doesn’t matter if industry decides public policy, it doesn’t matter if Elon Musk has a trillion dollars, because everyone will have the opportunity to do what they want to do.

Mahmoud Nahawandi So, in short it is a no from you and you also have provided more detail for your reasons, that already is some progress! What you appear to not take into consideration is the power of simplicity. When people are allowed to do, what they like doing and organize that to allow them to make their living with that, many problems of now are gone with just that. Most people experience satisfaction and content, even whilst working, those are not chasing always more, as the current system is forced to have, we all are just consumers and trained to want always more. Then consider what is going to happen, when most have what they need and desire, less crime, robbery, especially domestic violence will be reduced a lot, simple result with less pressure, stress and the constant chase for always more. All that is very basic, but declared as utopian nonsense by those benefiting the most of the current system and when you are not one of them, ask yourself, why do you defend their system, designed to exploit you?

Orion Simerl There are only two systems.  One allows for individuals to decide production and trade to determine distribution and the other is a collective decision which leaves many without the options they want in life.  I support the system that is superior because it allows for greater liberty.  When imbalances are corrected the problems disappear.

Mahmoud Nahawandi You are just making up loops to confirm yourself and insist that there can’t be more, why that? Both these systems have been invented by humans, according to you we all completely lost that ability, is that really your claim? In a forum for philosophy? 🤔

Orion Simerl: Because there aren’t more ways to answer the question of how to decide production and distribution.  Individuals decide or those individuals decide collectively.  There is no alternative.  😂

Mahmoud Nahawandi: You are jumping to production and distribution all on your own, without your acceptance and agreement that there are more options, this is just a waste of time and spinning up more and more loops for no progress at all. Are you happy to waste our time with that, or do you want to achieve progress at all? What is more important for you, not being wrong, or learning and improving?

You do provide facts, but what for? Nobody asked for them, we are still at the stage where you insist that there are only two options available and that does not find my agreement. What’s the point of moving on from there, what do you think you can achieve with that altogether? What you do here is very basic, you refuse to accept a different opinion, ignore that entirely and insist in getting approval for your facts, nobody asked for. And you think that is entitled to achieve some progress at all, when you have a conversation on your own, but insist in acceptance from the rest? Pull another one.

Orion Simerl  The facts were asked for through your post asking about an alternative to capitalism and socialism.  The fact is there is no alternative due to the nature of the question that economics answers.  These facts were asked for and you are wrong in that assertion.  

You disagreeing that there are only two options is contrarian in nature because you have no basis or explanation for your disagreement but you’re too small to admit that.  What is your disagreement?  That you believe there are alternatives with no explanation of how that is possible?  

The point of moving on from there is to address the issues within the best economic foundation to improve the quality of human life by correcting imbalances of opportunities for people to have time and money.  

I have not refused to accept a different opinion.  You’ve refused to provide a different opinion.  A belief that there are more than two economic systems is not an opinion without supplying the basis for something different.  You know why in over 200 years in the formal study of economics no one has proposed a different system?  Because there is no third option to answer the fundamental question of production and distribution which is the basis for economics.  

If you’re looking for the enemy of progress find a mirror.  People who don’t know enough resisting opportunities to learn because the momentary acknowledgement of their ignorance reduces their self worth.

Mahmoud Nahawandi  Oh please, when did I ask in this thread for confirmations how capitalism works? When this is the basis for your understanding what philosophical exchange is supposed to be, you are on your own! I have zero interest in wasting my time with something not allowing progress at all, when that is all you are looking for, fair enough, but not with me! Now you are making up stuff not written and that is certainly not entitled to be called philosophical, but your own imagination only and, as far as I know, this is not about fairy tales and inventing stuff, but about systems and the simple reality, that your claim that there is only socialism and capitalism is not true at all, no matter how many facts you are going to present to confirm yourself.

See, you have to turn and abuse words and what was written to have your point, why that? Even closed questions, you just ignore them, why that? And now the classical progress, you use ad hominem to declare others as stupid, by failing badly to stay on topic. Are you still claiming you do that, not to be just wrong with your original claim? Keep running in loops, but consider for once, what you are going to achieve with that, learning and progress are not valid options with that style!

Orion Simerl  I’ve addressed everything you stated point by point and you have failed to provide an explanation for those assertions.  It’s comical and presumably intended that you avoid every point made and then claim in comment that I did what you’re doing.  Sickening.  Then you say I declare that you’re stupid which I did not do.  I asked are you stupid because only a stupid person would say there’s an alternative to something there is no alternative to without providing an argument for that position.  You wrote “why are we not using this data to create a new system to serve the majority?”. Then you asked for thoughts.  You asked the group, I’m part of the group, therefore you asked me for what I provided.

Note: His last comment was two comments but I believe I had one in between that may have been flagged where I asked are you stupid? Otherwise it was a different comment exchange and when I replied to his last comment I thought it was in reference to me asking him are you stupid?

The work is actually quite strenuous.  We’re placing 3 to 12 inch rock on a hill. Today was easier than the previous two days.   The first day I only worked for an hour and a half during the hottest part of the day from about 4 to 530.  That day was difficult in part due to navigating the wheel barrel down a steep grade and uneven terrain, and the heat where it was above 90 degrees.  

The second day was by far the most difficult.  We began at 9 and finished around 5 and it was brutally hot all day.  We had poor help.  One guy walked to us about 60 feet down hill and was out of breath by the time he reached the spot where we were working.  He lasted about a half hour and I tried to help him.  I took the full wheelbarrow up the hill where we were placing the rocks from and let him take the empty wheel barrow back down.  He tapped out after about half an hour.  

The other dude did not place rocks well, looked like he’d been up all night, moved like he’d been up all night, smelled like he’d been up 3 nights, and took the golf cart.  It was a group assignment at the time, and it pissed me off because I can’t really say anything about him taking the golf cart.  If he wants to drive the cart that’s fine, but don’t take the cart when you haven’t taken the cart before.  

I told him he smells like shit and should have washed his ass before he came to work.  He said he came from another job doing HVAC, which seemed like and probably was a lie.  He came at like 10 or 11am on a Saturday, there’s no HVAC jobs going on from Friday night to Saturday morning.  Maybe there is, some energy HVAC company who will send somebody out at 2am to fix your AC.  IDK.  This dude has about a 10 foot stench, meaning I could smell him from about 10 feet away.  

I was assigned to the wheel barrow otherwise I was going to take it from him and take the key with me so he couldn’t use it.  We all went out to lunch and I was better after that.  Went to skyline chili.  It wasn’t bad, tastes like something I’d make at home.  I got the burrito which was  a chili burrito with tomatoes, lettuce, cheese and sour cream.

But later in the day I’m loading the wheelbarrow with rocks and he’s supposed to be loading his bucket.  I give him about a minute or two and he still isn’t moving.  I ask him what are you doing?  He smiles and starts working.  

The last thing I want to do is tell a person to do their job.  When I worked with Mark from Premier, when I was in charge of temps I might tell you something one time, and after that I’d tell Premier Mark what the issues were and in most cases he would send them home and not being them back.  In other situations he’d let them stay but assign them to some BS work, like picking up trash outside when it’s 20 degrees outside. If I have to say something to you other than instructions about about working, you don’t intend to fulfill your agreement to provide services.  I don’t like tell anybody what to do, so I’m not going to chase anybody around to make sure that they’re working.  

In this situation I’m also not going to work while you’re getting paid if you’re not working.  I’m also not going to stop working.  You don’t have to work as hard and fast as I do but you need to be contributing.  This is how I’ve always been with people I’ve hired or people who are under my supervision.  Mike Singletary on Vernon Davis: can’t play coach him, can’t play with him, I’d rather go out there with 10 guys and just get penalized.  I’d rather not have enough guys and make up for the lost production than to have guys who are not there to provide services, who want me to catch them not working and tell them to get to work.  

On Saturday he told both of us to come back.  Since I don’t have the relationship with Mark the homeowner that I have with Mark from Premier, I told him I wasn’t going to come back if he was bringing back HVAC Stank and explained the reasons and he saw what I seen but attributed how he worked to him responding poorly to the heat.  But he agreed not to bring him back.  

Today was easy compared to the other days, but not completely without controversy.  It was easy because Lucus who was there the first day came today and two high energy Russians.  Everyone came to work and everyone worked hard.  I’ve had enough positive experiences working with Russians to believe that pride in working hard is a value of Russian culture.  I think that’s what weak people do not understand, that the heat and the work is just as hard for us as it is for them.  But 1 I need the money and 2 I aint no bitch, so I’m not going to fail to pull my weight because the work is hard and it may be hot.  

Lucas had baseball gloves he was working in.  I asked if they were baseball gloves or golfing gloves and he said he played baseball.  Then I commented that I thought golfers only wear one glove.  Mark the homeowner confirmed that golfers only wear one glove.  

He asked me what sports I played and I told him basketball and football but only recreationally.  And I haven’t played ball in a long time.  

He told me he played corner and safety at Notre Dame.  He said he played football at Notre Dame and I guessed corner based on his build.  Not an easy guess because they’re are not a lot of white corners.  I said not a lot of future in being a white cornerback.  He’s from California, and seemed slightly taken aback by my comment.  It’s true.  Being a professional cornerback is the most athletically demanding position in sports.  Which is evidence that black people have more athleticism in their gene pool.  

He mentioned that a white corner he knew or played with made it to the pros.  It’s impressive that he played for a division 1 football team.  To play division 1 sports is an exclusive caliber of athlete.  Top 98 percent of athletes.  Football is the most athletically demanding sport and corner is the most athletically demanding position.  He was a high level athlete although he did say he played safety more than corner and did better with the physical aspects of the game.  I was impressed to learn that.  

On the subject of cornerbacks, while there are many who are quite good in zone, there are very few who are really good in man coverage.  I’m the history of the game there were two corners who I considered had shut down eras in man coverage.  There was Revis for a few seasons and Champ Bailey.  Champ Bailey would completely take all pro receivers out of the game.  He was that for most of his career.  

Anyway there were a few decisions that seemed to make the job more difficult than it had to be.  First the decision to use garbage cans and two man teams to carry them down the hill was poorly thought out.  I was going to recommend on the second day that he should get some 5 gallon buckets.  In that scenario each per could load a bucket to their desired capacity and place the rock where it needs to go.  

The other issues were strategic. Instead of placing the load and top of the hill and essentially allowing it to be poured to the bottom and maybe carried down, he had the rock dumped at the bottom.  This meant  a two man team to pass it over the retaining wall and eventually a three man team carrying it up hill.  

He wanted to add Rick above his original line.  We still had the left side to the original height and middle to fill.  We had wheel barrows coming from the left that could reach to the middle and pour.  Instead of waiting to finish that he cut us off from the path by having us take the side to left all the way up blocking the path of the wheel barrow.  It didn’t prove to be too great a set back because we ran out of rick on that side shortly after we finished.  

The other part that made things more difficult is after we developed a system of picking up multiple rocks by hand and placing them where they needed to go.  It was more efficient.  I was placing the rock while others were pouring it, but after they began bringing it by hand there was no need for me to place it so I joined them in picking and placing.  Later homeowner Mark began placing and asking for buckets.  I told him that I didn’t quit on placing, it was just that they were picking and placing so there was no need for me to just place and so I started picking too.  He wasn’t acclimated to working on the hill and had me resume that position.  Shortly afterwards he had them bring tubs and we carried them.diwn and place them.  May have been slightly faster to fill out the bottom but only because he had them stop trying to place the rocks we were bringing when he was placing.  

None of it was a big deal.  Lucas said he was about to leave when the rocks were delivered at the bottom, but not because the work was too hard but because it didn’t make sense to him to do it like that.  I felt the same way momentarily but more so when he block the wheel barrow route to the center.  Like I said, really no big deal, still got a lot done, he said we moved 12 tons of rock.  It wasn’t as hot as it had been and we had a good team so it was a pretty smooth day.  

I’m also skeptical about the weight of the loads, but don’t care if a 5x5x maybe 28 inch bed of rocks weighs as much as it is supposed to, to look it up.   


I’ve had a number of entries I’ve written since the last time but it doesn’t seem like a good idea to publish them now.  Valuable lessons on personal behavior and subjective ideas tied to self worth that I’ll probably share at some point or just hang onto for my own benefit.  

Outside of this I have a lot of comment exchanges that I plan on posting.  It isn’t for the purpose of showing I’m right, it’s for the purpose of demonstrating bias through positions taken that people fail to qualify through explanation and apply the criticism to the subject.  In some cases there are people who liked some of these comments which also demonstrates bias because the comment isn’t supported by any substance or demonstrates a failure to comprehend the subject.  

For example a person stated that I assume there is no morality without a creator, which 1st is something me of all people would never claim, but second it comes from misinterpreting the part in the post where I state the survival of consciousness after death is a moral certainty if a creator exists.  First, because the creator would not want to cease to exist it would be wrong to him to create conscious beings that cease to exist.  Second, it’s imposition, essentially murder.  

There was another guy who claimed I failed to explain premises but when I asked which ones he couldn’t provide a single example.  You could post that comment to anything and it’s meaningless unless you show a premise from the post that hasn’t been explained.  

I’m going to post the post I’m mentioning, nothing new, just an existential probability based on observation and deduction.  

Tomorrow I’ll post the exchange after the post in this entry.  

Have another multi day exchange that is an excellent example of bias.  Overcome all objections, many twice and the person remains steadfast in a contradictory position.  

The following post was inspired by a post asking what the soul is.  I began this post as a comment reply but decided to use it as a post instead of a reply.  That’s the reason it begins by defining what a soul is, even though I don’t use the term.

We are consciousness, a soul is just a term used to describe the material of your consciousness.  You either find it probable that consciousness survives death or you do not.   

If there is a creator the survival of consciousness after death is morally required.  The absence of a creator indicates that the creator’s morality is based on liberty because he doesn’t interfere with his creation.  More importantly, the creators morality is likely liberty because the creator freely creates, the universe is evidence of that.  To cause something to exist only to have it no longer exist is imposition, since nothing that exists wants to stop existing.  Since the creator would not want to stop existing it cannot create conscious beings  for a purpose that it would not want to exist for.  If there is a creator, the survival of consciousness after death is morally assured.  The creator is still irrelevant, not helping on earth and not helping and not helping in the survival of consciousness after death.  

I don’t believe the universe spontaneously came into existence, contains all the processes it contains to produce life, then freezes over for no purpose.  

If a creator cannot create beings for purposes it would not want to exist for, what does that mean?  It means the creator cannot create servants, the creator can only reproduce.  

What does the universe do?  A layman’s understanding is that elements are bound together to create nuclear fusion, when the fuel is exhausted some stars explode and these explosions create heavier elements.  These heavier elements produce complex structures where life comes into existence and evolves into intelligent life, capable of understanding the universe.  The superficial purpose of the universe is to produce life.  Without anyone to behold the universe the universe serves no purpose.  Do stars, planets, or black holes matter if nothing ever understands what they are?  If it just exists then does not.  

The purpose of the universe is to produce life, but what is the purpose of a mechanism to produce life?  

The problem with a space with limitless potential is it is limited by the beings who occupy it.  Eventually, in an eternal space where beings are free to experience and create at will all beings will eventually do all the things they want to do so many times that existing would become a burden.  You cannot create new beings because their experience will be a product of the experiences of that space.  

The universe creates environments and life randomly.  The new experiences enrich the eternal space, and new beings with new experiences and values ensure that creation and experience takes place in perpetuity.  

I know for sure there are at least two spaces to accommodate different moral motion.


Just been thinking this shit isn’t going to work out, people aren’t getting any smarter and there isn’t much reason to believe they will be.  Most people’s conception of reality consists of a deity they made up who they believe is a benevolent tyrant who magically causes things to happen on the planet.  Their thinking is conditioned to holding contradictory notions true, they think through authority, and their reality consists of opinions on subjects they don’t understand.  That’s a failing species.  A species where most of the population has to deceive themselves to maintain contentment, which has consequences for themselves and others.  

I made a post for the round up service charge and put it in a group.  The group took it down despite the post being about Philosophy, where I took the Plato quote from the homepage, explained my promotional efforts, the summary of RUSC, to show that the only way people could be unresponsive is if they didn’t understand it.

Then I posted it in this political group which soap opera politicers, they repost whatever propaganda they can find for the party that represents their narrow preselected conservative or progressive values.  A Lot of these posts are ridiculous, although some are pretty funny.  There was a meme that said bud light had fewer sales than Camp Lajune bottled water.  Then you have others that claim insurance companies should cover preconditions, not realizing that such a policy would end insurance since people would wait to purchase insurance until.they had a problem.  There’s no money to cover the cost because why would anybody buy insurance unless they were already sick.  Then they’ll post graphs showing which party contributed more to the national debt, like the 2008 financial crisis didn’t create a need for spending, or the mindless and unnecessary shut down for COVID didn’t increase spending to keep the country afloat while only 30 percent of the economy was operating.  That isn’t the actual number but a significant amount of economic activity ceased.  It’s a very politically primitive group, and most of them are like this.  

I posted the RUSC summary.  Not the first promotion in this group so I didn’t expect much.  A person who I had previous interactions with commented that she wasn’t persuaded, company’s should be forced to pay higher wages.  

RUSC guarantees the bottom 50 percent of income earners will experience substantially higher wages, it will increase federal revenue, decrease federal spending, increase the profits of businesses who participate, and all the byproducts of people having more money, less crime, less drug dependency, children developing better habits and interests.  

If that isn’t persuading you’re not concerned about these things.  If you’re not concerned about these things then you’re putting your biases ahead of human interests.  Due to her prejudice against me, or prejudice against industry.   

It also shows that she isn’t willing to part with probably $3 to $6 per week to give the hardest working lowest income people in this country a 3 to 15 dollar per hour raise, but expects a company like Walmart to spend 13 billion a year on a $3 wage that would me much less impactful than what they’d experience from RUSC.  

Her idea is what a minimum wage increase?  The federal minimum wage hasn’t moved in decades.  And then, $15 per hour phases in over the next 20.years, if you can do it?  Where by the time it’s fully implemented it buys less than minimum wage would today.  There are better ways to do things.  

Three responses.  The first two I chronicled in a previous entry.  The first was it isn’t constitutional, and then when she finally understood it was an incentive including a rebate and a credit to encourage the implementation of RUSC, the same as many other subsidies, she said the government does it but it still isn’t constitutional.  Obviously it is because the supreme court doesn’t stop it and they’re the ones tasked with interpreting the constitution.  

The second claimed that it would hurt the people it was intended to help.  As if $5 a week from 10 retail and fast food purchases is more than the $5 to $10 per hour they’ll be making through RUSC, or for other unskilled workers  how ever much more per hour they will make through retail and fast food jobs paying more and creating competition within the unskilled labor pool.  Just about anybody who will have a problem with the cost of a RUSC will be earning more money through its existence.  Not seniors or people on a fixed income but these are people who tend to make very few retail and fast food purchases.  If they go to the store twice a week it costs a dollar per week on average.  Inflation from 2021 to 2022 cost the average American family $433 per month.    

The third is the one I just summarized who thinks that increasing the minimum wage to something that’s either already being paid or slightly above t is going to lead to real quality of life improvements.  

For those who see this and are not familiar the RUSC outline is available for viewing at oplnow.com .  

The simplest thing to understand is liberty based morality, and these people can’t understand that.  If they understand some it, they don’t understand enough to know what it tells us about human beings, the characteristics of a creator, and is evident about spaces, conscious beings, in any form of existence.  What it says about law, action, and human responsibility for the circumstances they create for others.  

It isn’t only rooted in their biases, there is a lot that people can’t understand due to their biases but it’s more their perspectives preclude the ability to understand things.  They see reality through the idea that there’s a lot of information and they choose what information they like best.  They don’t understand that everything is out together the same way as anything they do understand.  Defined objects in cause and effect sequencing.  

It would be an interesting and impossible experiment, but I think ASC could be picked up by children.  Impossible because it requires teaching the parents who are invested in their biases and unintelligent modes of thinking, like accepting opinion as fact without understanding the subject or knowing why the opinion is or is not correct.  It would be interesting to see how it could improve children’s abilities to learn.  

None of this is going to come of anything.  Living in the twilight zone with a bunch of fucking zombies.    


I realized something about myself through a comment exchange today.  Less of a realization and more evidence for something I already knew.  There was a comment on my post that altruism does not exist since decision making is a product of comparisons; where the feeling gained through the act is greater than the feeling that can be had in the moment through the substance sacrificed.  

The original comment was in reference to people who sacrifice their lives to save others.  I offered an explanation of feelings generated in the moment, and the anticipation of negative feelings for having not sacrificed themself.  These are subconscious processes that are manifest through thoughts, feelings, and decisions.  

Today the person responded first stating there is no absolute truth and presenting the scientific criteria for truth in hypothesis, theory, scientific facts etc.  Went on to question some of the motivation I provided in response to his life sacrificing contingency.

I replied that the idea that there is no absolute truth is ridiculous, where if you touch something hot you get burned and if you touch something that isn’t hot you don’t.  There’s so many pointless posts about truth and things people think are true or profound and they rarely lead into any point.  You start reading them and by about the fourth sentence you realize there are so many wrong things being said about nothing it’s impossible to even respond to.  Or at least not worth the effort.  If you think there’s no truth, or that the truth is arbitrary, go slam your dick in a car door and see  if that feels true or not.  

To reinforce my argument at least about the aspect of putting one’s self in mortal danger to avoid a negative feeling, I offered some personal experiences.  3 incidents where I had guns pulled on me, two were failed attempts at intimidation, and one was an unsuccessful attempted robbery.  The robbery was relevant because my daughter’s mother was in the house with the gunmen and I was out of the house with the money and the pills.  Long story short I went into the house to remove them from the house.  I don’t like talking about these incidents because I don’t like to be perceived as bragging about it.  The reason I don’t like to be seen as bragging about these things is because when I see others doing it outside of an organic arrival on the subject, I tend to think why do you want me know these things and usually causes me to think less of them.  But when it’s relevant to a controversy I do talk about these kind of experiences.   

In each of those situations at least 1 element of my motivation was avoiding a loss of self worth by letting someone control me with a weapon, or allowing someone to take something from me.  That was worse to me than death, or at least worth the risk.  I’d like to think that I’m not as inclined to that value as I used to be, but my circumstances as they are tend to put more weight on those kind of values.  One of those incidents occurred in December of 2020.  Circumstances were fucked up then too.  Lol.

I didn’t bring this up just to say that someone sacrificing themself for someone else is sometimes motivated by avoiding the negative feeling of inaction.  I was walking and thinking about those incidents and the motivation and it revealed something to me.  

That I’ve been a person who on numerous occasions risked his life in the preservation of self worth.  More than these 3x but these were the first to come to mind.  These are subjective values that are intertwined with my self worth but function through the same object (self) as morality.  There were some moral elements as well but the incident when I was 16 or 17 was purely motivated by not wanting to feel like a coward because he had a gun.  That’s why I am true to my morality because any step too far outside of it is going to drastically impact my self worth.   In a sense those incidents and others are evidence of my commitment to my morality through my value of self worth.  If the mechanism is understood, which will vary on an individual basis depending on their value of self worth.  In that a person can identify with feeling bad for stepping outside their values and feeling good about the consistency between their known values and application.  Whereas others are not moved by it, and are more moved by how they can make themselves appear to others.  Some can understand it because they have the same value of self worth, whereas others do not have the experience since they’re more concerned with the image they project to others.  

I wrote that last night and this morning I had a job where I both deceptive and taken by surprise by someone failing to honor their agreement.  

There is a guy who has a moving company who I’ve worked a few jobs with.  There was a job today and his son was carrying a couch on a hand truck and the cushion caught on the wheel leaving a rubber mark on the couch.  When we brought it into the storage unit he initially wanted the couch flipped on top of the other then momentarily wanted it on the ground where the mark would be exposed.  To avoid him seeing the mark I told him that the couch would be fine on top of the other, and that’s true, but my intentions were motivated by concealing the mark.  

Clear case of deception, but in the moment I don’t see any benefit to anyone on him knowing that Keyshawn caused the mark.  First the mark can probably be rubbed out with some furniture cleaner.  Second, him knowing where the mark came from does nothing to change what appears to be an unintended consequence of moving items, and may damage the company’s reputation.  It was a moral lie, because deception has no real consequences to the person being lied to.  

I will no longer be working with Terrance and Burrell Moving.  The pay is only $18 per hour and on this job he said he was paying a 4 hour minimum.  I was surprised when he came out of the gas station and said since it only took us 45 minutes, he gave the customer a discount and could only pay me 60 instead of 72.  I expressed my disappointment but didn’t have time to really think about it.  Where if he had told me this when we we finished the job I’d have been able to separate our brief history and my personal interests regarding the situation.  He saw I wasn’t happy, asked if I was good and I said yeah, then asked if I was still planning on working and I said probably give me a call.  

When I say separate the history he’s come through clutch on work when I was in desperate need of money.  The first job I worked with him I was owed about $240 and he paid $280.  Other jobs paid the agreed upon rate, although there was one he paid me for 4 hours that should have been 4.5 but gave me $3 more than 4 hours so I would have been arguing for $4.50.  Wasn’t a big deal.  That history in the moment prejudices me against damaging the relationship.  

When I say interests, I have been bobbing between bad and worse for at least the last 2 months so I don’t want to limit the few opportunities I have.

After I drove off I had time to think about it and separate these two things.  Him offering the customer a discount because of how quickly we worked has nothing to do with what he agreed to pay me.  He said he felt bad for the guy but if we look at all the parties involved, no one is need of that $12 more than I am.  He also lied to me before that.  I called him to find out where we were going to meet so I could get my money and he said you’re done already?  He knew that because I heard his son call and ask if the customer paid or not.  

So I let him know he doesn’t need to call me anymore, because I’m not going to work with somebody who doesn’t honor their agreements.  

I had $40 in my pocket when I started the day, that means I have $100 right now, a quarter tank of gas, living out of my car, and $80 worth of bills due on the 1st.  That $12 is significant to me, much more significant than it is to Terrance or the customer.  There is some regret present for not being able to seperate the history and my interests to react in the moment.  Which was intended and the reason he didn’t tell me before he did it.  

Despite being right to be upset, and if we set aside history and my immediate interests of the prospect for work there is the amount of time I worked and the amount. Typically when I work with people I don’t sweat the small stuff because we’re getting money together. When I worked with Mark there was a few different occasions where I’d buy some tools or fasteners etc out of my own money and I wouldn’t ask for reimbursement because what’s 10 to $20 when we’re making money? Same with Shay when I did interstate moving I was easy to close with but I was never worried about something he thought might have $100 in his column that maybe wasn’t.

I don’t like to seem petty especially not in business relationship. Here I worked 45 minutes and was paid $60, which is good by most people’s standards but he agreed to pay me $72. It’s like the landscaper a month or two ago near Cincinnati who wanted us to meet and ride with him but then didn’t want to pay us for the ride back which is our time. I don’t like to work for mother fuckers who don’t appreciate the work I’m doing and trying to nickel and dime shit.

A lot of this is a blow to myself worth for not standing on my $12, but it’s hard to do when you’re surprised by it, and have interests, history, and small amounts in what was withheld and how much work I did.   


If you’ve read my material, I’ve repeatedly stated that people have authority based thinking structures.  I’ve said exactly, that people have strong opinions about subjects they do not understand.  That people believe facts are chosen not observed, and facts are most often chosen by feeling.  While I’ve demonstrated these things in other recorded exchanges, this example is immaculate.  The woman is saying she accepts the opinions of others as fact, and doesn’t see how that is unintelligent behavior.  She’s so invested in the concept she thinks I’m stupid for developing a functional understanding of a subject before I have an opinion about.  My comment didn’t even voice an opinion on the subject it was an effort to learn more about an opinion that seems dubious but headline making.  

There was a post that I’m not going to take the time to copy about AI is dangerous will we be ready and something else not worth remembering.  If it didn’t state it danger was implied.  These posts have been becoming popular and everybody feels good to pretend to be threatened by something they have no reason to be threatened by.  

AI is a language based information processor.  It can understand language and apply the understanding of language to requested ends based on what it understands.  It can never have an objective of its own because there’s no feeling to motivate any action.  It’s the same as any other program, and it can be programmed not to give answers for questions involving bomb making or anything that would be harmful. The voice mimicking capacity could become a problem if it gets better because it could become impossible to know who said what.  That isn’t a disaster for the species.  

I don’t know much about AI and maybe it is dangerous.  I want to know specifically why someone thinks it’s dangerous.  There is something AI does that causes a specific problem.  What is it?  

Orion Simerl I’m yet to see anyone anywhere voice a specific concern about AI.

Mimi Bast “Mark my words. AI is far more dangerous than nukes. Far.” -Elon Musk. 

Elon says it’s not that AI would develop its own power but that bad people would take control of AI and use AI to do bad – this is the actual threat.

Orion Simerl  Exactly, you accept opinions without any understanding of the subject, like AI is dangerous because Elon Musk said AI is dangerous but you can’t provide a single reason for why the opinion is true or false.  The same as every other person who claims AI is dangerous which is why I’m yet to see a specific concern.  This is how the minds of a lot of people function.  Assignments of true and false are made based on associations not on understanding.

Mimi Bast That’s incorrect. I do actually listen to the experts, believe it or not. I don’t listen to people on Facebook, lol, especially if they have nothing to prove that they know the subject matter. Just because I can’t explain it does not mean I don’t know or understand. If you want me to talk about it, then I have to study it first and it will take a while. I can only talk about things I’ve studied or have extensive experience in.

Orion Simerl I understand that you’re intellectually immature and don’t know the difference between fact, opinion, or understanding.  Fact is an observation, an opinion is someone’s conclusion based on a series of observations, and understanding is knowing the cause and effect sequences that a subject consists of.  You listen to the experts and what did you retain?  You retained an opinion that AI is dangerous without any understanding of the subject evident by your inability to express a single thing that AI could do that would be dangerous.  If you understood it, or had even the most basic understanding of why AI is dangerous you’d be able to state AI could do x which is harmful to human interests.  Saying that it’s incorrect that you accept opinions without understanding the subject isn’t disproven by you saying you listen to the experts.  It’s proven by the fact that you can’t provide even one example of how AI is dangerous.  You allow other people to think for you.  That’s evident through this exchange.

Mimi Bast And you have proof that you understand? You provided no such proof. You criticize me for listening to an expert while you provided no proof that you know more than the expert does. So who’s the ignorant one here? At least I don’t claim to know something I have no knowledge of, but I listen, whereas you don’t listen to anyone but yourself though you know nothing. In other words, you are your own authority and listen to no one who knows more than you do. That is the epitome of ignorance. And you wonder why I refuse to explain anything. I am done wasting time with you or people like you who thinks they know more when they literally know nothing.

Listening to experts and being able understand the intricacies are two separate things. You cannot listen to someone and suddenly become an expert. If you think listening to something makes you an expert, then you must be a moron.

Orion Simerl  Proof of what?  My position is that no one has expressed a specific concern which means there’s  no basis to believe AI is dangerous. The proof is that no one has expressed a specific concern.  Proof that AI is dangerous to you is Elon Musk saying it’s dangerous without explanation.  Your reality is built on counting other people’s opinions as fact.

Mimi Bast It’s not just “other people” – it’s the experts. Not all “experts” are equal either. They have to prove to the public that they know what they’re talking about. 

And I am repeating myself here so it’s no use.

Orion Simerl Yeah you’re repeating yourself because you can’t follow a point and don’t realize that every time you’re repeating yourself you’re resubmitting evidence that you accept opinions as facts about subjects you don’t understand.  It’s hilarious if we don’t think too much about the consequence of the act and the prevalence of it in our society.

Mimi Bast Again, it’s not an opinion if it comes from people who knows what they’re talking about. Obviously you simply cannot understand nor will you accept that others know more than you do.

Orion Simerl LOL.  Well thank you for the complete demonstration. 

End Exchange 

This is another way that communication breaks down, because you can’t talk about a subject with someone when the only thing they have is an opinion without an explanation.  They believe that is true and no matter what you explain to them they will continue to believe it’s true because of the association with the source.  It’s effectively a means of mind control that’s particularly problematic because of how prevalent it is.  COVID hysteria was a demonstration of this power.  There are different biases that wield it, creating two groups of people who feel strongly about things that they don’t understand.  

The following exchanges are with an individual whose is similar to the previous commenter in the sense that he has trouble following points and sticking with the subject. It’s still a choose your position mode of thinking but isn’t the internalization of others opinions without fact.

The original post was a quote from a philosopher stating among other things that people who lie to themselves cannot lie and respect themselves and others.  

Orion Simerl Partially true, but there’s no relationship between self deception and a loss of the ability to love or self respect.  In fact it’s quite the opposite where most self deception is a product of maintaining self respect and self love, and often the love and respect of others.   

Self deception is a mechanism used to protect the value of objects, including self worth.  People lie to themselves and others because what causes people to feel good (value of objects) is largely dependent on what they believe.

Burt Voorhees I think that self-respect is inconsistent with lying to oneself. What is protected is not real self-respect but only an idolized self-image.

Orion Simerl If respect is a state of admiration of qualities or actions, and idolization is essentially  respect to an extreme degree I don’t understand how self deception can produce a perception that maintains idolization, without also producing self respect.  The individual self deceives for the purpose of maintaining their perception.  Much of it occurs through subconscious mechanisms where the truth feels bad so they refuse to accept it, with the most conscious aspects of it being justifying and rationalizing doubt.  While their actual qualities and actions may not be respectable, they choose to see things other than how they are to maintain a perception of themselves that they respect.

Burt Voorhees To me, that is not respect, it is idolization. I think that it produces uncertainty and fear that the deception will be discovered, that whatever it is carried out to cover will surface (but without conscious awareness of this, it would manifest as only a general dis-ease). 

 On the other hand, sometimes that sort of self-deceit may be necessary for sanity or survival. 

Is pride still a sin

when it’s last shreds 

are all that resists 

a shredding of self, 

salving the dissonance 

of what was wished for 

with irrefutable reality? 

Walking by the river in Köln,

A woman in worn clothing, 

no shoes, 

hunched over, 

talking conversationally 

into her cupped hand 

as if it held a smartphone.

End Exchange 

I didn’t respond after his comment because he didn’t address the points.  To say “to me that is idolization” fails to define the difference between self respect and self idolization, or to address my distinction between two.  Also didn’t address how lying to one’s self to maintain the perception of respectable qualities will fail to produce self respect.  

Burt’s issue in this exchange is failure to follow and address points and less about accepting opinion as fact without understanding the subject.  The thinking is similar in that he believes that conversation can be two people just saying different things without addressing what’s stated, and choosing what a person wants to believe.  It’s the same general principle that a person can choose facts based on credentialed opinions without asserting an authority for an arbitrary conclusion that fails to address the explanation of the competing position, and fails to address the explanation challenging their position.  

The next exchange with Burt was in response to a post I made on altruism.  In this post it isn’t my goal to prevent people from engaging in altruistic acts or an attempt to propose the idea that people are bad.  It’s an effort to introduce people to concepts to help them understand human behavior, and to remove good and bad judgements from the altruistic and the non-altruistic.  

Post: A lot is made about selfishness despite human beings being wholly selfish creatures. 

A selfless act is motivated by the feelings produced by the substance sacrificed.  A simple illustrative example is giving a few dollars to a homeless person with a sign.  The anticipated feeling (subconscious awareness) from the act is greater than the feeling of retaining the few dollars or applying it to other purposes in that moment.  

The reverse is also true, where failing to make a sacrifice that one believes they should make will result in a negative feeling so the act is motivated by avoiding the negative feeling.  (In Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison avoiding negative feelings is an objective to produce a positive feeling through that avoidance).  For example, if a friend asks a person for a ride to the store, the person may not be motivated by the positive feeling of helping their friend.  Their perceived responsibility to their friend compels the assistance because they anticipate feeling bad if they do not give them a ride.  

There are no selfless acts.  Help is an equal exchange: the meeting of needs in exchange for the feelings generated through the meeting of those needs.

Burt Voorhees: This is the reciprocity theory of cooperative behavior. It is insufficient to explain actual behavior in all its variety. Current thinking is that humans are not “wholly selfish creatures.” Rather, there are selfish tendencies primarily based in biology, although there are also some genetically controlled cooperative behaviors, and there are cooperative non-selfish and even altruistic behaviors that are primarily due to culture.

Orion Simerl: It doesn’t matter what the current thinking is, or if the positive feeling is a product of innate genetic disposition towards an act, or an idea common in a culture, the act is motivated by the feeling the person gets from helping, not the help itself.  The individual makes no sacrifice because the sacrifice produces a better feeling than the person can get through avoidance of the sacrifice.  Human beings are wholly selfish because their actions are always subconsciously motivated by efforts to produce a positive feeling.

Burt Voorhees: That doesn’t demonstrate that this is always the case, and sometimes a person really doesn’t want to behave altruistically, but does so anyway (and not because he or she would feel bad otherwise). This can be especially so with instantaneous acts, and acts that are made even though they disadvantage a person while not acting would not have produced any negative feelings. Sometimes people behave altruistically because that’s what they do. I can verify that from personal experience. In the extreme, it’s the soldier who throws himself on a live grenade, sacrificing his life but saving others.

Orion Simerl: A person who says “sometimes people just do things” has no interest in understanding human behavior.  People don’t just do things there’s reasons why people do things.  I already know you believe things based on incomplete understanding based on the last discussion where you held an opinion not supported by any reasoning.  Where you couldn’t qualify that a person who deceives themself to maintain an image couldn’t also respect the image they deceived themselves into maintaining.  

You can continue to meander through life with incomplete ideas not supported by fact or reason because they make you feel good.  

Even in the extreme where someone sacrifices or risks their life for others there is the idea and feeling in the moment and the expectation of pain for not proceeding with the act, or legacy and after life rewards.  

Lol @ “some people just do things”.

Burt Voorhees: Now you’re stooping to insult. You, in my opinion, are generalizing because believing as you do makes you feel superior. Sorry, I don’t support that. On the other hand, the actual data does point to something more general which is that people can become addicted to particular emotions. I once knew a philosophy professor who specialized in ethics and, after some experience with this person, I realized that she was addicted to feelings of righteous indignation and would manipulate situations so that she could indulge these feelings. Perhaps you ought to examine your own emotional addictions. 

On a different, but related topic, I play tournament poker and, at the level I play at, I’m pretty good (not the high level stuff on tv, but a couple of months ago in Las Vegas I played in three tournaments and cashed in two of them to the tune of $1600). What I discovered some time ago, in terms of actually playing well, is that I had to give up the emotional rush of winning a hand as well as the emotional suffering of losing a hand. Simply play the game without getting caught in the emotions of it. Letting the emotions back in and the quality of play goes down (check out the arousal/performance curve). Lots of players go for the rush, and degrade their game accordingly. You might look into Stoicism.

Orion Simerl No it hasn’t anything to do with righteous indignation or a compulsion to be right and superior.  It has to do with motion and frustration.  The reason I stopped responding was  because it was apparent to me that your opinions are not connected to fact and reason and you can’t follow a point.  Which is why I brought up the last exchange.  There’s frustration in that, not only with you but others like you who make assertions and take positions that are not grounded in anything but saying something different that fails to expose contradiction of fact or reason in the opposing position.  I’ve had several cordial exchanges with people where we go back and forth and each reply is in reference to the previous reply and at the end we both understand one another’s  position, neither position is invalidated by fact, and we don’t agree at the end.  

Everything is motion, the defining objects in cause and effect sequencing.  That’s what understanding is.  Not reading something and saying someone wrote it, it must be valid,  interject it anywhere even though you don’t understand what is actually being stated.  

Good luck to you.

Burt Voorhees As I see it you are trying to support a dogmatic position that, while having superficial validity in some cases, is not at all universal although you are claiming that it is. That’s all. My views are based on long study and experience. Yours, it seems to me, are just fantasies. I was not changing the subject or diverging from the point, I was giving examples related to the question of emotions and their role in controlling behavior (in conjunction with internal worldviews).

Orion Simerl Again the subject is the motivation for altruistic acts.  Motivation for an act is based on the anticipated feelings an act will produce.  This isn’t a principle, this is an identified psychological mechanism that apparently has eluded your extensive study.  You don’t know what motivates action so you argue that people just do things.  There’s nothing dogmatic about my assertion, but serves as an example that you just say things without connecting them to anything.  

Superficial validity?  Mountains of research that show people are motivated by the pursuit of positive feelings that have chemical signatures.  The release of these chemicals when individuals help others.  You can’t distinguish the difference between a principle basis and a mechanism of human behavior.  I guess it’s not as all encompassing as the explanation “sometimes people just do things”.  😂. I can’t believe you offered that as an explanation for human behavior and lack the awareness to know how ridiculous that statement is.  

Claiming it’s not universal, that some people help because they just do things when all the research pertaining to human motivation and altruism shows that people who help others experience positive feelings for doing so.  All decisions contain an element of energy required versus the perceived benefit to the individual where benefit ultimately reduces to the feelings generated by the act.  No one does things just to do them whether they’re consciously aware of their motivation or not.  Outside of external benefits, where the altruistic act is motivated by image or the possibility of remuneration, where it ceases to be altruistic, the act is motivated by the production of a positive feeling subconsciously otherwise the act doesn’t proceed.  

You try to validate your baseless assertions through your study and experience.  People do this when they have no argument.  Like a person trying to argue human behavior just happens because they don’t understand it.  Otherwise there’s no need to mention experience or study because the contribution of experience and study is evident through their argument.

Do you see the difference?  Each point I make follows exactly the nonsense assertions you make that are built on nothing.  You’ve made 4 assertions: calling me dogmatic, claiming superficial validity, not universal, and fantasies while failing to connect those assertions to anything I’ve stated.  Which is just more evidence of my previous point spanning 2 topics that you cannot follow a point and just say things.  Otherwise you would show 

1: that human behavior is not motivated by the production of positive feelings.  

2: that altruistic acts do not produce positive feelings.  

3: what an altruistic act is motivated by if not positive feelings.  

I’m the one with the fantasies while addressing every point and maintaining consistency, while you’re making baseless assertions to maintain your position that altruistic acts are not all motivated by the positive feelings they produce built on an explanation that people just do things.  

Maybe your claim that a person who self deceives cannot respect themselves is based on personal experience.  Of course in that exchange you were claiming that a self deceiving person cannot respect themselves making that universal and failing to address the point that a person lying to themselves to maintain a positive perception of themself is usually to maintain self respect.  Mentioned again to demonstrate your tendency of failing to understand arguments and address the points being made.  Just saying things.  

Your examples of failing to control emotions included accusations that my lack of respect for your child like comprehension and arguing skills was because of some emotional response.  It is childlike to take a position without explanation and to avoid the points that invalidate your position.  Instead of addressing the points you make new assertions not supported by anything and think that is a conversation i.e dogmatic, superficial validity, (not) universal, fantasies, not supported by fact or reason in that comment or any of the preceding.  

One point you’ve made very well is that study is not synonymous with intelligence.

Burt Voorhees You are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of. Show the data. All you showed was one post indicating that behaving altruistically elicited positive emotions among a limited group of test subjects. More generally you jump to the conclusion that motivation is based on desire to experience positive emotions and avoid negative emotions. A hedonistic assumption. You are very defensive about this position and keep stating it as an absolute. In other words, your view is “My way or the highway.” So, dogmatic. I did indicate with examples that (a) some people are addicted to the experience of emotions, not necessarily positive ones, and also that success in at least one specific endeavor is facilitated by avoiding the feelings of both positive and negative emotions. There is a more complex factor involved, too. When speaking of emotions there is a duality between emotions and feelings (See Damasio, for example, although this understanding goes back at least 120 years). There isn’t a set pair of terms, so I like using Damasio’s definitions of emotions as the physiological and hormonal responses in the body, and feelings as the mental experiences associated to an emotion. The emotions are biological responses controlled by genetic programs but the feelings are culturally programmed. That means that exactly the same biological responses (release of hormones, neurotransmitters, visceral tensions, and so on) can elicit different responses and motivational states in people from different cultures. Not to mention the psychological factors relating to differences in individual life experiences. I mentioned the Stoics because their philosophy involves learning how to behave virtuously without requiring either positive or negative emotional motivation. In my opinion you have a very negative view of human beings, considering them as little more that puppets whose strings are pulled by emotion an desire.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339923798_Identity_Kinship_and_the_Evolution_of_Cooperation

Orion Simerl I’m describing motion which is not dogmatic, anymore than observing a QB throw the ball to a receiver who catches it in the end zone for a touchdown.  You’re claiming the reference I used is one narrow study while being completely ignorant of the hundreds of studies that confirm this mechanism.  Is that what you want?  Will it help if I Google and copy links to 100 studies that all show the same link between altruistic behavior and the production of positive feelings? 

You indicated that people are addicted to emotions, not positive ones.  Which proves what?  How do you know they’re not positive?  Indignation which you used as an example can be a positive feeling.  As far as your poker endeavour that isn’t action without emotional motivation, it’s motivated by the positive feelings of being successful in poker.  The acts is motivated by the positive feeling of the underlying objective.  Not surprising a person with such limited ability to follow cause and effect would miss that.  

There is no distinction between emotions and feelings.  Feelings generated through beliefs and mental experience produce physiological responses.  You appear to go through life thinking you can pick what is true based on whether you like it or not without subjecting it to any critical analysis.  

There is no behaving in life virtuously without emotional responses.  The internalization of virtue produces positive feelings when one acts in accordance to their virtue, and negative feelings when one acts outside of their virtue which controls how well one applies those virtues based on how important they are to him.  

What biological responses elicit different feelings culturally?  Show me how dopamine, serotonin, or oxytocin since these are the chemicals referenced produce different feelings in different cultures.  It still doesn’t matter because all feelings despite their distinctions and an individual’s preferences, genetically, culturally, or otherwise are subjectively positive or negative, motivating or prohibitive, in pursuit or avoidance of.  

I don’t have a negative view of human beings per say, I have an informed view of human beings recognizing that most human behavior is a product of people being moved by feelings that they do  not understand.  And the results are negative.

Burt Voorhees: You are an ass, go away, I will no longer reply to your posts.

End Exchange

Burt is a better informed chooser.  I won’t go so far as to say there are only two modes of thought in those who follow motion and those who are choosers of beliefs whose conception of motion is contaminated, but there are clearly distinctions.  Mimi’s facts are chosen based on the opinions of others, whereas Burt is better informed and has some ability to reach his own conclusions through research, but is not capable of showing his position to demonstrate motion within the subject, or to invalidate the motion demonstrated through an imposing argument within the subject.  It’s essentially that he thinks arguments are bags of oats.  Where he thinks his bag of oats weighs more than the other guys, while failing to address that his bag has no bottom and therefore cannot hold any oats.  

My life has been like a buoy for the last few months, bobbing up an down in the water but unable to get out of it. Affording me nothing but basic necessities.  Hovering between 50 to a few hundred dollars, unable to find enough work on a week to week basis.  Since I’m living out of my car and was only about 150 miles from Chicago I went to Chicago, thinking Craigslist gigs and the apps I use would be more likely to find me jobs than where I’m at.  I arrived Thursday night.  On Friday I kept watch on CL and the apps and there wasn’t anything there.  In the area I’ve been in I’ve had had a day or two of work per week through a man named Terrance who owns a moving company.  He told me on Thursday he has a walk through for a job on Monday so hopefully that will produce a day or two this week.  

Right now I have about $70 to my name and have been living out of my car for months.  This time of the month is typically stressful because I do have a few bills, cell phone and web hosting.  I’ve been wearing the same contacts since February unable to position myself to afford an eye exam.  I’m nearly out of phenibut which stabilizes my mood just enough to be able to proceed through these circumstances.  Otherwise I eat peanut butter sandwiches for breakfast.  Look for work, write and refine material, go to the gym to work out and shower, fuck off a little bit playing top war and watching YouTube, and spend about $10 after the gym on food.  This journal goes back 5 years and explains how I’ve arrived at this isolated survivalist state.  

On the positive side I found the beginning of Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison.  Some of the difficulty in people understanding it may be because I didn’t begin with impressions.  I took it as a foregone conclusion that assignments are made through experience and experience consists of impressions from one moment to the next.  That’s something I’m working on but as with all things it’s difficult because I there’s still no outlet for it when I revise the book.  

I have an idea to get OPL off the ground which is the main objective to address imposing circumstances and then provide people the tools to understand objective morality and to think for themselves.  

We shall see.   


It’s unlikely that any improvements are forthcoming.  I’ve spent the last week contenting myself with comment exchanges in a philosophy group on FB.  There were a few exchanges that were different than most.  Exchanges where people were able to understand the points being made.  That’s rare, and the reason why participation in those exchanges were contenting. 

It created some brief optimism.  Maybe I learned a lesson in an exchange with a person I should not have been exchanging comments with.  I shouldn’t have been exchanging comments with the person because it was clear she didn’t really understand what was being said.   With this perception I tried to adjust arguments to cater to her level of comprehension.  Thankfully, they blocked me or deleted the exchange.  

The most troubling assertion the person made was that truth is subjective.  Truth is not subjective.  If a person throws a rock in the water that is what happend.  It’s true through observation.  There’s nothing subjective about it.  That’s the unfortunate thing about the state of human affairs, human beings believe they can choose what is true based on how it causes them to feel and so reality becomes subjective.  We should be subjective beings living in an objective reality, instead we have subjective beings living in subjective realities, which limits intelligence, and prevents communication by preventing the establishment of fact.  

In another exchange I addressed the assertion that piety has no value.  As I understand the word to mean someone who strictly adheres to their beliefs I point out that the value of piety is the wellbeing of the pious person.  Adherence to beliefs produces positive feelings through the reinforcement of self worth as a person’s opinion of themselves improves through the evidence of their perceived right actions.  Then there may be value to the public depending on the behavior a person’s beliefs produce.  

The most satisfying exchange was a difference in opinion about self deception.  It began with the comment that people do bad things based on beliefs, where they think they’re doing something good.  

The commenter argued that although many people are responsible for their bad beliefs some people are not.  I disagreed because the adoption and maintenance of bad beliefs stems from some benefit to the individual from the bad beliefs that produce the bad results.  It was a good exchange because we acknowledge one another points going back and forth, and each reply proceeds from the previous reply, even in instances where the commenter replied multiple times before I had the chance to address his previous reply, it proceeded from a point I made or he was expanding on a point he made.  Very rare occurrence, actual communication.  

I was frustrated by another commenter who initially seemed unable to understand and I thought he was just being antagonizing.  It turned out that he did understand but it took an example for him to understand that his assertion was wrong.  

He claimed that well being was the foundation of liberty as the basis for objective morality.  The reasoning became that liberty based morality facilitates the fulfillment of desire, the fulfillment of desire produces positive feelings, and well being describes a state where a person has more positive feelings than negative feelings, or the height of the positives is greater than the depth of the negative feelings.  

The problem we were having was that wellbeing or the concern for the well being of others 1: didn’t motivate the discovery of liberty as the basis, 2: the application of liberty based morality doesn’t require concern for well being, and 3: well being describes a state not moral principles.  

The well-being of one can and often does occur through the compromising of the well being of the other.  He was very clever in pointing out that liberty as the basis ensures that the well being of one does not take away the wellbeing of another.  This is true, but it doesn’t make well being the foundation of liberty based morality because well being is not informing morality.  

I provided an example when I was at the gym in the locker room.  There were loud teenagers talking about a protein shake tasting like butthole, and talking shit to one another.  It annoyed me and probably others.  In the moment I’m considering the situation because anytime something bothers a person a subconscious objective will be created to produce a positive feeling through the address of what is producing a negative feeling.  My thoughts were not related to my well being is more important than their well being so I should address their behavior, and my thoughts also were not that their well-being was more important than mine, so I should be quiet.  My thoughts pertained to being young and enjoying myself with others in ways that probably annoyed others.  Relevant in knowing that the intentions of the behavior were rooted in the general satisfaction they experienced from it, not in the intent to bother others.  Secondly, their behavior was not objectively imposing on anyone so their behavior is morally right.  Well being plays no role in informing a moral decision.  

I may have stated in the exchange that I didn’t care about people’s well being, and this is true in the context of morality.  Obviously I do care evident by how it motivates some of my personal behavior, or can be seen as motivating some of my behavior.  

Altruism or selfless acts do not exist because the feelings experienced in the moment are greater than the feelings obtainable through the substance sacrificed: the time, energy, or money.  Ultimately, the positive feelings are generated through the idea that a person has improved the wellbeing of others through the act. 

In a previous entry I reference an exchange in another group where I was asked to provide proof that people had desire.  In this philosophy group I had another exchange with a person who somehow seemed to only half comprehend the content, but somehow was also smart enough not to state an objection.  Eventually, she tried to retreat to what evidence do you have that people have desire?  

It doesn’t matter if human beings have desire because liberty facilitates the greatest expression of subjective value by only prohibiting acts that prevent other acts, so whether you’re doing by desire or some other unknown mechanism, it still creates the most opportunities for movement.  If they’re asking for evidence of desire, they’re asking because the don’t understand what’s been out in front of them and this is a way to avoid learning something from someone who they’ve never heard of.  

Very good exchange from the political group that I’ve copied over here.  Seemed worth posting since the people responding prove my point in that there are very few examples of police mafeasance, and the examples being promoted are not examples according to the law.  

The post had what I remember as being some conspiracy theory talking points followed by the question what will it take to get people into the streets?  

I comment the LAWFUL use of deadly force against a suspect of a minority race.  Always works.  

Sofa Queen replies: Feel free to give me an example.  

Orion Simerl: Jacob Blake, Kenosha, WI, 2020.  Suspect reached into a vehicle and grabbed a knife while an officer was attempting to take him into custody pulling him from the back.  The officer gave commands for the suspect to drop the knife.  The suspect refused to drop the knife.  The officer shot him.  

Deadly force is lawful when a suspect is an imminent threat to life or great bodily harm.  The suspect was in striking distance of the officer with a knife and refused to drop the knife which means he was an imminent threat to life or great bodily harm since at any moment he could have stabbed the officer. 

There were weeks of rioting and no one bothered to consider the validity of their grievance.  

Your turn.  Provide an example of a use of deadly force that you believe is unlawful.

Sofa Queen you gave me but 1 example of such an incident. For every one example I’ll give you 3 instances. George Floyd, elijah mcclain, and Sandra bland.

Orion Simerl  Sandra Bland committed suicide and her behavior is what led to her being arrested to begin with largely because she doesn’t know the law.  The officer gave her a lawful order to exit her vehicle that she refused.  The Supreme Court ruled in Pennsylvania v. Mimms that during a traffic stop an officer can have any and all the occupants of a vehicle exit the vehicle for the safety of the officer.  She refused lawful orders to exit the vehicle.  At that point she committed a crime by obstructing the officers investigation into the traffic violation.  Force was required to gain her compliance to take her into custody.  Once in custody she killed herself.  The officer did nothing wrong.  

Police were responding to a call of a suspicious person when they saw Elijah Mitchell walking.  The Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio that officers can investigate on the basis of reasonable suspicion.  Reasonable suspicion is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime based on the totality of the circumstances.  

The 911 caller said the person was acting sketchy and wearing a sky mask on a warm night.  The question is whether acting sketchy and wearing a sky mask makes it reasonable to believe the suspect had committed a crime or was about to commit a crime.  

Terry V. Ohio in some ways paralleled this event even though the results were completely different.  In Terry V. Ohio an officer observed Terry standing outside of a convenience store looking nervous and wearing a large coat that was too warm for the weather.  The officer observed two men talk to Terry.  Based on those circumstances the SC ruled there was a reasonable belief that the suspect was about to commit a crime.

We have two direct elements from Terry V. Ohio.  The suspect is wearing clothing that is too warm for the weather in what could be an attempt to conceal his identity.  In Terry the presumption was to conceal a weapon.  Terry’s nervousness was considered an element of the circumstances that suggested he was about to commit a crime.  Acting sketchy as reported by the caller suggests nervous energy.  We don’t have to use that as a parallel, because when the officer iniyisted contact, he appeared nervous.  He told them he has a right to go where he is going.  His disposition upon contact may have added to the circumstances suggesting that a crime may have been committed or could be committed.  The initial contact may have been a voluntary stop and reasonable suspicion was established at the initial contact.  

If the officers have reasonable suspicion, they can detain and investigate him.  When he refuses to stop he’s obstructing their investigation.  If an officer stops someone for reasonable suspicion they can be detained while the officer investigates his suspicion.  The person is required to answer any questions but they must provide their name and submit to detention.  His refusal to stop creates probable cause for obstruction and now he has to be arrested on the charge.  Officers may use force to gain compliance.  

The officers applied force to gain the compliance of the suspect.  There’s no footage of the force applied.  The police called paramedics who administered a fatal dose of ketamine.   The autopsy revealed there was no damage to his carotid or  hytoid bone, which would be expected if the choke caused his death.  

The force used by police was not excessive and was lawful if the officers had reasonable suspicion to investigate Mitchell.  The choke hold was allegedly used because Mitchell was reaching for another officers gun.  I’m not saying he was or was not, but if he was in that situation deadly force is lawful because a suspect trying to take an officers gun makes him an imminent threat to life or great bodily harm.  

Either way, the police did not cause his death, the paramedics caused his death.  

I’d rather not go into George Floyd because it’s long.  I’d probably just copy and paste my analysis from one of my books because it cannot be summarized and be conclusive.  

You’re 0 for 2 on the police malfeasance .  

If we pretend these were legitimate instances, what does it represent?  60 million police contacts per year, and there are maybe 3 controversial applications of force.  Does this represent how most police interactions take place?  No.  There’s nothing facilitating misconduct by the police evident by the fact there are maybe be 3 examples out of 60 million contacts in a year.  

Then most of the examples are not examples, they’re promoted for people’s personal benefit.  Groups materially, and individuals who gain social opportunities and esteem through causes they’re not interested in.  Otherwise they wouldn’t apply their biases to these incidents they’d learn and apply the law.  People cannot be interested in the conduct of law enforcement and not be interested in the law. 

Tammy Gibson: Where in our Law books is it okay to give a suspect the death penalty for misdemeanors? Why don’t conservatives talk about Women of Color? https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-black-women-are-often-missing-from-conversations-about-police-violence/

Orion Simerl:  Where in my comment did I suggest that it is lawful, or that I support the death penalty for misdemeanors, or that I am a conservative?  None of this has anything to do with black women and the press that they may or may not be receiving.

Orion Simerl 2nd Reply: We’re back to the inability to understand cause, using proportion without context, but it’s worse now.  

Note: The second comment was a product of me skimming the article.  I didn’t read it because after I saw 20 percent of 4 percent  I knew we were talking about a very small number annually.  The first paragraph addresses an old claim from a biased researcher claimer black suspects were 2.5 times more likely to be the victims of deadly force, and that is implied since black females do not represent 20 percent of the female population in the US 

The myth that black people are more likely to be shot by police because they are black, is dispelled by data that both black and white suspects are shot by police in the same proportion that they commit crimes.  For black people that was about 28 percent of police shootings corresponding to about 30 percent of crimes committed and white people it was 54 percent of police shootings 55 percent of crimes.  

The article claims women represent 4 percent of police shootings and black women 20 percent of that 4 percent.  2022 there were roughly 1100 uses of deadly force by police.  This breaks down to 44 women being shot, and according to the article 20 percent is roughly 9 black women per year are shot by police presuming 2022 is near the average.  Thinking back to past numbers.

Very few police uses of deadly force are covered by the media.  The only time it’s covered is when it can be exploited to suggest police malfeasance and imply the use of force is racially motivated.  

You have a problem with a group that represents  about .1 percent of police shootings not being covered, when the only coverage of police shootings at all are those that can be presented to appear controversial, which represents less than .1 percent of all police shootings that receive any national coverage?  How many per year receive national coverage?  Maybe 5 in any given year and most of these are not controversial according to the law.  Why is the shooting of black female suspects not covered more?  Because controversy arises in less than .1 percent of cases, and black women represent .1 percent of the less than .1 percent.  The factthis article exists with 4 examples of lawful deadly force, proves the premise wrong that deadly force against black females is ignored.  I had no trouble finding multiple articles about each one of these women, some from national news media.

Non-controversial uses of force are not covered.  Most uses of force are non-controversial even to the biased people who are ignorant of the law.  Those cases do not receive coverage because people don’t want to see stories that challenge their beliefs.

Tammy Gibson:  Out of the people Sofa Queen named, how many were armed dude? Did you condone those shootings of unarmed Americans or not? Do you condone the killings of the women named in that article or not?

Orion Simerl : I condone the use of deadly force when there is an imminent threat to life or great bodily as is prescribed by law.  The examples Sofa Queen provides represent no wrong doing by police:

Sandra necessitated the use of force through her refusal to comply with lawful commands and killed herself.  The officer acted in accordance with the law and police were not responsible for her death.  

Mitchell may have necessitated the use of force if the circumstances constituted reasonable suspicion for him to be detained.  To me that’s a legitimate point of controversy based on what I know about the event.  However, the force applied was not responsible for his death, that was caused by the administration of a sedative by paramedics.  Again the police did not cause his death.  

Lajuaana Phillips was shot while driving  towards a police officer making her an imminent threat to life or great bodily harm.  

Crystal Rangland after pointing a replica gun at people in her complex drew it on an officer creating a reasonable belief that she was an imminent threat to life or great bodily harm.  

Latasha Walton drove her car towards an officer becoming an imminent threat to life or great bodily harm.  

Crystal Webster charged towards officers with a large knife shot from about 6 feet away meaning she was an imminent threat to life or great bodily harm.  

The killing of the women in that article was lawful and necessitated by the behavior of the women in that article according to the law.

Tammy Gibson: How are armed officers in danger from a single unarmed woman? BTW, the officers were fired and are being charged with lying to investigators about being in danger from Bland. 

BTW, these unlawful shootings happen to white people too. The nurse that called for help- shot. White guy, unarmed, shot in hotel. The list goes on and on… This is not Constitutional!!!

Orion Simerl: Tammy Gibson I said for officer safety in reference to part of the explanation for the ruling which may have misled you to believe the officer has to have some articulable fact from the circumstances that a threat exists.  That is not correct.  The potential dangers are inherent in a traffic stop itself.  According to Pennsylvania V. Mimms an officer can have occupants exit the vehicle during a traffic stop for any reason.   

The charge of perjury was based on him lying in his report and that charge was dropped. His firing and the charge itself is more the product of the department’s effort to appease public opinion and his emotionally charged handling of the situation.  It doesn’t change that he has the right to have her step out of the vehicle and when she refuses the use of force is authorized to gain her compliance to proceed with the stop. 

Which shootings are you claiming are unlawful and on what basis.  I’ve responded to the examples supplied and showed how they were lawful since the suspects were imminent threats to life or great bodily harm.  So far we don’t have a single example in these exchanges of deadly force being used where it was necessitated by the behavior of suspects.  You’re calling lawful shootings unlawful.  

I’m also well aware of controversial uses of force against white suspects.  Mainly to refute baseless claims of police racism.  There’s no interaction between police and suspects where race has been overtly shown to be a motivator of a suspects treatment.  That’s one way to determine if race plays a role in officers treatment of a suspect.  

The second way is comparing the treatment of black and white suspects who exhibit similar behavior.  Typically lawful but controversial uses of force can be compared to others, Tony Timpa similar circumstances and treatment as George Floyd, Ariel Roman similar behavior and treatment as Rayshard Brooks etc.  Although Ariel Roman was a white suspect shot by black officers who was not a threat while he was running away, and Brooks was shot just seconds after he fired the officers taser at the officer.   

I don’t take the position that the police are perfect.  As mentioned, out of 60 million contacts per year in a job that requires you to gain compliance for the enforcement of law from people who do not want to comply, you’re going to have mistakes.  It doesn’t constitute a problem, and most examples as we see in the examples provided are not examples.   

I think you reveal your racial biases in your comment stating that white people are victims of police too.  Since your interpretations are colored by racial bias you project that onto me, when there’s no basis based on anything I’ve said that my analysis and positions are colored by such a bias.

In this exchange Charles Day, the poster wrote that he didn’t see why conservatives had a problem with drag queens reading books to children.  I conflated drag queen with trans mainly because I thought that was what he was referencing and because most conservatives conflate the two.  Essentially, it’s the same costume, one likes to wear it and the other wants to be it.  I probably wouldn’t have posted this, but in this exchange the poster provided a study of metadata claiming the regret rate for trans people was only 1 percent.  I’m posting this exchange because I addressed the methodology of his source.  

The second discovery is much more significant.  Historical data shows that over 80 percent of children who identify as trans and those with trans proclivities do not carry them with them into adulthood.  I address the criticism by protrans academics who mention that just because children behave how trans children behave does not mean they were trans.  To me this is because they were not taught gender identity concepts, otherwise if they already liked those things they would identify and then abandon the identification when it no longer served their purposes.  

The main reason I’m posting this exchange is a conclusion that can be drawn from the second criticism of using historical data to measure children changing their gender values.  The further back we go the less socially acceptable transgenderism was.  If gender identity is important, people wouldn’t be persuaded by social acceptance.  If it’s important the children from these periods would have continued in the gender they identified as.  Social acceptance is more important than gender identity.  Which is interesting because there are so many other characteristics of identity that are more important than social acceptance.  

His first response to me mentions that we got off on the wrong foot.  I’m not a Trump supporter but I also don’t see him as any worse than any of the others, they all lie and push for policy that appears popular, but are actually remuneration for industrial investment. With some on the margins sucking up 6 figure salaries recycling the same rhetoric and doing nothing elect after election.  Point is I’m not for Trump, but also definitely not for Biden.  

He had a response.to a commenter claiming that Trump was a convicted sex offender found guilty by a jury.  This is false, he was found liable for battery and defamation in civil proceedings, different standard of preponderance meaning more likely than not, and beyond a reasonable doubt.  He wasn’t he found to be liable for a sex crime, much less convicted.  He’s referencing that exchange when he says we got off on the wrong foot.  

Orion Simerl: Some people may have issues with trans people reading books to children because it normalizes the trans lifestyle to children which may be encouraging to some children.  I don’t have a problem with trans people reading books to children, and I don’t have a problem with the normalization or tolerance promotion to children.  If someone asks why they do it, it’s pretty apparent to me that if a child has a normal interaction with a trans person, the experience will cause them to be more accepting of trans people throughout the course of their life.  

I also think trans people reading books to children as a source of controversy is propaganda.  Information with a bias intent on undermining legitimate grievances against the trans agenda, by directing attention to this benign act, and the minority of people who have a problem with the act.  

The issue I have with the trans agenda is the teaching of gender identity which is false.  It teaches that some boys are really girls and some girls are really boys.  There’s no genetic basis for this assertion.  Some people develop values associated with the opposite sex.  A boy may like boys, dresses, make-up, feminine mannerisms, and other things that girls like.  There’s nothing wrong with that boy expressing those values.  It isn’t because they’re really a girl born a boy, it’s that they’re a boy who likes the things that girls like.  Even on the face of it, how can a boy say he feels like he’s a girl when he has no way of knowing what a girl feels like?  At most he says he feels like what he thinks a girl feels like.   

There are a few different problems here.  1st, many children have difficult times growing.  They’re provided an explanation that maybe their social problems and other problems are because they’re really trans.  For a child it creates an opportunity, for additional attention, social opportunities, group belonging, identity, and other benefits that come from being part of a group perceived by some as being disadvantaged.  Presenting this false gender identity concept has the potential to seriously harm the development of children.  Ironically enough, this group whose motto is pride doesn’t have enough pride to say I’m doing what I like, so they created this narrative that this is what I am.  What I am as opposed to who I am.  

Beyond teaching children the false gender identity concept is the refusal to acknowledge places where biological gender distinctions are important such as women’s sports. 

Although I don’t agree with many of the conservative efforts to limit the liberty of trans people, like in Tennessee where I understand they effectively banned drag shows, or Oklahoma where trans healthcare is only available after age 24, a lot of this is push back against trans efforts to completely eliminate biological gender distinctions.  I do support prohibiting children under the age of 18 and maybe even to 21 from transitioning medically.

Christopher Day  so…first of all, I want to say that…I think that we got off on the wrong foot, and contrary to what you may have (or currently think) thought about who I am or my views, I’m actually interested in an open discussion and actually understanding how things work. I obviously know nothing about you but you seem like a very intelligent and educated person.

So. You actually make some really excellent points. I’d like to explore something that you said, because I have a similar thought. As a matter of fact, I’m going to be traveling with a dear friend of mine who I work with and I would like to discuss this very issue. We can have very raw and open conversations. To tell you the truth, I have always been so curious about transgenenderism. I can in no way relate, and I feel like that is part of my curiosity. To understand. 

Anyway, this is the part that I’d like to engage you with. “”They’re provided an explanation that maybe their social problems and other problems are because they’re really trans.  For a child it creates an opportunity, for additional attention, social opportunities, group belonging, identity, and other benefits that come from being part of a group perceived by some as being disadvantaged.  Presenting this false gender identity concept has the potential to seriously harm the development of children.” This is valid.

Do you have evidence to show that this actually happens. I’m not being provocative. I’m trying to understand and also think about how we can minimize this and maximize the benefits.

Orion Simerl:  There is a wealth of indirect evidence that children change their interests and behavior for attention, social opportunities, group belonging and to establish identities.  I don’t know how well this has been researched as motivation for children becoming trans based on those reasons but I should probably look for the studies.  

The assertion grows from the reasoning that children have those objectives and the promotion of gender identity creates an opportunity for those objectives.  

Here’s a NY Post article, and although I would agree the publication definitely isn’t non-biased, this article features the accounts of people who transitioned as children, detransitioned, and provide explanations for their decision that support the assertions I made that you quoted. 


Christopher Day Metadata isn’t the gold standard, because it doesn’t necessarily take into account the “purpose” of the study, or exactly what they were evaluating,  but it is a valid technique. Based on this, the “regret” is 1% or less after transitioning.


Orion Simerl This is a study that consists almost exclusively of adults who have had surgery.  Cherry picked from a bad batch according to the methodology disclosure.  Beginning with 74 studies and two records then they read titles and abstracts and selected 39.  Out of that 39 they only used 27 and did not disclose what the basis was for the second selection.  

They stated the NIH rated the studies they used ranging from poor to fair.  

Respondents gave their answer to regret  between .8 (about 10 months) and 9 years after their operations.  The longer you wait the more opportunity there is for regret to develop.  If most of the studies were nearer to the 10 month time than the 9 year time than it will show less regret.  It’s also a clear indication of bias where you would expect objective researchers to know this and only use data responses that come from people who have had an adequate amount of time to settle into their environment with their physical changes.  

I see it as a pretty poor study, the conclusions of which are not really relevant to the controversy, because I’m talking about children not adults.  A child transitioning medically may have a much different regret rate than adults.  Which is something I clearly believe is true based on my support of the prohibition of trans medical treatment until the age of 18 to 21.  There are studies that show 80 percent of children who believe they’re trans as children do not remain that way as adults. 

There are trans promotional academics who criticize the studies I’m referencing, and some of the criticism is legitimate in that historical studies contain data from times when there was less social acceptance, that may have persuaded children to abandon those tendencies, which really speaks to the depth of the identity.  

If we consider the fact that about 50 years ago trans people did not exist publicly in any meaningful numbers, it demonstrates how many people valued social acceptance more than gender identity.  That’s something worth remembering, since psychologists claim that gender identity is important.  It clearly wasn’t more important than social acceptance.  If gender identity was more important, trans genderism would have been more popular at other times, more important than the conflict it would create in less accepting times.  It proves that gender identity isn’t very important, at least not worth the stigma, otherwise if it is important the true prevalence is the historical average. 

The trans promotional researcher also tries to downplay the significance of children who had female values, wore dresses, played with dolls, or was attracted to the same sex, but didn’t have the full gender identity indoctrination to properly articulate gender dysphoria.


Someone had one of those truth is unknowable posts so I commented the following which summarizes relevant truth. 

Complete truth is irrelevant because existence isn’t about where it came from, which is something that anything with a beginning can never know.  Relevant truth in any space pertains to how things work to facilitate creation and experience, and adequate opportunities for all people to participate as they choose.  Even if consciousness survives death, the same will be true in that space.  If anything exists beyond or before that space it is irrelevant until you find yourself, and then the same is true again.


I got something out of nothing.  There was a meme on the ChubbyEmu channel showing the Wizard of Oz snow scene, with different faces beneath it and the words: those who don’t know and those who know.  I didn’t know but learned from the comments that the snow was asbestos.  An example of why people should be critical of common knowledge, since at the time it was common knowledge that asbestos is not harmful.

Only half a parallel since even a critical examination of the idea wouldn’t reveal that asbestos causes cancer.  What I got came from another comment.  Someone commented that the silver paint poisoned the tin man.  I don’t remember the source, but I thought I remembered that the paint had lead in it and he had lead poisoning.  Someone replied to my comment implying that I was right.  I replied that I didn’t care enough about the subject to Google it and spend 2 minutes researching it.  

Then a person commented that they read in Time that it was the aluminum dust in the paint that was toxic.  At that point I looked it up and the first article was from time and then there were others featuring questions I was interested in, mainly, how did the aluminum dust harm him.  Turns out it caused his lungs to shut down but he didn’t have any long-term problems because of this.  

The interesting point is, I didn’t care enough about the subject to find out if I was right or wrong in what I remembered about the tin man’s make up, but after someone proposed another explanation I looked up the event.  Did the subject gain value in the span of a few minutes?  Of course not.  The object of value was reconciling the inconsistency between what I thought was correct and what seemed more correct based on his reference to a source.  The value of the subject didn’t change, the objective changed from knowing something that seems unimportant, to creating consistency between objects where there were multiple plausible assignments for cause, producing the effect of the tin man’s poisoning.  

It’s a good example of how assignment, sequencing, and comparison works. 

The initial comment was motivated by a feeling associated with disputing a contradiction, silver paint versus lead paint producing an actor’s illness.  The subject didn’t have enough value for me to put forth the energy to research the subject.  I also wasn’t confident that my sequence, lead paint producing lead poisoning, was any more correct than silver paint.  I asked: I thought he got lead poisoning from lead based paint?  

I received the reply “I believe that is the case”.  

I replied I don’t care enough about the subject to Google it and spend 2 minutes researching it”.  

This was motivated by a feeling associated with honesty, where I didn’t want his belief to be construed as evidence, and wanted to make it known that I didn’t see it as such.  

When I first saw the comment in my notifications I said fuck, now got to look it up.  I began to write that as a response but figured since I was going to look it up anyway, I decided not to reply with my instant reaction which probably wouldn’t have been understood in the comedic exasperation that was the intent. It was subtly funny to me that I was put in a position to do something that I didn’t want to do. More accurately, he forced value onto the act by supplying another explanation. The act of looking up the seemingly useless information gained value through the desire to reconcile the variables of the sequence, where the tin man was poisoned by silver paint, lead paint, or aluminum dust.   

I could feel the reason why I wanted to look it up, because it created a seemingly irrelevant inconsistency that produced a negative feeling producing the objective of solving for it, which is a positive feeling through the elimination of the negative feeling.  Subtle, but motivating.  

There are two biases that could have prevented this from going any further.  The first would be if I wanted the lead poisoning from lead paint explanation to be true.  Then I would have liked the reinforcing comment and perhaps, had I not commented that the controversy be settled in a Google search maybe the other person doesn’t Google and comment the answer.  Even if he does if I want the lead paint explanation to be true, I can ignore his comment, never fact check it, and proceed in life with my lead paint belief intact.  

The second bias would be if I was committed to the position that the subject isn’t important enough to know.  If that were the case, I may have just accepted that he read there was aluminum dust in the paint and left it that, or carried all three explanations if the subject ever came up again, not completely confident in any of them.   

We’ll go through this event using assignment, sequencing, and comparison.  

The first element of the decision making process is circumstances. 

Circumstances: I was scrolling through my YouTube feed and saw the meme.  

It was from a creator who is a doctor that narrates ER cases.  The cases are interesting because it informs on health hazards, as well as how these hazards interact with the body chemically down to the cellular and molecular levels.  My appreciation or like of his content probably played a role in directing my attention to the meme and deciding to read it.  

NOTE The word value refers to level of feelings. In the first sentence of the next paragraph for example it could read the anticipated feelings from reading the meme, but the word value is used because value is the determination that’s being made but the value of an act is measured in the anticipated feelings the act will produce.

Comparison 1: the anticipated value of reading the meme versus all other perceived objectives in that moment. The first comparison is the value of reading the meme versus all other objectives within those circumstances.

Comparison 2: The anticipated value versus the energy required to read the meme.  The second comparison is the energy required versus the anticipated feelings that the objective will produce.  

Non-applicable Comparisons: other comparisons are probability of consequence and severity of consequence.  If the probability of a consequence is low, the severity may not be considered.  If the probability is high the consequence will be considered by comparing the anticipated value of the objective to other objectives that are harmed by the consequence, but influenced by the degree that the consequence harms those other objective.  This processing is evident in thoughts and feelings related to the objective, the consequence, and the objectives that the consequence applies to.  You’ll think about the objective and there are feelings attached to those thoughts, and then you may think about the consequence and there are feelings attached to those thoughts, and a person may go back and forth thinking and feeling before a decision is made.  These thoughts can be colored by the value of the objective, where if a person really wants something (anticipated feelings associated with the object are great) they’ll think more about probability trying to reduce the possibility of the consequence occurring.  This is all sequencing, the assembly of known objects in cause and effect to geared towards producing the desired outcome or objective.  

The other non-applicable comparison is morality since the act of reading the meme has no moral implications, because it doesn’t interfere with anyone’s liberty.  Otherwise the comparison is the value of the objective weighed against the anticipated loss of self worth which will have its own thoughts and feelings weighed against the thoughts and feelings of the objective.  

A person isn’t typically aware that information is being processed like this, but as I stated, it’s evident through thoughts, feelings, and decision making.  

How do we know that in the moment reading the meme was my highest valued objective and worth the energy?  Because I read the meme.  

Circumstances: After reading the meme I discovered there was something about the picture I didn’t know. 

The objective: Read the comments to find out what the people who know, know about the picture.  

The objective takes shape as a response to reading the meme, where I think read the comments to understand the meaning of the meme.  Not purely as internal dialogue, also through picture and feeling where I understand that’s what I’m going to do and set off on the objective 

Comparison 1: The value of the objective versus other perceived opportunities in the moment.  The objective gains value and priority since my attention is on the subject and I have become invested in it.  

Comparison 2: The value of the objective reading the comments versus the energy required.  There’s no conscious features of this comparison at the time of the decision, but if the energy was of any consequence there may have been.  Also, time is not considered even when time is a legitimate reason not to do something, because time is essentially a comparison between one objective and another.  If you have 15 minutes to get to work on time and it takes 15 minutes to get there a person may think they don’t have time but it’s really the value of the coffee versus the value of not being late.  Although for most people, the coffee probably wins out.  

I’m skipping my initial comment pertaining to the danger of common knowledge because it isn’t relevant to additional aspects of ASC that haven’t been covered.  

Circumstances: I see the comment about silver paint harming the actor who played the tin man.  This triggers the recognition of a contradiction in a sequence, producing the thought, the impression of a memory that the actor who played the tin man was poisoned from lead in the paint.  

Current Object Sequence : tin man actor, effect poisoning, cause lead paint.  

New Object Sequence: tin man actor, effect poisoning, cause silver paint.  

Objective: Propose the cause left by the impression of a forgotten memory that lead and not silver was responsible for the actor’s sickness.

Note: We know the subconscious comparisons between immediate objectives and energy.  I’m not going to continue to rewrite what by now should be known.  

Circumstances: Someone comments that they believe my answer was correct.  

Objective: To dismiss the commenters’ belief.  The value of this objective was probably rooted in morality, believing it wrong for his opinion to serve as evidence for a position when it was not, and also revealing that despite it being an easy controversy to settle, that the objective didn’t seem worth the energy.  

Circumstances: I’m notified that another commenter replied that he read in Time that the sickness was caused by aluminum dust.  Now there are three proposed causes for the actor becoming sick, and the new one seems to be the most probable. 

Objective: to find out why the actor became sick, the value of which is not derived from the knowledge itself but relief from the feelings created through multiple proposed causes.  

This is a rough application of Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison.  The conscious mind acknowledges what is known and being processed subconsciously to make decisions.  Value can always be traced to action, but it requires examination of thoughts feelings, and what an individual knows, to understand objectives and the comparisons taking place.

I included the screenshots to establish the event and chronology for what it’s worth in showing that this happened, and then I recognized how the appearance of contradiction was the changing of value between objectives in looking up the information. Getting into that, I began to retrace the points of action through ASC. After the screenshots there are a few more paragraphs on a recent controversy with Liberty and an effort to address some potential misconceptions.

I’m still upset about being asked to provide evidence that human beings have desire.  I think I’m disappointed that I didn’t put more emphasis on the point that not even the refusal to acknowledge that human beings want to do what they want to do at all times disrupts the objectivity of liberty as the basis for objective morality.  I did make the point in the exchange that liberty based morality allows for the most motion and greatest level of expression of individual subjective preference.  It really doesn’t matter whether a person believes human beings have desire or not.

I didn’t intend this reflection, I’m going back to this event to comment on a perceived misconception about liberty as the basis, but since I’m here I’ll address it.  She said she thought human well being should be the basis for morality.  I made the point that well being is determined by the fulfillment of desire meaning the application of liberty as the basis for morality is ideal even according to her standard.  This is still correct, but well being can also be how things cause a person to feel based on subjective interpretations.  As psychology attempts to identify sources of agitation, or things that cause some people to feel bad and make them socially unacceptable to accommodate people who lack the confidence and maturity to not be impacted by others for unimposing acts.  Individual’s will be counseled to deceive themselves, to change their values, to reduce the production of negative feelings in order to achieve a greater sense of well being.  Self deception has consequences for the individual and the collective.  Well being breaks down where liberty does not.  

Objective Morality is quite literally the definitive identification of the basis for determining right or wrong.  Since I discovered it, and identified the principles that make it applicable to every possible act while maintaining complete consistency, some may think that I have created or I am trying to create a monopoly on what is right and what is wrong.  It’s the complete opposite of that, where I’ve identified the standard and principles that can be used to arrive at certain conclusions of whether an act is right or wrong.  I’m not your deity who dictates what is right and wrong based on how those dictates can be used to support the interests of the state and those who benefit from the state. That’s Jesus, YHWAH, and Allah.

Secondly, understanding and applying liberty based morality does not make anyone like me.  I’m not trying to reproduce my perspective by sharing the principle basis for right and wrong.  In principle most people agree about the morality of most things and it does nothing in making people more like one another.  

Both of those potential misconceptions may be only potentialities, and no one may ever think that I’m trying to subjectively dictate right or wrong or clone myself through the proliferation of moral objectivity, but since I thought about it seems worth mentioning.    

I told her I was gone from it, and I was in the sense that it doesn’t matter to me whether she understands it or does not, it’s just irritating to have an ironclad understanding of true, objective, and ideal morality and for a person to be unable to make a single point against it, but to deny it on a request for evidence that desire is ever present in a conscious mind, which isn’t even relevant to what the moral system produces.  

I plan on leaving one more comment. It doesn’t matter if a person has desire or not, although we do and it is ever present, what matters is that morality is motivating and prohibitive. There are mountains of evidence for this.

Acts where the only inherent value is the perceived righting of a wrong. Obviously morality prevents people from making decisions that they know to be wrong.

I may return to the exchange since I can provide evidence for morality being motivating or prohibitive. At the same time the person asked for evidence for something that is self evidently true and failed to demonstrate that shed grasped anything prior to claiming there’s no evidence that people have desire.


From the entry a few days ago answering the question what is a good person, the person who posted the question asked me a question that was entirely too broad to answer in a facebook comment.  I addressed her questions and assertions about objective morality.  The last reply she sent was essentially claiming I had to provide evidence that all people have desire.  In the exchange I used maybe a poor analogy but one that paralleled in point.  To complete the parallel I needed to describe what consciousness consists of.  I happen to know what consciousness consists of, but it forced me to think about and it came out surprisingly concise but very generally, where each part of the sentence has to be unpacked, like in Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison.  

That’s enough of the introduction.  I wanted to record this exchange because it’s a rare occasion where someone at least has some interest in trying to understand morality and objective morality, and in addressing this person’s misconceptions, it may address other people’s as well.  She probably won’t understand it or doesn’t want to understand it but the exchange is still worthwhile for the content, in something to direct my attention at and respond to.  First two exchanges I’m only including the portion of the comments relevant to the controversy which liberty being the basis for objective morality.  

Tammy Gibson  Yes, morality is subjective, and I wish it wasn’t. That’s the problem right there. There’s nothing to found morality on except human well-being. If people think human well-being is immoral, what do you do with that? 

Orion Simerl What I describe is objective morality.  For two reasons.  1st, because it is based on the human constant that all people want to do what they want to do at all times.  If all acts are in accordance with liberty i.e all acts are unimposing all people can do as they please, which as you put is the maximization of human well being.  There is no scenario where human well being increases by deviating from objective morality and I welcome you to propose any scenario where you believe it may.  Objective morality is self-contained in that any act that does not impose that a person claims is morally wrong is the imposition of a subjective preference.  

Secondly, the reason I explained the functioning of morality in motivating and prohibiting action is because morality is a determinant of conscious motion, which is integral to understanding the duality: liberty based objective morality, and tyranny based subjective morality.  Picture two boxes each containing 5 creatures.  In one box the morality of the creatures is based on liberty, and in the other the morality of the creatures is tyranny based.  In the liberty based box all the creatures are free to do as they please with the exception of acts that prevent others from doing as they please.  We have the maximization of movement, the greatest expression of subjective will.  In the tyranny box each creature has a power level 100 50 25 10 and 5.  Right or wrong is determined by the most powerful.  He who is at 100 decides what he who is at 50 can do, 50 decides what 25 can do, 25 decides what he who is at 10 and 5 can do, and 10 decides what 5 can do.  In our world power is determined by law, money, force, the ability to disseminate information, and social mobilization, and all these powers can create or influence others.  They are all used to impose on others for the benefit of individuals and groups. 

Tammy Gibson I will challenge premise 1. What objective evidence demonstrates that people want to do what they want all the time? This seems like a subjective assertion with no supporting evidence. 

I’d love to read an iron clad argument for objective morality. I do not think it can be done. You cannot get an “ought” from an “is”. 

The best we have is subjective morality. That’s why we debate these issues. 

A sociopath cannot do as he pleases. A sociopath is not doing what they want to do. 

Liberty, freedom are both subjective terms. You cannot get to objective things with subjective things. Objective things can be experienced through the senses. Subjective things come from human minds you cannot experience through the senses. 

If we agree on the definitions of objective and subjective, we agree that morality is subjective.

Orion Simerl Provide me with one example of someone not wanting to do what they want to do?  

How is a sociopath not doing as they please or what they want?  A sociopath is typically defined by a lack of empathy or concern for how their actions impact others, but when they act their actions are in the pursuit of producing a positive feeling.

Objectivity is the absence of bias.  Liberty based morality allows for all people to do what they want to do.  It isn’t biased to anyone’s subjective likes and allows for complete subjective expression except for acts that interfere with the liberty of others.  Subjective morality is claiming an act is wrong when it does not impose, and an act right when it does impose, which is the imposition of a subjective preference.  

This is why I’m asking you to provide an example of a person not wanting to do what they want to do because it cannot be done.  Consciousness is a state of constant desire, even if you’re a Buddhist extremist, and your desire is to have no desires, this is a desire none the less.

Lastly, since you brought up sociopaths what’s interesting is a sociopath is essentially a person without morality.  They’re not motivated by feelings derived from righting a wrong and they’re not prohibited from committing any acts absent the deterrent of consequence.  But even a sociopath can act in accordance with liberty based morality in service to self interest.  Where such a person can recognize that abstaining from imposition on others ensures an environment free from imposition to maximize his own liberty and the liberty of others that he will benefit from.

Tammy Gibson I am not claiming to know what a person wants at any given time. This assertion requires objective evidence. It’s a good inductive argument, but only deductive arguments can have objective conclusions. The burden of proof is on you.

Orion Simerl The proof is self evident.  Desire is the ever present state of consciousness.  At every moment a conscious being desires to do something.  In your statement “I am not claiming to know what a person wants at any given time” you acknowledge that at any given time each person wants to do something.  I am also not claiming to know what a person wants at any given time, but so long as what they want does not interfere with what others want it is a right because it allows all people to do what they want.  The fulfillment of desire is the basis for human well being which you implied is your moral standard.  The maximization of liberty is the maximization of human well being because human well being is based on the fulfillment of human desire which is ever present. 

I have no problem with contrarian positions so long as the contrarian understands and acknowledges the points being made.  In the absence of any sustained point, you request evidence of something you acknowledge is true: that desire is ever present within conscious beings.  You seem to have moved from skepticism into denial.  

It’s like I made the assertion that all people with healthy eyes, optic nerves, and brains can see and you asked for proof.  I cannot prove that these people can see but it is self evident based on the understanding of how vision works.  The same as desire is self evident based on how consciousness works.  Consciousness is the sum of sensory information, the relationship of known objects assembled in cause and effect sequencing, assignments of value based on the feelings objects and motion produces,  or the feelings objects or motion may produce based on experience with similar objects or motion, assignments of true or false within sequences based on consistency, contradiction, or probability, modifiers of value through moral assignments of right and wrong, and the creation of objectives to produce positive feelings through the perceived opportunities within any particular setting.  Whether you understand or accept that identification of consciousness is irrelevant to the point that desire is ever present, because every conscious being is always doing something driven by some desire.  Even a person who is doing something they’d rather not be doing is doing what they desire to do to avoid some harm to another objective which is the advancement of that underlying objective or desire.  

Human beings act, therefore they desire.

Tammy Gibson 

Orion Simerl I’m asking for something objective. I’m still waiting. Assertions without objective evidence are subjective.

Orion Simerl

Tammy Gibson The evidence is 

1: Human beings have desire. 

2: That morality is motivating and prohibitive of action.  

These assertions are self evident because human beings act on the subjects of desire, except when an objective is in conflict with what they believe is wrong, and desires form from the desire to make wrong things right   This is occurring all the time and the evidence is literally within you and occurring all around you.  

It doesn’t matter much either way since this exchange is a product of either an inability to comprehend which is probable based on some of your initial objections failing to sync with what they were attempting to address, or denial which is also probable since you’ve digressed from objecting except to claim there’s no evidence that human beings have desire.  Assertions without evidence are not defacto subjective, they are true or false.  Again, objectivity is the absence of bias.  A moral understanding and application that facilitates all individual interests is objective because it contains no elements of bias.  No individual’s opinion or interest is represented in it.  Since morality is a determinant of motion through the production of positive and negative feelings objectivity is proven in liberty representing the maximization of motion and individual satisfaction.  This applies to any space consisting of multiple beings. This is true whether you understand it or not.  

Your problem is an inability to comprehend, or denial based on the consequences liberty has for your beliefs, or some other object of desire where you do understand it and derive satisfaction by being antagonistic or something else related to provoking responses without stating any direct objections.  

We can contrast the approaches in my address of your assertion that assertions without objective evidence are subjective, where I didn’t ask you to provide evidence for that assertion, instead I demonstrated that the assertion is incorrect based on the functional definition of the word objective and the purpose of evidence.      

We’re at an impasse because you refuse to accept that human beings have desire despite the evidence in everything you and everyone else does.  So I’m gone from it.


I was walking out of Walmart and saw a young woman wearing a shirt that read fuck racism.  My first thought when I saw the shirt was fuck poverty, and fuck being poor.  This is because the promotion of things as a source of disadvantage that are not a source of disadvantage distracts from addressing those things that are a source of disadvantage.  The greatest source of disadvantage is growing up in a low income household and being poor.    

I’ve addressed popular misconceptions that support the idea that race is a source of disadvantage in this country.  What it essentially boils down to is the difference in the proportion of black people who are poor compared to the proportion of white people who are poor, because anytime there is a disparity caused by income inequality, it will appear as a racial disparity because a greater proportion of black people are poor.  Of course the vast majority of poor people in this country are white.  Poor white people out number poor black people more than 2 to 1 nationally.  

In the book Racial Perceptions I ask do black people have barriers to education, income opportunities, application of the law, or access to services public or private based on race?  I addressed these questions by examining controversial uses of force by police.  For race to be a motivating factor in treatment requires either something overt that shows the officer’s treatment of the suspect was motivated by race and not behavior; or the suspect was treated in a way white suspects were not when exhibiting similar behavior under similar circumstances.  For example, George Floyd’s interaction with police was similar to Tony Timpa (first name might be wrong not checking the book for it) who’s behavior was probably less resistive than George Floyd but was held down by officers and died.  

Through the unemployment rate trend I demonstrated that discrimination does not exist in hiring and firing.  During recessions when the unemployment rate increase, if there were discrimination the black unemployment rate would rise first and the white unemployment rate would lag behind as companies would fire black workers first in their preference for white workers.  When growth and recovery begins the white unemployment rate would decrease first as employers exercised their preference for white workers.  That isn’t what the trend shows.  Unemployment rises and falls between races at about the same time and to the same degree as the economy goes up and down.  

The black unemployment rate is higher overall because a greater proportion of black people begin poor which produces the racial disparity because poor people have fewer worthwhile opportunities than people born better off and there are developmental disadvantages of growing up in a poor household.  If we compare the unemployment rate of white people who began in households of similar income as black people, the unemployment rate between those black and white people is likely to be similar.

I address a few studies in the book and discuss the formation of prejudice and a 4 day trip to court from Milwaukee to Sumpter County Florida, that highlights how easily one could assume that an action is based on race and not something else.  

The people who wear those shirts are typically not concerned with the cause they’re promoting.  Because when you’re concerned about something you try to understand the problem objectively.  In doing so you would understand that your problem is not a problem, where race is not a barrier to things I mention.  The barrier is the financial situation of the household you begin in.  A greater proportion of black people are poor because of past systemic racism, but today there is no racism supported by or produced by political, economic, or social systems.  Which isn’t to say there are no racist people, but it isn’t legally or socially acceptable and doesn’t have much impact on opportunity.  Especially since racist people tend to associate with their own race and rarely interact other races

I had a realization about the intention of the second amendment.  Not anything that hasn’t already been established but based on something Joe Biden supposedly said.  I don’t remember the quote exactly but it was a long the lines that the government has planes and bombs that renders resistance by force impossible.  He’s making an argument against the second amendment, where people’s right to bear arms should be restricted because the military is too powerful.  The right to bear arms is rooted in the fact that men with rifles can secure land.  I’m not promoting the idea, just mentioning something that I think is relevant when considering what restrictions on arms are truly allowable based on the intent of the second amendment.  


In the previous entry that I still need to put together, a man blamed schools for poor development of children, more specifically woke schools.  The new fictions that are taught are definitely a problem, not only from the left but also with the right.  Republicans in Texas are attempting to promote a false deity to children in their public schools, mandating that classrooms display the 10 commandments.  That’s where I am, stuck between two groups with their heels dug into the banks of bullshit.  

But there’s been issues with schools since schools were schools.  John Dewey observed at the beginning of the 20th century that students were trained like horses not educated like human beings.  Where students have no direct interest in the material the same as the horse has no interest in taking the owner where he wants to go, but does so to avoid the whip and eat the apples.  Only  trained like horses instead of educated like human beings is a direct quote, the rest is the idea that I remember of it.  

It’s pretty much the same today.  If a child is  insubordinate and has disruptive behavior positive reinforcement will be used when the child does the things they want them to do.  Some kind of nominal reward that either in substance or symbol produces a positive feeling.  The impression consists of the act that produced the reward and the feeling.  The subconscious mind is always set to an objective to produce a positive feeling, so when an opportunity to perform the behavior presents itself, they’ll behave how they have been trained to behave.  Obviously not universally, but when it is effective that is how it works.  

When it doesn’t work they impose negative consequences, and this works in reverse of positive reinforcement.  The creation of positive feelings through the avoidance of a negative feeling. 

If that doesn’t work they’ll try to drug them to achieve the desired behavior.  For the apples or to avoid the whip, the difference is that drugging a horse probably isn’t going to make the horse very useful.  

It’s an unreasonable environment, and unreasonable environments are not conducive to producing reasonable people.  

But it begins in the home.  And most households are not reasonable environments.  Some of this is a product of inadequate income which impacts nearly every aspect of the household member’s life.  It’s hard to develop deep interests in that environment.  People often compare wealthy school districts to poor school districts and think it’s about the money the school receives.  It’s not. It’s the evidence that students who come from less economically stressed households perform better than students from more economically stressed households.  As all race comparisons are concerned, since a greater proportion of white people earn more than a greater proportion of black people, it has the effect of making primarily white school districts appear to provide a better education than than mostly black school districts.    

Back to the unreasonable environment.  My daughter at 17 is one of the smartest people I’ve ever met.  She is in all AP classes earning college credits on the tests, she’s been nationally recognized academically, last year she was the only person in her math class because she finished the schools math curriculum, but more importantly, she understands that everything complex is definable objects assembled in cause and effect sequencing.  

I brought her up in a reasonable household.  She didn’t want to do something or wanted to do something she shouldn’t do, it would be explained to her.  And I was honest and consistent.  If it was true when I said it to her it had to be true when she said it to me.  It would go as deep as it needed to go.  If she was supposed to clean her room she might be confronted with is it fair that her mom would have to clean it up?  Then she may ask why her room needed to be cleaned?  There would be an answer for that.  Sometimes an answer would be because it bothers your mom when you leave your room a mess.  You can either clean your room and make your mom feel good, or not clean the room and make your mom feel bad.  She was made aware of what she doing.  She was a very thoughtful, compassionate, and empathetic child, and these characteristics developed in an environment that was almost absent any authority.   

For a time in her life her awareness and concern for how her actions impacted others caused her to be overly critical of herself.  It extended into other areas of her life.  Which was probably a great asset to her development because it pushed her, and probably still does to some extent.  There were times when she wouldn’t feel confident about an assignment she did or a test she had to take and when it was all said and done she had equaled the top or outperformed the rest of her class. 

Her intelligence is evident in her written word and her explanations.  She’s very articulate and concise, able to organize all the key elements of an argument or idea. 

I was staying with her and her mom for about a year while I was going to court for charges in Florida in 2019 to 2020.  At the time I had warrants in Wisconsin for matters I’ve since cleared up.  With the warrants and the charges pending in Florida I was stressed and it was also difficult for me to find work in Wisconsin.  All this contributed to my mood, but overall it wasn’t good for me, and it wasn’t good for them for me to be around.  

I’m a person with a profoundly accurate understanding of reality.  It doesn’t seem like that to me because of the length of time I’ve understood the things I understand and how everything new falls into place based on the consistency of the present organization of objects.  My life has been crazy to say the least, in more ways than I am willing to share.  I love my daughter but I’m no good for that kind of environment.  I mention her in this entry as an example of how honesty, reason, and consistency facilitate the development of thoughtful intelligence.  

In middle school coming from a reasonable environment to an authoritarian environment she has issues with teachers in middle school while still maintaining good grades.  I wrote about some of the incidents in assignment sequencing and comparison. The incident I wrote about promoted the discovery of ASC.  Which has since undergone a lot of development.

The problem with schools begins in the home, income level, followed by the brand of bullshit impressed upon the parents that is then impressed upon the child that plays a role in a child’s interest in learning.  After that it is the authoritarian structure of the school, followed by the curriculum and the lens that the curriculum is taught through.  

Anyway, I thought about ASC and liberty as the basis for objective morality being taught in schools.  Maybe in elementary school.  There’s other classes I’ve thought about for the highschool level.  There’s a lot of problems outside of hard sciences with the lenses through which subjects are taught.  There’s probably also a lot of irrelevant information being taught.  The authoritarian environment is a big problem.  With that said, the biggest problem with schools is the parents and their circumstances.   


This entry is a response to a Facebook question.  In response to a post a woman asked what is a good person?  While I’ve summarized and stated this more times than I care to with no evidence that it has been comprehended, I thought I’d post my response in an entry since the content is succinct and worthwhile.  The woman asked the question on a post that was a former leftist diatribe against the left.  I include that context for the end of my response where I explain that left right and center fail to meet the good.person criteria.  

What is a good person?

The question begins with morality.  Morality is a determinant of conscious motion since morality motivates action through the anticipation of positive feelings for righting a wrong, and prohibits action through negative feelings when a person is considering an action that they believe is morally wrong.  Morality is a person’s conception of what is right and what is wrong, for most it is subjective.  

To understand what a good person is we have to establish objectively what is right and what is wrong.  The human constant is that all people want to do as they please at all times.  All people can do as they please so long as each person’s liberty does not interfere with the liberty of others.  The basis for right and wrong is whether an act imposes on someone else.  Acts that are right are unimposing, acts that are wrong are imposing. The justification for imposition is imposing to prevent or neutralize unprovoked imposition. 

There are several categories of imposition.  Physical harm, imposition on property, deception, imposition on time and circumstantial imposition.  Most of these are self-evident with the exception of a subsection of deception and circumstantial imposition.  

Self deception occurs to protect value, where a person experiences a negative feeling when they’re exposed to information that challenges their beliefs.  The reason being is that most of what people do in life that they experience joy from is based on what they believe.  There are also components of identity tied to beliefs so in addition to challenging information taking away things people do that make them feel good, it can also produce a loss of self worth which also produces negative feelings.  So people avoid, ignore, and reject the truth to maintain a feel good perspective.  

It imposes on the individual in changing their motivation where they do things they wouldn’t do based on willfully ignorant beliefs, which also decreases their intelligence since they cannot learn things and will not pay attention to things that challenge their beliefs.  This on its own is not morally wrong because an individual can choose to impose on themselves.  The problem is that self deception that prevents communication from taking place which has consequences for others especially within systems that impose on others circumstantially.  Communication is obstructed because people who avoid challenging information cannot establish fact.  In most cases in this country there is no actual interest in understanding subjects of controversy, people are interested in things appearing in ways that reinforce their beliefs for the social and self affirming benefits of the promotion of an appearance.  

An individual’s ability to do, is determined by desire, money, time, and know how.  

Know how is obtainable through desire, time and money.  

Time is obtained through money. 

Opportunities for money are largely based on time and money.  

An individual’s circumstances are determined by systems.  

Systems are determined by collective consent and participation.  

Consent is a product either of an individual’s benefit within the system or nationalist ideas that produce consent for the system despite an individual’s struggles within it.  

Participation is either a product of consent or a necessity for survival.  

If an individual spends most of their time earning an income that only meets their needs they will never have the time or money to improve their income opportunities.  They are trapped in those circumstances.  Systems that produce trapping circumstances are collective imposition on those individuals living within trapped circumstances.  

What is a good person?  A good person is a person who doesn’t intend to impose on other people physically, on their property, on their time, through deception towards others or themself, and is conscious of and supporting remedies for circumstantial imposition.  

With that said, both parties impose on others through self deception and deception. Republicans do not acknowledge circumstantial imposition because it challenges their nationalist biases.  Democrats direct attention towards things like race, gender, and sexuality as sources of disadvantage which are not sources of disadvantage distracting from the true source of disadvantage which is income opportunities.  There are other imposing positions of both parties.  Where law is a tool of maximizing liberty.  Laws are essentially rules we agree to to prevent imposition.  This means every law should prevent more imposition than it imposes and both parties support laws that either impose more imposition than they prevent or impose without preventing imposition.  

Democrats and Republicans, and most people through ignorance, indifference, and bias are not good people.  The results in this country and on this planet speak for themselves. 

After posting the above portion I received a comment from a man who is of the opinion that the United States is a “perfect meritocracy”, “that poor people make poor decisions” and that’s why they’re poor, and was otherwise asserting beliefs consistent with a strong nationalist indoctrination.  He disagrees that trapping circumstances exist, that people born into the bottom 40 percent of the household income distribution are predisposed to poor outcomes, and that a low income environment is not conducive to the development of productive interests and habits.  

We exchanged comments where I referenced facts that demonstrate causation to support my points and he states and restates belief and opinion.  Maybe he got the point at the end where I explained how the labor market functions to produce trapping circumstances.  That may be something he’s familiar with.  It requires money to purchase capital to produce a business or service.  If a person doesn’t have money the idea is they can work a job and save money to start a business.  The amount an employee is paid isn’t based on how much the company makes or even how good the employee is.  The company is going to pay what people have shown the are willing to work for to do that job in that area.  People without money will typically work for an amount that allows them to survive.  Which is why circumstances are trapping, because most of a person’s time is spent earning an income that only covers their expenses, leaving them without the time and money to improve their income opportunities, which improves their ability to be free in life.  

This seemed like a good opportunity first to demonstrate how a person is incapable of distinguishing between fact, belief, and opinion. 

Samael Strings Couldn’t disagree more with your analysis and conclusion.  I think the results do speak for themselves, that most people are decent and mostly moral, but nobody is completely righteous.  

Orion Simerl Most people tend to keep company and interact intimately only with people of their same socioeconomic status, so things are generally good for them and others they know and see.  

A million plus homeless, 10s of millions of people coping with life through drug dependency, roughly 10 million either incarcerated or on probation or parole, a real median individual income of about 29k per year, a political system where public policy is decided through industrial investment, a population that doesn’t have a functional understanding of politics, economics, or the basic causes of happenings, frequent random acts of violence, and the list goes on and on.  

Things are good for you and people you know and social norms and manners cause you to believe people are good.  The Mongols among Mongols thought they were good too.  

Ignorance isn’t an excuse because what people know is based on where they direct their attention.  People’s attention is directed by what they like, and what they like is based on what they believe.  What they believe is a product of what they like, not what they understand to be true.  

You can believe people are decent and mostly moral but it doesn’t make it true, the same as you probably have other beliefs that make you feel good that are not true.  All results on this planet are a product of the people on this planet.  And no objective person can be satisfied with these results.  

A person doesn’t need to be completely righteous to be righteous.  The world that exists, the problems on this planet are a product of the human moral failings that I’ve described.

Samael Strings life choices have a way of having consequences. Interesting how that works out huh? Lol

Orion Simerl In the absence of any ability to make a point, make a general statement of no effect.  Life choices don’t account for the fact that the lower the household income a male is born into the more probable it is that said male will be in prison in their 30s.  The fact that the pre-incarceration median income of inmates is roughly half the median income of the general population.  The fact that 2/3rds of people who begin in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution will remain in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution.  More importantly, as we move into higher income groupings the more likely it is that people will move up and the less likely it is that they will fall to lower income groupings.  

The greatest answer to your ignorant statement you made in the absence of any substantive point is the choices people make begin with circumstances, and more importantly circumstances of development.  Where a person born into a low income household is in an environment where they are predisposed to develop unproductive interests and habits, and poor intellectual development.  As we see, someone like yourself who has probably benefited from some beginning advantages compared to many people in this country has also developed poorly from an intellectual standpoint, lacking basic common sense to understand cause and effect.

Samael Strings  Orion Simerl yup, poor people make poor decisions. Fact. Glad we agree. Their children typically follow suit having learned from a bad example, but not always. Wouldn’t it be nice if schools actually taught life skills and better decision making rather than gender and victimhood identity.

Orion Simerl When a person’s opportunities for income require most of their time and only suffice to meet their expenses they are unable to accumulate money to improve their income opportunities.  Naturally, they have nothing to pass down to succeeding generations.  Poor people are poor because they’re poor, and the decisions they make are based on limited opportunity within those circumstances. 

“I can explain these things to you but I can’t understand them for you,” and you can’t understand them but your biases prevent it.  

There’s problems with schooling but there have been problems with schooling since long before the woke agenda exacerbated those problems.   Every decision begins with circumstance and consists of comparisons between the value of any objective versus other objectives, the energy required, probability and severity of consequence if applicable, and morality if applicable.  

Again, all the results on this planet are partially a collective production.  Mass shooters for example are not anomalous happenings, these are products of American culture, political, economic, and social systems that produce these people.  

You clearly don’t have the capacity for any in real conversation where you’re incapable of understanding and challenging fact and reason, instead you think you made a point by reasserting that everybody is where they are based on choices while failing to understand that choices and development are determined by circumstances.  

What’s funny is you embody most of what is objectively identifiable as wrong behavior and begin in your first comment with you think most people are good and decent people.  Which obviously undermines your position since you being evil, but believing you’re good and decent means you see people who are also evil as good and decent.  You choose tyranny, and most people do.

Samael Strings Orion Simerl what an absurd concept, to think that there are no opportunities just because they’re poor. The opportunities exist, they just don’t want to take them, fail to have the work ethic to keep them, or lack the ambition to seek more than the basics. Nobody should ever stay stagnant in any position of any job ever. We live in a perfect meritocracy, just the way it should be. Earn more, go for more, achieve more… it’s truly that simple. Don’t be stupid. Also, all anyone has to do is graduate high school, not have children until they’re married and financially independent, and get a job. That recipe is one for success in America regardless where one is from or their socioeconomic situation. Fact.

Orion Simerl Again, median individual income is 29k per year.  Half the people in this country earn less than 29k per year.  That is fact and describes the opportunities available for half the country.  

What you stated is  a summary nationalist indoctrination.  Writing fact after an opinion does not make it fact 😂.  

8 percent of people who receive food share benefits have 3 people working in their household.  49 percent have 2 people working in the household, and 84 percent have at least 1 person working in the household.  Which means  the opportunities you’re talking about are too meager for people to afford basic necessities.   

Perfect meritocracy.  😂. That’s is the most ridiculous statement anyone has ever made.  You’re a tyrant because you benefit from and consent to systems that impose on others circumstantially.  And you self deceive in order to preserve false nationalist beliefs which contribute to the aforementioned circumstantial imposition.  When you die and find yourself in a space of tyranny you know why, aside from your other tyrannical propensities.

Samael Strings sorry but you’re completely wrong. That is reflective of people with zero ambition to do and be better and of people incapable of earning more because they lack the merit and talent to do so. It’s not a lack of opportunity, it’s a lack of motivation and skill.

Orion Simerl Samael That isn’t true when there is class causation.  If it’s a matter of ambition and ability we wouldn’t have social mobility statistics where the less money a person begins with the less likely they are to make more money and the more money a person begins with the more likely they are to make more money. 

 Capitalism requires an individual to have money in order to purchase the capital to bring a product or service to market.  The idea is that if a person doesn’t have money they can work for someone and then save money to start a business.  How much people are paid isn’t determined by how good of a job they do or how much a company makes.  It’s determined by how much people are willing to work for in any particular job in any particular area.  People without money will work for a sum that allows them to survive.  No company is going to pay more for labor than they have to.  Which is why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and this produces all the problems this species has. You’re the epitome of self deception and what is wrong with this country and world.  You’ve done nothing but assert your false beliefs.

Samael Strings Orion Simerl sorry but that’s one of the most blind correlation equals causation accusations I’ve ever heard of.

Orion Simerl Samael Strings 😂. First, when something happens as the result of something else that is causation.  Dividing the income distribution into 5s, quintiles, those who begin with less are less likely to move up and those who begin with more are more likely to move up and less likely to move down.  What determines a person’s chances of making more money?  The income level they begin at.  To add to it, I explained the labor market and how it produces trapping circumstances, literally supplying the specific causation for trapping circumstances produced through inadequate opportunities for income.  It really is an amazing example of how bias obstructs the ability to comprehend and limits the perspectives of people.

Samael Strings  Orion Simerl is surface statistics, utterly lacking in the necessary multivariate analysis to come to a competent conclusion.

Orion Simerl Any worthwhile social mobility research shows what I described with variations in the specific amount. Every other variable associated with a lack of social mobility or the propensity to become drug dependent, or the likelihood of career criminality, is caused by a lack of adequate and worthwhile income opportunities or beginning in a low income household.  What variants would you control for, that could be making it appear, that in a system, where an individual’s ability to contribute a product or service to the market based on the amount of money he has, where his income opportunities are based on what people are willing to work for to do the job he’s qualified for, where people without money are willing to work for an amount that will allow them to survive, and  where the income earned requires most of a person’s time and does not allow for accumulation to take place.  What do you think needs to be controlled for in reaching the obvious conclusion supported decades of data that something other than poor income opportunities account for poor people remaining poor?


He made a final comment accusing me of not comprehending so to address that assertion I recapped this exchange to him in my final comment.

I’ll recap.
1: I explained the basis for objective morality.

2: You claimed you believe most people are good and the results speak for themselves.

3: I stated that since people tend to associate with people in the same socioeconomic groupings that you believe the results are good because they’re good for you and the people you see.

4: I went on to describe the results using data like the median individual income, drug dependency, crime, social mobility among other things.

5: You take the position that people’s circumstances are completely determined by their choices and express the belief that the US is a perfect meritocracy, where Joe Biden is president because he’s the most qualified for the job.

6: I explain capitalism’s mechanism for deciding production. Money is required to purchase capital.

7: Then I explained how the labor market functions, where those who have no money will work for a wage that allows them to survive in their area, and so this is what companies pay. The going market rate for the position in the area.

8: People who spend most of their time working a job that only meets their needs never accumulate money that they could use to improve their income.

9:. Then I leaned on social mobility data that shows 2/3rds of people who begin in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution remain in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution.

10:. I used 6 through 9 to demonstrate that poor people are poor because they began poor, because they do not have the money to purchase capital, to start a business, to improve their human capital, or to be free from stress long enough to think about what they would do if they had the time and money to do it.

11:. Your position that poor people are poor because they make poor decisions is purely opinion that you provided no evidence to support.

12: I demonstrate that poor people are poor because they are poor.

13:. You claim that wages are good but people don’t want to work.

14:. I demonstrate that the wages are not adequate by citing the median individual income. If wages being paid were good, half the people in this country wouldn’t be earning less than 29k per year.

15: I use social mobility data to show how income is a cause of income increases, and cause of avoiding decreases. It takes place through the mechanisms I described where the labor market doesn’t create wages that allow for accumulation, and accumulation is typically required to achieve gains in income. Social mobility data shows that the lower an individual’s income the less likely they are to move up and the more likely they are to move down.

16:. You continue to claim that the cause of this is something besides income itself but you haven’t even supplied an explanation.

17:. All you’ve done is stated and restated about three different opinions, some ridiculous on the face of itself like the US is a perfect meritocracy, but at no point did you supply even an explanation, much less anything factual to support these opinions. You also haven’t challenged any point that I’ve made. So now you’re claiming something is wrong with how I’m using the data, without stating what it is.

18:. Key point summary of the exchange, to even prove wrong your empty assertion that I lack comprehension skills.


Ill probably attach something to this but there’s a few insights I left as comments that I wanted to chronicle, and an update on a previous exchange that is interesting but troubling.  

In the previous entry I wrote about a comment exchange I had about an incident where an officer was required to use force.  A person left a comment claiming an officer can only use restraints when transporting a suspect, if there is a search warrant, or for officer safety, while claiming a suspect cannot be cuffed during investigative detention.  His premise is since the officer has no reason to cuff him he wasn’t being non-compliant because the command to put his hands behind his back wasn’t a lawful order. 

 If the officer has a reason to believe the suspect could become violent or run restraints can be used during investigative detention.  Of course the video starts 10 seconds prior to the use of force so we can’t even speculate as to what the officers reasons were to believe the suspect may run or become violent, but the reasons may be based on the experience of the officer and not recognized by a casual observer. I left case law references within the comment and a website.

The case law is excerpted from explanations from Brown v. Lewis (6th cir. 2/26/2015) and establishes the standard for when a suspect can be handcuffed during an investigative stop. When a suspect possesses a weapon, or there is something that indicates the suspect may become violent or may run.

 “We have held, for example, that securing a detainee is justified when he admits to having a weapon and is agitated. O’Malley v. City of Flint, 652 F.3d 662, 670–71 (6th Cir.2011) (handcuffing a detainee did not ripen stop into an arrest because the detainee “was angry, raised his voice, turned his back and lifted his shirt, called [officer’s] inquiry ‘bulls—t,’ “ and admitted that he had a gun in vehicle); see also Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291, 309 (6th Cir.2005) (detainee said he was armed with stun gun). Sometimes, an unarmed detainee may display aggressive or erratic behavior during the stop that gives rise to a reasonable belief of dangerousness. United States v. Atchley, 474 F.3d 840, 849 (6th Cir.2007) (handcuffing a detainee did not ripen stop into arrest because of detainee’s nervous behavior). Similarly, an attempt to flee could justify the use of handcuffs or another form of detention to prevent additional flight during the investigatory stop. United States v. Jacob, 377 F.3d 573, 579–80 (6th Cir.2004) (car containing suspected drug traffickers lurched forward as if to flee after police had cornered it in parking lot).”

When I went back to retrieve the references I used my comment was gone, probably flagged because I included the website link below.  A very concise and thorough resource for understanding when restraints may be used during investigative detention.  

The main point is did this guy just make up that restraints can’t be used during investigative detention?  Did he get it from a website and they made it up? 

Secondly, the reasons an officer can use to justify restraints are very broad.  If the suspect is looking around this can be interpreted as the suspect looking for an escape route.  A suspect making too much eye contact or no eye contact during a conversation is an indication that the suspect may become violent.  There is such a wide variety of subtle actions that are acceptable reasons for an officer to believe that a suspect could become violent or run that any officer during an investigative stop can have a reason to put a suspect in handcuffs.  It essentially means that a suspect can be handcuffed during an investigative stop, but more importantly, a suspect should not dispute that an officer has a valid reason for using handcuffs and should assume that the order is lawful and dispute it after compliance.  

The second item is a comment I made on a Jordan Peterson clip.  I have a great deal of respect for him as a man.  He strikes me as a person who has an ordered perception of the world and does what he believes is beneficial for his species.  His lens is colored by a conservative bias, in nationalism, religion, and the overstated benefits of a traditional family setting.  Thats an assessment based on maybe 2 hours in total of content between interviews and clips.  I only mention that I have a positive opinion of him because this is probably the second time he’s said something that has prompted a comment that seems disagreeable.  

The comment isn’t actually disagreeing.  I stopped the video after the first sentence because I wanted to respond to that sentence and then finished watching the clip.  We’re actually in part talking about 2 different things.  He states that psychology has become something that tells people nothing is wrong with them, that they need to accept themselves as they are and then references the self esteem movement.  He’s speaking generally to the point that people are encouraged to like things they shouldn’t like about themselves instead of changing those things.  I don’t disagree with that as the creation of a social norm.  

My comment is more geared towards the mental health personality types side of psychology.  Where before a person accepts themselves as they are they first have to make the things that make them feel bad feel good.  I think before psychology encourages people to not change things about themselves, psychology plays with people’s values in an effort to reduce negative stimulation.  

My comment: 

I think it’s the exact opposite as far as psychology is concerned  but I do agree in part, with a qualifier. 

 Psychology isn’t promoting the idea that nothing is wrong with people, instead psychology is convincing people something is wrong with them and then their council is to accept that about themselves.  It works perfectly because human beings are creatures who are constantly searching for things to establish their identity through. 

A few months ago there was a study where people were told ai was analyzing their personality when it was actually just random feedback.  The participants were surprised at the accuracy, which speaks to the point that people are searching for things to define themselves by; so psychology which is largely the categorization of thoughts, feelings and behavior provides people with things to define themselves by.  A person sees x y and z is common among people with a personality type or disorder and then perceive their life through that lens.  It’s essentially astrology while chronicling the frequency of tendency.  

Psychology when it comes to therapy relies on convincing people to adopt the lowest common denominator of values.  Society is assembled to ensure the simplest and most common sources of stimulation are abundant.  If a person likes what other people like and manage stressors the way others manage those stressors they’ll have more opportunities for satisfaction and this will improve their overall sense of well being.  The problem is in people’s search for identity, they lose their identity and nothing is measured morally, or by the collective consequences of people who look at life purely as opportunities for pleasure and pain avoidance, and people who think about the consequence of an act in isolation.  

Maybe more importantly, that approach to the human mind often causes people to accept explanations for behavior that are incorrect and this has other consequences for the individual.  It also doesn’t tell us much about the actual causes for human behavior which begin with an individual’s circumstances.

There was a poll about the drinking age being lowered to 18, and anywhere you have this conversation there are people who say if a person is old enough to die in war they should be old enough to drink.  It is the stupidest comparison of unlike things to argue for one with the other.

A person can be an age where they can decide to risk their life, physically capable of training and mentally capable of following orders to be an effective soldier, and not be an age where they are capable of handling an intoxicant.  

First element is behavior where they’re less likely to be able to act responsibly while under the influence.  

The second element is priority.  The younger a person is the more susceptible they are to developing dependency.  If alcohol is the best thing a person has experienced an 18 year old is more likely to start drinking everyday as opposed to a person at 21 who has probably accumulated at least some responsibilities by that time.  

The third element is development.  A person who is 18 is physiologically less developed than a person who is 21.  There’s a risk in harming development.  

I addressed that argument.  Some people say that young people are going to drink anyway.  This is true.  I was about 12 the first two times I was drunk and I drank pretty heavily and regularly between the ages of 16 to 24.  I was also incarcerated a lot during that period, in and out, serving 6 years between the ages of 14 to 24, 1996 to 2006.  I understand that just because there is an age restriction it doesn’t mean young people are not going to drink.  

What it does do is serve as a deterrent for some young people and put an impediment between young people and the product.  There will ultimately be fewer people aged 18 to 20 who will not drink if the drinking age is 21 as opposed to 18.  

The Bucks lost to the Heat in the first round of the playoffs.  As a fan of the Bucks and Giannis it does not feel good since the Bucks have been at least one of the favorites to win the title all year.  To add insult to injury, when Giannis was asked if he felt like the season was a failure he became angry at the reporter, made an analogy that if the reporter didn’t receive a promotion every year was that a failure?  Then he that there are steps to success and didn’t believe the season was a failure.  This speaks to Dr. Peterson’s point of psychology being a vehicle for acceptance.  Not that psychology is responsible directly for cultivating Giannis refusal to admit failure, but in influencing the general consciousness where every poor outcome has a silver lining and the individual should find it to avoid feeling bad about themselves for the outcome and to avoid feelings of disappointment.  

I stated that this is the biggest 1st round upset in NBA history.  I back tracked momentarily when someone brought up the 07 Mavs who were a 67 win team who lost in the first round to a golden State team without any superstars.  I reversed course when considering all the elements.  

2 years ago the Bucks won the title with most of the players they have today, the core, Giannis, Middleton, Jrue, Brook, and Bobby Portis, as well as some role players.  The biggest piece they lost was agitator and defensive presence PJ Tucker, but they’ve made some solid additions with Grayson Allen among others.  Last season Middleton was injured in the first round against the Bulls.  In the second round despite being without their second best scorer in Middleton, Giannis had an unprecedented series performance taking the Celtics who would win the East to a 7 game series.  It was a foregone conclusion that had Middleton remained healthy the Bucks probably beat the Celtics and win back to back titles.  

Moving into this season the Bucks seemed poised to win the title.  They had the best record in the league, longest win streak of the season, Giannis finished top 3 in MVP voting, Brook Lopez finished top 3 in DPOY voting, and Bobby Portis finished top 3 in 6thMOY voting.  I don’t think any team in NBA history has had 3 players finish in the top 3 for those individual awards.  

Miami struggled to score all year and the Bucks have been too 5 defensively all year.  Miami almost missed the playoffs losing to the Hawks, and barely beating the Bulls to get the 8th seed.  

In the first game of the series against Miami Giannis took a hard fall and bruised his back.  He continued to play and even scored a layup while in the game after the injury before coming out.  He had a bruised back which does not physically impact his ability to play.  He sat out for the next two games.  The Bucks won game 2 without Giannis but lost game 3 without him.  Then Jimmy Butler took over game 4 in the first and fourth quarter and they lost game 4.  The Bucks season ended in game 5 where Butler hit a controversial clutch shot to send the game into OT and the Bucks lost in OT.  

The background is important because Giannis is trying to call this upset a learning experience, or a step to success.  The year before they won the title they lost in the Eastern Conference Finals to Toronto.  That was a failure that was a step to success.  Last season wasn’t a failure it was unfortunate circumstance where the guy who was supposed to dry the floor didn’t do his job, and Middleton slipped and had a serious knee injury.  And despite that injury the Bucks went 7 games.  When you’re a team who is becoming competitive for a title a post season loss can be learning experience.  When you’ve won a title and you’re the best team in the league with the best player in the league there are no more learning experiences, because you know what it takes to get there and win.  

This doesn’t mean you win the title every year.  But you don’t get knocked out in the first round in an uncompetitive fashion.  If the Bucks would have made it to the ECF and had a supposed easy route to get there, and then lost to Philly or Boston in a competitive series that is not a failure.  Top team against a top team can go either way in a 7 game series.  But losing 4 to 1 against an 8th seed who lost in the play in tournament, and was almost eliminated from the playoffs, is a failure.  

Apologize to the fans you disappointed, who argued about your greatness that didn’t expect to be embarrassed.  Talk about how disappointed you are in yourself, maybe about Butler’s extraordinary performance, or how you couldn’t hit enough free throws to put the game out of reach.  Don’t say something that is clearly a failure is not a failure when there is no objective basis for calling this season a success.  The season feels worse because of Giannis’ statements.  Feels worse also in recognizing that Giannis is not as committed to the game as he pretends to be, sitting out with a bruised back.  Kobe and MJ are not sitting out in the playoffs with an injury that doesn’t physically prevent them from playing and can’t lead to further injury playing through it.  

It’s a long off-season.  The Bucks took away my belief in them.  A belief they built by living up to send exceeding expectations, and making plays in key moments.  Next season they can win 70 games and I’ll still be concerned about them come playoff time because of this performance.  Coach Bud as a head coach has had 3 teams achieve the best record in the NBA, once with the Hawks, twice with the Bucks.  The Hawks were bounced in the Semis, the Bucks bounced in the ECF, and the Bucks bounced in the first round.  It’s hard not to look at coaching when you take championship team and can’t make adjustments to get them through the first round 

 Makes me a Suns fan for the remainder of the playoffs.  Like to Sun’s Celtics or Suns Heat.  Basketball is the only sport I’m emotionally invested in. I Iike MMA and boxing but there isn’t the same build up of season, playoffs and championship.  I’ve become a casual NFL fan, used to be more invested back when Favre was playing but after he retired and the game began to change, and the players became less passionate about the game my fandom was reduced to casual following of the sport.  

After my job in Terra Haute I went to Effingham because I was almost out of marijuana.  Given my circumstances it is an essential item for survival at this point.  I was monitoring CL gigs and Airtaskers in St. Louis, Chicago, and Indianapolis.  I spent a few days there and probably should have left before I did.

I was counting on the money from the last Airtaskers job to hit my account but there was a problem with the transfer.  I’ve had problems previously trying to transfer money into and out of my business account.  The money was sent back to Airtaskers and Airtaskers sent it again before I could change the account.  

I got on the freeway going the wrong way by mistake.  The Effingham entry to 57/70 is a little goofy.  East/North is on the same side as West/South.  I was initially headed towards St. Louis.  I consider continuing onto St. Louis but I’ve had some issues there in the past.  Almost got into it for someone trying to skip me in line at a gas station, had an argument in a fast food drive through, and had to address a person staring at me at a rest area.  The last incident may have just been me looking up when a guy was looking at me and then maintaining our gazes.  He was walking to throw something else and was staring at me the whole way while I was in my car.  When I got out a little while later I looked to see if he was mugging me again from his car and he was.  So I had to ask him why he was mugging me, and explained he was staring at me the whole time he was walking to the garbage and so on and so forth.  He said he didn’t have a problem with me but things like that can escalate quickly.  For me, in some of those situations I need to know what’s going on because I don’t want to wonder why this mother fucker mugging me if I notice it.  The point being is unless there is a prospect for something, work, money, promotion, product, etc, I’d rather not go to a place with a greater probability of me getting into with people because I know how quickly things can go from bad to worse, and it also isn’t good for my mood.  

I turned around and went elsewhere.  Had two near incidents in Effingham at two different rest areas.  First was a truck parked with his lights shining in my car.  I waited a minute and when the lights stayed on I put my shoes on to figure out why this dude didn’t have any common sense courtesy.  As I opened my door he pulled off.  The second incident was similar to the first where I was parked and another pick up truck with a trailer did the same thing.  The lights went off after about a minute.  Then a few minutes later the lights came on again.  I put my shoes on and noted how the rest of the lot was empty.  This dude chose to park in a spot where he could harass me with his lights.  I got out of my car and walked towards his truck but when I looked in the truck I didn’t see anyone.  I presumed he may have went in his camper trailer.  With no one to confront I went back to my car and shortly afterwards he pulled off.  He must have been laying down in the truck when I approached it.  

I went a different direction.  I don’t like to make my location known in real time.  I arrived at the new area with about $70 and no prospect of receiving the $164 from Air Taskers before the first of the month when my cell phone bill and webhosting bill were due.  I was worried I was going to have to pawn one of my rings.  I was writing an entry chronicling my concerns when I found a truck unloading job on CL.  That was clutch.  Provided me enough to pay my bills which was my primary concern.  Without my phone I can’t find any work to keep this sinking ship afloat, and I also cannot lose my websites.  

The following day there was a moving job but I was too far away to make it in time.  He offered work for today which I accepted but he never got back to me with the address.  I followed up with him last night but there was no response so I presume he had all the people he needed.  I’m still desperate hoping to find gigs, after food and gas I’m down to $62, and I only have a quarter tank.  Hopefully that Airtaskers money will hit early next week and I’ll find a few gigs to provide me with some security.  


I still haven’t received the money from the Airtaskers job I did.  I called the bank and they said they hadn’t received it.  Later I contacted Airtaskers and they confirmed that the transaction has been sent and I should have received it yesterday.  They provided me a transaction ID number.  5 business days isn’t until tomorrow, but it’s concerning when you’re relying on that money.  

I had two exchanges on YouTube that were interesting.  

The second exchange was interesting because it demonstrated the inability of a person to comprehend the application of law to action.  

The video showed the suspect being told to.put his hands behind his back and was warned that if he did not comply he would be taken to the ground.  The suspect was non-compliant and the officer picked him up and slammed him on the ground.  The suspect suffered a skull fracture and may not have been the one responsible for the crime the officer was responding to.  Most of the comments imply the officer is wrong.  When I say most I mean all the comments I saw.  The officer did not act malicious, unlawfully, or use an amount of force that can be considered  excessive.   

One person claimed the officers commands were not lawful because the suspect didn’t commit the crime.  

The orders are lawful because the officer can detain the suspect while he is conducting an investigation based on reasonable suspicion.  Reasonable suspicion is the reasonable belief that a crime has occurred, is occuring, or could occur based on the totality of the circumstances.  

The officer was responding either late night or early morning to a call that a person matching the suspects description was trying to  break into cars.  There didn’t appear to be anyone else in the area.  Based on the call to police that someone in the area was trying to break into cars, the suspect matching the description provided by the caller, and the absence of anyone else in the area it is reasonable to suspect that the suspect has committed a crime, and the officer has to investigate that reasonable suspicion.  

The officer gives the suspect a lawful command to put his hands behind his back and informs him of the consequences of continued refusal to comply.  The officer has to complete his investigation and wants to put him in restraints to prevent the suspect from running or for the officer’s protection.  The officer has to use force to gain compliance.  

Was the amount of force used intended to cause serious injury, could it be expected to cause serious injury, did it appear malicious, and was it more than what was necessary to gain compliance?  

I don’t believe it was intended to inflict serious injury for the same reason I don’t believe it should be expected to cause a serious injury.  In 99.9 plus percent of situations where an officer, or any person for that matter slams someone on the ground it does not result in a serious injury.  There’s no evidence of any malicious intent.  The force appeared to be applied for the purpose of a lone officer on scene to gain control of the suspect and force compliance to conduct his investigation.   

The officer was dutifully investigating the suspect based on a reasonable suspicion that the suspect may have committed a crime.  

The suspect’s non-compliance gives the officer probable cause that a crime is occurring since the suspect is obstructing his investigation by not complying with restraints during detention. 

The suspect’s actions necessitate the use of force to gain compliance.  

The officer warns the suspect he will be taken to the ground and suspects continued refusal causes the law enforcement officer to slam him to the ground which is a reasonable amount of force to gain compliance because the act typically does not result in serious injury.  

This is what people need to understand, that the injury resulting from the use of force is not an indication of how much force was applied, it represents a lot of circumstances interacting to produce that outcome.  In this situation it’s hard to see but the suspect presumably hit his head on the ground.  The same technique applied 100 times probably does not produce that result which means the force used is not excessive despite the suspect being seriously injured.  

The suspect is responsible for his injury.  He assumed the risks associated with the use of force by necessitating that force be used by refusing to comply.  Had he put his hands behind his back the officer probably would have leaned him on the car, searched his possessions, asked him some questions that he does not have to answer, except for his name because he is required to identify himself, and if he didn’t find anything he’d have to let him go.

Years ago I was slammed off a step by the Cudahay, WI police department.  We were involved in an altercation with a group of people who were having a party at the end of the block.  Police were called and a woman from their party came with us.  They told them police we kidnapped her and we’re holding her against her will and we didn’t want to come out because a bunch of us just beat the shit out of a bunch of them.  The woman called police and said she wasn’t being held against her will but they said they needed her to come out because they didn’t know if she was being coerced over the phone.  For whatever reason, she didn’t want to go outside and people generally felt like the police didn’t have the authority to force entry.    

Having been in houses where police have forced entry you.can see the signs that they’re coming in.  My friend lived on the second floor.  When the police were not by the door me and another person decided to go outside.  I don’t like to be put face down with a rifle pointed at me and potentially a boot on my neck risking becoming an accident when I can avoid it.  

I walk down the stairs smoking a cigarette and step out onto to the outside steps real nonchalantly, with two officers in front of me like I’m in the huddle.  😂. He told me to put my cigarette out. I went to take one more pull from the cigarette and he smacked it out of my hand as I brought it to my mouth, and the other officer picked me up and slammed me on the ground.  

If people saw that and I was injured they’d say I didn’t have time to comply with the command but the act of bringing my cigarette back to my mouth was refusal to comply with a lawful command, and justified the use of force to gain compliance, especially since I was likely involved in the battery of people nearby and I’m coming out of a house where allegedly someone was taken to and held against their will.  

There have also been incidents where force has been applied unlawfully, I was pepper sprayed in handcuffs after resisting and I was kicked in my chest on another occasion while seated and handcuffed.  There was no justification for those uses of force but harm was insignificant and it doesn’t represent how most police conduct themselves. 

He mentioned that the resisting charges were dropped against the suspect and the deputy was fired a month later.  That point isn’t a challenge to my interpretation of the event, and probably is more indicative of how law enforcement agencies have become inclined to bend to the will of public opinion based on how something appears instead of being willing to stand for what is.  Lawful use of force and an amount of force that did exceed what was required to gain compliance based on the elements of the act I mentioned

I wrote the second one first and flipped the stories around since the second is just sports.

The first exchange was over my understanding that Giannis could have played games 2 and 3, and had he played maybe they wouldn’t be on the brink of being eliminated from the playoffs down 3 to 1 by the heat.  I’m extremely disappointed.  I’m very infested in the team as a fan of the sport as well as in Giannis because they’ve been so good and thought they could be great, especially after Giannis carried the team to a 7 game series after Middleton was injured against the Bulls round one last year.  It was obvious with Middleton healthy the Bucks were set to win their second chip of the Giannis era.  Middleton hasn’t been healthy all year, only coming into something resembling his former self the last few games of the season.  They were so clutch playoffs and regular season when they won the title.  This year they’ve failed in key moments, consistently beat bad and mediocre teams, but struggled seemingly more often than not against good teams.  Suffered a few dramatic blow outs as well, and had periods where they either fell apart defensively or couldn’t score buckets to disrupt.other teams runs.  Philly dropped 49 on the Bucks in the 4th.quarter.  moments like that are concerning.  

I was told there was no reason not to believe that his injury was preventing him from playing.  There actually is a reason, and that reason being the nature of his injury.  He has a bruised back which is broken blood vessels in his muscle or bone.  It might hurt but it doesn’t prevent motion, and there’s no risk of sustaining a greater injury by playing through the pain.  Not to mention he didn’t leave the game right away, and had a layup showing he could still play effectively with a bruised back.  I just can’t imagine Jordan or Kobe sitting out of a playoff game because of a bruised back. 


There were two things that caught my attention today.  I was also considering deleting a few paragraphs from my previous entry, but it’s an honest explanation.  I’m essentially just passing time in case something changes.  

It may have been on the radio or an article I read that the Texas Senate passed a bill mandating the 10 commandments in public schools.  It must have been an article because I remember a justification was that the country was founded on the 10 commandments. It’s a ridiculous assertion that is completely at odds with freedom of religion, where the Judaic deities’ first commandment is you shall have no other gods before me.  A nation based on the bible would forbid the practice of worshiping other gods.  

I’m sure someone will sue the state for promoting religion through public institutions which is an obvious separation of church and state issue.  It’s bizarre to me, that so many people are buried so deep into something that clearly is not true.  I’ve qualified that assertion in many preceding entries and more thoroughly in Liberty:The Definitive Moral Truth.  

It’s more than another example of how primitive this species is, it’s a reminder that people believe things that do not make sense because it makes them feel good.  It’s a painful reminder that outside of religion that there’s so much BS locked into people’s minds that concepts like facts, evidence, consistency, contradiction, and probability are irrelevant, and challenging information is rejected to preserve the feel good perspective.  

On the other side I saw an article about Jaylen Rose responding to Phil Jackson.  Jackson said the NBA went overboard in 2020 promoting social justice.  He’s correct.  For example, the Bucks and Magic refused to play a game because a man was lawfully shot by police officers.  Jacob Blake was resisting arrest and grabbed a knife while an officer was trying to pull him away from it.  Blake was in swinging distance of the officer and refused commands to drop the knife which qualifies him as an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm and that is a legal standard for the use of deadly force.  Stupid people used it as an excuse to riot and burn buildings in Kenosha.  Probably supported by BLM which the NBA was advertising in the bubble.  A group that reported 84 million dollars in donations and not only hasn’t done anything to improve the lives of black people, but doesn’t even have any practical plans to make any improvements.   

All the players had their favorite slogan on their jerseys.  It was a clown show.  Like Jaylen, it’s easy to know that the players have no real interest in these things outside of applying a slogan to their brand to attract consumers, because if they did they would understand the problems they claim to be against are not problems.  

Stuck between groups obsessed with irrelevancy and willful ignorance, and the indifferent whose indifference is also a product of ignorance.  


I’ve started paused 2 other entries that I don’t feel like returning to.  The points made may still be true, insightful, and beneficial, but the mood is lost that motivates what was being written.  But that mood is bound to return because I’m unable to change my circumstances.  Can’t get people to recognize and act on their own interests, can’t get people to buy books about information that is pertinent to understanding the reality that they exist in, that can make them smarter by helping people identify their biases and inconsistencies that prevent them from learning things.  People won’t sign a petition to give themselves a 50 to 100 percent raise, and give raises to people in the bottom 50 percent of income earners in the process.  I’m sure some of it has been me.  I tell em what it is, and they should either ask questions, get on board or state their basis for resistance.  I didn’t play with people, stroke their ego, or pretend I was more interested in them outside of their awareness and support of the legislation.  And it could just be me.  A woman I got up with a few times from Jacksonville, TX said I sound like one of those guys who thinks he’s better than everyone.  Not in content I guess, but in tone. 

I came across a Plato quote I’m going to post on my home page because of the applicability of the ancient observation to my situation.   

I completed a trampoline assembly and loaded a moving job which provided me with just enough money and stimulation to keep my mind off of putting my head in that rope.  That idea represents the mood referenced in the preceding paragraph.  “Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood let alone be believed by the masses.”

I saw an article in my Google feed which turned out to be a highlight of activist stupidity.  They begin by mentioning PVC smoke from the trains that derailed and ignited in Palestine, OH.  Activists want the agency in charge of allocating the 15 billion dollars to replace lead pipes, to not allow PVC to be used, to mandate copper or stainless steel.  There are no studies that show  PVC pipe used to for drinking water are hazardous to humans.  There are however numerous studies spanning decades that show the serious effects lead has on human beings especially children.  15 billion dollars buys at least 7x more pipe in PVC than it does in copper.  I say at least 7x based on the cost of PVC versus copper on a website where the difference in cost is probably greater when purchased in volume, and purchasing 15 billion dollars in copper may impact the price of copper through increased demand for the semi rare metal. The point being is the activist would rather put 7x more children at risk of lead toxicity to avoid a material that is yet to be proven poses any harm to human beings.  

These mother fuckers are getting press and funding.  The public can’t see through the shit.  It’s a business to create a fictious problem and propose a bullshit solution or in this case as well as others, a harmful solution.  They can approach people and gain support for we’re trying to make the government only allow lead pipes to be replaced by copper pipes, to get plastic out of our water; and people support that without any understanding that this person is making a living from you supporting putting children at risk to lead exposure.  That’s the world I live in.  Meanwhile, I’m promoting legislation to raise wages for the bottom 50 percent of income earners, increase some companies profits, decrease federal spending, and increase federal revenue, without the investment of a dime from the federal government, and an imperceptible amount of an investment into the wages of poor people in this country when you make a purchase.  

People look at me like I’m the grifter.  I’m the real. I’ve been going through hell for a lifetime, but maybe more so in the last 10 years.  In the last 10 years my life has been all about developing, understanding, discovering and trying to make a way for things that inform and improve this species.  Many things developed through the denial I encountered, the need to understand what produces it in an effort to overcome it.  I’m 10 years into it.  If these were things I believed I’d have gone a different direction long ago.  Problem is you cannot walk away from what you know.   

I recently found out I still had some money in my business bank account.  It’s only $139.  Since I’m low on money I went to the bank to withdraw $120.  There’s a $15 a month low balance charge so I left $15 to pay for next month’s fee.  I have a trampoline assembly tomorrow and it’s through a service that pays into that account.  I wanted to make sure I could withdraw money from the account.  I mention this not to reiterate how fucked I am, but because the transaction was funny to me.  

I withdraw $120 and firsts she asks me how I want that back.  Doesn’t seem like enough to be asking that question but I’m sure some people are particular even with small sums.  The funny part is she asked me if I wanted an envelope.  I thought as I walked out, I should have said on second thought let me get it in ones and put it in an envelope.  

Probably 2 weeks ago I posted an ad on CL in Columbus in the resumes section.  I was offered a roofing job, and today a landscaping job.  In summary of my last 5 years, worked for an interstate moving company, the objective was to save money to promote my material.  I worked for 8 months, had some issues at the end and saved about $6000.  The result was I was arrested in Florida in December of 2018, and spent a year going to court for a few grams of marijuana, a pipe with marijuana residue, and 4 10mg THC gummies.  I work as an FF&E installer, the objective is to save money to promote my material.  An incident where I defended myself when I was assaulted after a comedy show caused me to leave the job before I wanted to.  I only had $5500.  I did some promotion handing out flyers and in some instances distributing flyers as well as various electronic solicitations.  When I ran low on money I tried a stunt, and none of these efforts attracted any real interest or attention.  I went back to work in FF&E to try again.  After we finished the Del Rio job and had maybe a week left on the Urby, I was getting excited to promote OPL and believed there would be widespread interest and support for the Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive.  In addition to my excitement, Mark and his brother started leaving me at the job site to do a disproportionate amount of the work.  Then pretend like they were there when they weren’t.  That was beginning to bother me and during some of those periods I fucked off because of it.  Prior to Mark’s brother showing up who worked well when he was present, I did most of the FF&E in Del Rio.  Mounted headboards, wardrobe assemblies, lighting tracks, TV walpanels, TV’s, closet shelves, bathroom mirrors, coat racks, among other things.  I unboxed, marked, drilled, and hung 2.5 floors (17 per floor) of shower doors in a day at the Urby.  In the excitement of OPL and beginning to feel taken advantage of I left with $11,500.  I wanted to save $20,000 but I was also at a place where I was thinking let them get some of that work so I left abruptly.  I also thought I should be able to gain support and funding and it would be a waste of time to spend another two weeks finishing the Urby job and then another month or two starting the Winslow job which was scheduled to start a few weeks after we finished the Urby.

No need to restate what I’ve done with the money, I’ve described my efforts in previous entries.  Which leads me to where I am now.  Update on the landscaping job he texted me that he found someone.  Funny because he texted and then called and left a voice mail I did not respond to which should have indicated that I did not have any interest, making it unnecessary to tell me the position has been filled.  

What’s the reason I don’t have any interest?  I have a product that cannot be marketed.  Since the objective is to save money to promote OPL and my material, but I cannot market truth and the serving of people’s self interest then there is no objective.  People’s common sense has been contaminated.  Common sense is the ability to recognize cause and effect, but that is absent when truth is chosen based on what makes a person feel good.  It’s difficult to have motivation to work a job to save money again, to apply that money towards an unobtainable goal.  A goal that is unobtainable due to identified human behavioral mechanisms that cannot be overcome.  Which leads me back to the last few months where I’ve been wasting my time essentially post poning an early check out.   

So what do I think?  Are people unable to understand what I’m soliciting?  It doesn’t seem possible.  I’ve sent a variety of manuscripts to academic journals, and received only generic rejections.  The lone exception was an academic journal I submitted the balance stimulus to who offered criticism that I thoroughly refuted and he did not respond after that.  Otherwise, things are understood and rejected based on the challenges these things pose to positions and beliefs.  

You can make a living telling lies because people want to be lied to, but you can’t make a living telling the truth because it upsets people’s lies.  Even when your ideas address major problems and serve all affected interests if it upsets people’s lies they will ignore you.  

You have priests, pastors, rabbis, imaam, and others making money in the promotion of lies.  You have the media, politicians in office 30 years doing nothing but making a living off of the same rhetoric decade after decade.  You have the non-profits I solicited doing nothing but promoting vague leftist propaganda in support of electing democrats who do nothing but represent their preferred industries on the federal level.  They’re making money.  Groups without a firm grasp of the problems they purport, no solutions, and no strategy for accomplishing the solutions they do not have.  

I believe I could attach myself to one of these lies and probably make money.  I’m not bringing them up because I’m jealous of their success, I do hate them because I know they’re frauds, but I bring them up to say I’m performing service that is considered a market contribution.  The content are great, but there’s no market.   

I should have people’s interest, I should be selling books, I should be giving lectures, hosting OPL meetings, commissioning studies, making advertisements, participating in interviews, and fulfilling other roles in the advancement of Liberty and Truth including growing OPL and accomplishing proposals.  

If working a job and saving money is not going to lead to that then there is no purpose in doing that.  I continue bullshitting around until the right time comes along to see how right I am about what comes next.  This life and this world is some bullshit.  


The following consisted of more but I’ve reduced it because some of the points made require a greater explanation than I feel their worth right now.

I recently used an analogy of 2 boxes with 5 creatures in each box to illustrate how morality is a determinant of conscious motion.  In the one box are creatures whose morality is based on liberty, and the other’s morality is tyranny based.  The creatures in the one box have the greatest capacity for motion since all acts are permissible so long as they do not interfere with the acts of others.  Any moral system that is not based on liberty is defacto tyranny, because prohibiting an act that does not impose, or promoting an act that does impose is the imposition of a subjective preferences onto others   

In the box of tyranny motion is limited by the subjective preferences of those who possess the means of power, money, law, force, social, information etc.  If there are 5 creatures in the box whose power level is 100 50 25 10 and 5 the allowable motion will be determined by the creatures whose power level is 100.  

Picture boxes as a big as the world and all the creatures dots.  The first cause of one these dots moving is going to be their circumstances. The highest valued objective within their perceived circumstances.  Yesterday in Chicago there was a mob of teenagers jumping on top of cars, assaulting people, damaging their property, and people were shot.  The teenagers imposed on other people physically and on their property.  This type of behavior doesn’t take shape in isolation.  Maybe a better example was a story I saw of people entering a CVS or Walgreens and began loading up bags of goods.  There are circumstances imposed by the collective on the the individual that typically produces individual imposition on others.  Which doesn’t excuse looting since looting doesn’t neutralize the circumstantial imposition by the collective, and the merchant isn’t solely responsible for the looters’ circumstances to justify victimization.  The point being, tyranny begins with imposing circumstances that encourages imposing acts.  

Everything is objects and motion, that is how reality takes place.  If someone robs a store this act is set in motion by the circumstances that molded the robber and led him to a decision to impose on someone’s property.  Not a justification, but the robber is produced by indifference to the circumstances that produce robbers.  

All the results on this planet are a product of the decisions made by the creatures on this planet. Today there was a shooting at a birthday party.  There were 4 killed and 28 injured.  The sheriff did state there was varying degrees of injury where anyone who received medical treatment was counted as an injury.  Not related to the point but if you’re providing information on a shooting why not provide who is dead and who has a shooting injury which is more pertainent to the event than deaths and who may have sprained their risk when they fell while running.  He also stated that some of the injuries were critical so it was important that people pray for the injured.  

The first problem is this sheriff believes that super natural powers determine outcomes in this world despite no evidence of a supernatural force ever producing a result on this planet.  It’s harmful to believe that something is creating outcomes that is not creating outcomes.  All the negative results we see on this planet are produced by the people on this planet.  

It all begins with people’s limited conception of reality.  Their mind was molded to the box of tyranny, their highest ideal is that there is only a box of tyranny and the creature with the 100 power ranking is benevolent.  The human conception of heaven, being under the authority of another being for eternity, is an objective conception of hell.  No good creator would cause conscious beings to come into existence for the prospect of two variations of torment, or purposes that itself wouldn’t want to exists for.  

Prayer itself is ridiculous, even you’re a person who believes supernatural powers influence the happenings in the physical world. They must  imagine their deity is a YouTuber: alright, I’ll help them recover but only if I get 300,000 likes, and 20,000 subscribers, so some of you are going to have to go to church if you want me to do this.  By virtue of you praying, and encouraging other people to pray where the more prayers you get up the more likely he is to answer it, that’s how you’re saying your deity operates.  Why let it happen to begin with?  Is there not enough people praying that no one gets shot?  Holy SHIT!!!  We solved it!  Everyone just needs to pray and then there won’t be any shootings?  That is the implication of that stupidity.  It isn’t god, its the decisions of people in households, neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, countries, and across this world that produce the results on this planet.  

There was a recent study where people were told they were going to get computer generated feedback about their personalities.  Most of the people in the studies reported that the analysys was very accurate.  What they didn’t know is they were getting randomly generated information.  This highlights a problem with the mental health awareness movement or psychologies push for power and marketing.  It shows that people are constantly searching for things to establish an identity.  It’s astrology, sexuality, brands, mental disorders etc.  People reach for things that they can use to establish an identity to themselves and promote to others.  

This is a hodgepodge of an entry, but I figured I’d throw it up anyway despite part of the content lamenting not being understood and this entry serving as a partial example of why.  Not representative of my usual concision and clear articulation but still some beneficial content.      


There was a FB comment exchange where one commenter wrote that Democrats were hoping Trump wins the Republican nomination because Trump is the only one democrats believe Biden can beat.  Someone replied that’s the same thing you thought in 2016.  

I replied that Trump won in 2016 because Bernie Sanders voters voted for Trump.  He said that was irrelevant, and Trump won despite the media’s efforts to protect their Chinese profits.  I explained how Sanders voters determined the election.  Surveys show between 6 to 12 percent of Sanders voters voted for Trump in 2016. 

In WI, 570k voted for Bernie in the primary which means between 34 to 68k voted for Trump in the presidential election and Trump won WI by 20k votes.  

In MI 598k voted for Bernie in the primary which means 36k to 72k voted for Trump in the 2016 election.  

In PA 731k voted for Bernie in the primary which means 44k to 88k voted for Trump in the presidential election and Trump won PA by 45k votes.  

If these 3 states went to Hillary in 2016 she would have won the election.  

In 2020, these states were lost by Trump.  WI and PA lost by a margin smaller than the presumed 2016 BS voters voting for Trump range.  MI was lost by a huge margins likely due to covid propaganda that benefited democrats.  

I’m not recording this entry to restate the cause of Trump winning the election in 2016.  It’s not to say that Trump can’t win in 2024 since he has the benefit of running against a Biden presidency and people’s dissatisfaction with local democratic policies that can translate into national party votes.  After I explained the case for Sanders supporters deciding the 2016 election another commenter replied to me that it was useless to tell them because they live in alternate realities.  This is completely true but the commenter likely also lives in an alternate reality so I launched into a short lecture explaining why that is, and that all people live in alternate realities.  That comment is the focus of this entry.  

  Unfortunately that is all people about many things.  A person can only understand or accept things if it reinforces what they believe.  The changing of a belief has consequences to their values, (what they like), and what they do, including their value of themselves.  Facts are a product of what information feels good not what can be understood to be true.  

This is the most fundamental problem with human beings.  It’s not biological, it’s a social construct that exists due to a misunderstanding of morality.  Self deception is essentially a collective moral choice.    

The duality of morality is liberty and tyranny, because the human constant is that all people want to do as they please at all times.  All people can do as they please so long as each person’s liberty does not interfere with the liberty of others.  Acts that impose are wrong because they prevent people from doing, and acts that do not impose are right because they allow all people to do at all times.  

There’s physical imposition, imposition on property, circumstantial imposition, imposition on time, and deception.  Those categories and the justification for imposition (prevention and neutralization of unprovoked imposition) are the basis for determining the morality of any conceivable act.  Obviously there’s explanations but I’ll explain deception here since it’s the only category relevant to the topic.  

People do what they like but what they like is largely determined by what they believe is true.  Deception imposes by causing people to like what they wouldn’t like and consequently causes them to do what they would not do.  

Self deception wouldn’t be a problem since people doing what they please even if facilitated through the adoption of false beliefs is okay if it doesn’t cause them to impose.  The problem is self deception not only imposes on the individual, in motivation, know how, and intellectually because people cannot learn things that challenge their perspective, but it prevents communication and has consequences for systemic functioning that produces individual circumstances.  

I need to explain circumstantial imposition to proceed with the point.  An individual’s liberty consists of 4 elements: desire, money, time, and know how.  Desire is a product of values, know how can be obtained through time and money, and an individual’s opportunities for time and money are determined by systems.  Systems exist through collective consent and participation.  Consent is a product of an individual’s benefit or nationalist indoctrination.  Participation is a product of consent or a necessity to survive.  

If most of an individual’s time is spent working a job that barely meets their expenses they are trapped in those circumstances since most people’s income cannot be improved without money and time.  Systems that impose trapping circumstances are collective imposition on those individuals because an individual’s circumstances are produced by the systems others consent to and participate in.  Personal development is also strongly influenced by the household income a person is born into.  For those who believe the US is infallible and people’s choices completely determine their position in life, those choices are the product of a low income environment.  I have references for these assertions, and the data isn’t in dispute.  On household income and development, Liberty as the Basis for Objective Morality is novel and self evident.  

Self deception prevents communication  because people choose facts based on what feels good, not based on what they understand is true.  As you said “they live in an alternate reality”, but it’s compounded because the otherside and the politically indifferent also live in alternate realities.  Communication cannot take place when self deception prevents the establishment of fact, since facts are chosen and not observed. This imposes on others circumstantially since systems produce trapping circumstances and exist as they are because people cannot agree on facts, much less a course of action.   Also imposes socially and intellectually.  

All human problems are a product of self deception, and inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money, with the second being a product of the first.  I know better than anyone “it’s useless to tell people the truth, because they live in alternate realities.”. 

I understand the mechanism, the subconscious processes of the mechanism, and the cause being moral in nature.  The inability to understand the value of the truth in its utility to liberty.  

Lastly, self deception not only imposes on know how in the direct sense of how to do things, but also devementally in the directing of attention.  Existentially this is why Jesus was wrong or the gospel writers were wrong in saying all things done in ignorance will be forgiven because what a person knows is based on their values or what they like, since their likes direct their attention.  Therefore if a person is imposing but doesn’t know it, their ignorance is a product of their values and their values are a product of what they believe, maintained through self deception.  

One more thing I intended to mention previously.    It both is and is not the deceivers responsible for deception.  It isn’t because the demand for deception drives supply.  For example, the media chooses  which stories to cover and how to cover them based on how it reinforces people’s beliefs to attract attention and make money.  A 10 second clip of a suspect being shot and implying that the justification is controversial, attracts more attention to some broadcasters telecast than a 30 second clip that provides circumstantial context and an explanation of case law and how it does or does not apply to the officer’s actions.  Just an example of how self deception, and the demand for deception drives the supply.  

The media, business, politicians and others are responsible for deception in that they build on people’s biases with new lies to advance their interests.  Even in that, a person who doesn’t want to be deceived to feel good in the reinforcement of their perspective cannot be lied  to very long.  Human beings understand the world around them through cause and effect and have the innate ability to recognize consistency and contradiction.  Of course a person has to be genuinely interested in the subject, and most of the time people are only interested in a subject appearing in a way that reinforces their perspective.  The people, are just as if not more responsible for the world we have than those who are building on biases to advance their interests.  



Not looking good.  I met with the guy today for furnace installation help.  It requires me to get workers comp insurance.  Would have been something worth mentioning before I met up with him, we could have saved each other some time.  With about $200 to my name, it’s difficult to spend $120 to make $75 a day.  The job seemed like a decent prospect initially especially considering my present desperation.  It was $75 for a few hours of work a day that would turn into an opportunity to make about $300 a day.  Of course it’s difficult to know.  Suppose I spend the $120 and then he does what the next guy does and tells me there’s no work.  Then the real bad spot I’m in becomes much worse.     

After meeting with the furnace installation guy there was a fake gig posting.  I called the guy and he told me he had doors to load into a hotel.  I went to the site and waited for a half hour, calling and texting and receiving responses that he was waiting for some guys and would be coming out. After a half hour  I left.  As I pulled out of the hotel parking lot I received a text from the person saying he was out there so I drove back around.  He wasn’t there.  I waited a few minutes and left again.  

There was more to this entry that I don’t believe is worth sharing.     


I sent my first batch of solicitations to churches, mosques, and synagogues.  I doubt they’ll be read and if read probably not understood, and if understood rejected based on their investment in their beliefs.  But there is a big list and the possibility even if slim that it will create interest.  It could also create negative interest which could lead to the sale of some books, and possibly some attention.  It serves two purposes in the absence of any result.  First it creates the illusion of productivity, much like these journal entries which I see are occasionally viewed but never lead to any known interest.  The illusion of productivity which feels good.  Journal I suppose is also an outlet in an environment of intellectual isolation.  The second purpose is it’s kind of like the lottery, in the sense that if you buy a ticket you know you’re not going to win, but there is a possibility no matter how slim.  

While religious people are typically closed minded people trying to improve their lives either here or beyond by pleasing a deity imagined to be an all powerful benevolent tyrant, they are people who are interested in life itself.  There’s is a structure built on questions about life and its purposes.  Its a reflection of man’s chosen tyrannical mode of operation and the best tyranny they could imagine, but it demonstrates a desire to know what life is.  An interest in the questions and creation of a faulty structure is better than most people who don’t take what it means to exist seriously.  

It’s an interesting thing to exist.  To wake up in a body and proceed through life.  It’s unfortunate that people proceed through it never really thinking about it because they accept a contradictory ill-advising deity that they don’t even study suffice for an explanation of existence.  

I’m very low on money.  I’m supposed to meet with someone to install furnaces with tomorrow.  It does not feel good.  The opportunity feels good because I do need to make some money but I think why?  Feels like I’m dragging shit out.  Obviously, the religion solicitation is unlikely to do anything, but everything else is pretty much evidence of this species incorrigibility that prevents effective communication.  So how long do I keep myself fucked up out here?  I think about that a lot.  And also understand to non existence to be immoral.  By this point in my life it’s mostly about what I could accomplish with the right spark.  What that means for liberty as a force of consciousness.  

Lastly, I’m extremely disappointed by the reaction to the Bud Light can with a trans-person on it.  There are legitimate public concerns about the gender agenda.  Teaching children that boys are really girls and girls are really boys when transism is the development of values associated with the opposite sex.  Children having trans medical procedures and hormones.  Biological men competing in women’s sports, and probably a few other areas where biological gender distinctions are relevant to preserving privacy and neutralizing disadvantage.  

There is nothing wrong with a person expressing values associated with the opposite sex.  Some people will like it like you, and people will not.  People don’t have to like it, they just need to respect people as people.  For the most part, I believe among people on the right that’s what you have.  Then I see all this backlash for putting a trans person on a can and it delegitimizes the legitimate grievances I mentioned.  Because these people like Kidd Rock are using their platform to hate trans-people.  Now they will say it isn’t about protecting children, it’s about hating trans people.  

It’s pretty late and I don’t want to start going down the road of all the popular soap opera politics, but so much of this seems so intentional.    


I intended to begin a new targeted solicitation but in my current campaign promoting RUSC to economic justice organizations, there are a few things on my mind after reviewing about 40 websites.  These organizations aim to make money by parroting democrats talking points.  At most they provide statistics, but they all seem completely devoid of substance.  Some are promoting race and gender narratives, and most are promoting an us versus the billionaires narrative.  I’ve understood better for such a long time that I forget people are still moved by that.  

There’s never been a period in this country where the interests of wealth and industry did not exercise influence and control over public policy.  There’s no way to separate money and politics because money is the vehicle to promote a message.  That acknowledgement of power is key to developing strategies to achieve a higher quality of life through the creation of adequate opportunities for income.  

Robert Reich, democratic spokesman from the field of economics tweeted that the expulsion of the Tennessee state representatives who led a disturbance at the state capital while advocating for gun control, was between democracy and authoritarianism.  I respond thankfully the constitution puts constraints on democracy because one group controlling the minds of many is authoritarianism through democracy.  

I mention this tweet to explain the constraints and the ones I support and the one’s I do not.  The ones I support is the bill of rights including additional amendments that limit the ability of a law to impose on individuals.  I think we all like that constraint on democracy.  The second constraint I like is the difficulty required to amend the constitution.  I wanted to write more but on Twitter you only get 2 sentences.  

In this situation I like the constraint on preventing a simple majority congressional vote to change the constitution.  It’s in reference to gun control and gun control does not prevent mass killings or shootings, and does not reduce deaths as other weapons have proven as effective as semi automatic rifles at killing and injuring. I won’t go on since the morality of the second amendment is discussed in depth in the previous entry, but I’m thankful the constitution protects people’s right to possess the means to defend their person’s and property.  

For one, I don’t believe these organizations believe in their causes as much as they believe in the appearance of the cause being beneficial to them.  This is based on knowing that when you’re concerned about something you first seek to understand it objectively so you can create a solution to address it.  Promoting issues that are not issues means they have no interest in the issues or at least not in understanding them separate from a popular narrative.  

Suffice it to say I won’t be surprised to be ignored by these groups.  Silence is never a surprise since I know how people operate.  People don’t need to be right about things, they just need to avoid and ignore what shows them to be wrong, and consume reinforcing information and associate in reinforcing circles.  Everything is about appearance, material gain, and image promotion.  

I have another solicitation to send targeting the monotheists and giving them the moral limitations of the creator and introducing them to liberty as the basis to try to help them understand the role of morality in the decision making process.  Hopefully I can sell some books, gain some support and maybe some will stop deceiving their congregation.  

I’ve been checking CL.  Getting near a stressful place. Hope I can find a few days of work.  I don’t really know where I’m going.  I had about a half day landscaping but wasn’t interested in working with the guy after the first day.  I wrote about it in a previous entry.  


This is a different kind of entry.  Two days ago I began writing yet another post lamenting my time on this planet.  As I thought about what I was going to write I thought about a great distinction between my positions on issues from others who take the same or a different position.  My positions are rooted in objective morality and are moral incumbencies for me, whereas other people’s positions are not.  Often people’s positions are taken based on associations with other ideas or people they like, or are taken based on social and image opportunities.  Yet even if it does come from a place of actual interest in the subject, it is rooted in something subjective, even if seemingly moral, like the dictates of a deity, authority based and acted on to gain favor with something that definitely doesn’t exist as they conceive it.  The deity rewards and punishes which means all deity worship is an effort to improve one’s circumstances through supernatural means.  

Fell off topic, but there is an explanation of my position on abortion and gun ownership as moral incumbencies.  I edited the original entry just to include those two issues because it began as something more than I want to express right now, and the explanation within these two examples is worthwhile.  I intended to list more.  The deleted portion began with how the public is distracted with soap opera political narratives that they confuse for being about politics, and social issues, many of which like abortion are not relevant at the federal level.  It’s a matter of state law and the courts, because it will probably be a very long time before a constitutional amendment will be possible.  Even to do that you have to have the support of states.  After the moral explanations on guns and abortion I have a few thoughts on reports about nations attempting to undermine the role of the dollar as the world reserve and trade currency    

There are certain positions I take that are morally incumbent.  Abortion is a moral incumbency to prevent people from beginning life circumstantially imposed upon due to a low household income and a parent or parents who do not possess parental skills and or the parental will.  Since a fetus isn’t conscious it cannot be imposed upon.  A fetus has no experiences, therefore it has no likes or dislikes to be deprived of.  Understanding this I have to support abortion, because abortion is not only an act that does not impose, it is an act that preempts imposition, where being born would predispose the child to circumstantial imposition.    

It’s also a moral incumbency for me to support people’s right to bear arms.  Weapons neutralize physical disadvantages preventing people who are stronger from taking from the weaker, and otherwise imposing on their person and property.  

We also know that other weapons are capable of producing as many if not more casualties than any weapon legal in the United States today.  The most recent mass shooting in Nashville killed 6 people injured 0 others, while a man in Waukesha driving a car into a crowd killed 6 and injured over 60 others.  Gun control does not reduce the number of people who will die from this people, in this country, producing people who want to kill indiscriminately.  

As we see in California, gun control does not stop mass killings, and the state with the strictest gun control laws also has the most mass shootings.  Gun control activists will cite the gun death rate being higher in states with fewer gun laws, but they do not count how many of those killed, died while perpetrating a crime?  I don’t look for the content, but I’ve had 3 videos in the last 2 months of self defense killings in Houston alone.  The gun death rate as a number means nothing.  I’m not implying that any state is close to this but to illustrate, a state could have the highest gun death rate, but if most of those deaths were self defense killings that would be a positive thing because x amount of people were able to prevent themselves from being imposed upon.  

A person’s right to bear arms is rooted in a person’s right to defend themselves, and laws should be designed to ensure a person is legally able to defend their persons and property.  I saw a report today that a man in Washington state shot an intruder who kicked down his door and was approaching him.  The police said he hasn’t been charged with anything but they are working with a prosecutor to see if there is anything to charge him with.  Why?  Either the scene is consistent with how the man described it or it isn’t.  If it is, why would you be looking for something to charge him with?  Maybe the promotion of a gun control agenda where even those who use their guns to protect themselves after someone has forced entry to their home may still be charged.  Yet most people would rather be unharmed and charged than harmed with no charges. 

The point being is the reasoning for gun control is it will somehow reduce mass killings.  That hasn’t been the case, not only does gun control not prevent mass killings, gun control does not prevent mass shootings.  The next lie they believe is that a semi automatic rifle is the most effective killing instrument, but we have numerous examples where arson, a car, and other legal and illegal implements have been just as effective as semi automatic weapons in producing kill and injury counts.  Not to mention mass killings that have been stopped by armed citizens have unquestionably saved lives.  The FBI claimed only 4 percent of mass shootings were stopped by civilians, but an independent review of the data showed 34 percent of mass shootings were cut short by armed citizens.  I don’t remember the explanation and didn’t review the data so I cannot be confident in either statistic. 

 But if it is 4 percent it’s much more than 4 percent, because the question isn’t how many mass shooters were stopped by civilians, the question is how many mass shooters in states with favorable gun owner laws were mass shootings stopped.  For example, if over a span of time California had 20 random target mass shootings and Texas had 10, with 4 stopped by civilians in Texas and 0 in California, overall 13 percent of mass shootings were stopped by civilians.  But in this scenario, 40 percent of mass shootings were stopped in a state that had favorable gun laws.  Again those numbers are illustrative of the question, not actual numbers.  I don’t want people to read that and start telling people 40 percent of mass shootings in Texas were stopped by armed civilians.  

Gun control isn’t about addressing mass killings, the number of people killed and injured when mass killings occur, or making people safer.  Guns are a scapegoat for America’s aptitude for producing people who want to kill others indiscriminately, and for the party it’s a political goal for the sake of a political goal.  Some people are not capable of reasoning themselves out of biases, so they accept that gun control means mass killings won’t happen, typically because it comes from a source associated with a bunch of other false ideas that create the perspective that allows them to get joy from the things they get joy from.  A politician can promote themselves through gun control and write gun control legislation to encourage those who support it to vote for them.  The more public support they can generate the more money they can raise to improve that support.  People believe things because they want to, not because they understand why it is or isn’t.  

I read a few articles about the BRICs and other countries trying to reduce the role of the dollar as a global trade currency and a world reserve country.  Saudi Arabia created a financial partnership with a Chinese entity and China and a few other countries made exchanges in their own currencies.  This isn’t anything new.  The United States derived alot of power and privilege from the dollar being a world trade and reserve currency.  Non-aligned states want to undermine that to reduce US influence and increase their own influence.  It isn’t that easy to do.  

Following WWII after the Brenton Woods conference the value of the dollar was attached to gold and the value of every other currency was pegged to the dollar.  As a result of government spending nations began to make a run on US gold since dollars could be redeemed for gold.  We left the gold standard, but to ensure demand for dollars remained the US made an agreement with Saudi Arabia to only accept dollars for oil.  Everyone needs oil so everyone needed dollars to purchase oil.  Since everyone has and needs dollars, dollars became the currency a lot of international trade takes place through.  Nations keep a great deal of their reserves in dollars because the value does not fluctuate wildly and it’s preferred for international trade.  Instead of having a vault of dollars slowly decreasing in value nations buy Treasury Bonds, which allows the US to have bigger budgets than it would otherwise be able to afford.  Private interests hold more US debt than nations do.  As the global economy increases in size it produces demand for dollars in the form of Treasury Bonds as more production, sales, and profit need a safe interest bearing storage form.  

Where the world is now with the dollar, to reduce the role of the dollar in trade and reserves isn’t as simple as trading in ways that do not involve the dollar and liquidating your reserves.  First the currency used in a lot of international trade isn’t decided by nations, it’s decided by private interests.  Second, there are many more nations subordinate to the US, or whose compliance can be maintained through US favors than there are nations who would turn on the dollar.  Many of those nations have been outliers on the world free market with some like China becoming active fairly recently.  Third, even among non-aligned nations there is still the need to access markets that are most easily accessed or exclusively accessed through dollars.  Fourth, even non-aligned nations need a safe haven to store their reserves within a medium that will maintain its value.  Fifth, many nations like China cannot harm the dollar without harming themselves.  The less value the dollar has the fewer goods Americans are going to purchase abroad, the fewer products American companies will need overseas labor to assemble, or retain for customer service, the fewer raw materials they will purchase and so on and so forth. 

 Like I said it’s very difficult 1st to undermine the role of the dollar in the global economy, and 2nd, to do it in a way that doesn’t harm your own interests more than it harms US interests.    


I went to a landscaping job this morning.  The work was quick and easy and the person I was working for was easy to get a long with but I probably won’t be working for him again.  Cheap mother fucker.  He had us meet him at the home Depot and drive with him to the job so he didn’t have to worry about one of us leaving early,  but he only paid us for the drive to the job site and didn’t pay for the drive time to the second job.  In all it amounted to 12.50 each.  I don’t like doing business on people trying to nickel and dime it when we did 90 percent of the work and just made you a bunch of money.  It costs more in the long run.  

He mentioned the issues that he runs into on craigslist, and some of them I’m familiar with having been in supervisor roles over craigslist workers and as an interstate mover hiring CL labor.  You avoid these issues by not trying to save $25 on labor when you have people who work well.  On the one hand someone says they save $2500 over 100 jobs.  But do you really?  Because if it takes other people 2 more hours that’s $68 so you lost $43, and $4300 over the course of 100 jobs, but you also lost 200 hours.  Not to mention guys showing up late, or as he mentioned, waiting hours for guys who don’t show up at all.  

After he paid us I wanted to tell him I wasn’t coming back because I don’t like that nickel and diming and it’s about the time not the activity, I didn’t want to burn that bridge just in case he had work and I really needed to make money.  It’s unlikely that I will, but circumstances could necessitate it.  

There was a moment that was pretty funny.  I looked on Google maps when I responded to the ad because he said he was looking for someone between two cities outside of Cincinnati.  I thought I chose one that was reasonably close to improve my chances of getting the job.  Distance shouldn’t matter, if I’m willing to drive it for the money being offered don’t worry about it.  Lost a job because of this today.  After I finished the job with him I was eating at subway and saw a moving unload job.  I texted and he asked me where I was at.  He said he was driving there in the ad, and chances are he’s at least an hour out because you’re not going to post your ad when you’re 15 minutes away.  It was in Middletown which I was probably 40 minutes away from.  I couldn’t tell him I was in Middleton if he was going to be at the job before I can get there.  The ad was posted I think 36 minutes prior so he could be close.  He told me he was looking for someone in Middletown.  

While working the landscaping job the other guy asked me where I lived so I stuck with the city I told the guy who hired us.  The funny part is the guy asked me if the prison lights bothered me.  I told him I hadn’t been there long and didn’t see the prison.  He said it’s hard not to see the prison in that town but then the owner said the prison was located somewhere else.  It was funny to me that I happen to pick a town that had such distinguishing structure.   

This is also a good example of a moral lie, in that 1st, because them believing I live where I said Iived has no bearing on their liberty, not in motivation or opportunity, and second, it protects my liberty in not being discriminated against for something that isn’t relevant to the job. We value the truth for it’s utility to liberty. Something I wrote about comprehensively in the book Liberty: The Definitive Moral Truth.  

I responded to an ad for a moving company that was offering $25 per hour.  I responded with the requested information and then they requested more information.  I might respond to them but I’m not looking to become that aquatinted. 

I also responded to a person who wants someone to drive a box truck to Florida.  If it’s worthwhile I would be a perfect person to do it.  

Other than this after I went to the gym I didn’t do shit productive.  Tired.  I argued that Giannis should be the clear cut MVP, leading Embid in every relevant statistical category including ppg when adjusted for minutes, Giannis is a better defender and has led his team to the best record in the league despite the Bucks being without their second best scorer.  Jokic has 4.5 more assists and Giannis has 7 more points per game, he gets to the foul line twice as much putting players and teams in foul trouble and disrupting the opponents coaching strategy and player rotation, and Giannis is the better defender, and the Bucks have the best record despite missing their second best scorer most of the season.  It really isn’t even close, and the media is going to give it to Embid just because he hasn’t had one, despite having no case since Giannis is better than he is at everything in terms of production.  

Need to get money and at least figure out a strategy for solicitation.


I haven’t communicated with dad for about a year and a half, and that was brief interaction related to a particular objective.  Prior to that was probably in the neighborhood of a year, and before that probably 3 years.  I think I recently wrote that I’m indifferent about the relationship I have with my parents and most relationships for that matter.  It’s all rooted in the inability to grasp simple things.  

The other day seemingly out of the blue he sent me an email asking me if I could use a couple hundred dollars.  It was strange to hear from him and even stranger he was offering money.  

He brought up that he read that I had a blood clot, actually it was a lot of them and a pulmonary embolism.  Since I was in need of money I explained that situation and where I’ve been since then, leading into where I am now.  In essence, my failed efforts, including the work to save the money and investing the money and the time to create 0 interest, and establish none of the relationships required to draw attention to OPL.  

I wonder if the organization I contacted recently about my situation contacted him after I sent them an email essentially stating that I’m out here on my own can you help me attract attention to my material.  Maybe it was just a coincidence, but the money he sent gives me a little cushion to reduce the stress of low money no income.  I was down to a few hundred and he put a couple hundred on top of that, which creates a little bit more security short term and that backs a little bit of stress off of me.  Hopefully he feels good about doing that. I may have found some work in landscaping to replenish my funds.

My speech has been fucked up lately, maybe from spending so much time in isolation.  I said the absolute dumbest shit today.  I was a little irritated because I was resting after a set of one movement and about to move onto another piece of equipment but somebody beat me to it.  Then he told me he liked my shirt.  I was wearing the shirt with a rifle that states no one should suffer imposition due to the inability to resist a threat of force.  I guess I was trying to reinforce the idea of the shirt and said some stupid shit. 

I was thinking about recent mass shootings, what I wrote recently, and the morality of the message.  And I said it’s not about the offensive but everyone needs the right to defend themselves.  I felt fucking ridiculous.  And it definitely was appropriate to feel that way.  I remember thinking about the aforementioned ideas as I said it and seemingly spoke without fully connecting those thoughts into a complete idea and an articulate statement.  Everyone has the right needs the means and obviously no one supports using weapons in an offensive capacity. Dumb ass.

This is on the heels of another off verbal interaction. This was less about content and more about cadence.  I was wearing the shirt evils greatest assets ignorance, indifference and bias.  As the shirt goes it’s actually just bias, since a person is ignorant because what they like directs their attention, and most indifference is a product of ignorance. 

At Walmart I went through a line with a cashier because I needed to purchase a prepaid debit card.   The cashier read the shirt and stated that he thinks the media is the problem.  I don’t remember my exact words but I stated that the media makes money to reinforce people’s biases.  That people consume information that reinforces their beliefs and avoid information that challenges beliefs.  The media supplies the demand for deception.  The content was there but my delivery was off. 

It stands out because it’s uncharacteristic of me, especially saying something as stupid as what I said today at the gym.  I should have just told him they sell em at LibertyAndTruth.org 

Understanding the underlying mechanism of the human propensity to consume information that reinforces beliefs and avoiding, ignoring, and rejecting information that challenges beliefs was key in loosening me from factional biases.  I recognized first, that people’s propensity for self deception is responsible for the results that exist in this country on every level.  Secondly, most people in this country if they were positioned to do what politicians, industry, the media, the misleading academics, or any other element that contributes directly to this stratified cesspool of ignorance and stupidity, most people would do the same thing they do.  There are often parallels.  It’s isn’t about the evil that you’ve done, it’s about the evil you would do if you had the opportunity of others.  That’s why I don’t exclusively blame the overt elements of deception and tyranny (overt to me not to most of you, the elements I’ve listed) because it’s facilitated by the public’s bias reinforcing behavior.  


Yesterday there was a mass shooting in Nashville, at a private Christian school.  The shooter was a 28 year old woman who identified as a trans man according to reports and may have been under the influence of male hormones at the time.  7 people were killed including the shooter, 3 9 year old children and 3 staff members.  

I’ve seen the usual headlines attempting to reduce the tragedy to the hormones the woman was taking(unknown at this time  whether she was on hormones or not), mental health, and guns.  As I always say, these incidents are a product of US systems, political, economic, and social.  1 of these events every 10 years is an anomaly, 10 every year is a product.  

When I use the term social system I’m referring to the ways in which people interact with one another and the formation of relationships, which bleeds into human behavior and the formation and maintenance of individual perspectives.  The root of all human problems is self deception.  I typically say self deception and inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money, but that too is a product of self deception where communication is obstructed or attention is distracted and no remedy can move forward.  

I often discuss the mechanism of self deception, which is rooted in a negative feeling identifying threats to value, including self worth that causes people to avoid, ignore, and reject challenging information.  Beliefs serve as the basis for the feelings that people derive from the things they do.  Discovering that a belief is false means they can no longer feel good about the things they do.  An example I’m about to cover is if a person is a Christian, discovering that their deity is false means they no longer get the joy they get from going to church, abstaining from things the deity forbids, telling others about the deity, and it’s tied to their identity.  The more invested they are in a lie the greater the blow is to their self worth.  

Unfortunately the police have not released the shooter’s manifesto.  I’m interested in reading it to better understand her motivation.  The El Paso Walmart shooters manifesto is available online.  I read that I think was only 3 to 6 pages.  Some of his grievances were legitimate but much of it was overblown.  Either way, it was recognition of being imprisoned by popular misconceptions and being powerless to draw attention to the problems he saw and affect change.  He had no solutions, the problems he perceived were overstated, but he did what he did primarily as a person who began to understand that he existed in a nation built on deception.  While it’s another topic altogether, although a person may not have an accurate picture of the world, when they begin to discover that what they’ve been left to believe is untrue it impacts their entire perspective.  Beliefs are internalized through the feelings they produce, and those beliefs are connected sequentially to a variety of other objects, and also connected to objects in the feelings they produce and creating the hierarchy of value.  It’s like a house of cards, where when you pull a card from the bottom it topples the cards.  Then you have to begin restacking and rearranging them.  Not a great analogy, but the point is, a person has to reestablish how they understand the world around them, both in function, and im value.  I’m doing so, so many things become possible and the only way to do it is to be grounded in objectivity.  To reassemble things often the wrong way a lot of times and then learn yourself out of those things until you’ve assembled them correctly.  

What we know about this shooting is that the Shooter identified as trans gender

She attended the the Christian school probably about 15 years prior.

She did not identify anyone in her manifesto.  

Tennessee just passed anti-trans legislation.  

Since all we can do is speculate based on the information that we have I’ll make a few assumptions that may prove false.  

She may have been motivated by the state’s anti trans legislation.  

She may have made the connection that the legislation was motivated by Christian conservatives.  

She may have chosen the school based on prejudice teachings against homosexuality and men expressing interests with things women tend to like and women expressing interests in what men typically like.  It’s safe to say she didn’t have a great experience at the school otherwise even if she planned on targeting Christians in response to the legislation she would have chosen a different target if she had a pleasant experience during her time at the school.  Although I also suspect she chose the school based on the familiarity with the building.  She may have chosen the location based more on familiarity than a negative experience but it’s also true that her experience wasn’t positive enough to not choose it as a target.  

The two elements of the legislation that I am aware and there may be more, is the legislation prevents children from receiving hormone treatment and surgery, and it also makes drag shows illegal.  

The first element I support because I don’t believe children should be making medical decisions that impact their development and will affect them for the rest of their lives.  Children are also persuaded not only by what they are taught in classrooms which in Tennessee is probably not a curriculum including gender identity but what’s available to them on the internet.  Transism for lack of a better term is promoted as a girl who is born a boy and a boy who is born a girl.  There’s no genetic basis for the assertion, and there’s also no basis for a boy feeling like a girl or vice versa because having been born one gender you cannot know if how you feel is how a person of the opposite sex feels generally.  Some people like things that are associated with the opposite sex and the application of those values is transgender.  I don’t have an issue with people being trans.  However, when it’s promoted how it is promoted to young impressionable minds, especially children who may have social issues, not part of a group, difficulty making friends it can be an opportunity for belonging, a way to get attention, social interaction, and becoming part of a protected group.  A group that is perceived by some members of society as disadvantaged and deserving of special treatment.  In addition, exposure to this information can be interpreted as a diagnostic checklist, where the reason they have the difficulties that they have is because they’re actually transgender.  Once that conclusion is reached by a child they may either become it, or ride until they discover otherwise.  But whether they are or are not they shouldn’t be making decisions about their chemical make up and development or surgically modifying themselves until they are adults.  

While some might question what difference it makes if a person is the other gender trapped in the body they were born in, or if they develop and apply likes associated with the other gender?  The difference is if they have doubts they don’t have to kill themselves as many do because they’re too invested in the idea that they’re the other gender in the wrong body.  They can just accept that they liked those things and now they no longer like them.  

On this element of it we have the shooter who is probably too invested in false ideas to recognize that legislation that prevents children from medically changing their gender is a legitimate measure to protect children from harming themselves.  

Because the shooter has probably self indoctrinated trans ideology, there may be no way she can understand and respect this.  I was debating a trans person about a week ago who mentioned that something in the neighborhood of 95 percent of trans people who underwent surgery and hormone treatment reported increased feelings of well being.  It was meta data gathered from all study’s over about a 10 year period.  I pointed out to her that the participants in those studies were probably adults.  It also didn’t provide how long after the treatment the respondents were asked, where if the average time is 1 year after treatment that answer may be different if you ask 5 or 10 years after the treatment.  

I do not support the element of the legislation that effectively bans performances in drag.  There is no public benefit to this legislation.  It’s imposing a subjective preferences onto others, effectively telling people what clothes they are allowed to wear while dancing.  It’s immoral to forbid acts that do not impose.  Of course there’s no way the legislators or the people who support this legislation can be persuaded because their morality is subjective and likely rooted in a false and inconsistent deity.  The explanation is in the legislation, banning performances by male or female impersonators or entertainment that is harmful to minors.  How does a performance in a private establishment that does not permit minors matter if minors are not permitted to witness the entertainment?  More importantly, how does a performance by a male or female impersonator harm children?  It doesn’t, unless you have an irrational belief that it is wrong to be a male or female impersonator, and thus any exposure to a male or female impersonator harms children by suggesting that it is okay.  

As for the Christian component these are the most self deceiving people on the planet.  Not only do they avoid challenging information and are uncritical of what they believe, but the vast majority don’t even study their own religion.  Much like other subjects like politics they accept other people’s opinions and internalize them as fact.  

The bulk of irrational legislation that imposes on the lives of others from the right is rooted in Christian superstitions.  Why is it wrong to be gay?  Because the deity said so.  Why is it wrong to be transgender?  Because the deity said so.  Why is abortion wrong?  Because the deity said so.  That’s a little bit of a stretch since it really comes down to not understanding that a fetus is not conscious which prevents it from being imposed on, but it’s tied to ideas that preventing a person from being born is denying the will of god, and the prolifer ranks are primarily Christians.  

If the law preventing children from accessing trans medical treatment was a motivating factor this is rooted in the self deception of the shooter who refuses to be critical of her position that children are capable of making decisions that will impact their development and effect them the rest of their lives, and the belief that some people are born as the wrong gender.  

If the law preventing performances by male or female impersonators was motivating this is rooted in the legislators self deception that there is something innately harmful to children in seeing a male or female impersonator.  

If it’s motivated by Christianity in general this is rooted in the over 2 billion people in the world who have subscribed to an inconsistent tyrant deity’s doctrine that they refuse to subject to critical examination because of how it makes them feel.  Self deception.  I’ve written about Christianity in books as well as within this journal.  You don’t have to go back too far to find an entry highlighting the stupidity and inconsistencies with the religion.

The United States and human beings generally will continue to produce mass killers.  People who have been alienated from the various herds, people with limited worthwhile opportunities, people who have seen through the bullshit and find themselves with a fringe bullshit perspective, people seeking fame, among other things that a world full of self deception driving the supply of deception produces.  Legislators do not care, and the people (industry) who position the legislators to be elected do not care, because they are largely insulated from the problems that befall the general population.  The narrative is guns, mental health, substances, or anything that draws attention away from societal failings.  The myth of American goodness and the misconceptions that American society is built on has to be maintained to ensure those who benefit from this organization of society and have power will continue to benefit and maintain power.  Christian Nationalists, woke progressives, and the politically indifferent are the preferred groups to maintain the illusion that benefits wealth and power.

Why am I not a mass killer?  If this is the first you’ve read from me that might seem like a strange proposition but if anybody should be killing people indiscriminately it should be me.  I’m being playful there and I don’t care if you find it reprehensible.  Circumstantially, I check every box.  2nd, it’s a serious issue and I’m the only one taking it seriously, while others are praying which is the same as doing nothing, while others are pointing to implements and the substances a perpetrator may or may not have been under the influence of.  

I’ve been homeless for the better part of 9 years, mostly living out of a car but I have had stretches in shelters and sleeping on the streets.  I have an indisputable moral philosophy that is always correct and demonstrates how moral human failings produces human problems.  Through this moral philosophy and the conscious experience deduction and inference can be made about a creator, existence, and the rules of other spaces that are more probable than any other explanation.  I have a theory of the mind which is also indisputable that no one is willing to pay attention to.  I have several books that address popular misconceptions and concisely explain the basic functions of politics and economics.  I created an organization that creates a pathway for legislation that benefits the public to be passed in a system that is directed by industry through political investment.  I have several legislative proposals that will address income opportunities in this country, some that benefit all affected interests, as well as other proposals addressing impediments to individual liberty.  None of these things can be received because people are committed to biases and a non-biased perspective at some point offends all biases.  I also recognize that self deception is a product of moral failings.  I recognize that nearly all people are tyrants.  I’m also hopelessly trapped by these circumstances.  

With that understanding and outlook, it would make sense to most that such a person may be inclined to indiscriminately harm people.  First, self deception produces collective imposition where individuals are harmed circumstantially by individual’s commitments to false beliefs, the obstruction it creates to communication, and the  directing of attention.  While it is fair to say my circumstances are a product of collective self deception, there isn’t one individual solely responsible for my circumstances.  Imposition is justified to prevent or neutralize imposition, or as an implement of justice towards making a party whole after they’ve been imposed upon.  I cannot hold any particular individual accountable for my circumstances (at least not that I’m aware of), and would be wrong for harming people indiscriminately.  I have moral certainty about things that were discovered and developed through objectivity.  That is why Ill kill myself before I’ll kill anybody without a just and direct cause.  


I had a 3/26 entry I deleted and I’ll probably delete the 3/25 entry.  There were a few ideas I wanted to record but some of it is vague, not insightful, or otherwise not really worth posting.  It may be that my funds are moving into a desperate place, and or that these circumstances are taking their toll.  I’ve been wasting time, or numbing myself to my situation in part because in the event of failure leaving Premier this time I planned on checking out.  After canvasing in Vegas and all other efforts to generate any attention or acknowledgement failed, I knew at that point that there was no way to reach these people.  I knew it before, but still held out hope that people could at least recognize their own direct interests and act on it.  And remaining, spending my time primarily distracting myself with simple entertainment has been to keep myself around to see if I come upon any inspiration.  

Take a gamble on people being able to recognize and act on their own interests.  It’s not that I spent the money I spent on it and received absolutely no return, it’s more the fact that communication with this species is impossible.  It is impossible, because of their deep rooted misconceptions that prevent them learning or even being interested in anything that challenges the beliefs that those misconceptions are built on.  That’s why I’m at where I’m at.  

I saw an ad for regular work about 120 miles from where I was at.  I came out here and met with guy I think he said his name was David but I don’t remember.  I might work with him for a little while and try to put some money back in pocket.  I had a better opportunity a few weeks ago, but there’s bullshit that comes with it, and I wasn’t fully sold on continuing within these circumstances.  I’m still not, but it’s the prospect of elevating an entire species, a milestone in human history, in consideration of everything proposed through observation and deductive reasoning.  It’s hard to kill yourself when you’re walking around with that even if nobody wants to see it.  


As the desperation and indecision grow, I decided tomorrow I’ll take some kratom and figure it the fuck out.  I may not, but that’s the plan.  I used to say that a lot, usually while driving, that others driver’s need to figure it the fuck out if they’re driving poorly.  The phrase reminded me of a time when Chris from Premier played me a voice message from some girl.  I don’t remember it exactly but it was something like I kinda feel like this but then I kinda feel like this, and I want to do this but maybe I should do that.  I said she needs need to figure it the fuck out. 😂 

I don’t usually take kratom.  I think I wrote about it before, but I purchased it to motivate me to get things done.  It’s calming, very similar to how hydrocodone makes you feel, and it seems to improve my focus.  If you take it in early you have to take it again in the afternoon or you may become irritable and depressed.  If you take on consecutive days when you stop taking it it can cause you to become very depressed.  I purchased it probably January, took it a few days and stopped to see what the symptoms were, and decided the negative outweighed the positive.  

I’ve had half a jar of it for over two months.  Other than last week where I took some to try to change my mood and stimulate some productive thoughts I haven’t taken it.  But I need to figure something out, because my circumstances are not improving by doing nothing.  I have been out here for a while now with nowhere to go, so I have been slowly going nowhere.  

I have a general criteria, can I make money there, is there a place close by where I can sleep in my car, a planet fitness, and are there any closely contested congressional districts.  It’s difficult because everyplace is the same few brands of ignorance in different proportions, Christian Nationalists, Woke Progressives, and those who are indifferent to how systems shape their individual circumstances and the circumstances of others.  That equals 100% stupidity, that seeks to reinforce that stupidity and avoid, ignore, or reject anything that challenges their faulty beliefs. 


I’ve been wasting so much time for a fairly long time now.  I saw an organization that claimed to help homeless people.  In the desperation that I’m facing I decided to send them a summary of my products, my circumstances, and the circumstances that I’ve existed in for the last 9 years.  The version I sent I edited before I sent it but there may still been some errors, and I said some things that probably would have been left unsaid.  

I mentioned the amount of money I left my job with to try to get OPL off the ground with.  Now that I think about it, I attached the product summary from the seeking a partner solicitation and didn’t completely read it before I sent it.  There’s probably somethings specific to that objective.  I mention how I’ve been estranged from my parents, which I did to say it’s just me.  I get calls from bill collectors, and my daughter.  Otherwise my phone don’t ring.  I’m generally indifferent about my parents, and that’s probably mutual.  I’m also not hurt by these circumstances.  That’s not any macho shit, I’m just not emotionally affected by them.  Maybe if it was someone else I’d be emotionally moved if I understood it from the outside looking in.  The point is I probably could have been a bit more vague and still made the point.  

In my opening paragraph I stated that one of my problems is that people have the attention span of a gnat.  Not a great way to ingratiate yourself or gain sympathy.  I mentioned this to my daughter recently and may have written it in another entry, that people can’t put a post in the ground and follow how it connects to the next one.  And failures to process that certain things that are, cause other things to be not.  

For example, if I open with an explanation of liberty as the basis, that the human constant is that all people want to do as they please at all times.  And since all people can do as they please so long as they are not imposed on, then the basis for right and wrong is whether or not an action imposes.  I’m not giving my opinion, I’m stating a fact unless it can be shown that a person doesn’t want to do what they want to do.  It can’t, because even if you don’t want to do what you want to do, that’s still what you want to do.  

That’s something that’s extremely simple, but if people can’t understand that, then how can they understand circumstantial imposition, collective moral incumbency, or any kind of real problem and solution.  The world takes place through motion, so that’s kind of what I mean by stick a post in the ground, to define an object and understand the effects it produces.  At least in some canvasing situations, there was probably limited ability to understand ideas and even words.  

Not only was it abrasive, it’s probably also inaccurate.  

I’m a little embarrassed that I probably left some errors because I reread an older version.  The version I sent I did some minor editing in the email.  But I don’t remember how much editing I did, I only remember a few key changes so I don’t know if I sent a bunch of errors and I’m talking shit.  I reread the older version because I wanted to edit it to send to other organizations.  

I’ve been exchanging comments on various topics on Facebook.  Some would say social media is a good substitute for social interaction, but in my case a poor outlet for my positions and their basis is better than no outlet.  

Youtube may be more of a substitute for social interaction, where I’m usually commenting on sports where I can be more subjective.  Although I did recently have a serious discussion with a trans person who mentioned some interesting information.  I referenced the conclusion of a meta study she cited in a comment exchange on FB.  My last two journal entries were comments and exchanges, so I didn’t want to put another one in succession and people get the wrong idea that this journal is only that when it’s mostly not. 

I should probably make a separate page for that, I probably have about 20 pages worth of it to post.  I’m already leaning away from it because of how time consuming it.can be.  Yesterday I posted a summary and then had to provide the references for the summary which included excerpting a portion of a book.  It’s a good excerpt.  I should put it in my excerpt sections.  Point is there were a few different posts I started to comment on and then decided not to because I understood the unappreciated depths I would have to go to either  make the point in the comment or respond to the anticipated replies.  

I need to figure something out.  So I need to spend a little less time keeping myself entertained with these social media lectures and debates.  I was outside of St. Louis.  I stayed there much too long.  It was a place I found work regularly about a year ago.  As I left the rest area I stayed at there was a cop with his lights on on the median by the turn around.  I didn’t want to turn around to go to the gym and drive past him so I kept going.  Now I’m near a smallish town but will probably be moving on soon enough.  The requisites on where I go consists of a rest area with a planet fitness near by, and I’m working my way towards somewhere where I can make few dollars and maybe apply for an EBT card.  

Tomorrow I need to find more organizations to send that solicitation to.  


In a futile effort to promote OPL and RUSC as well as keep myself occupied I’ve joined Facebook groups and I’ve been posting, commenting, and participating in comment exchanges.  As expected there is very little understanding or effort to understand anything.  Most of these groups are meme posts about tabloid politics and keeping with biased reality TV like narratives.  

I’ll be posting some of my comments and exchanges to highlight the obstruction to communication due to bias.  I mentioned a study from a neuroscience magazine that was a psychology.study.  I mentioned it because I agreed that people do have different conceptions of words that can obstruct communication.  It’s laughable that the title was why we disagree so much.  As if differing conceptions.is the main obstruction to communication and not bias.  As mentioned in that post that differing conceptions of words and ideas is easily overcome.  Disagreement primarily stems from efforts to maintain beliefs and perceptions.  

The following is a good example of that.  There’s a woman who has a problem with what I’m promoting not because she understands it and doesn’t believe it will do what it does or thinks there is something harmful about it.  I believe her problem is that I came into her group and she was threatened by my intelligence.  This probably happens more often than I think it does.  

The following is my post and the exchange that ensued.  

Orion Simerl Post

The Organization for Popular Legislation creates and promotes legislation that serve popular interests with an emphasis on increasing income opportunities and addressing other quality of life issues.  The legislation will be passed by forming voter blocs within the 30 to 40 districts that have been decided by fewer than 25,000 votes over the last few elections.  While 30 seats doesn’t pass legislation on its own, what it does do in most election cycles is decide control of the house, which is important enough to the parties and their donors to support OPL legislation.  If one party refuses the other party will win and keep the house.  Chances are, the parties will neutralize OPL by supporting OPL legislation.  This will create a highway for passing popular legislation.  

This should either excite or concern you.  You’re excited if you understand that important public policy is decided through political investment, and recognize how OPL will pass legislation despite those circumstances.  Then you should be interested or concerned about what this organization is trying to pass.  

We have our outlines and petitions on the website.  We seek to accomplish transformational legislation as it relates to improving income opportunities.  Our 1st priority is The Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive.  

Sara Overton Comment 1

How exactly is this a “good thing”?

Where does the Constitution specifically give the federal government this authority?

Orion Simerl Comment 1

Apparently you misunderstand.  The constitution has created a system with 2 chambers of Congress and an executive branch occupied by representatives who have been delegated the responsibility to legislate.  Functionally, representatives, senators, and presidential candidates are selected by industry through campaign contributions that allow them to be competitive.  The result is that industry decides public policy and citizens are contented by a soap opera consisting of largely irrelevant issues and coverage that have little to no impact on their interests.  

OPL is using the election mechanism to force legislative concessions that benefit the public.  It does this by targeting contested districts so 20,000 or fewer people in different states can decide the outcome of house seats.  In doing so it will force parties to support OPL legislation, allowing popular interests to be served despite public policy being primarily driven by industry.  

If your comment was in reference to the roundup service charge congess has the authority to pass laws and appropreate funds.  The Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive incentives businesses in retail and fast food to implement a service charge by covering the additional amount the business will pay in payroll tax from the service charge, and also offers a tax credit that is paid for by the additional income tax created through additional wages paid to employees.  

Round Up Service Charge for a nominal cost to the consumer 1: raises the wages of people employed in retail and fast food by about $4 to $15 per hour, 2: it will raise the wages of unskilled workers through it’s impact on the labor market, 3: it will allow businesses in retail and fast food to retain more profit, 4: it will increase federal revenue through additional income tax collected from higher wages, 5: it will reduce federal spending as 10s of millions of people earn higher wages and no longer rely on government assistance.  

If you’re asking how RUSCTCI is a good thing I’d have to know what among those points you have a problem with.  

If you’re asking how OPL is a good thing it serves as a vehicle through which public interests can be accomplished in a federal government that otherwise functions through industrial investment in politics.

Sara Overton Comment 2

I haven’t misunderstood anything. Again. Point to the exact location in the Constitution that gives the federal government this authority. You do realize that if the Constitution doesn’t specifically give them this authority, then they don’t have that authority, right?

And now for the “popular legislation” premise. That is not how our government works. And this is exactly why the government makes people believe that we have a democracy. We don’t. There is a huge difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. We have a constitutional republic. The biggest difference is that the “majority” or the “popular” idea doesn’t “rule” our lives or the government. Which is your whole premise here. 

I have “a problem” with this whole premise. It’s up to each individual company to determine how much each employee makes for their position. It’s up to the employees to decide if they will work for the amount offered. Why do you believe that the government has any say in the matter? And why in the hell should I have to pay more outrageous fees so the company can pay the employees more? How can you guarantee that the company would pay them more?

OPL is no different than any other organization that believes they are “helping” the people.

Orion Simerl Comment 2

Note: I wanted to explain why it was necessary to improve wages, and why employees work for substandard wages. I probably shouldn’t have.  She hasn’t read the proposal since she says how can the government make sure the businesses are paying and as will become evident she still thinks the proposal is the government forcing a round up charge.  I lost focus a little in this response, mainly because she seems to be asking what authority congress has to make law and appropriate tax dollars.  

Again, Article 1 section 7 enumerates Congress with the power to pass laws with presidential approval including the appropriation of funds.  

The federal government has the authority to incentive businesses to take action that benefits the public.  It’s called a subsidy, and a good portion of government spending is appropriating your tax dollars to businesses, of course typically without any direct benefit to the public.  

Clearly your source of indoctrination has not provided you any understanding of how a labor market functions and the negative byproducts of living in a nation where much of the population has inadequate opportunities for time and money.  I mean you talk about the constitution and apparently you don’t understand that congress has the power to create law and appropriate funds.  

An individual’s ability to improve their income is largely determined by the amount of time and money that they have.  Evident by social mobility (studies) that shows 2/3rds of people who begin in the bottom 40 percent of income earners remain in the bottom 40 percent, and the higher an individual’s income is the greater the likelihood that they will move to a higher bracket.  

If most of an individual’s time is spent earning an income that only covers their expenses they will never have the time or money to improve their income.  They are trapped in those circumstances.  Which is responsible for a great deal of crime, drug dependency and other negative results we have in society.  Furthermore, an individual’s circumstances are largely determined by systems, and systems exist through collective consent and participation.  Systems that produce trapping circumstances are collective imposition on those individuals.  It is morally incumbent on the people of a nation to ensure adequate opportunities exist for people to have time and money.  

You pretend that people are working for wages in an environment where if people were not satisfied with their wages they wouldn’t work and companies would raise wages.  Participation is a matter of survival.  More importantly, when a company earns more money they don’t pay their employees more.  They pay them whatever people have shown they will work for to do that particular job in a particular area.  

You’re talking about exorbitant fees.  A round up service charge on retail and fast food purchases is far less than the cost of goods has risen in the last year from inflation.  

We have an opportunity to raise the wages of about 50 million people in this country substantially, while saving about 500 billion dollars on the federal budget in increased revenue and decreased spending.  And you can’t understand any of it because you’re only interested in bias promotion.  

You exist between nationalist talking points that don’t apply to substance.  OPL is like nothing the people of this country or any other has ever seen.  Otherwise it wouldn’t consist of substance, it would consist of the vague rhetoric and platitudes that resonate with a politically illiterate public.

Sara Overton Comment 3

Note: I thought I took a screenshot of her 3rd comment before she deleted it but I must not have.  I don’t remember everything that was in it, but the part I’m going to paraphrase she restates in a future comment.  The comment began with show me where it says in the constitution that the government can appropreate a private company’s funds.  It’s odd she resumed the position later on because I believe she deleted her comment after I posted my response.  

Orion Simerl Comment 3

Where have I said anything about the federal government appropriating the funds of a business?  You don’t even understand the proposal.  Hilarious.  

You’re for lower wages, more people relying on government benefits, less tax revenue, less profitable businesses, a weaker economy, and are opposed to a legislative proposal you clearly don’t understand because nothing I’ve said involves the government telling a business what to do with their money.  

If a business implements a round up service charge that is distributed to their employees the proposal provides them a refund for the cost of the additional payroll tax, the cost of which is covered by the additional income tax collected through the increased wages, and they would also receive a tax credit in the amount of 50 percent of the additional income tax generated from the round up wages.  A Walmart worker would earn about $6.25 more per hour.  This amounts to an additional $1560 more per year they pay in federal income tax.  Payroll tax increases by $996.  From the income tax paid the employers payroll tax for the additional round up wages is refunded.  This leaves $564 left per employee.  Half is given to the business as a tax credit for implementing the service charge and raising their employees wages.  The other half is kept by the federal government.  Based on Walmart employing 1.6 million store associates in the US Walmart retains 459 million dollars and the federal government makes 459 million.  

That’s what I’m talking about and none of that is the government deciding how a private business is going to spend it’s money.  

If you ever want to know what’s wrong with this country, find a mirror.

Sara Overton Comment 4

“Sara Overton Where have I said anything about the federal government appropriating the funds of a business? 😂. You don’t even understand the proposal.  Hilarious.”

Except, that’s exactly what you are proposing. Let’s see. 

* You are proposing that Congress pass a law for businesses to “round up” the price consumers pay. Check. 

* You are proposing that Congress pass a law that tells private businesses what to do with those “round up” charges. Check. 

* You are trying to justify that Congress has this authority by proposing more taxation without representation just so it “might” fall under Article 1 Section 7. Because the government doesn’t already tax the shit out of the people. And that would be the only way it might fall under Artical 1 Section 7.  But that is questionable too. Check. 

Please explain how the government would not be appropriating the funds of private businesses by this proposal? Can you even do that without your pathetic ad homenim attacks?

“You’re for lower wages, more people relying on government benefits, less tax revenue, less profitable businesses, a weaker economy, and are opposed to a legislative proposal you clearly don’t understand because nothing I’ve said involves the government telling a business what to do with their money.”

Oh goodie. More ad homenim attacks. Are you sure that you are trying to get people to agree with your proposal? Because ad homenim attacks are not the way to get anyone to agree with you. It is also against the rules that you agreed to when you joined this group. This will be your first warning. 

The fact remains that you do not know enough about me to attempt to tell me what I’m “for”. Nor have I said anything about my personal beliefs. I’m simply asking you to prove where the federal government has the authority to do this, in which you haven’t been able to answer. Go figure. 

“If a business implements a round up service charge…”

Because of a law that the federal government made. Again, how exactly is that not the government telling a private business how to appropriate their funds again?  

“That’s what I’m talking about and none of that is the government deciding how a private business is going to spend it’s money.”

Again. From a proposed law from the federal government. That tells a business what to do with this money. So yes. That is exactly what you are proposing. 

“If you ever want to know what’s wrong with country find a mirror.

Wow. Again with even more ad homenim attacks. All because you believe that is the only way to “bully” someone into agreeing with you. And again. That’s not how this group works. Nor is it any way to get people to agree with any proposal you make. 

Now. Let’s address this “popular legislation” premise. Why do you believe that the people even want, or agree, with this proposal?

Orion Simerl Comment 4

Not passing a law telling businesses to round up the price of customer purchases and making them distribute it to their employees.  

Passing a law that provides a tax refund and tax credit if a business considered high volume transaction decides to implement a round up policy according to the specifications of the law.   

That’s like saying Congress doesn’t have the authority to subsidize renewable energy because they’re telling businesses how to invest their money.  It’s the same thing.  It is an incentive for the businesses to make more money by doing something that benefits the public.

Pointing out that you clearly don’t understand the proposal isn’t an ad hominem attack, it’s the correct conclusion based on your assertion that providing an incentive to encourage a business to do something is Congress appropriating the funds of a business.  

As for where I get that people want or agree:

Higher wages 

Decreased government spending

Increased tax revenue through higher wages to reduce deficit spending and the need to sell bonds.  

Check the polls.  Are there any where people respond that they want more government spending, lower wages, decreased federal revenue, lower profits for businesses?

Note: Now her buddy entered the conversation. 

Skot Curtis Comment 1

The problem isn’t with your proposal per se, the problem is that you think the government needs more of the peoples’ money. 

This is nothing more than a cash grab from the people, so the government can have more money to waste. 

The problem isn’t that the government doesn’t have enough of our money, the problem is the Congress spends because they are not responsible with our money. 

Your proposal does nothing to solve this problem, but takes more money out of my pocket. What problem are you trying to solve with this?

Orion Simerl Comment SC 1

The problem it solves is raising the wages of about 40 million people in this country.  Those who earn on average 24,000 per year will make 35 to 45,000.  Addressing the root cause of nearly all problems, which is inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money at an average cost to the consumer of $10 to $15 per month depending on how many in store retail purchases they make or how often they eat fast food.  It will reduce spending as people’s wages increase and far fewer are dependent on government benefits.  I don’t know if you’re aware of this but we sell over a trillion dollars of government bonds on an annual basis to pay our bills, meaning we need more revenue and less spending.

Skot Curtis Comment 2

Did you forget that this round up tax will have to be paid by the very workers you are trying to help every time they buy something? 

Note: I probably provided a poor estimate of the average monthly cost to the consumer.  The truth is it’s difficult to estimate because unlike Skot claims, it isn’t every time someone buys something.  In order for a business to qualify for the tax credit for implementing a round up service charge, that business must average 5 in person transactions per employee per hour.  Not all stores meet this criteria, and not all purchases that people make are in store.  It’s difficult even if it were all purchases to get the data for the average amount of purchases made per month by people in the bottom 50 percent of the income distribution, much more difficult to know how many of those purchases are from business considered to be high volume transaction businesses.  I believe a more accurate answer to be closer to $20 to $30 than $10 to $15.  Either way, most people can afford that and it’s much less than people have experienced from inflation over the last few years and the people who cannot afford $20 to $30 will be able to afford it after RUSC is implemented.  

Orion Simerl Comment SC 2

It’s not a round up tax, it’s a service charge.  Yes, and anyone who cannot afford to pay an extra $10 a month will be better able to afford it through the implementation (of RUSC) , especially those workers in retail and fast food who will benefit most.  Let’s see $12 per hour but save $10 a month on round service charge, or $20 per hour but then they have to pay $10 a month in service fees for retail and fast food purchases.  As wages increase for people in retail and fast food it will cause companies who hire unskilled workers to increase wages since they will be competing for unskilled workers in retail and fast food.

Sara Overton Comment 5 

You telling me I don’t understand the proposal simply because I question congresses authority over this proposal is ridiculous.  That’s no different than saying if she doesn’t agree with me she must not understand it.  Which at best is a childish and immature argument.  

However, you have proven you don’t understand the constitution or the limitations of government with your assertions.  

I want you to forget about this proposal and focus on the legality here.  Prove to me that the constitution allows for the government to make a law like this.  

Orion Simerl Comment 6 

It isn’t a disagreement.  A disagreement would be you stating the proposal won’t do something I claim it does.  I believe you understand the proposal but are too invested in your position on a (previous) misunderstanding to admit it.  

Congress can offer tax credits and tax refunds to encourage businesses to do things.  

You stated the proposal is Congress telling businesses how to spend their money and telling them what to do.  By now you should understand you were wrong.  It is a tax refund and credit to incentivize businesses to implement a round up service charge.  The authority is derived from congress’s power to make law including tax law. Article 1 section 7 and the 16th Amendment.  

Note:. There were a few other comments I wasn’t able to capture.  One where she tried to use my statement to Skot where I said it wasn’t a tax it was a service charge to make the case It was telling businesses what to do and I couldn’t have it both ways.  In one of my own comments I lost I mentioned examples of tax refunds and credits for renewable creation.  She responded that it was because of people like me that Congress did those things.  Her position evolved from congress doesn’t have the authority to provide tax credits but it does them anyway.  She essentially acknowledged that Congress does and could implement the proposal.  The last comment I have is Skot Curtis and my response to him.   

Skot Curtis Comment 3

You’re ignoring the basic problem.  Your service charge will hurt the very people you claim to help.

They frequently use retail and fast food services

(He posted a gif with a picture of a salad that read word salad blah blah blah

Orion Simerl Comment SC 3

How is a retail or fast food worker hurt by an expense that amounts to somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 per month when their income increases by $1000 per month?  


There is a political Facebook group I’m a member of where someone shared a post implying that systemic racism is a problem in the US.  Below is my comment refuting the idea 

 Systemic racism does not exist.  

Begin with policing which is commonly erroneously cited as an example.  To qualify racism in policing you need to provide examples of something from the interaction with an officer and suspect that demonstrates treatment was motivated by race or a poc suspect being treated differently than a white suspect based on similar behavior.  I’m not aware of even one example.  

But suppose there were examples.  Considering there are 55 to 65 million police contacts per year you will need an awful lot of examples to claim there is systemic racism in policing.  Systemic means there are elements within a system working to produce a particular result.  If you had 100 examples it doesn’t represent a systemic problem because these results are the exception to what the system produces, not the product where 99.9999 percent is not producing that result. 

 Do we all already know about the bs study that implied black suspects were twice as likely to be shot by the police as white suspects?  Where the reason was based on black people being only 13 percent of the population but representing 28 percent of police shootings?  But failed to mention both white and black suspects were shot in the same proportion of crimes they committed.  Black people committed 28 percent of the crimes and represented 28 percent of police shootings, and white people committed 55 percent of the crimes and represented 55 percent of police shootings.  Numbers are accurate within a percentage point.  I didn’t refer back to my material for the actual numbers   

Black people committed a disproportionate amount of crimes because a greater proportion of black people are poor from past systemic racism, and beginning poor predisposes people to criminal behavior.  Now some people cite this discrepancy to claim there is ongoing systemic racism since black people have not been able to close the income gap.  But why are there poor white people? 

There are at least twice as many poor white people in this country as there are poor black people.  This is because we live within an economic system where an individual’s opportunities for income largely depend on the amount of money he has.  Obviously an individual’s developmental opportunities also largely depend on the household income an individual is born into.  More importantly, when a person’s income opportunities are only sufficient to cover their expenses, they don’t experience any wealth accumulation to pass down to succeeding generations.  We have poor white people because being born poor predisposes a person to being poor.  

Although there is a greater proportion of black people who are poor, they don’t remain poor because they are black, they remain poor because they are poor.  2/3rds of people who begin in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution remain in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution. 

Some people cite the unemployment rate of black people being higher than that of white people as evidence of systemic racism.  The trend shows the opposite.  As unemployment rises in recession and falls during expansion, if there was a preference for white workers when down sizing occurs the black unemployment rate should rise dramatically and the white unemployment rate should significantly lag behind since companies would be firing the least desirable people.  If there is a preference for white workers they would retain white workers and fire black workers.  And when growth occurs and unemployment falls the black unemployment rate should lag behind significantly since there is an abundance of white workers seeking employment.  But we don’t see that.  Over the last 30 years the unemployment rate by raise rises and falls pretty equally by race.  Which essentially nullifies the biased studies related to prejudices in hiring.

 And why are a greater proportion of black people unemployed?  Because a larger proportion of black people begin poor and poor people have fewer worthwhile opportunities.  Like most false assertions of racial causation, if we control for class, and compare the unemployment rate for white people who begin poor and black people from the same beginning income grouping, we probably arrive at a similar unemployment rate.  

There was a study that showed white defendants had better outcomes in criminal justice proceedings.  This is because as a whole white people have higher incomes, which is more than being able to afford a lawyer but the circumstances that impact the decisions of the state and the judge.  The study also found that Asians had better outcomes than white people which means race is not the cause of the better outcomes.  Asians have the highest median income in the country, so Asian defendants are more likely to benefit from circumstances that produce confidence in the state and judge that the defendant will not reoffend leading to better outcomes 

 Systemic racism does not exist.  Black people are not discriminated against in policing, criminal justice proceedings, education, employment, housing, or access to services public or private.  Most of this comes from my book Racial Perceptions so I do have citations available upon request.  Race is the greatest tool of distraction and division to ensure class goals are not at the forefront.  Inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money is the issue, not racism. 


I was considering how the tone of these entries over the last few months is similar to someone trapped on Island, lost in the wilderness, or otherwise in a situation they cannot get themselves out of.  That is essentially what my circumstances are.  

This isn’t none of that whether you think you can or you think you can’t you’re right bull shit.  It’s the reality of the circumstances, the mechanisms of human function and the intergenerational investment into popular misconceptions.  

I get notifications about neuroscience studies that I read sometimes as some of it is evidence of things I describe through Assignment, Sequencing, and comparison, and I see if there is any findings that contradict or provide insight into a function of ASC.  For example, there was a study few months ago that showed memories were stored in three portions of the brain, one of which was emotion.  Assignments of value are made based on the feelings associated with objects, and the areas of the brain used to store memory attest to that function.  I haven’t come across anything that is contradictory.  

Today there was an article that essentially found that people have difficulties communicating because they have different conceptions of the meaning of words, and often assume others have the same interpretations as they do.  This is something I generally do not do, because I have general understanding of popular misconceptions and the implications of those misconceptions in understanding things.  

I can clear that hurdle because everything I describe is motion, but it requires a level of attention that cannot be gained because these misconceptions make it unimportant or threatening.  Bias and self deception, the desire to protect beliefs that give value to objects doesn’t allow for communication to take place to reconcile the different conceptions of words or ideas.  Otherwise, without the mechanism to protect beliefs to protect the value of objects, people would be able to communicate functioning conceptions to one another and compare it to the observed motion.  

The point being is it’s like being trapped on an island when you know people cannot understand you, both because their perspective of consists of things that are not true that as the study suggests impacts the literal meaning of what you’re saying, but more so because what they may manage to understand will be rejected based on their preference to maintain their perspective, to ensure they can continuing doing the things that cause them to feel good.  As in many objectives derive feelings from beliefs and discovering a belief is false or bad means it cannot supply feelings for the objects and objectives it supplied feelings for.  Sometimes there are self worth implications for beliefs depending on the investment in the belief or if it is associated with one’s identity.  

Today I saw a young man with a hoodie on that read god before everything.  I was initially angered by the hoodie, mainly because it is blind submission to a fictitious tyranny, and also because of the consequences it has collectively for people interpreting the world and existence through that lens.  If you believe that a supernatural power intervenes in human affairs it limits your ability to understand that all the results on this planet are a product of human decision making and other natural causes.  If you think the deity will benefit you in the survival of consciousness after death you’re wrong there too because morality isn’t your deities’ subjective preferences, morality is a determinant of conscious motion, and separate spaces would exist to accommodate morality based on liberty and morality based on tyranny.  

He wears the hoodie for image promoting purposes.  First, he perceives his deity as perceiving him more favorably for wearing the hoodie stating he puts the deity before anything.  He may also perceive others as perceiving him more favorably.  These perceptions increase self worth and produce good feelings, subtly when the decision is being made to create, purchase, or wear the hoodie and also when he’s paying attention to the fact he’s wearing it.  Very subtle positive feelings, and most feelings we experience are subtle.  He also probably experience boosts in self worth through his perception of himself in ideas about him being what he thinks is good by wearing the hoodie.

Let’s say I decide I’m going to give him an impromptu lecture on his deity being an inconsistent tyrant, and a run down of morality and liberty.  Wearing that hoodie is one objective tied to that deity, but there are countless others that reduce the things in life he can get joy from.  The truer he is to that slogan, the more impactful the destruction of that belief in his deity will be.  If the conversation takes place it won’t be long before he tells me to leave him the fuck alone, or he becomes quiet, ignores everything I say, and he’s still rocking God before everything and maintaining false beliefs about the world and existence.  

I’ve been that guy before.  I would hear or see something,inject myself into it and get into arguments.  There are an abundance of opportunities.  But it didn’t do anything for me.  People can have no argument or factual basis for their beliefs or position and walk away choosing to believe it after it has been destroyed.  A lot of people running around with a mind full of 2+2 is 5s.  And they don’t want to know any different.

If the journal sounds like the journal of a man trapped on a deserted island it’s because it is essentially that in the sense that people you cannot have meaningful communication with is about the same as being in a place with no people.  Meaningful communication is communication in the interest of advancing liberty and truth in the utility it has for improving the quality of human life.  

I usually go to Walmart after the gym and buy a rotisserie chicken and a 24 ounce container of cottage cheese.  About 225 grams of protein.  There was a young man out there looking under the hood of his car when I went into the store and he was still there when I came back out.  I have jumper cables and some tools so I asked him if he needed a jump?  He said he was looking for his power steering, and said his power steering went out.  He was on the phone presumably with his dad or someone who knew about cars.  He was looking for his power steering reservoir, probably advised that if his power steering wasn’t working it may be because he didn’t have any fluid.  I looked under his hood, located his coolant reservoir, his brake fluid reservoir, but stopped looking when I noticed it was a Buick probably less than 10 years old.  I asked him the year and he said 2013.  Buick is made by GM and I have a 2012 Chevy Malibu.  I have electronic power steering, so he probably does too.  It’s very unlikely that GM would continue to manufacture cars with hydraulic power steering after introducing electronic power steering.  

I’ve had an issue with my power steering for a few months now.  The torque sensor is bad so sometimes the wheel will occilate if I take my hands off it.  The power steering works by sensing the torque on the steering wheel and assisting the direction.  When the sensor gets bad it sends the wrong signals about the direction of torque on the steering wheel, and it will shut off sometimes.  Mine cuts on and off.  

I told him he can drive without power steering.  It sucks but the wheel turns a little easier when the car is in motion.  He seemed incredulous when I told him that but it’s true.  I’ve driven my car on many occasions without power steering.  

As I drove off I forgot to tell him a trick that usually works for me.  As soon as you start the car turn the wheel and it will usually kick the power steering on, sensing the torque on the steering wheel before the bad signals without any movement on the wheel disables the power steering.  I briefly considered turning around to tell him but he may have a different issue.  Could be a fuse, a relay, or it could be the system itself.  The shitty thing about it at least for me is if you replace the torque sensor you have to spend like $300 to take it to the dealer to have the new one calibrated.

I’ve been spamming the solicitation I posted on the previous entry.  Targeting posts from people looking for jobs in marketing and sales.  My expectations are not high but there’s a chance someone will understand enough to want to understand more and will be able to sell it.  There’s also a chance they could read the journal and understand enough to be able to promote a fundraising campaign.  That could work out in the sense that they could take a commission from the funds raised and then I would in have the funds to pay them for future work within the organization.  

I’m just about through the resumes on the site I’m using across the country.  While it hasn’t yielded any response I’m fairly confident that it has produced website views.  I don’t have a tracker on OPL but I do have one on L&T.  I typically.get a few page.hits per day on the L&T site and usually.these are home page hits.  But yesterday I had a good amount of hits on this journal page and on the book excerpts page and books as a category.  The previous day I had hits on just about every page which suggests that these solicitations have produced some interest in the website.  

I suspect the interest could just as well be someone thinking I’m a domestic terrorist looking for something that suggests I’m dangerous within the pages.  Not dangerous, I mean I am dangerous but not in a violent threatening terrorist way.  Dangerous in my ability to understand, apply, and articulate truth, which is definitive in identifying the causes of motion.  


 It’s probably been about a week now since I wrote that I planned on putting together a pitch.  I’ve developed some very poor habits through my demoralization from things not going as they should have. By poor habits I mean wasting time. RUSC was rejected from another journal which is absolutely crazy to me.  I’m proposing a way to raise the income of the bottom 50 percent of income earners while also adding half a trillion dollars per year to the federal budget.  I don’t know how the idea isn’t relevant to economics where it can be subjected to criticism.  It can’t be subjected to criticism other than emphasizing the cost to the consumer.  But for those who are in the top 50 percent they’re not going to notice it, and those in the bottom 50 percent will benefit from better income opportunities and also will not notice it.  It guarantees the results, higher wages for retail, fast food, and unskilled workers, greater retention of profits for businesses in retail and fast food, increased federal revenue, and decreased federal spending.  And these fucking journals recording largely meaningless measurements will not review something that would create the single greatest increase in wages for the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution in American history. 

That’s been my experience.  Ignored or rejected without explanation because I am right about everything (not sports, that’s a place where exercise bias and many disputes are subjective).  That’s a product of objectivity, because when I discover I’m wrong about something I adopt the correct position.  That’s something most people can’t do.  

I tried hitting the ground running in Elgin, because I knew I didn’t have much time to make something happen.  Contacted media, contacted political parties, contacted businesses, universities, economic organizations, and in person to people who work in fucking retail and fast food.  Did more of this in Las Vegas.  It’s shocking.  I guess maybe not more so than rejections of Liberty as the Basis for Objective Morality, or the complete lack of interest and effort on Assignment, Sequencing and Comparison, just the decision to not acknowledge it without any explanation.  

I’m in a real bad spot now.  Spending too much time distracting myself from these circumstances, mainly because it seems impossible to reach you puppets.  If you don’t why you do what you do, and don’t subject what you think to critical examination you’re not controlling your strings.  

 I wrote the following intent on soliciting business consultants.  I don’t know how many of them will actually read it, but it seems like something.  I mean free lance business consultants.  Where a consultant may provide services on commission basis or under a partnership agreement if they believe they can market the products.  Otherwise, as freelance business consultants they may have clients looking for opportunities to be involved in this kind of business.  

It’s a long shot, but there’s also the possibility that I sell a few books if they read the product description.  Everything is a long shot.  You want to reach people you have to reach em through their phones.  And even then you can’t give them 2 and 2 and expect them to find 4.  

The following is part 1 of my solicitation which is the product description.  If anybody is interested, I have a field operation plan I’ll send them next including a summary of what I’ve done and the results.  

Solicitation Product Summary:

            If there is an opportunity to attach yourself and profit from a milestone in human history by being one of the first to participate in the promotion of it’s elements does that interest you? 

My name Orion Simerl, and I am the founder of the Organization for Popular Legislation, owner of two websites OPLnow.com and LibertyAndTruth.org, an author of 7 books, 1 screenplay, about a dozen legislative proposals, and I have a journal with entries that date back about 5 years.

I’m looking for someone who will assist in promotion and strategy for a portion of the proceeds, or through deferred invoices payable contingent on the establishment of proceeds.  The ultimate goal of these sales is to fund campaigns for quality of life improvement, through insight, education, and legislation. 

The ceiling is high in terms of personal gain as well as the good that may be accomplished.  

The contents of this email is a product summary. If there is interest I also have a business plan and summary of my efforts.    

I’m beginning with a legislative proposal called the Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive.  I’m beginning with a proposal from The Organization because to understand the significance and potential of the Organization for Popular Legislation you have to have an idea of the legislation it is promoting.  

Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive.  

The RUSCTCI will 

*Increase the wages of roughly 50 million people by about $3 to $15 per hour, 

*Increase the retention of profits for fast food, retail businesses,

*Increase federal tax revenue, 

*Decrease federal spending.  

A round up service charge is a charge in the amount of the difference between a customer’s total and the next dollar.  For example, if a customer’s total is $44.68 the customer would pay $45.  The service charge of $.32 would be distributed to the employees working at the location at the time of purchase.  

         The service charge will substantially increase the wages of people who work in high volume transaction industries(1), like retail and fast food.  We’ve estimated a full time Walmart store associate would earn about $6.25 (2) more per hour if Walmart implemented a RUSC.  Many workers would likely earn more since the amount a person earns from RUSC is determined by the number of transactions per employee on site.  If a gas station attendant averages 30 transactions per hour he or she would earn about $15 more per hour.  In addition to RUSC increasing income for people in retail and fast fast food, other companies who hire unskilled workers will have to pay more to compete for labor. 

1: A High Volume Transaction Industry (HVTI) is defined as a business that averages 5 in person transactions per employee per hour.  

2: As of January 20th, 2020, it is estimated that Walmart locations average about 10,000 car visits according to The Institute of Transportation Engineers. Not all cars entering a Walmart parking lot are there to make purchases.  I’m assuming there are 9,000 transactions per day, and about 45 people working per shift (according to a Walmart manager) Presuming the store is open 16 hours per day the total daily service charges would be split between 90 workers.  Since there is no greater likelihood that a total will be closer or further away from the next dollar the average round up is $.50.  $4500 split amongst 90 workers is $50 dollars per person, or an additional $6.25 per hour.    1/9/2020  8th and Walton. 8th and Walton is a consulting firm that contracts with Walmart that published the findings of The Institute of Transportation Engineers  https://www.8thandwalton.com/blog/walmart-foot-traffic/ Stephen Comeau managed the electronics department in a Walmart from 2013 to 2020 and reported about 45 workers present during a typical shift.  This testimony was used to source an estimate of the number of employees working during a typical shift, and in person interviews yielded a similar estimate range where I was told 30 to 60 employees working during business hours at a given time, depending on the time of day, day, and time of year https://www.quora.com/How-many-Walmart-employees-are-working-in-the-store-in-during-an-average-day-at-the-same-time   

         As RUSC increases the wages of employees in HVTIs, employers will have to pay more payroll tax.  No company is going to implement a program that will cost them money, but fortunately as wages increase more money is paid from an employee in federal income tax than an employer will pay in additional payroll tax.  This means additional income tax collected can be used to eliminate the cost to the company created through RUSC improving wages.  It also means we can afford to incentivize companies to implement the program. 

          The average wage for a Walmart worker is $12 per hour.(3) This is $24,960 annually.  Adding 6.25 per hour through RUSC produces an annual income of $37,960.(4)   

3:  12/20/2022 Pay Scale Research, Average Hourly Rate for Walmart Employees.  Cashiers, Store Associates, and Stockers earn between $10 and $15 and $10 and $16 per hour averaging roughly $12 according to the site presumably averaged from the actual numbers. https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Walmart.com/Hourly_Rate  

4: $12 per hour * 40 hours * 52 weeks =  $24,960

     $12 per hour + 6.25 RUSC per hour  = $18.25 per hour * 40 hours * 52 weeks = $37,960  

     $24,960 pays $1236 federal income tax. 

             $24,960  pays $1910 payroll tax(5)

             $37,960 pays $2796 in federal income tax

             $37,960 pays $2904 in payroll tax.(6)

             Payroll tax increases $996 

             Income tax increases by $1560(7)

          The additional payroll tax expense for RUSC is $996 for the employer.  

          The additional income tax from RUSC income is $1560.  RUSCTCI provides the employer a 100 percent payroll tax refund for RUSC earnings that is paid for through the additional income tax collected.  

         There is $564 of newly generated income tax leftover per employee.  We’ve covered employer expenses but most businesses are not going to implement something new just to break even.  RUSCTCI provides companies with 50% of the increased revenue.  The public keeps half and the company is given a tax credit for the other half.   

5:  1/8/2023 Talent.com Income Tax Calculator.  The user must input a state Nevada was the state from my search, probably based on a recent search in that location, but the state doesn’t change the federal income tax rate or payroll tax rate.  https://www.talent.com/tax-calculator?salary=24960&from=year&region=Nevada 

6:  1/8/2023 Talent.com https://www.talent.com/tax-calculator?salary=40788&from=year&region=Nevada 

7: $37,960       $2904 in payroll tax          $37,960        $2796 in federal income tax 

   $24,960     – $1910 in payroll tax         $24,960     –  $1236 in federal income tax 

   Difference is  $ 996                              Difference is $1560 

         Walmart employs 1.6 million store associates(8) and would receive $287 per associate.  $459 million  total annually, and the public would receive $459 million in additional tax revenue from Walmart implementing RUSC.  While 459 million in additional tax revenue is not significant in its own right, this is one company among retailers, and retail is one industry among many who would be considered HVTI and be eligible to implement a RUSC. Not to mention additional taxable income generated in other industries who hire unskilled workers as an effect of RUSC on the labor market for unskilled workers.  The increase in tax revenue overall should be substantial.     

8:  Retrieved 1/8/2023 Walmart Corporate About Section 1.6 Million employees in the US.   https://corporate.walmart.com/about#:~:text=Walmart%20operates%20approximately%2010%2C500%20stores,Walmart%20U.S

           As wages increase for people who work in retail and fast food, as well as for unskilled workers, the number of workers who rely on government benefits will decrease which will lead to a dramatic decrease in government spending.  A less prominent decrease may occur from decreased demand for coin currency meaning we’ll save money on the amount of new coins that need to be minted each year.(9)

9:  In 2021 we spent roughly $764 million dollars minting new coin currency.  The prospect of savings in this area may amount to a few hundred million dollars.  Not significant considering the overall size of the budget, but still a benefit worth mentioning. Department of the Treasury United States Mint, “Congressional Budget Justification and Annual Performance Plan and Report Fiscal Year 2021”. Page 4, Resource Detail Table estimated cost for manufacturing circulating coin currency 2021: $764,159.  Whether they minted this amount of coin currency in 2021 is irrelevant because it is likely what they received for their 2021 budget.   https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/266/22.-Mint-FY-2021-CJ.pdf   I previously had a figure of about 600 million dollars for 2021 or 2022 but I was unable to relocate the source of that figure having not recorded it at the time I viewed it. 

        There is one qualifier for a business to receive the RUSC payroll refund and the tax credit for implementing a RUSC program.  The company must maintain 100 percent of base wages prior to RUSC, and must maintain wages equal to 90 percent of pre RUSC wages every 3 years adjusted for inflation.  Labor markets decide wages.  Walmart averages about $12 per hour for store associates because on average that is what people are willing to work for to do that job.  (Varying by area of course to produce that average).  If Walmart implemented RUSC and employees earn $6 more per hour on average Walmart could reduce base wages to about $6 per hour and pocket all the round up, since people have shown they are willing to work for $12 per hour.  This qualification assures that the workers and the labor market benefit from the Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive.  

The Round Up Service Charge Tax Credit Incentive serves all affected interests.  If a franchise owner stands to make $20,000 per location if the RUSCTCI is passed, it is in his interest to invest in the legislation.  The more employees and transactions per employee the more valuable it is to businesses.  I’ve been unable to make contact with owners.  I’ll talk more about those efforts later.

The Organization for Popular Legislation 

The following interests are addressed in the explanation of The Organization for Popular Legislation.  This assertion is qualified definitively through my material but we begin with how public policy is created at the federal level.  Industry decides public policy through political investment.  Candidates are essentially selected by industry through campaign contributions that position the candidates to be competitive in elections.  Remuneration comes in the form of public policy and narratives that convince the public that pro-business policy actually serves their interests.  The biggest difference between Democrats and Republicans in elections is which industry’s interest will be prioritized in public policy.  

There are typically about 40 congressional districts decided by less than 20,000 votes, many districts decided by far fewer than that, and many are perennially contested.  OPL seeks to pass legislation by creating voter blocs from among people who don’t vote, many of whom don’t vote because there is nothing to vote for that has a meaningful impact on their interests.  The voter blocs are created by showing people that accomplishing.OPL legislation is more important to their interests than any difference between a democrat and a republican, and they should vote for candidate x because he voted for or promised to vote for the legislation that directly improves their quality of life.  

Gaining a voter pledge begins with getting their signature on a petition preferably with a phone number.  Then nearing an election the signer is contacted and reminded which candidate will introduce and or vote for the legislation.  If the voter pledges for OPL legislation exceed the margin of victory of previous elections, it essentially means OPL voters will decide who wins the election and candidates in such districts will have to support OPL legislation.  

Passing legislation requires more than 20 to 30 representatives, but the ability to  decide 20 to 30 seats has other implications.  20 to 30 seats decides which party will control the house.  Which means a party that supports OPL legislation can control the house, and it also means the industries that invest more in said party will be closer to having their interests prioritized, and will be able to more effectively force concessions.  

RUSCTCI should be very easy to get signatures for, since fast food and retail workers stand to make between 6 and 15 dollars more per hour, with the vast majority.earning less than $15 per hour.  That hasn’t been my experience.  In IL and Nevada I went into retail and fast food locations, asked for managers, explained the idea and left them with handouts that directed them to the website where the petition can be signed and that tactic yielded no signatures, contacts, or inquiries.  

That’s OPL in a nutshell, creates and promotes legislation that serve all affected interests, creates voter blocs, and uses the voter blocs to encourage politicians to pass the legislation.  There are currently 7 proposals on the website and there are several others that I haven’t posted, as well other than require research or development by people in fields I don’t presently have access to.

I went in detail with RUSC because for a nominal cost to consumers we can increase wages for about the bottom 40 percent of working income earners, while increasing profits for fast food and retail businesses and gaining about half a trillion dollars per year in the federal budget between tax revenue gains and a reduction of people dependent on government benefits.  I won’t inundate you with full details for the other ideas currently on the OPL legislative agenda, but some are even more impactful for individual liberty, especially those in the bottom 50 percent of income earners.  There are summaries at the OPLnow.com website.  

The Organization for Popular Legislation is registered as DBA in the state of Florida, I have a federal EIN, I have a bank account for the organization, and the website.  


LibertyAndTruth.org features a few articles including an ongoing 5 year journal, books available for purchase as well as tee shirts and hats that contain themes and messages from the material.  

Liberty: The Definitive Moral Truth

The summary of the words liberty and truth begins with the book Liberty the Definitive Moral Truth.  Morality is a determinant of conscious motion, in motivating acts perceived as morally right, and prohibiting acts perceived as morally wrong.

Liberty is the basis for objective morality because the human constant (and the constant for all conscious beings) is that all people want to do as they please.  Ideal is for all people to do as they please and all people can do as they please so long as the liberty of each individual doesn’t interfere with the liberty of others.  The basis is acts that impose are wrong and acts that do not impose are right.  

Imposition consists of physical harm, property, threats, deception, time, and opportunity or circumstance.  The book goes into the intricacies of these forms of imposition, justifications, and principles that show it is applicable to any moral scenario and always correct.  

In addition to laying out the concepts of right and wrong deductions are made about existence itself.  I apply the measure of liberty to the tenets of the major world religions showing consistency or inconsistency to liberty.  It’s also inferred from the nature of the observable universe that the morality of a creator is liberty, based on the lack of evidence of any supernatural interference, as well as other evidence provided in the book.  The duality of morality is liberty and tyranny, where liberty is one objective standard and tyranny has different standards consisting of subjective preferences that are imposed as moral rules.  Any morality that calls an unimposing act wrong or an imposing act right except through justifiable circumstances (preventing or neutralizing unprovoked imposition) is the imposition of a subjective preference.  

We deduce that if a creator or god is good the beings morality must be rooted in liberty.  The book also defines what existence, the purpose of life and the universe probably is based on the intelligent conscious experience and morality.  

The Survival

The screenplay The Survival is a product of the concepts identified in Liberty The Definitive Moral Truth and woven into a fictional narrative to explain the application of the concepts in the survival of consciousness after death.  The script requires some input from people who are better versed in creating entertainment, but the plot is solid, and the dialogue explains liberty as the basis for objective morality applied to popular ideas about life.  

Back to Liberty And Truth  

We look around the world and contrary to popular superstitions all the results on this planet are the product of the decisions of people on this planet.  While many especially in the US see the world through a lens of their socioeconomic status and believe the results are mostly good, that narrow lens fails to acknowledge the quality of life and opportunity for most people, and how those circumstances produce the overtly negative, like mass shootings, crime, drug dependency, depression, homelessness, poverty, terrorism, war, etc.  I mention these things to say that human beings create evil results, and to propose the question: what makes human beings evil?  

Human evil is a product of self deception.  It begins with a subconscious mechanism to protect value, especially self worth.  People do what they like but what they like largely relies on what they believe is true.  When a person is exposed to challenging information they often experience a negative feeling.  This negative feeling is the subconscious warning that their values are in danger, where changing one’s beliefs can change what things they can do to feel good, as well as change the way they feel about themselves.  Information that is challenging is avoided, ignored, and rejected.  Information that reinforces beliefs, is sought out, consumed, and not subjected to critical examination.  

What are the consequences of self deception?  Self deception prevents meaningful communication from taking place, since people don’t analyze information to arrive at the most likely conclusion, they choose what to believe based on how the information makes them feel, and how it makes them feel largely depends on whether the information is reinforcing or challenging.  Communication cannot take place because people choose their facts based on feelings as opposed to allowing facts to determine their feelings.  

This barrier to communication is largely why we have the issues that we have.  Self deception creates the market for deception.  People want their false beliefs reinforced and the media, politicians, marketers, etc are able to meet that demand for self deception and use it to further their interests.  

Self deception harms motivation because if what a person does derives value from false beliefs than they’re doing things they wouldn’t do if they knew their beliefs are false.  

Self deception also limits intelligence since people avoid, ignore,and reject information that challenges their beliefs, and believe things that are not true to maintain their perspective.  

Liberty cannot flourish in an environment of deception.  There is Liberty and Truth and there is love and deception, because deception is a product of an effort to maintain biases, and truth is a necessary element for liberty.  

Truth has value in it’s utility to liberty, in intelligence, motivation, and circumstantially in the sense that individuals’ circumstances are impacted by the inability to collectively communicate caused largely by the desire of individuals to consume belief reinforcing information.  

American Prosperity Proposals 

The American Prosperity Proposals qualifies the need for attention on improving income opportunities and proposes several ideas, legislative and market based, to improve income opportunities for the bottom 50 percent of the income distribution.  Some of which are being promoted by OPL.  

Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison: the Organization of Objects and Prioritization of Objectives by the Subconscious Mind.  

The book identifies the subconscious processes that produce thoughts, feelings, and behavior through assignments of cause and effect, value as measured through the feelings an objective produces, true and false, and good or bad morally.  The book is a mixture of different explanations and presentations interwoven with common experience examples and real life situations. 

Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History 2019 to 2020.  

This book addresses popular political narratives occurring between 2019 and 2020, essentially showing that most issues made to seem important and the popular positions concerning those issues fail to demonstrate an accurate understanding of the subjects.  Many of these issues and positions are recurring which means despite the book being a few years old the material is still relevant.  In addition to insight, research, and commentary pertaining to events from the title period, there are chapters dedicated to addressing misconceptions about the creation of the constitution, as well as the functioning of government.  To address popular opinion there are chapters and a section that chronicle organic online debates on contentious topics.  

The Florida Ordeal

In 2018 I was driving through Florida with about 3 grams of marijuana, a pipe with marijuana residue, and 4 10mg gummy thc edibles, the equivalent potency of about 1.5 grams of marijuana.  Although I knew the substances to be illegal in the state I presumed the small amount that I had wouldn’t result in more than a ticket if I was found to be in possession of it.

During the traffic stop the substances were discovered and I was charged with 2 felonies and 4 misdemeanors facing up to 14 years for the charges.  When the substances were discovered I didn’t think it was a big deal and I confessed to purchasing the substances legally in another state and knowingly possessing them.  The book chronicles the misconduct of my public defender and the judge where I was able to use the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct and the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct to leverage the state to drop the felonies and 2 of the misdemeanors and plead guilty to 2 misdemeanors for a 15 day jail sentence.  

Racial Perceptions

Written largely during 2020 this short book addresses popular misconceptions about race as a disadvantage with an emphasis on policing but also concisely addressing studies that suggest racial prejudice is an impediment to employment, criminal justice outcomes and other areas that impact liberty and quality of life.  

Covid 19 Media Project 

The COVID 19 Media project quantifies the risk of being infected with COVID 19 using data available during the first month of the virus in the US and contrasting that risk to the danger presented by the media, politicians, and others who benefited from exaggerating the danger.  


The last 10 years my life has consisted of working to gain the funds to promote my material, efforts to promote, and enduring very difficult circumstances all the while.  The journal chronicles this journey, captures my mood through these times, provides insight into life happenings and events, and demonstrates the application and observation of the novel concepts in Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison, morality, human behavior, and government function.  –

There’s probably no way you can truly grasp the significance of the things I’m saying and trying to accomplish through these summaries.  The books are available at LibertyAndTruth.org 

If you have any interest I do have a business plan and summary of what I’ve done so far.

Orion Simerl

720 448 2846

[email protected]




I was going to stay in Texarkana for a few days but it was getting warm out, difficult to fall asleep at night somewhat uncomfortable late morning early afternoon.  I’m on my way to St. Louis area where I went around this time last year.  There’s a rest area not too far from a planet fitness and I can usually find work in the area. 

I’m putting together a general summary of marketable products, books, OPL, legislative outlines, etc that I’m going to put together in a pitch to try to find a consultant who believes he or she can make money by providing advice and support in helping me get the pieces in place for these things to work as they should.  

Or maybe it can’t work as it should because people are too invested in their ignorance and stupidity and cannot be reasoned with even to support their own interests.  But I’m not more fucked reaching out than I am not reaching out.  At least not yet, lol.  Maybe in a bad deal having to negotiate from desperate position, but otherwise seems like something worth trying.  

Ja Morant was suspended for posting a video in his Instagram with a gun.  Then he issued an apology the next day.  I was upset by the apology, not only because it’s in authentic and clearly something put together from someone on his team, and because that’s some childish shit.  Not going on Instagram with the gun, but apologizing for it.  

A man knows why he does what he does.  He doesn’t do something and then apologize and claim responsibility for it without explaining why he did what he did.  He’s been suspended by the league.  Why?  Because his apology was the admission that he did something wrong, and he doesn’t even no if he did anything wrong.  

We suspect that Ja posted the video with the gun because he thought it was good for his image.  He was thinks others will have a higher opinion of him if he has the accessory in the video.  Otherwise the act is motivated by the idea that would be perpetrators will see the weapon and be less likely to threaten or impose on him, so feelings of security.  

Ja is a young globally known athlete with millions of dollars.  He has the right to keep arms to defend his person and his property, and is more likely to be targeted due to his fame and fortune than most other people.  Showing people he is armed can be a deterrent.  

Either way, whether for image or security, Ja didn’t do anything wrong by posting a video with a pistol on his IG, but he didn’t know that, so he let him team post what they posted, admitted he did something wrong, and took the punishment.  

I originally had the story wrong because I wasn’t interested in what he did I was only interested in the fake apology and the implications so I didn’t look into what he actually did.  The report was he was on video flashing a gun in a nightclub.  I thought there was an altercation so my original summary flowed off that narrative.  Then I found out there was no altercation and it was a video he posted on Instagram and all the criticism didn’t make any sense.  

I didn’t watch all the reports, but the headlines and titles, and the reports I did see were all critical calling Ja a thig poser among other things.  Nobody in sports media pointing out how Ja more than most who have the right should have the means to defend himself and how letting people know he has a gone could make him more secure.  That anti-gun culture adopted by the league as image policy should not prevent Ja from implementing whatever security measures he feels needs to employ to protect himself.  Or the fact that there’s nothing wrong with Ja recording a video of himself with a gun even if it is purely for image promotion purposes.  

I’m going to get to work on this solicitation.  


Abeline is one of the most unique places I’ve spent around.  I usually say that everywhere you go there are decent people and there are assholes and your opinion of the place will largely depend on which interactions left deeper impressions.  In Abeline, every person I encountered seemed decent.  It reminds me of my own values in regard to the treatment of strangers and pride in having done the right thing even if it’s subtle.  

I didn’t have a great deal of interactions while I was there, going to the gym and making purchases was about the extent of my opportunities for interaction, but even in these limited encounters there were notable acts, small things that are a window into a person’s character.  For example, I went to Mc Donald’s and after placing my order, perhaps because of the distance between the ordering kiosks the line formed a t where I was on one side and another man is on the other.  I didn’t know who was there first so I backed up and motioned for him to go in front of me.  He told me to go ahead.  In this situation I feel good for giving him the benefit of the doubt and the idea that I’m saving him time, he is presumably motivated by the same idea, including feelings generated from perceiving yourself better, it’s subtle improvement of your self worth.  In his insistence, I’m motivated by allowing him to experience the feeling, and some positive feeling through recognition of good motivation or at least the appearance of.  

Contrast that to St. Louis, where after a day of hard work trying to move a clutter and I’m in the gas station with KC.  I think I wrote about this in a previous entry, late March to April 2022.  I’m waiting in line and a man tries to skip me.  In that situation I’m motivated by two things because the circumstances are different.  I’m not motivated by the positive feeling of saving him time because it wasn’t my decision to do that.  So it’s an attempt to impose on my time.  Second, there is an element of pride where I’m trying to figure out what it is about me that causes you to believe you can impose on me?  In that situation I believe it was either motivated by race, or it was as he said he didn’t see me, although both KC and myself saw believed this was unlikely. 

Two similar circumstances but not similar enough to produce the same assignments, sequences, comparisons, and objectives.    

One night I was leaving the gym and there was a truck in the right turn lane.  The truck reversed at the light before I got there and pulled into the middle lane to allowed me to turn right on red.  I understand that motivation.  Today I was driving and hit a red light.  Prior to the light turning red I was thinking about moving to the middle lane as to not hold up anyone that had to turn.  Unfortunately I stayed in the right lane and felt like an asshole (very subtly, like if you miss a turn and have to take the next turn instead).  This feeling wasn’t inspired by the guy in the pick up, who was listening to Spanish music for whatever emphasis anyone wants to put on that detail, it’s just generally the way I’m wired through the understanding of liberty.  

Another similar event probably about a year ago that I’ll use as an example but has happened on many other occasions outside of this example.  I was driving to Texas passing through Louisiana.  I think I was in Monroe or West Monroe, LA.  People are getting on the on ramp and I typically give a cars space to merge.  The quicker they merge the faster traffic is going to pick up.  But I don’t like people skipping.  

We’re already in the traffic and have been waiting.  You’re going to get on the on ramp and try to merge at futherest possible point during stop and go traffic.  If I give somebody space to get in and they pull off ahead, they better hope somebody else let’s them in because I’m not doing it.  Usually somebody does, but on this occasion nobody did for this pick up truck that tried to jump the line and then he was trying to merge when I came back up.  I wasn’t letting him in, flipped him off and yell something to effect that I’m not letting you in bitch.  

That’s generally how I am.  You take a step back I’ll take a step back, but if you take too many steps forward then I’m stepping forward with you.    

Another reason I appreciate the time I spent in Abilene because some in of it mentally restorative.  Where how I would react to things in certain places had me questioning if there was something wrong with me for being reactive to inconsiderate shit.  When so much is done in such a pussy way where the intentions of the act can be denied and I appear to be some wild stranger for how I’m addressing it, which of course makes it difficult to address properly.  Prior to going to Abilene it was beginning to have a gas lighting effect,. Reality becoming uncertain due to the second guessing of perception and interpretation.  

The point is, in Abilene, in all interactions albeit people do make mistakes you never got the feeling that people were trying to impose or be disrespectful to you.  There are other examples as well.  Yesterday at Walmart a man noticed $5 dollars near my feet and asked if I dropped it.  I was pretty sure I didn’t drop it because my money was in my wallet and I hadn’t opened it.  So I told him it wasn’t mine and suggested he give it to the lady working and maybe someone will come back for it.  

It was just strange to me to only have encounters with decent people.  There was one moment but the guy didn’t do anything wrong, and I don’t know if it was intentional or not.  Kinda funny in hindsight.  

I had to close my personal bank account.  I tried switching my PF to my business bank account that has probably about $100 in it.  But the account is under the business name so the payment doesn’t go through.  I tried to open a new personal account but the only bank in the area that issues debit cards on site required proof of Texas residency documents that I don’t have. 

 I checked into the gym but was informed that my payment was 7 days over due.  I purchased a prepaid card a few days prior to pay some bills, business address, cell phone, etc.  I used the green dot information to change the bank and made the payment with the card.  I told him it was squared away, and he checked and said oh Green Dot Bank.  Lol.  It’s slightly embarrassing to not have an actual bank to pay for your gym membership.  I said yep, but I was thinking man would you shut the fuck up.  Everybody doesn’t need to know that.  Wasn’t a big deal, the perception of it was funny in the moment and hindsight.   

It does seem like a lot of people out there are struggling financially.  There’s a lot houses and buildings that seem extremely run down.  I don’t know much about how the labor market is out there, but usually Texans are contented by their sense of nationalism, religion, and fantasies of love.  At least the bottom half of the income earners while the top half or third can afford to be contented by other things in addition to the aforementioned contenters of the poor.  But nobody’s interested in those solutions.  

These little moments are example of how I’m able to recognize the functions of ASC.  I’m not conscious of these functions in the moment, but I am able to isolate moments, and remember key thoughts, feelings, and the actions, and in the isolation of the point with that information including actions and results it’s easy to deduce what’s responsible for the motion based on your general understanding.  It’s through your general understanding that processing, conscious and subconscious takes place.  Thoughts and feelings are signatures of these processes of comparison.  

There was a time when I considered leaving my wallet in my locker.  The locker is locked but not impenetrable by any means.  Thought about how I would feel if it was taken and at that time I had a good amount of cash on me.  In the thought of returning to the locker and the wallet being gone I subtly experience what I would feel if that occured.  The feeling motivated me to take my wallet with me.  

The initial objective to leave my wallet in the locker is motivated by avoiding the mild discomfort of working out with my wallet where depending on the shirts I’m wearing (zipper pocket or non-zipper pocket) and the socks I’m wearing (short or long socks) I have to work out with my wallet in my sock.  

The consequence of the objective is considered first through probability in assessing that it is extremely unlikely anyone would break into the locker.  

Then the consequence is considered in severity where however unlikely it is, the consequence would be severe.  

It all happens fast and consists of a feeling of relief in considering leaving my wallet and avoiding the burden, monologue thought “nobody’s going to break into the locker”, imaging thought: returning to the locker to find my wallet gone, and then the feeling from that imagined scenario that ultimately causes me to make the decision to take my wallet with me to work out.  These are the conscious features of the experience that are a product of subconscious process involved in all decision making and CC conscious motion.  Not the totality of of processes, there are of course others not mentioned in this.  

I’ve been spending a good amount of my time playing a stupid game called Top War.  Nothing feels worse than having spent an hour or more of your life in a sitting playing an adolescent video game on your phone.  But I do understand why I’m playing it.  

I’m at a point where in 10 years I’ve put forward a great deal of effort and energy promoting my material, ideas, and organizations.  In that time I’ve not only gained 0 interest, but I’ve also had 0 reaction.  The second part is more important than the 1st, because if there is no interest it may be because there’s no merit, or you’re wrong, but having no reaction to your efforts means people don’t care, don’t understand, or are ignoring you in most cases because they don’t like you or what you’re promoting challenges their beliefs.  

I’m at a point where everything I’ve tried has produced no results, and understanding the mechanism of human attention and interests I’ve reached a point where it may be impossible for me to get through to people.  Like a modern day astronomer trying to share information with people during the dark ages.  There are factions of people in this country just as invested in their beliefs and as unmovable through evidence today as groups during any part of human history.  

I know I’m approaching a point where I’ll either be inspired to try, or I’m going to check out because it doesn’t make sense to contend with the incorrigible.  There’s other factors in my environment that may also be contributing to these results but I don’t discuss these things because I can’t prove them.  

I’ve been playing Top War, going to the gym, and engaging in usually sports related comment exchanges on YouTube to maintain enough positive stimulation to avoid checking out of this bullshit.  I know this is the most likely outcome but I’m not completely committed to that course of action and I’m essentially postponing suicide by  wasting this time.  

Left Premier November 1st with goid ideas to improve income opportunities for the bottom 50 percent of income earners and the vehicle through OPL to accomplish them.  But this brain dead piece of shit species cannot understand or recognize something that serves their own best interest and act on it.  Everything is about the creation and maintenance of appearances, not about substance.  There is no common sense.  

Common sense is 1 plus 1 equals 2.  It’s about exposing everything to critical examination through that understanding.  And people lack common sense because they don’t want to expose things that appear to them as they want them to appear to critical examination because they’re afraid that this exposure will destroy the beliefs that rely on that appearance.  

I have a shirt I made that states evils greatest assets are ignorance, indifference, and bias.  It all stems from bias, the root of self deception and willful ignorance or stupidity.  People’s ignorance is determined by where their attention is focused and where they focus their attention is directed by what they like, and what they like is largely determined by what they believe, and what they believe is a product of what they like in the consumption of reinforcing information and the avoidance and rejection of challenging information.  Ignorance is a product of bias.  Indifference is a product of if ignorance in the sense that you can’t be concerned about things if you don’t know about them or don’t know why you should be concerned about them.  Maybe through this a person can see that everything is motion and intelligence is a product of objectivity and the application of common sense which reduces all complexity to the definition of simple objects organized in cause and effect sequencing.  Outside of quantum physics I suppose where particles don’t always behave or are not observable as everything in the visible world relevant to the human experience. 


At the gym there is no closed captioning on the TVs, but today there was a Fox news story that featured a quote displayed in the story.  I can’t find the story so I don’t know who said it or why Fox was displaying it.  I don’t think Fox would support the position the guy was taking in the quote, but it creates an opportunity to discuss important things, like morality, bias, and evil deities.  It also allows me to expand on my views of LGBT people and answer the question within the quote.  

Essentially, the quote asked why more people were becoming gay, suggested it may be related to elevated estrogen levels in tap water, and went on to conclude that it was because evil was no longer being constrained.

Don’t know the context of the quote and whether this was something Fox News was endorsing, being critical of, or if homophobic stories rate well and so people needed to know what this guy said.  

Let’s begin with what is good and what is evil.  The human constant is that all people want to do what they want to do at all times.  Ideal is for all people to do as they please.  All people can do as they please so long as their liberty doesn’t interfere with liberty of others.  Acts that impose are wrong and acts that do not impose are right.  There are a variety of ways in which one can impose explained in Liberty: The Definitive Moral Truth.  

Any consensual act between two people that doesn’t interfere with the liberty of anyone else is a right act.  

This is also an example of how the deity is evil.  The deity imposes his subjective preference on an act that is objectively good because it does not impose.  The deity forbids unimposing acts and this same deity commands acts that impose.  

 We also know this deity is evil because he claims he has created human beings to be his servants or to be tortured for eternity which are purposes the would not want to exist under.  Which also makes him a hypocrite telling his servants to love their neighbors as they love themselves but not loving them as he loves himself in creating them for purposes that he would not want to be created for. 

 He’s clearly a tyrant rewarding obedience over righteousness in the story of Abraham, he ordered murder and theft in Exodus where Joshua was told to kill all the Canaanites, men women and children, and to possess their land.  The Christian doctrine generally facilitates the ease through which one can be imposed on, turn the other cheek, let others take your property (if he asks for your cloak give him your tunic as well), making your will subject to the will of others (if he asks you to go 1 mile go 2) and forgiveness to be forgiven, which also encourages imposition.  In justice, if the wrong is made right there is no need for forgiveness because the damages have been repaired.  Otherwise, forgiveness condones the act that was forgiven and absent a consequence the offense will likely be repeated.  Additionally, the deity cannot forgive someone for something they did to someone else because the deity hasn’t suffered the loss.  

There’s nothing morally wrong about being gay, it is an unimposing act.   I mentioned yesterday that one problem I had with the LGBT community is the promotion of sexuality as a disadvantage.  Some activists would point to this quote and claim homophobia is rampant.  Quotes like this do not prevent gay people from having an income, buying or renting a home, access to education, or the denial of services public or private.  Yes I’m aware of the instances where a baker didn’t want to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding, but even in that exception there were legal ramifications and remedy.  

The other side of it is if anyone knows your sexuality it’s either because you told them or it was inferred through your behavior because your behavior represents the stereotypes associated with your sexual orientation.  In that case if people don’t like you it’s based on behavior not sexuality.  

I’ll share the corner I painted myself into that I alluded to in the previous entry.  I have an issue with the promotion of gender identity since it’s a fictitious concept that can harm the development of children with or without the introduction of hormones.  There’s nothing wrong with being trans, but it isn’t a female mind in a male body, it’s a person who likes the things associated with their opposite sex.  I don’t know how those values develop but it is all environmental since there is no genetic basis for someone being trans. Theres also no genetic basis for a person being gay, but in both situations these values may not be able to be changed.  

I had and have a problem with the promotion of sexuality and gender identity to children.  I mentioned the reason in the preceding entry, because socially isolated children will barter with their sexuality to gain social inclusion into a group, protection since the group is perceived as being disadvantaged, and other opportunities that come from an LGBT identification.  

I have a problem with the promotion of gender identity because it’s a false concept with consequences for the development of the child.  I had a problem with the promotion of sexuality to children until I realized I couldn’t.  Although some children will experiment and may become gay who otherwise wouldn’t without the promotion of it, there’s nothing inherently harmful about being a sexual orientation that you may not have chosen absent the promotion and social advantages.  

There are more people becoming gay because of the social recognition that there isn’t anything wrong with it, in part because of the promotion, and the way psychology has directed it’s social engineering.  More times than not a person will accept anything so long as others accept it.  Psychology uses this principle to emphasize and de emphasize values.  Masculine values have been debased, pride, strength, toughness, competition, etc and feminine values are promoted.  This creates a social environment that is probably more conducive to people becoming gay.  

This highlights another subject that alenates from most factions of people in this country, one whose emphasis is Christian nationalism, and the other whose emphasis is race, gender, and sexuality as a source of disadvantage.  The points of disagreement are more important to people that the points of congruence.  


I planned on leaving Abilene tonight but that plan  had to be postponed due to the weather.  I’d be driving into hail and the possibility of tornadoes.  Since my car doesn’t have a basement I’ll have to wait a day or two.  

In Minnesota, a court ruled in favor of a trans athlete against a powerlifting organization that their women’s division excluding trans athletes is discrimination.  The organization will likely appeal and should win the appeal.  The distribution of muscle in biological males gives the trans athletes an unfair advantage in women’s sports.  That’s a fact that doesn’t change based on identification.  

The cliche mainstream argument is transphobic people are using women’s sports that they’re not interested in to oppress trans people.  Not as overt as I have stated it but it is implied since the individual is not motivated by their concern for women’s sports.  I know I’m not interested in women’s sports, yet I do have a problem with women having to compete against people born males.  

It’s not important to me but it is important to the participants and competition, to be able to test their abilities against those of a relatively equal make up, which is why there are gender and or weight divisions in most sports.  It’s no different than a person with 2 arms identifying as a person with one arm and forcing 1 arm people to compete against them.  

It shouldn’t take more than a doctor providing a human anatomy lecture centered on muscle distribution and bone density differences between biological males and biological females, demonstrating what sports has known for centuries that biological males have athletic advantages.  

Should the power lifting organization lose the appeal the solution is pretty.simple.  Create a trans-woman division.  Transathletes can compete against transathletes.  If there’s only one it’s an easy road to the championship.  

I don’t have a problem with what people do so long as it doesn’t impose on anyone else.  If a male likes the things that a female likes, make up, dresses, men, how they talk etc and wants to apply those values in life there isn’t anything wrong with that.  But there’s no genetic basis for someone being born one gender but believing they are the other.  It isn’t that a person feels like a different gender, they just like things that are associated with the other gender.  My problem is it isn’t fair for women to compete against men in sports, and it prevents us from knowing what women are capable of physically in athletics.  How many women’s records does Lia Thomas own?  

I bring up the when did you start caring about women’s sports because Marcellus Wiley reported that was the response either himself or others received from his colleagues after opposing trans athletes in women’s sports.  He also mentioned how he thought it was horrible that some trans people are killed because they’re trans.  A few years ago when this narrative was being promoted and it may be in Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History, I discovered that the homicide rate for trans people was much lower than the homicide rate for non trans people.  This is another problem I have with extreme LGBT people, that they promote their sexuality or gender identification as a source of disadvantage.  

My final issue with LGBT extremists is the promotion of their sexuality and gender fluidity through deceptive means to children.  I had an article I removed from Understand Pol. Func… because I painted myself into a corner to where I would have to find an objective reason why sexuality shouldn’t be promoted.  It ultimately comes down to the consequences of sex becoming a person’s highest value, which often occurs in people of all sexual orientations.  Its difficult to be against the promotion of sexuality because while some impressionable children may adopt a gay or bi indentificatiom for attention, social inclusion, or protection, if they choose to do that there’s nothing inherently wrong the choice.  But how that identification becomes an important thing in their life can impact their development.  I don’t think it is important except for those a person is interested in having sex with and those interested in having sex with that person.  It becomes people’s main object of identification and it’s no more relevant than the preference for Coke or Pepsi.  

Gender fluidity promotion is much more harmful.  First because it isn’t promoted as a series of value which it is, it’s promoted as people essentially being born the wrong gender.  They don’t like the things they like which creates the gender identification, some people are the gender of the objects that they like.  That’s a harmful false idea.  It’s also harmful because children are making decisions to alter their body chemistry which impacts their development.  

But I don’t treat anybody differently based on their sexuality or their perceived sexuality, and who ever they’re having sex with doesn’t impact me.  These are some of the problems I have with LGBT, an identity based on sexual orientation which to me is a person weak in meaning to allow your identity to begin with your sexual orientation, trans athletes competing against women, the promotion of sexuality as a disadvantage when I don’t think there is evidence that it is, and the promotion of gender fluidity through the misconception that some people are born the wrong gender because of the potential to negatively impact the development and trajectory of children.  


Video Link

I occasionally watch the YouTube channel Doughnut Operator.  He was a law enforcement officer for a few years, a few years ago, and he covers police shootings.  He usually provides the most complete and accurate details available on the incidents he covers.  I don’t always agree with him, I think we have a different opinion of Tennessee v. Garner and sometimes he thinks things are justified that I think are not and vice versa.  Important to point out especially in this post that I don’t watch his channel because the detail are complete and accurate and sometimes it’s entertaining, not to reinforce a bias.  

In this video a suspect was accused of shooting multiple people and killing 3.  Police caught up with him shortly after the last victims called the police.  The officers gave him commands to get on the ground and when the suspect did not promptly comply they kicked him to the ground.  A gun was discovered on the suspect after he was subdued.  

Donut covers social media responses to these incidents.  My comment is in response to the comments on the incident, as it provides a good example of people’s propensity to reinforce bias, and mechanism understood through assignment, sequencing, and comparison.  

He refers to a previous story of the protester who shot a cop and was killed in response.  This content provides another example.  

This (the comments to the incident from the video) demonstrates how people choose their reality by consuming information that reinforces their beliefs and avoid, ignore, and rejecti information that challenges their beliefs.  Otherwise, any interested person would research the event to make an informed opinion.  The commenter who claimed the suspect was unarmed saw something that reinforces his anti-police bias. 

 This bias is a product of ideas he has about the world that rely on police being bad.  These ideas are important for him to maintain because of the opportunities this version of reality creates for him.  Social opportunities for those who subscribe to the same beliefs, positive feelings through a sense of justice in him being outspoken about his opposition to these problems, and  a variety of other opportunities to feel good that require his beliefs to be correct.      He and others like him see something that reinforces their beliefs so the event becomes important because it appears as reinforcement.  If they were interested in the event the first question you would ask is why did the officer kick him in the chest and was the use of force lawful.

  If you ask why the first answer comes from.the clip that the suspect was being non compliant.  He was told to get on the ground and did not comply with commands.  In regard to the amount of force used it was effective in positioning the suspect to be taken into custody, and if it didn’t result in any serious or permanent injury then it is hard to consider the amount of forced used excessive. 

 Next we’d ask if the suspect was a threat to the officers and public.  Then we would learn about the call they were responding to, and that this suspect had been accused of killing 3 people, with the latest victims being shot shortly before his encounter with law enforcement.  Based on those circumstances the police should believe he’s armed.  Being non-compliant within those circumstances creates an urgency to arrest him for the safety of the public,  the officers and the suspect.  It wasn’t the presumption of guilt that caused the officer to kick him as other commenters suggested, but the probability of an imminent threat.  If the officers do not act quickly and take him into custody and he reaches to pull up his pants the perception of that probable threat should cause the officers to shoot him.  He did him a favor by getting him to the ground in the manner of efficiency that he did.  

The go fund me for the peaceful protester shooting a cop is another example, where the appearance of reinforcement is more appealing and important than why he was shot.  Don’t even ask why they shot him, use it as an opportunity to feel good by shooting justice a $20 or a $50.  It’s also an example of an opportunity to feel good that relys on an idea.  You can’t feel good for supporting a good cause if the cause isn’t good.  

As ridiculous as some of these things are to a person whose perception does not rely on the police being bad, the same thing applies to everybody else in different areas.  They have different beliefs they seek to reinforce for the same reasons these anti-police people interpret the world as they do.   Myself excluded, which is why I find it all intolerable to different degrees depending on how harmful the bias reinforcing idea or perception is.  Just know to an objective observer there are things that you appear just as outrageous about and difficult to communicate with.

 Subconsciously, your mind is always set to an objective intent on producing a positive feeling, and what causes you to feel good often relies on what you believe is true.  To preserve your values to continue to get pleasure from the things that give you pleasure your subconscious initiates a threat response or similar negative feeling because information that challenges beliefs threatens values including self worth.  Information is avoided, ignored, and rejected.


At some point, probably not too long ago, I wrote that I think about suicide about as much as anyone should given my circumstances.  Anyone reading this shouldn’t mistake this as a cry for help, it’s definitely not that.  I resent the idea because there should be a market for my material, and coverage of and support for my organization and what it could accomplish.  The following is not a threat, just something I wrote based on the possibility of checking out.  The why that so often is not fully articulated in situations where people have decided they’ve had enough of this shit and are ready to see what comes next.  Despite your irrational prejudices against it, sometimes it makes sense.  That’s what this is.  Final disclaimer, I do not presently feel suicidal and I am not a danger to myself or others. 

Suicide Explanation 

I’ve read about and observed quiet quitting where an employee becomes less and less productive until the company notices and then fires him.  I’ve been quiet quitting on myself for the last few weeks.  Yesterday and today I spent several hours playing a cell phone video game.  I suppose observing that behavior from myself is cause enough for termination.  

The following is complicated because I cannot address the deepest source of my discontent.  The deepest source is a tampering with my environment that I cannot fully explain.  And any attempt to explain it appears crazy.  While everything appears to be the product of ignorance and stupidity, a failure of human beings to pay attention to their own interests and comprehend, or their propensity to reinforce bias, I know there is more to it which is demoralizing in itself.  A lot of it is willful ignorance and stupidity but probably just as much is environmental tampering

I’ve began mentally preparing myself for what lies ahead.  Imagining the rope pulling tight and enduring the discomfort through the reassurance that within 10 to 20 seconds the lack of blood flow to the brain should turn out the lights and I’ll arrive at what lies beyond.  

This isn’t something that comes from a place of grief or sadness.  At this point it just makes sense.  I’ll be out of money shortly and where does that leave me?  I’ll also be out of car at some point.  What will I do?  Pull myself up from the boot straps as I’ve done on so many other occasions?  For what?  To save up money and promote my material only to have it ignored and shut out?  Some of it being a product of general human stupidity and some of it a product of nefarious tampering that I have no recourse against?  

I’ve tried to motivate myself, ignoring the extra shit I don’t discuss and figured spending my time as I’ve spent it over the last few weeks is no more productive than canvasing and sending emails and getting no response and no interest.  But think about it like this, if you had things that weren’t just very important to you, but very important generally, how would you feel if the only thing you could do is go explain it to a brick wall?  Given those options how would you spend your time?  

There are parts of me that doesn’t mind being confined and never having these things reach human consciousness.  I happen to be in a place where people are very well mannered and kind but beneath that they’re still responsible through the commitment of their biases for the results that exist on this planet, this country, and their communities.  I’m well mannered and kind as a product of values, treating people based on their behavior within the setting as opposed to what they’re probably responsible for through a commitment to their biases.  Anyway, as I began, I have some solace in the fact that human beings will maintain their same organization and trajectory that they’ve been on for the last 8000 to 10,000 years as civilization is concerned.  

To understand morality objectively, how it’s a determinate of motion, and how that extends to all acts gives me a great deal of confidence in the existence of justice, beyond the species chosen tyranny imposed on this planet.  Why struggle against this self deceiving, deceiving, tyranny chosen freely by this species?  Let them have tyranny here and tyranny beyond as they have chosen.  As far as what I wrote in the survival the tyranny I wrote about made for interesting plot, it isn’t what I believe the space of tyranny is.  Hoping more that it’s dark and hot.  

To know.  To know who is who.  While everybody I’ve interacted with has played a role in producing this outcome it’s important for me to know.  I hope to have an opportunity to observe their torment in what lies beyond, as they have created, observed, and probably experienced satisfaction in my torment here.  

I’ve been alone for quite awhile.  Being alone, loneliness, or the need for social human interaction, affection, touch, etc has no bearing on this decision.  While these things are thought of as general human requirements the absence of these things do not have much of an impact on me.  I’d be quite content with an audience and market for my ideas and material.  Unfortunately human beings are too biased, and too stupid consume information that is beneficial for themselves and the species, or to support things that advance their own interests.  The point being, is if there was a market for LibertyAndTruth, support for OPL that would provide me the means to maintain a basic standard of living and achieve progress towards human enlightenment and improved human circumstances for those existing within trapped circumstances, my lack of social relationships and interaction outside of that advancement will not contribute to any dissatisfaction.  I mention these things because I don’t want there to be any misconceptions about why I was hanging from a tree.  It has nothing to do with any physical or emotional needs stemming from my isolation.  It has everything to do with my material being ignored and unacknowledged.  And being prevented from promoting due to the undescribed tampering of my environment, and general willful human ignorance and stupidity.  

I think that’s about it.  Anything else would be the summarization of points already made and summarized else where.  

Fuck Y’all Mother Fuckers! 

It hasn’t been about people in a long time, it’s been about right for the feelings derived from the understanding of it, and the low quality of life that comes from a product of seemingly living in Orwell’s 1984, or Mike Judges Idiocracy.  The only difference is the sophistication, there are more false narratives and false ideas for a person to build their perspectives from.  Yet it’s the same in the sense that it creates a false perception of reality for the populous that prevents meaningful communication from taking place.  In 1984 the state had the monopoly on information and used that power to deceive the population.  In the United States people are indoctrinated through generational biases (biases of their parents), and those biases are marketed to and can be used to manipulate people.  The point is, it’s a similar quality of life in the sense that people are either too aloof in their bullshit or too invested in their misconceptions to support their own interests.  When you’re promoting truth, you’re essentially promoting the destruction of beliefs which is a byproduct of being exposed to truth.  And I’ve written about the subconscious value protection mechanism many times.  That’s really the root of human evil, the propensity to self deceive.  Essentially the inability to understand the utility of truth, and the consequences deceived contentment has for the public.  


I  estimated I have about a month’s worth of expenses remaining in money. I’m not at a good place right now within these circumstances.  Fruitless efforts over the past few months have sapped all of my motivation.  Not solely because of the results during this period but through all previous efforts.  It feels impossible to gain even one ounce of the genuine attention required to understand the things I am saying.  In the book Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History I recorded an exchange I had debating a veteran on the merit of a soldier understanding what he was doing in a war.  The debate centered around the idea that the Vietnamese were the good guys and the US was the bad guys since the United States intervened in their country to prevent them from having an election because they didn’t like who was going to win the election.  He took the position that although the US are the bad guys a US soldier should always consider the enemy as the bad guy.  I preferred soldier acknowledgement of whose interests they were fighting to advance and whether the cause was just or tyrannical.  I mention this exchange because I stated something to the effect that people’s national biases prevented them from thinking critically on subjects that pertain to those beliefs, and he responded saying he would take it a step further, that people were oblivious to their existence if I’m remembering that correctly.

It seems impossible to introduce people who exist in these bubbles of preference to objective reality.  I sometimes refer to people generally as being stupid, and I don’t say this because people are innately unable to understand things, I say it because it’s a condition of choice where a person is guided by the reinforcement of their beliefs which obstructs their ability to recognize, pay attention to, and understand important things that challenge their beliefs.  People are motivated to do things based on feelings they don’t understand and the field of their attention is very narrow, and the duration very short.  Maybe the duration isnt necessarily short, but the ability to put a post (a fact) in the ground and then begin to connect it to other posts is very underdeveloped.  The common mind is very arbitrary, an example I’ve previously mentioned is how people choose opinion as fact based on if they like that version of reality, not through understanding the subject to determine whether or not the opinion is true or false.  Opinions and false facts are validated not based on whether they’re true but based on whether there is sufficient people who subscribe to the opinion or version of events.  

Probably going on about a month now, maybe longer, I stopped communicating with someone who I used to communicate with semi frequently and recently visited from Denver.  I’d known her for about 6 years, where I saw her somewhat regularly over the first year and then didn’t see her for 4 but still messaged and talked every once in awhile.  When I saw her recently she wasn’t the same person she was 4 years before but that’s neither here nor there.  I was talking to her and at one point I was listing things I needed, and she had the audacity to say I needed more education.  I wasn’t mad about it in the moment because she doesn’t know what the fuck she’s talking about.  But later I was irritated by the comment because education is irrelevant to describing observations and motion.  Which is what I am describing.  Education is only as valuable as it’s application.  And there is nothing in acadameia that disproves anything I’m putting forward or diminishes the signfiicance of my insights, discoveries, ideas, proposals, or explanations.  If someone is wrong about something you can explain to them why they’re wrong based on their position and the subject, so, saying someone lacks education is the equalivlent to saying you don’t understand their position or you don’t understand the subject.  Otherwise you’d provide an argument based on the observed motion of the subject (facts and the substantation of those facts), not try to invalidate them through an irrelevant assertion.  

I stated the observed motion of the subject because that is everything.  I was very proud when my daughter told me that she began to understand what I meant when I told her that everything complex is just basic objects held together through cause and effect sequencing when she began teaching herself.  Everything is the definition of the object and it’s relationship to other defined objects and the causes that produce it and the effects that it produces.  That may be hard to understand written that way but based on this self evident truth by way of the reality that we exist within, the variant of human intelligence on an individual basis is largely determined by bias.  In the directing of attention and in the boundaries of acceptable information.  This is why I recognized long ago that intelligence is largely a product of objectivity.  And I know this personally having been different versions of myself and some were very limited intellectually but improved as I became increasingly objective.  When you’re troubled by the problems that exist in the world and truely want to solve them, this can only be accomplished by understanding things as they are, not how you want them to be to reinforce your preconceived notions.  

I’m not that guy anymore.  I’m not that guy who was moved by compassion and empathy and refocused his life from a place of wanting to relieve people of their burdens.  That comes not only from these long difficult circumstances I’ve faced and the general indifference towards my worthwhile productions, but more in developing my understanding of where responsiblity for these results rest.  It rests with the collective as a whole, with indiividuals and groups existing within subjective realities that allow them to do the things that make them feel good in life by rejecting information that challenges their beliefs.  Self deception.  Basically, if you see somebody stick their foot in a bear trap, you don’t feel as bad for them or feel compelled to help them as much as if they steped on the bear trap through no fault of their own.  

I don’t know how many times I’m going to write this there’s certainly been other variations, but there are two points.  The first point is that today I am motivated by the pride of liberty, the feeling associated with justice, righting what is wrong, and a generally inolerable situation of living alone in objective reality.  Yes I’m aware that some idiot researchers claimed to disprove that objective reality exists by conducting a bullshit experiment essentially using a magic trick to show people can’t see the same thing, or even the correct thing from some vantage point.  The only details that are relevant are the details concerning motion.  What causes what.  And a person whose perspective is built on understanding the causes of motion is living in objective reality whereas those whose perspective is built on ideas that make them feel good, protected from challenge are living in subjective reality.  I’m no longer motivated by compassion for others in my general ambition although from time to time I’m still motivated by compassion on an individual basis, lthough I recognize the motivating feeling coming from the perceived fulfillment of justice.  My general ambitions are the same despite different motivation and the byproduct is improvement in the quality of human life.  

The second point which was the main point we began with is I know people become smarter the more objective they become.  But people are inaccessible to real shit.  Who else in this country has a plan to increase wages among the bottom 50% of income earners by $5 to $10 per hour at zero cost to the employer, while adding 500 billion dollars to the Federal Budget, while increasing the profit of retail and fast food businesses?  But they want to hear about footage being given to a media outlet, what new thing trump lied about, or what senior moment Biden had.  You can’t get their heads out of the soap opera.  Which applies beyond the political.  

I think about this shit and my experiences, and I don’t know what I’m going to do.  That’s why I’m saying I’m not at a good spot to have maybe a month of expenses left.  If anybody thinks I can I forget all of this and become a simple man with a 9 to 5 it highlights just how ignorant such a person is.  That life is fine for a lot of people, but once the lights in the warehouse come on, you can’t forget what you know is there.  That’s in reference to an analogy that life is like a dark warehouse and everybody has a flash light and shines it to see the area they like best, obilvious to what exists outside of their field of vision or how what occurs outside their field of vison impacts what they’re seeing.  The flashlight is a metaphor for their perspective, and the illuminated field of vison represents their limits of acceptable information that allows them to see what it is they want to see.  How do I proceed when I cannot do what I want to do and the alternative is unacceptable?  Everything I’ve done over the last 10 years or so as been directly or indirectly a product of promoting my material and advancing my ideas. I positioned myself to work to earn money to position myself to advance my ideas.  If I can’t do that then how do I develop the motivation to do anything?  That’s why I’m in such a dangerous place right now with resources dwindling.  The dark comedically inclined reader would probably say there’s a solution I’m not seeing here.  I see that solution but it doesn’t seem worthwhile to talk about.    

I stopped communicating with the woman from Denver.  I didn’t have any  plans for her either way, in regard to anything outside our friendship which was social and sexual in nature, but if you’re really interested in the shit I’m trying to do, you’ve had years to read my material and ask questions to understand it.  She just happend to text me when I was writing this asking what happend to me, where did I go?  She knows she can check my website to know exactly what is going on with me.  It’s stupid.   

The guy I used to work with in St. Louis texted me the other day asked if I was in town.  I appreciated the jobs he got us while I was there for a few weeks and we had a mutually beneficial relationship since I picked him up and took him to the jobs and usually found the jobs.  I mantained some contact with him in the months following he’d hit me up and I’d let him know what was up with me and ask him how things were going.  I sent him summaries and let him know what I’m trying to do.  He’d say that’s what’s up which bacially breaks down to it sounds like you’re doing something worthwhile but I’m not interested.  I stopped communicating with him when he asked if I had cashapp.  He should know better from when we were working together I’m not the one to be helping him out with money, but he must have got desperate.  He also knew I was coming to Texas to work a regular job and save money for what I was trying to do.  When he hit me up the other day I didn’t text him back.  Like I said, I appreciated the opportunities to make money and he was cool dude generally, but I definitely didn’t owe him anything and I was helping him while he was helping me.  If it isn’t serving some purpose associated with LibertyAndTruth or OPL or work what’s the purpose of maintaining contact?  

I don’t find myself in the position I’m in today because I reject non-business L&T and OPL based  relationships.  When people can’t understand you they think you’re crazy.  When they think you’re crazy they stop associating with you.  2019 to 2020 I was in Milwaukee fighting my cases from Florida.  After seeing old acquaintences on a few occasions my phone rang about as much then as it does now.    

Anyway, I’m at a loss for how right now.  Can’t sell books, can’t establish any of the required communication for OPL with the public, politians, or businessess, and cannot draw the required attention to make even a modest living through the promotion of liberty and truth and plans to improve the quality of human life for all poeple, especially those who are most in need of improvements.  As previously mentioned, it’s more than the results themselves, but the experience of the attempts.  Where clearly people are not undestanding what you’re teling them and apparently not understanding the summaries you’re providing.  And in the case of emails and phone calls there’s no response.  The PR person from COSTCO responded that management had no comment on RUSC.  Other than that no return email or phone calls from media, universities, economic groups, or businesses.  And in the 1000s of attempts over the years to various organizations and the sollictiation of individuals only silence.  

If you cannot motivate people to act in their own best interest I don’t know another approach.  You reach a point where you have to accept that people cannot be accessed.  Their incorigible, corrupted by generations of self deception and deception passed down to succeeding generations and maintained through the propensity of human beings to form conclusions based on how those conclusions cause them to feel.             


There was a YouTube post where a user posted a picture that read not black versus white, not rich versus poor only us. They are trying to divide us.

I wanted to chronicle my response which is a good general summary of why people should be interested in what I’m promoting.

1a Everyone wants to do as they please and to do requires time, money, and know how. 1b Know how is acquired through money, time and desire. 1c This means an individual’s ability to do as they please is determined by their opportunities to have money and time.

2a Systems, economic, political, and social largely determine an individual’s circumstances including the opportunities they have for time and money.

3a What’s right and what’s wrong? All people can do as they please so long as they are not imposed on by others, because all people at all times want to do what they want to do. 3 b Imposition consists generally of physical harm, imposing on property, time, reality through deception, and circumstantial imposition.

3c What determines an individual’s circumstances? Systems determine individual circumstances and systems exist through collective consent and participation.

3d Consent is a product of an individual’s benefit from the systems or ideas concerning the system that produce satisfaction. In other words, the system benefits you or you’re contented by nationally biased ideas.

3e Participation is a product of benefit, nationalist indoctrination, or a matter of survival.

3f When an individual’s income opportunities require most of their time to earn an amount that only meets their expenses, these are trapping circumstances.

3g To improve ones income requires money and time, and when a person’s income is only sufficient to provide for their expenses they will never have the time or the money to improve their income and experience levels of freedom experienced by others within the population.

3h Systems that produce trapping circumstances is imposition by the collective on those individuals.

4a People divide themselves because they’re not concerned with the things they pretend to be concerned with, they’re concerned with consuming information that reinforces their beliefs.

5a Everything you see in the world is a product of the decisions that people make.

6a Most of the problems you see are a product of inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money and the existence of this condition is not only morally wrong, but it’s a detriment to each individual’s self interest.

That’s absolute truth. If people began to understand this, they could pull their heads out of the fog of their biases and misconceptions and we could begin to focus attention on the main human problem which is income.

But people don’t want that. There’s only a they if you recognize that you’re part of they because you’re not focused on your own moral obligation to address circumstantial imposition. I been writing about this shit and trying to promote these things for 10 years with proposals that guarentee income increases while advancing every impacted interest and I’m out here f’d up, can’t get so much as a signature on a petition. Meanwhile every fake cause out here that ain’t putting a dime in anybody’s pocket or contributing to individual liberty in any way shape or form has the attention and the support of people seeking to reinforce their biases. All of you are the problem. LibertyAndTruth (dot) org
OPLNOW (dot) com


Yesterday I made some erroneous calculations spurred by partial engagement in the task. I was at Mc Donald’s and overheard a conversation where a man lamented that his social security payment was insufficient to meet his expenses. I thought about how wage increases from RUSC will increase the amount paid in payroll tax more specifically social security tax and did some quick calculations using the Walmart example that I already had data for and extrapolating that data across retail and fast food. Unfortunately I googled how many social security beneficiaries which I believe describes people who receive benefits from associations with the deceased and not all people who receive benefits. A difference of about 60 million people. The second error I made was not doubling the additional amount of social security tax paid by employee since it’s matched by the employer.

It’s difficult to say definitively how much more money will be generated because the additional amount of wage increases for those who work in retail and fast food will vary greatly. By definition of a high volume transaction business the increase is at least 2.50 an hour, the preliminary estimate at Walmart is 6.25 more an hour, but it ultimately depends on the ratio of transactions per employee on site. It isn’t unrealistic for some workers to earn $15 more per hour, that’s 30 transactions per hour per employee. A gas station cashier can probably exceed that.

There’s about 22 million people who work in retail and fast food. If the average hourly increase is $6.25 per hour through RUSC it will generate about 40 billion dollars per year in additional social security tax revenue and about 20 billion dollars in additional federal income tax revenue after providing the payroll tax refund to employers and paying for the tax credit. Not a great increase but the direct gain is only the tip of the iceberg.

There are about 55 million people who are considered low wage workers. 20 million are those counted in retail and fast food averaging annual salaries of less than $25,000 per year. It’s difficult say what impact RUSC will have on the unskilled labor market but if we split the difference using the unofficial average for retail and fast food in RUSC and presume unskilled workers in other industries experience an increase of $3 per hour as a product of improved opportunities in retail and fastfood, we’re looking at an additional 30 billion in social security tax and about 80 billion dollars in federal income tax. The income tax gains are greater because the additional income tax for RUSC workers is used to cover the additional employer payroll tax from RUSC and used to provide the businesses a tax credit incentive to implement RUSC.

Rough estimate would be about 170 billion dollars in additional federal revenue directly.

Next we have to consider the impact of these low wage workers increased income which provides them about 600 billion more dollars to spend into the economy. This translates into more profits, more jobs, and more taxes. Consumer spending is down, large retailers are closing stores, which will put people out of work and the more people we have out of work the lower wages will go as there’s more competition for jobs.

The other aspect of RUSC is having 10s of millions of people experience a 30 to 100 ppl percent increase in income who previously earned 25,000 per year. Most people who receive welfare benefits are in households where people work but do not earn enough to provide for their needs. With RUSC many of these households will no longer require benefits. I don’t thinks it’s outside the realm of possibility that a post RUSC economy could reduce welfare benefits by about 1/3rd. This would equate to about 200 billion dollars in savings.

When all is said and done, RUSC could contribute about half a trillion dollars to the federal budget in increased revenue and decreased spending on an annual basis.

As far social security is concerned it is extremely difficult to increase benefits for 66 million people. It’s an issue I need to research more because the average payment is only $1540 per month. My focus would begin with qualifications. Mainly assets because I believe there are a lot of people who receive benefits who probably don’t need them. And while I wouldn’t necessarily be in favor of creating a criteria where people would lose benefits I’d be interested in seeing where increases could be made that address those most in need in fiscally responsible way.

I need to go over the budget. A huge portion of the federal budget is wasteful spending and much of it cannot be addressed because it’s money spent on industry who decides which candidates can be elected. We’re not going to cut that spending. But there’s a lot of other areas, funding to states that squander that money to prop donors and supporters on the state level.

One example I recently came across was that California spends 7 billion dollars per year on their homeless population which breaks down to about 40,000 per person. This money is spent inefficiently to maintain homelessness intentionally, where there are various non-profits with employees who earn enormous salaries who are politically connected and politically active. California received money from the federal government to address this problem and these funds filter down to local governments and people who have an interest in maintaining a homeless population. This is one example. This isn’t to say we should cut funds for homeless people, just an example of how the federal budget pledges money to a lot of vague causes that doesn’t benefit the public and a critical examination of the federal budget could produce great savings without detriment to public interests.

Ill probably never get to this. RUSC will probably never come into existence, or any of the other beneficial ideas I have, or the insights and observations I’ve recorded and discovered over the last 10 years. People are more concerned with bullshit and the reinforcement of their indoctrinated perspectives. With RUSC I’ve contacted about 100 media outlets, I’ve contacted business who would benefit, I’ve ran ads on YouTube, I went into retail and fast food business, explained it to the workers, left a written summary with the workers including links to the website, I’ve called and sent emails to economic groups who claim the cause of addressing inequality, and even contacted universities and nobody gives a shit. Not a single fucking response, criticism, feedback, or acknowledgement. The only prospect pending is a paper I wrote on RUSC to an academic journal. And in years past the promotion of other material has been met with the indifference and rejection without explanation.

I could get a copy of the federal budget and go through it and follow the money to see where it goes and whatnot actually produces. But why? I worked for 7 months saved about $6,000 and tried to promote my material and received no attention. After this period struggled to survive and returned to work and saved close to $12,000 and put about $9,000 into promotion and once again I received no attention. Back to living out of my piece of shit car quickly running out of money because the people in this country are too fucking stupid to understand and act on their own best interest. Now I’m doing nothing. I enjoy watching the dysfunction, and find solace in knowing that at the end of the day, when it’s all said and done when people leave this planet they’ll learn most of what they thought life was isn’t that, and they’ll learn how their ignorance, indifference, and biases produced the results on this planet.


I could almost copy and paste my last two entries and it would be an accurate summary of the time that has elapsed since my last entry.  In my car, going to the gym, playing poker, and essentially wasting my life.  I drove to DFW and returned to the Walmart in Irving that I spent about a month at last year.  Awaiting inspiration I thought I should at least put myself in an area where I can potentially find work and make money through CL gigs, veryable, etc.  Two days here and nothing worthwhile has come up.  

The most demoralizing part of my efforts is the acknowledgement of the interest and communication barrier, with one being a partial product of the other.  People are machines that are part of a broader machinery in interaction, organization, and what is produced collectively.  They have no interest in these topics.  

Am I someone who blames others for his own failures?  Not at all, I’m a person who recognizes that the people who he has interacted with cannot understand what he is telling them.  It’s very simple.  An incentive to businesses to implement a nominal service charge that will substantially increase worker pay for people in the bottom 50% of the income distribution, increase federal revenue, business profits, and government spending.  If a fast food or retail worker isn’t interested in anything else they should be interested in higher wages.  Even if they are not interested in working retail or fast food long term, it should still be of interest to have something to fall back on since all jobs will become living wage jobs, or as people pretend to be concerned for the situation of others, to ensure all people have opportunities for living wages.  Not to mention the other benefits mentioned and the byproducts in the reduction of crime and other social problems that stem from inadequate opportunities for people to have money.  

I’m the only person in this country who has practical ideas that are guaranteed to produce results.  We borrow increasingly insane amounts of money on an annual basis to fund the government.  The only way to reverse this trend is to decrease spending and increase revenue.  The only way to substantially increase revenue is achieved by increasing the income of large swaths of the population so a lot of people pay a little more in taxes.  You don’t achieve this by increasing the amount of taxes taken from a few people.  Federal spending can only be decreased by increasing people’s income to reduce the number of people who rely on government benefits.  It cannot be reduced by cutting spending on industry because industry directs public policy.  

You have to be interested in the machinery to understand these things.  People are not interested in the machinery, they’re interested in the reinforcement of their perspectives.  I come into a fast food or retail business and explain RUSC and they think what is this guy selling?  I leave them a summary of the idea on paper, and links to the website.  Either they cannot understand the summary or they never read it or share it.  The only thing I am sure of is they don’t sign the petition.  We can say I didn’t put enough effort into it.  The reasoning is simple.  If I spend 10 hours in two locations canvassing and it doesn’t produce a shred of interest it means the tactic is ineffective.  We can say well try 20 hours, try 40 hours until it works.  The point is, if it takes 10 hours to gain one person’s interest this is an ineffective strategy.  Like I’ve stated previously, it’s more about the interaction itself where it’s evident what I’m saying to people isn’t even being comprehended.   

I had to close my bank account because I received a letter that the state of Wisconsin was imposing a lien on the account where my funds would be seized if I didn’t schedule a hearing to dispute it.  I tried to open another bank account but the bank I went to who issues debit cards at location will not allow me to open an account without a utility bill.  I still have my business account open because it wasn’t mentioned in the letter but the debit card for the account does not work.  I received the card at my mail box in Orlando.  It was opened and then I had it sent to me in Elgin, IL.  I don’t what happened between the time it was opened and when it was forwarded to me but when I went to activate it it first stated that the pin was incorrect, and then on succeeding attempts told me the car could not be activated.  To pay the few bills I have I purchased a Walmart debit card.       

I planned on obtaining housing accomodations in DFW since I was confident I could find enough work to make more than it would cost me.  Stay for a month, maybe add $1000 to money and have a stable arrangement to regroup from.  When I previously posted an ad I received a lot of responses asking for a picture.  I included a picture in my new ad.  Found out there are a lot of gay men interested in my picture.  Highlights a sexuality advantage.  I responded to a few of the non-sexual advancement responses but I’m pretty sure they were phone number fishing responses.  I’m not really confident that I’m able to find work and I’m not very motivated to work right now.    

My motivation for work is to earn money to position myself to promote ideas and material.  That’s that I cannot do due to the inability of this species to comprehend.  Normalization of stupidity does not make stupidity correct despite the appearance of correctness to the participants.  It’s difficult because where does that leave me in life?  Obviously I’ve been at low points before, but the difference today is I’ve had ideas that needed to be executed.  Now after having attempted some of these things and not only experiencing failure, but understanding that the failure is a product of the culture, the collective hypnosis so to speak that prevents comprehension, where do I go from here?  

The previous paragraphs were written over the course of about a week or two.  I was in Irving and Frisco for about a week.  I didn’t spend much time looking for work and when I did there wasn’t much available.  The environment at least in Frisco was filled with irritants.  If I itemize them it seems petty but it some of it seemed intentional and I addressed some of it as it was occurring.  I typically don’t give anyone a reason to have a problem with me.  My moral application and the infrequencty with which I choose to interact with people puts me out of mind.  I won’t go into the details, suffice to say it seemed like there were intentional effort to irritate me.  Some of which I addressed and others were more difficult to address because there was plausible deniability where I would appear to over reacting to something the perpetrator could claim was accidential or unintentional.  In Frisco, since one of the few activities I’m involved in right now there was just an abundance of naked men in the locker room on multiple occasions.  I don’t understand why men want to be seen naked by other men.  Obviously not inappropreate for the locker room, but if you’re taking a shower or going to the shower you can at least throw some drawers.  I dress and undress in the shower but I guess I’m not try to send those signals.

I don’t have a problem with people having a problem with me.  I always wear my shirts and occasionally I see traffic on my website.  If there’s something someone wants to talk about we can talk about that.  I’m just not a fan of the cowardly shit that was going on.  What may seem like paranoia can be understood as the limits of coincidence, where an abundance of coincidences ceases to be coincidence and becomes an effort.  

To avoid these negative influences on my mood and the potential of someone finding out fucking around, and dealing with the consequences I decided to leave the area.  There was also a cop in the Walmart parking lot I was sleeping in down the road from the Planet Fitness.  I was there on 3 or 4 consecutive nights and wanted to avoid that interaction.  I was thinking of going to Houston but as you may be able to judge from the previous paragraphs I’m just at an off place right now.  

Abeline, TX is a place I’ve stopped at to use the gym or go to Walmart on a few occasions going back and forth between Phoenix and DFW.  There’s a rest area fairly close to the city.  About a year or two ago when I was flyering I stopped through here and distributed some flyers.  I don’t know much about the city, like I said I pass through since it is the only Planet Fitness between Midland and Fort Worth.  But in my limited experience it seems like a place where people are well mannered and not trying to bother anybody that isn’t trying to bother anyone.  I might spend a week or so out here while I get myself back going again.  That’s my initial perception, could prove to be false but in the time I spent flyering, probably 10 times going to gym, and various shopping instances everything has been smooth.  

I have a few commercial ideas I’m going to create.  Obviously don’t have the funds to finance the production but it will feel good to have them ready should funding become available.  As I stated in previous entries, the RUSC article has been submitted to an economic academic journal which could open a door to the academic community and spawn research that could draw attention RUSC and other material.  Tomorrow I’m going to get to work on those ads and at least resume an email campagin to promote RUSC, OPL, books, etc.       


I don’t know.  I don’t know what to do.  And I’ve been dealing with that through distraction.  I typically don’t go more than a few hours without knowing generally what I’m trying to accomplish and the next step to getting there.  Obviously I know what I’m trying to accomplish, with OPL, and what I could probably term motionism, truthism, built on liberty as the basis for objective morality. 

 I suppose the term objective morality sounds like a dangerous term.  Where someone would say it’s claiming to know definitively what is right and what is wrong.  But deduction furnishes us with this duality, because ideal is ideal.  The human constant is that all people want to do as they please, which means right and wrong action is determined by whether an action imposes including systemically where systems furnish individual circumstances and circumstances determine an individual’s opportunities to do. 

Writing that last paragraph has probably provided me as much satisfaction as I’ve had in a few days.  There’s satisfaction in stating something you’ve stated before but with greater concision than you have previously.  In this instance it’s referencing circumstantial imposition without providing the full explanation, but providing the evidence in the first cause of every act which is an individual’s circumstances.  

Before I was sidetracked by my own comment, I’ve just been fucked up over the last few weeks.  I won’t recap my previous unsuccessful efforts, I believe I aired those grievances in my last entry.  I actually wrote an entry on the 31st that I took down.  I took it down because I mention an incident that could.create prejudice against me.  There was other things that generally are detrimental to my interests for.people to know.  It’s a negative portrayal that isn’t representative of how I normally am.  Nothing wrong, just suggestive of a temperament that isn’t representative of me.  

I’m not sure what to do next.  I did have an idea for a research experiment for Lowest Paid Employee Wage Disclosure Marketing.  You would get 20 people and give them $100 or.some other amount of money to shop in a store.  The store would be created for the study and all the products would have LPE ratings and the higher the LPE the higher the cost per item.  The participants would get to keep the items they purchase so they have an interest in maximizing value.  The store can be stocked with the products they like and use gathered through a survey prior to participation.  We can measure if the feeling the participants gain by believing they’re contributing to higher wages is greater than the feeling they have in maximizing how much stuff they get.  We learn how often people will pay more for a product that advertises a living wage for their lowest paid employee.  Maybe more importantly, since we’ll have a survey of their favorite brands we can see how often people would change their brand based on an LPE rating. Once we have that data manufacturers can be encouraged to to add a dime to their price, increase wages, adopt LPE label, and create marketing campaigns around it.  Some of their competitors will do the same thing.  

LPE isn’t really necessary if we can achieve a round up service charge because unskilled workers in those industries will benefit from a labor market where unskilled workers have opportunities for high wages in high volume transaction industries.  Economically we need two things: the round up service charge, and the balance stimulus.  If we achieve these two in that order we’ll have created opportunity for the entire country.  

Right now I have no idea how.  I had a lot of how tos a few months ago and they’re all ineffective.  I’m surprised none of the economic groups I called and left messages with called me back.  I did receive one phone call from a group in AZ.  I was at the gym.  When I called back there was no answer and it wasn’t a business voice mail.  Their website sounded too similar to what I want to do with OPL.  Lacking the ambition to create voter blocs to decide the seats of contested districts and ultimately decide the house of representatives for.the party.that supports OPL legislation.  Maybe it wasn’t really.that similar, just appeared to be trying influence policy, probably by serving as a medium for Democrat’s talking points.  I decided not to continue the pursuit of communication with this group because it seemed like a grift.  Nearly.all non-profits are.  

Giannis dropped 54 against the Clippers and the Bucks overcame a 21 point deficit to win 106-105.  I saw a news clip where in honor of the game  Culvers made a donation to charity he supports that provides diapers to families, and they also benefited from Giannis drawing attention to the charity.  In the interview the representative of the charity embellished the narrative, stating families are having to decide between purchasing diapers and purchasing food.  In that situation people are purchasing food and somebody is going to be washing shitty cloth make shift diapers.  Take it at face value if you want, if the problem is people don’t have enough for diapers then the problem is that people’s income opportunities are inadequate.  I think it’s good some people are benefiting by saving money on diapers but this what charities do.  They find a symptom they can create a cause around and people earn handsome salaries to bail water from a boat with a hole, instead of fixing the hole.  


I was talking to my daughter telling her that I’ve been in something of a stasis for the last few weeks.  My efforts in Illinois and Nevada was extremely disappointing.  It’s inconceivable to me that a person could tell people he’s promoting legislation that could one be passed, and two substantially increase their income and for them to not be interested.  In Illinois I took most of the responsibility since Round Up Service Charge was Round Up Gratuity and I took more of a community activist promoter approach.  In Vegas my approach was more business oriented, where instead of explaining the program, how they benefit, and encouraging them to go to the website and share the information with their coworkers, I asked if they had contact information for the owners, and I also emphasized the owners interest in knowing about the program and providing input.  

Out of 20 sollicitations I was able to gain one franchise owner’s number.  There was a lot riding on canvassing being effective.  As I may have already written, I anticipated explaining the proposal to workers in high volume transaction businesses, leaving a handout, and at least the people who saw the handout would be inclined to go to the website and sign the petition.  Among those who took 5 minutes to see how they could not only improve their wages, but improve the wages of unskilled workers and increase public revenue, I figured there would be some who would mention it to others.  With owner information I can test the incentive and gain access to actual data.  Not to mention, if a person stands to gain money annually through the passage of this legislation, it may be worth investing in the promotion of it.  Canvassing didn’t yield a single signature or response. 

In some instances it was evident that people didn’t understand what I was talking about.  One woman said she saw it on her news feed.  I did some google searches to see if there was anything similar to what I was doing in the news.  Afterall I did send out about 100 press releases, maybe someone did a story and didn’t tell me.  I didn’t find anything.  Another manager told me they already did round up.  LOL   In Illinois, although the proposal was a little bit different, after I tell her that the round up will be distributed to the employees, she asked me where the money goes?  LOL.  It’s funny, but it’s not funny.  Not funny when the comprehension of language is limited to short phrases, and I’m trying to earn a living on communicating new ideas to people.  Obviously I didn’t find it very funny in the immediate aftermath of those efforts.  That’s what really sapped my motivation.  It’s sapping in the sense that there may not be anything I can do to be successful in that capacity.  I mean “I speaka fucking Engrish”.  That’s a South Park quote, one of the greatest characters in cartoon history, the chinese restaurant owner in South Park.  Arguing with Japanesse resturant owner, maybe if you speak a engrish I can understand you, he says I am speaka fucking engrish, why don’t you speaka fucking engrish.  

That shit is hilarious.  I love popular stereotypes.  I suppose that’s another reason I hate woke culture.  It’s an effort to suppress the enjoyment that comes from ideas about different groups of people.  Enjoying something associated with a group of people isn’t implying that all members of the group do said things, and it isn’t used to promote the unequal treatment of said people.  More importantly it’s the expression of an opinion, that said thing is funny in a particular context.  The name woke as well is so disgusting because you’re applying a term of awareness to positions that represent a complete lack of understanding of subjects associated with those positions. 

Anyway, I did receive signatures from a promotional ad I ran on youtube.  But these signatures were expensive, in consideration of the total amount of money spent on ads and the number of signatures gained for that price.  In other words it wasn’t a good video.  

I had a moment at Jimmy John’s today where I was considering running down RUSC with the employees I ordered from.  I guess that’s part of what caused me to think about that.  It isn’t fear of failure or fear or rejection, but the pain avoidance in knowing the outcome of this effort is going to lead to that disappointment, either because people are irrational, or because people cannot understand in that setting through that medium.  I remember when I ended my day after 4 hours in Vegas and I recognized that in order to really have people’s attention they have to first learn about you through their phones.  

My general lack of activity and the declining road worthiness of this car has me thinking about the time I’m wasting and how I don’t have a plan right now.  I’m rereading and making minor adjustments on my books.  Which is slightly necessary but is largely just something I’m doing to feel like I’m doing something.  It’s strange because I always have an idea about what I’m going to do next but I really don’t know.  

I do have a submission of RUSC pending review for publication in an academic journal.  Earlier I commented that I don’t know what it will do for me.  As I thought about it this evening it could help attract attention.  The story itself could be worthy of attention, which would attract attention to these other things.  Last grade completed was 8th grade, highest formal academic achievement was a GED obtained while I was incarcerated.  Convicted felon, two occasions, former inmate, who has been homeless or living out of a car off and on for the better part of 10 years.  Publishing a paper in an academic journal that shows how 50% of the income distribution, and businesses could make more money, while significantly increasing tax revenue and significantly decreasing spending coming from those circumstances could be the story that creates interest in everything else I’m trying to accomplish along with that.  Having written that I wouldn’t be surprised to get the rejection in the morning.  LOL.


I haven’t been doing much lately.  For a few days I was rereading and editing books, I have three left to finish.  I’ve been wasting time playing poker.  This is a very entertaining activity but also an activity that can have a very negative impact on my mood.  Of course there are other things that have negatively impacted my mood.  

Each day while I’m on the treadmill for 30 to 60 minutes I see the mainstream news.  Day after day of irrelevant content made to seem important, or intent on advancing an agenda to motivate half the country to take political action within a controversy of irrelevancy.  I’ve written about some of the stories before I took this hiatus from writing.  

Today they released the body cam footage from the police officers in Memphis brought up on criminal charges over the use of force that resulted in the death of a suspect.  First of all, why is this national news?  This should only be of interest to the people of Memphis, it’s their police and their community.  What happened in Memphis has no impact on the lives of people located outside of Memphis.  It’s a national story because police are the bad guys is a popular perception in this country.  The media doesn’t exist to provide important information, the media exists to reinforce biases to attract attention and earn money.  A man dies from injuries sustained while resisting apprehension, and excessive force in policing is a national issue based on 1 police contact out of about 60 million annually.  

I haven’t reviewed the body cam footage independently, but I did see what was aired on the news.  My preliminary opinion based on what I saw is that the officers were not malicious and did not apply excessive force, even if the force resulted in a fatal injury.  There are suspects who like boxers who are too tough for their own good.  What I mean by this is there have been a decent number of boxers who finished boxing matches and later died as a result of the damage they sustained.  Which is to say you can be hurt very badly and still be actively resisting and no one knows you’ve sustained any serious injuries.   

If you’re a law enforcement officer how do you know how much force to use to gain the compliance of a suspect?  You start somewhere and then see how the suspect responds to that amount of force and then proceed accordingly.  If the force being applied does not cause the suspect to comply then you have to use greater force to gain compliance.  When you have a suspect who is very tough, very drunk, very high, etc, if you’re using a strike to gain the compliance of the suspect and he doesn’t respond to it the presumption is it didn’t hurt him enough to comply, so you have to strike him harder.  It’s very difficult to know how hard you hit someone if they don’t react to it.  

This isn’t Rodney King where the suspect was handcuffed and beaten by rouge officers who for some reason decided they were going to kick his ass.  The suspect ran, he was caught, they tried to tase him, they tried to pepper spray him, and they used strikes to gain his compliance.  Unfortunately, tragically, the injuries he sustained while resisting resulted in the suspect’s death.  

I’m on the treadmill and uncharacteristically for that gym there were two guys a few treadmill down talking.  The one guy said of the footage that was uncalled for.  I’m obviously not in the conversation but I said loud enough to hear me yeah he was being compliant, sarcastically.  Irritating that this cunt of a man would see an officer use a strike against a suspect who refused to comply with lawful orders, and say it was wrong.  Arrogance and stupidity.  Is it lawful for an officer to use a strike to gain the compliance of the suspect?  Yes.  It is exactly called for, prescribed to gain compliance.  These charges are likely politically motivated.  The worst thing for the officers facing charges is they can be sacrificed to maintain order and/or to advance a party’s political interest.  For more on that see the book racial perceptions which addresses an instance of alleged excessive force that resulted in an officer being convicted on charges to avoid public outrage.  

I was already aggravated before I made it to the gym.  Yesterday I won a satellite for a $25 tournament entry.  Today I woke up and used the entry to play a $4000 guaranteed tournament.  I made it to the final table.  There were 8 of us left and I was probably 3rd or 4th in chips, having in the neighborhood 275k and the chip leader had probably about 350k.  Top prize was about $1000, top 3 spots were above $500, and 8th spot was a little over $100.

I’m dialed in.  I was dealt AJ.  At this point in the game I don’t feel great about AJ.  I 3 bet the blind and I had two callers.  Three bet was at least 15k maybe would have been more and we all have over 200k who are in the hand.  The flop was A and two low cards.  I don’t remember if I was small blind or if I was on the button.  Action may have checked  to me or it began on me and I half bet the pot.  The guy after me jammed, and the 3rd player folded.  

This was a difficult decision.  I knew he wasn’t on AK because if he was on AK he either would have reraised me or jammed preflop.  I would have folded if anyone jammed preflop, just because of the potential of someone jamming on AK in that position of the game.  

I’m thinking maybe he hit a set, or two pairs calling with an A low.  But it didn’t make much sense to me that he would jam if he felt that good about his position.  Not willing to fold the AJ I called.  And it was a good call.  He had A 10, I had A J.  There’s only 3 cards in the deck that can save him.  He had to hit a 10 on the turn or the river.  He hit the 10 on the river.  I was very upset about that.  

I’m in survival mode, I have about 40k left.  I was dealt pocket 10s.  I jam preflop, and there is one caller.  He turned over his hand and he had 8 9.  My hand wins 80% of the time versus that hand.  He hits a 9 on the flop, and then another 9 on the turn.  

It’s sick when you make the right decisions and you’re a huge favorite to win the hands.  On the first hand from the point he called he has 12.5% chance of hitting a 10, 1 in 8 times will that happen.  Go out being an 8 to 1 favorite, then a 4 to 1 favorite on back to back hands.  I feel cheated, it feels like injustice, when you lose an 8 to 1 hand and then a 4 to 1 hand.  If my luck was average I would have won that $1000, or at least placed top 3.  

I cashed out $130 out of the $150 I had.  Poker is generally a waste of time.  I’m going to finish rereading these last three books.  Then I need to go for a drive and figure something out.   


Stopped here to record a comment exchange. I’ve been primarily editing old material haven’t been very productive lately, still trying to figure it the fuck out.

In my YouTube feed I saw a poll about a WNBA player and I visited the comments because I didn’t think there were 900 people interested in the WNBA much less 900 plus people commenting on what a WNBA player should do.  

Ended up being a very entertaining decision.  Since this post showed up in the feeds of sports fans every.comment I saw scrolling down substantially was just people posting random comments as a way of saying no one is interested in the WNBA.  It was hilarious.  

There was one comment on the recent fusion energy experiment that I responded to.  After I be responded I answered a question and thought I’d share my position and insight here.

Did you guys hear about the new fusion experiment that generated net energy production?  

I responded: It’s a net positive in terms of the energy from the laser to the pellets to produce the reaction, not a net positive in the energy required to power the laser and the experiment to produce the reaction.  The energy created represents only 1 percent of the total energy used to produce the reaction.  Additionally, this isn’t even a scalable technique if it were an actual net positive.  Which means 1: we haven’t produced net energy with fusion, and even if we had, it isn’t as if we can produce bigger pellets and bigger lasers and create energy using this method.  We’re no closer to commercial fusion than we were before that experiment.

Skunkmonk asked me “what would you recommend they do?”

(Skunkmonk lol)

 @Skunkmonk  I’m not sure if the question is what would I recommend for renewable energy or what would I recommend for fusion or energy technology investment?  

I think the most exciting source of energy is geo thermal.  The problem with geothermal is we previously lacked the ability drill deep enough for it to feasible in a lot of areas.  But there is a new drilling technique and ironically enough its using a laser.  According to Anton from What the Math it’s been tested and can achieve the depths required to bore holes for geothermal energy generation.  I believe it’s also the cheapest source of energy to generate.  Currently.there are places in the United States where geothermal energy could be generated abundantly and transported.  Yellowstone park, but unfortunately people prioritize the interest of not violating a landscape that maybe a few million privileged people look at every year over the interest of generating low cost carbon free energy.  Human stupidity obstructs geo thermal immediately in the United States, but the laser drill is on the horizon.  Maybe a year away, and it makes geothermal a real possibility just about everywhere.  

This drill as it relates to energy generation is 1000x more newsworthy than this slanted narrative on fusion energy.  Why?  There’s a few reasons, 1st, the news about the fusion energy experiment contents people about progress on climate climate change.  The second reason is presenting a story about a breakthrough in renewable energy attracts attention, and the media earns money to attract attention.  The third reason is it’s 50 years out ,(or further) and doesn’t compete with any of the present energy technologies.

This leads into why there’s no national obsession with.the significantly more promising story about drilling technology and the potential of immediately achieving geothermal.  Whether it’s fossil fuel or renewable energy industry benefits from energy generation.  That’s one area of pronounced difference in political parties.  Politics is the prioritization of industrial interests, and fossil fuels largely support Republicans and renewable energy invests more with democrats.  With some overlap both ways, where some industries are invested with both democrats and Republicans, and some companies that are involved in fossil fuel use also benefit from policy supporting renewable energy.  

What did Biden just do in the ridiculously named anti inflation bill?  He did the same thing Obama did in his presidency, he provided 300 billion in renewable energy subsides.  This is mostly using public funds  to pay for infrastructure that will be owned by and generate profit for private companies.  This is why everybody’s excited about fusion, and no one knows anything about this new drilling technology that could make geo thermal power a reality.  

How would I spend $300 billion dollars on renewable energy?  Since the public is mostly paying for the infrastructure I believe the public should own it.  I would do what Sanders recommended and put it under the management of the Power Marketing Administrations who sell the power from hydro electric dams to the utility companies.  We would sell power to the utilities  at a profit.  That profit would be reinvested to continuously build more renewable energy infrastructure until  we were about 90 percent renewable since I think that is the limit for renewable generation based on how it is supplied.  Then we have profit to keep up with increasing demand and to subsidize the cost of power to low income people without having to spend tax dollars to do it.  

As far as climate change is concerned we’re probably already past the point where even a rapid transition to renewable energy will reduce emissions enough to prevent 3 and then 4  degrees C of warming within about 120 years.  That world will lead to the collapse of civilization as areas presently habitable become uninhabitable and nations have to redistribute their population to places that are already occupied. It will almost certainly lead to nuclear war.  

There was a study recently that showed injecting aerosols into the atmosphere near the ice caps could reduce the temperature enough to ensure the ice caps don’t melt.  This is important because ice reflects heat whereas water and land absorb heat, and there’s consequences to ocean, climate, and shoreline if the caps continue to melt.  Costs about 9 or 13 billion dollars not much for governments.  I say governments because I imagine at some point, for some period of time each nation will be responsible for their own airspace to cool the planet.  The US government just funded a 5 year research study on using aerosols to cool the planet. 

 That’s the plan.  To use aerosols to cool the planet until we can transition to renewable energy by using public funds to build private infrastructure, and emissions return to a level that does not cause excessive warming.


This is what you elect.  The Democrats are trying to ban gas stoves, and the Republicans trying to defund the IRS and proposing legislation to replace income tax with a sales tax.  

Democrats are trying to sell ovens, whereas what the Republicans are trying to is produce the income stratification and greatest contraction in the economy in US history.  How great is the sales tax and how would most Americans fair? 

GDP in 2022 was 25 trillion and 5 trillion in income tax was collected.  This means the sales tax has to be 20 percent.  This means you have to be paying 20 percent in federal income tax to break even on the sales tax.  Roughly half the country pays less than 12%, and those in the next income grouping who represent at least 35% of the population pay 22%.  Taking into consideration that many have deductions, and qualify for credits about 85% of the population is going to lose, 10% of the population will have a small gain, 1% of the population will have substantial gains, and .1% of the population will gain absurdly.  You have a plan to make 85% Americans poorer.  

Not only have you made 85% of the population poorer, you’ve just reduced the size of the economy because 85% of people have less money to purchase goods and services.  85% of people lose between 5% and 20% of their purchasing power., Which means GDP is going to fall by probably 10%.  Now we’re not even making up the cost of income tax and we have a plethora of new problems, chiefly unemployment as we lost 10% of economic activity where goods and services weren’t purchased, the money wasn’t made to pay wages and achieve profits.  

But we’re not done.  We’re also going to dramatically increase spending.  If you’re raising the cost of everything by 20% those who paid no income taxes and those who receive benefits have to be adjusted to maintain an increased cost of living.  20% increase in social security payments and a 20% increase in welfare benefits.  We’re going to increase spending by a few hundred billion dollars while losing money as the sales tax fails to cover the income tax, making 85% of the country poorer, 50% substantially poorer, shrinking the economy by at least 10% and all the associated consequences of doing those things.  

Utter stupidity.  Not stupid for the interests he serves as .1% of the population would make out absurdly, shifting the majority of the tax burden to a majority of the people who can’t afford it, to reward people who already have more money than they’ll spend on consumption in their lifetimes.  

There were two basis for banning gas ovens, and this is in part for show, and in part to serve the interests of companies who manufacture and sell ovens.  The climate change basis is contradicted in that it requires 3* as much natural gas to produce electricity to run your stove than it does to operate a natural gas stove according to the California Energy Commission and it costs about half the price.  Although more subtly, the Democrats are also making people poorer in energy cost while increasing emissions.  

The second reason is based on a study that claims natural gas stoves lead to increased asthma.  I haven’t read the study but usually when you do there’s no definitive causation.  But say there is, then we do the same thing we do with other potentially harmful products, we force the industry to put a warning on the product and the companies have an opportunity to dispute the claim in court.  Any law that does not prevent imposition is an unjust law because it imposes without preventing imposition.  One study absent any independent review doesn’t prove anything.  Again even if it did, the act of an individual choosing to take a risk that does not impose risk on others is within his right as a free person in a free country.  

I was thankful to receive quick rejection from the journal I submitted to, and I also received a second email from the publisher who wrote that after their analysis of the paper I should submit it to one of their other journals.  The list they sent didn’t seem appropriate, but I will check their journals for one that is.  

I’ve been riding low.  Called top retailers but you can’t get through to anyone.  I sent RUSC to their PR people.  That’s a doubtful prospect.  I’m hanging out around phoenix, going to edit my books and try to figure out a way to get this out there.  


Discovering a mistake carries with it some embarrassment and concern, but it does feel good to overcome it. I can’t believe it has taken me this long to discover it, but I discovered my math was wrong somewhere along the way, or a more accurate method of calculation. The last RUSC I posted a few days ago is wrong, and the new one will be on the OPL website. Just in time as I begin making important calls. It works perfectly. I’m very excite (Borat shit).

I do have time now to Write my recap but it seems like a chore. Below is a response to a Christian about his deity.

Shortly after the Bill’s safety collapsed on field I watched a few news broadcasts on YouTube trying to learn the cause of his sudden cardiac arrest. To this day no explanation has been provided. I commented about the response including criticism on people asking for prayers and people in the comments section image promoting contrived compassion including bragging about praying. Basic criticism I won’t bore you with here and I’ve already commented about this incident in previous entries. Apparently it’s a story that is doing very well in the ratings and the media is milking it to death. That along with the Republicans having a difficult time electing a speaker, yes America this is what is important according to those who decide importance to you. Increasing wages during a time when inflation has risen 7 percent and wages only 4 percent is not important as evidenced by the media ignoring my press release.

The point is there was a person who with all the intelligence of a 6 year old who said I was delusional, god and Jesus are really. Safe to say he isn’t a theologian since about 300 years after Jesus death it was decided that Jesus was god. To avoid a long response that would no doubt go unappreciated and not understood I told him to look up the definition of the word delusional to understand how it applied much more to him than it did to me. He responded with you’re wrong god is real. Although I’ve written about this in Liberty: The Definitive Moral Truth and at least a handful of times in this journal below is my response to his assertion that the deity from his religion is real. The content of my response branches out into a much deeper and more detailed response but for the purpose of concision in a comment exchange this is the short explanation provided him.

 @D Thrills  1st your deity is a hypocrite which qualifies his inconsistency.  Greatest commandment is to love your god with all your mind, heart, spirit, and strength and second is to love your neighbor as you love yourself.  Of course your deity doesn’t love you as he loves himself because his doctrine states he created you with 2 options, to serve him for eternity or be destroyed, and this is not an existence he would want for himself, meaning.A: he created you for evil purposes, and B: he doesn’t love you as he demands you love him, doesn’t love you as he loves himself, and demands you you keep commandments he doesn’t keep.  

2nd your deity is a tyrant which is not consistent with the creator or the human ideal.  The human constant is that all beings want to do as they please, and all beings can do as they please so long as they are not imposed on by other beings.  This means right action is unimposing and wrong action is imposing since in the absence of imposition all beings can do as they please.  The justification for imposition is to prevent or neutralize imposition and there are various forms in the production of circumstances, time, deception, and so on and so forth.  The point being is, liberty is true, 1st as the human ideal and second because there is no evidence of any result on this planet being produced outside the decisions of the creatures on this planet and natural forces.  Which means the morality of the creator is liberty because he doesn’t interfere with his creation.  

As to your deity being a tyrant, we begin Adam and Eve where the original sin is disobedience, not an imposing act.  The first person who your deity counted as being righteous Abraham for his obedience.  The problem is Abraham was going to kill a child to remain obedient to this deity.  Deity’s highest value is subordination.  A deity created out of human interests to take people’s free will, or liberty.  Abraham was not righteous because he would kill an innocent child.  

Although according to the archeological record exodus never happened, according to your myth god commanded Joshua to kill all the Canaanites young and old and to take their land.  This is imposition, imposing on life and property.  What does your deity say the thief comes not but to lie, steal, murder.  Your deity checks all the boxes.  

Jesus tells you if someone demands your cloak also give him your tunic, if he hits on one cheek let him also strike you on the other, and if he asks for forgiveness to forgive him as many times as he asks.  Which facilitates the ease with imposition takes place and is tyrannical, since it commands one not to resist imposition, when resistance is necessitated to preserve liberty.  

The duality of morality is liberty and tyranny, and morality is a determinate of motion among conscious beings.  Morality motivates action to right a wrong and morality prohibits action that one considers to be wrong.  I can explain the mechanism if you’re interested.  Morality is either objective in an action is either imposing (wrong), unimposing (right) or justified (right imposing to prevent or neutralize imposition), or morality is subjective and someone decides what is right or wrong based on their preferences.  Or they impose on those who they can impose upon as they please.  

Existentially, presuming on the survival of consciousness after death there has to be a sesperate space for those whose morality is tyranny and those whose morality is liberty because they cannot exist in the same space.  The propensity of the tyrant to impose is at odds with the propensity of the Libertee to prevent and neutralize imposition creating never ending conflict.  If such a situation existed in an eternal space the universe wouldn’t exist because the space beyond would consist of perpetual conflict.  

The point of the previous deduction is 1st to point out that Jesus doesn’t decide who goes where based on the people who decide to be his friend and believe in him.  Because it leads to eternal conflict.  Morality decides and the changing of one’s understanding is the production of a new person not necessarily liable for actions committed under a faulty understanding.  Which means forgiveness isn’t required, but also absent that understanding forgiveness doesn’t grant access to a space that operates under a different understanding (liberty/tyrant).  

The second point from the existential deduction is that the creator or god according to your deific reference is irrelevant.  Because 1: the creator doesn’t help here.  He doesn’t grant wishes or prayers and interfere with the liberty of his creation  2: the creator doesn’t choose what space you will go to based on how he perceives you.  If consciousness survives death morality will determine what space you’re appropriate for.  3: any being that has a beginning which includes all human beings can never know if they’re in the presence of the creator supreme or something in between since any being in an existence beyond this one will have advantages in the understanding of that space and can claim to be the creator.  

If your deity is real, he’s real evil, or he is the devil, the ultimate tyrant according to the definitions provided by your deity.  I am right even if you can’t understand it.  Ignorance is a product of values meaning people are responsible for what they don’t know.   


I have the first revised version of the of the round up service charge tax credit incentive with a working tax credit amount.  10,000 tax credit per location for 10 or fewer employees, 15,000 per location for 11 to 30 employees, and 20,000 per location for 30 or more employees.  While this may not seem like much and for larger retailers like Walmart it may not be enough.  Walmart would receive about a 200 million dollar tax credit for their 10,000 stores, but the amount gained in income tax would be 540 million.  (Might be 580, don’t remember it’ll be on Oplnow.com page tomorrow.  It does work, the question is whether Walmart or other large retailers would do the right thing gain 200,000 million dollars per year.  

Yet, what it may lack for the large retailers it should make up for in it’s appeal to fast food.  Tom Kings Holdings just filed bankruptcy citing inflation and essential the inability to recover after the response to COVID.  Part of the problem was having to down size his workforce when his 90 units were either closed or limited to drive thru only service, and then when restrictions were loosend he had trouble finding new employees to open all his stores at maximum capacity.  Imagine he adopted a round up service charge.  For 1, he doesn’t have a problem with labor because there are a lot of people who will work a burger king job making $20 plus dollars per hour with RUSC.  Second, maybe he could have survived with the tax credits per location.  TOMS wasn’t failing altogether, some units were probably profitable, and he cites debt servicing as a cause for bankruptcy.  If before this occurred when his businesses were profitable before COVID, maybe keeping 1.3 million dollars per year prior to the pandemic would have put them far enough ahead that they would have been able to weather the restrictions and recovery.  

I’m much more confident about franchises and retail with few employees adopting RUSC than I am large retailers.  Large retailers will probably come around from internal pressure and the need to maintain an adequate number of workers.  One large retailers will force the hand of others to retain socially conscious consumers and to retain talent. 

I feel good about the program again.  

I was pulled over today, and I made it an embarrassing event.  He told me he pulled me over for failing to maintain a safe distance.  I initially thought this was bullshit because I almost always have two or more car lengths between myself and the vehicle in front of me.  I was irritated.  Presuming he was pulling me over to see if the car smelled like weed, or something was in plain view that would give rise to probable cause to search and find something.  After thinking about it a little bit is possible I may have been momentarily too close.  I don’t like to use my brake if I’m on the interstate, so while I usually leave a lot of space between myself and the car in front of me, when traffic begins to slow down I allow the gap to close rather than hit my brake.  He may have observed me following closer than is legally allowable for a brief period of time but it’s a poor reason to pull someone over.  

I don’t remember how close I was for how long I was so it didn’t really matter.  I should have asked him the legally allowable distance.  I told him he can pull people over anytime he wants to.  He said that was my opinion and I said reasonable suspicion.  That has nothing to do with the reason for the traffic stop, since reasonable suspicion is a reasonable belief based on the officer’d experience that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or could occur based on the totality of the circumstances.  Obviously doesn’t apply here where he pulled me over based on the claim that I was following too closely to the truck in front of me supposedly supported by video evidence.  Felt stupid for bringing that, but the point was that police have pretty widespread authority under reasonable suspicion, at least to contact which creates an opportunity for crime to be discovered.  Again non-applicable would have rather not said that stupid shit.  

I was upset because I didn’t have access to a copy of my current insurance and didn’t know how big an issue that was going to be.  Coincidentally, I had a telemarketing call for an auto insurance quote while I was pulled over.  I was proceeding with the call and would have purchased a policy right there if he wanted to make me do that.  When he returned to my car he let me go with a warning telling me to watch how close I was following and to make sure I keep a copy of my current  insurance with me.  I’ll have to look that up for Arizona.  

I’ve been pulled over for some BS over the years, and I’ve written about it.  


I should have known, but I thought different plan and different approach may yield a different result.  The problem is I forget these changes don’t help if people don’t understand what you’re saying.  I had one woman who said she thinks their store already does it lol. Another woman said she thought she saw an article about what I was promoting but said she’s not a business owner yet. I dropped the ball on that, in part because I was surprised by her saying that. Then again I did submit 50 plus press releases that received no response. I could have reexplained the program to her but she had already referred me to her manager. I mention it for the point that she didn’t understand that what I was promoting was for her benefit more than anyone elses. Maybe I put too much emphasis on helping the business in an effort to get contact information.

There’s no questions and canvasing never translates into any signatures.  Imagine someone came into your work and told you you could make $5 to $10 more per hour when you’re only making 12 to $15 per hours?  They act like they couldn’t use an extra $200 to $600 per week.  In their position I’d like to find out how much more I would make, disclose the number of full and part time workers and provide a transaction estimate.  I definitely would want to know more.  I’d go to the website and sign the petition and encourage other people to sign it.  Instead what the fuck are they doing?  What could possibly be more important than participating in improving your income and the income others?  Read and sign the petition.  Post the shit on your social media, and bring it up when you have opportunities to, go to this website and sign the petition, it improves wages for low income people, cuts spending, and increases tax revenue.  That’s a reasonable response, to be interested in something that serves your interest.  

Based on responses I know I wasn’t understood, but also based on a lack of a response I know I wasn’t understood.  So what do I do?  What do I do when I’m on a planet with people who are not smart enough to understand something that not only improves their lives, but the lives of everyone around them?  It’s not innate stupidity, it’s conditioning.  All of this has enormous implications for my opportunities and quality of life.  

It is insane that I cannot draw attention to this. Even more so than my inability to draw attention to other novel and important things I’ve introduced because of how this particular idea is universally beneficial, and directly and substantially improves people’s income, and even the stupidest people want more money.

Someone described the state of humans beings as being under hypnosis.  I probably argued against it, largely based on understanding bias and the decision making process but it is like hypnosis, in the sense that facts and values are planted and organized in a way that prevents useful information from entering or being understood. Narrowly programed I guess is a better description, where the mind has no way to connect to things that conflict with or don’t reference something within the program.

I’m going to take a day to recover from this and try my luck with corporations. It’s devastating that canvasing is so ineffective. Mainly because every other avenue to gain exposure also yield no results. Sending press releases, contacting universities, sending articles, contacting politicians and political parties, Google ads etc I wouldn’t mind having to grind a little going into businesses and canvasing if it yielded the results that it should produce. It could spread like wildfire. Should. Even in the absence of RUSC, Balance Stimulus or any of the other ideas, the concept of OPL should be enticing.

OPL itself may be the reason media, universities, and politicians are not fucking with me. I forget that my perspective has been so developed for so long, and the perspective of most people isn’t rooted in fact, it’s a product of how they feel about what they’ve been exposed to. It’s a product of believing other people know better, and choosing opinions about subjects and counting those opinions as fact. In that, they can’t understand things because their perception of what goes on around them is built on ideas that are false. More importantly, since they have low standards for fact, their reasoning is compromised since life consists of opinions and they choose which one’s they want to be true.

It’s insane. I talked to my daughter the other day and any other time anyone would say this I would contend that the problem is with the individual, but in this instance it happens to be with others. Basically she said the problem is with people not with me. And that is true. It’s true because there seems to be a zero engagement policy. If I am wrong it would be easy to show it. The problem is I’m right, not only about politics, solutions to problems, but about morality, about the inconsistencies I point out, about human behavior and human understanding, so I’m ignored.

The one issue that any concerned person in this country should be interested in is increasing income opportunities for low income people. And no one is concerned with that. That’s because nobody really cares. They’re concerned with isolating a problem and using that problem for their own benefit. And they’re able to successfully capitalize on people’s feelings through clever marketing and provide them an opportunity to feel like they’re doing something good when they’re not doing shit, occasionally some benefit to alleviate symptoms, but never addressing the problem that produces the symptoms.

The world is not just ignorant but it’s also fake and idiotic. A safety for the Bills went into cardiac arrest. A day later and they still haven’t diagnosed the cause. Players started crying and praying and they suspended the game. It’s mostly image promoting and then there is a chorus of image promoting competition. People use it as an opportunity to compete with one another about who’s the most compassionate. Motivated by the idea that others perceive them better because they’re displaying a popularly valued quality. It provides positive feelings through the perception of being perceived better that produces an increase in self worth. Secondly, they perceive themselves as being good people for feeling bad for someone else, which increases self worth producing positive feelings.

Praying has got to be the stupidest shit to do or ask for. 1st, there’s no evidence that any results on this planet is the product of anything other than the decisions of the creatures on this planet and naturally explainable happenings. Praying is the same as doing nothing. But even if you still believe it because you’re a fucking idiot, if your deity controls what happens on the planet, wouldn’t it have made more sense for him to have not allowed the thing that happens to occur to begin with? And according to your superstitions, didn’t he already know if he allowed it to happen people were going to pray against it, so being all knowing he would have preemptively prevented to grant your wishes? After it occurred, what is he doing? Is it like a YouTube promotion where if a video gets x amount of likes he’s going to do something? He’s only going to make him alright if 50 million people ask him? Sorry, didn’t reach the goal of 50 million prayers not granting this request These are the perspectives people are operating out of because they don’t know shit and have been stripped of critical thinking through authority based reasoning instilled and reinforced since they reach an age of consciousness.

Why continue to fight a losing battle? Unfortunately I don’t have another planet and another species to go to. I’m here, I understand the problems, I’ve discovered objective morality,among other intellectual qualifications. I’m not only real, but I’m true, and values are configured in a way where I cannot content myself in a world of ignorance, deception, and tyranny outside of efforts to address it. I deeply hated everyone today. But it doesn’t change anything because I love liberty even if I hate everybody. If I’m never permitted to draw the attention required to elevate this species I’ve still gained developmentally as much as any person with a lifetime on this planet can gain, and that’s forever. Justice will come on the other side if the tyrant’s refuse to allow it here. Liberty meets tyranny with justice, placing them in a space where they’ll be subject to the tyranny of others. Which is essentially the religious idea of heaven, being under the eternal authority of a deity. And people will discover everything they thought was right, good, and real was complete bullshit, and then learn what they are.

It is frustrating. So far I discovered that people will support anyone who tells them things that make them feel good, and will give their money to anything that they are told should make them feel good, but will ignore, reject, and loathe anyone who tells them the truth and is dedicated to just causes. Not only just causes, but detailed plans and ideas for achieving justice. You cannot earn a living through actually doing good, only through the appearance of it. They give their lives, attention, and materials to frauds while the good, true, and rightly motivated is ignored, ostracized, and suffers debilitating isolation.

Recap 12/27 to 1/1/2023 

Nearly everything planned for the week was completed and some objectives changed based on the development of strategy and priority.  I didn’t secure a venue but I think it’s more important to to have participants.  I looked at two offices spaces.  I seriously considered renting one but I don’t want to make a 2 month commitment to the area, or have to sacrifice 2 months rent.  I did contact a venue about a daily rental for a conference room.  I asked to rent it for Friday the 5th but I don’t know if I’ll be prepared by then.  I may need to move the date back a few days.  Perhaps the following Monday. 

I may be going out tomorrow to begin obtaining a list of owners, otherwise I’ll begin Tuesday since there are materials that I need to procure.  I need to print handouts, maybe purchase a button up.  Also need to do my laundry and go grocery shopping.  I haven’t prepared.  I had my pitch down pretty well in Illinois, I forget that I worked on it and should probably do the same again.  It’s probably Tuesday I’ll begin collecting data and promoting at businesses.  

I need to post ads on CL for street team promoters and an area director.  I may do that tonight.  I plan on renting a conference room for a day and doing interviews in the morning and a focus group in the afternoon.  

I called 5 universities and 5 economic organizations.  I left messages and received one response from one university who I was able to submit a copy of RUSC to.  I updated them about a key development in RUSC today.  Businesses would lose money with what I was offering.  The amount their payroll tax would increase based on their workers increase in pay would be more than the 10% payroll tax credit.  I know a 50% payroll tax credit is enough to cover the cost and go a little bit over, but for a company that has 10 employees who earn $15 an hour plus $5 an hour on RUSC the savings is only about $125 a week or $6500 per year.  For a popular retail store like Walmart, $120,000 per year per location ends up being millions of dollars every year.  At the same time most franchise owners own more than one store where they can potentially benefit through volume but some do not.  Either way, I think we can afford to do better, so we won’t make the offer before we know what they want.  I would like to avoid having to apply different incentives to different businesses.  

I sent 25 more media press releases.  Turned out to be about 20 because about 5 of the emails were no good.  The problem is I stated 10 percent as the offer.  I may need to take some time tomorrow to send that update to all the media people I sent a press release to.  

I created various materials, focus group questionnaire, RUSC hand out, an article on RUSC, among other things.  

I submitted the RUSC article to 5 political publications.  I told them they can publish it as it is or treat it like a press release and contact me to do a story.  

I submitted it as a poorly put together academic paper to what appears to be a quasi-academic journal.  It’s not peer reviewed but it publishes paper targeted at an academic audience. I need to resend that with the update tonight.  

I also left a message with a political party.and was told to send an email.  Unfortunately what I sent them also contained the 10 percent figure.  This is a little more problematic because I was told no one would see it and respond until after the first.  If I send the update by itself there’s a chance it won’t be connected.  I think I’ll send them the explanation of the update and resend RUSC with it.  Also need to do that tonight.

I didn’t finish the focus group presentation or find focus group participants.  Also didn’t make a list of businesses to call to get their input on on RUSC.  These are all objectives planned for this week.  


Did not do much today, completed hand out for RUSC solicitations and later I will probably finish the focus group questions.  I decided not to rent the office space for a few different reason.  1st I don’t know if I can attract focus group participants.  The lease requires that I give 30 days notice to have my security deposit returned, so I could end up paying two months rent for a 2 week stay.   

I also contacted a venue about renting a conference room for a day.  On Monday I plan on going to stores and fast food restaurants, leaving a handout, and trying to get contact information for the owner.  I did this in the 14th district in IL, which was decided by 19,000 votes in 2022 and 5,000 votes in the two prior elections.  This was under a more primitive version of the plan, and the results were not good.  The plan and approach are different this time around and should yield different results.  But, they might not, and if not I don’t want to stick myself with a big bill to find that out.  

I always think about the suspicion.  Most people will perceive a person not as bringing good news that there is a very real chance of them making life changing money ($5 to $15 more per hour), they think what does this guy stand to gain by doing what he’s doing?  

The motivation is rooted in addressing tyranny.  There are certainly other aspects of it I could address but cannot be addressed without changing people’s circumstances.  Most human problems are a product of inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money.  Creating better opportunities, especially for children as a higher household income creates an environment more conducive to productive interests and habits and the development of intelligence.  For me, the fact of liberty, the moral feelings derived from the idea of justice supplies the motivation.  In fact some part of it is motivated by being confronted by deception and the happenings in the world, along with the knowledge that people walk around perceiving the world through a lens built on false ideas.  It’s difficult to wake up everyday in a world that’s wrong without being compelled  to make it right.  It’s actually very simple but it isn’t something that anyone else  can fully understand.  Understanding that liberty is the basis for objective morality, in the absolute truth that liberty and tyranny are the only moral categories, that morality is a determinate of motion for conscious beings within a space, and understanding what that means for everything else.  I do what I do because it is right.   

This brings me back to what I wrote yesterday or maybe it was the day before about Holly saying it’s alright everyone has days like that.  I disagreed but didn’t send her the message.  It’s not alright for me because I don’t value that behavior, and I seek my own approval. My approval requires honesty with myself.  Except in one area, which is my probability of success.  I don’t mislead myself, but I try not to think about the probable outcome based on the forces I’m up against and my history of results and interactions.  On the subject of that day, that’s why I was feeling the way I was feeling.  I said about as much in the original entry. Thinking about worse things that may be ahead but are not here now.   

I wrote about this (self approval) somewhere else, in creator, god, deity as fact and symbolic elements of the psyche as well as addressing common conflation.   

Creator is unknowable because anything that has a beginning can never know if they are in the presence of the supreme or something in-between.  Based on what we see within the creation, where all the results are the product of the forces in the universe and the free decisions of the creatures in the universe the morality of the creator appears to be liberty because he does not impose on his creation.  The implication of this is the creator cannot create beings for purposes that he would not want to exist under.  Which is why your deities are not the creator, because to create beings for the purpose of being your servants or being tormented for an eternity are circumstances that the creator would not want to exist under.  I won’t go into all the existential implications, but the point being is the creator is irrelevant.  Because he doesn’t help or harm in this life, in any afterlife scenario morality determines the appropriate space for the survival of consciousness after death, and you can never know if you’re in the presence of the creator.  The books Liberty the Definitive Moral Truth, and the screen play The Survival have the details.  

 God is what you chase, your true highest value.  For some it’s alcohol, meth, or heroin, and for many others it’s their children, money, or a number of other things, (Children in the sense that what people are chasing is for the benefit of their children).  Your God is what you actually serve.   

Your deity is the approval that you seek.  The deities that people call God are their deity, where first they seek their pleasure and then they construct a deity who approves of their pleasure and the idea of it perceiving them better when they do the things they think he wants them to do provides them a positive feeling through improvement of self worth.  It’s image promotion to an imagined being: the individual perceives themselves being perceived better by a being based on something they think, feel, or do and this approval improves their self worth.  The deity is essentially a person’s source of morality.  Which isn’t to say that the deity supplies all the moral rules, but if for instance a child learns something is wrong from a parent, the rule becomes incorporated into the deities values.  That’s the personal relationship a person has with God/deity, where the deity takes on their conception of right and wrong as well as supplies rules to be followed unquestionably.

As I stated before I am my own deity because I seek my own approval, and my god is liberty because that’s what I chase.  But, when your god is liberty and you exist in a world of tyranny, your deity becomes justice, and there are a lot of times when value comparisons are between the satisfaction of immediate justice and the satisfaction of anchoring justice related goals: where the immediate action has consequences for those goals. 

That went a little bit deeper than I intended it to.  Other thing worth mentioning was an ad I heard on the radio.  It featured a girl talking about an organization feeding her, and the radio host was praising the organization for doing that.  Believe me there are few things that make me happier than a child’s satisfaction.  I don’t do what I do because I’m motivated by compassion or empathy anymore.  That’s how it began but when you understand how everyone plays a role in producing the results we see it’s hard to feel bad for people doing things to themselves, not individually, but collectively producing circumstances for one another.  It’s mainly about right except for children before they reach an age where their minds have been corrupted by the world.  Compassion in respect to children, but liberty and justice in respect to my general motivation.    

Before I went off on that qualifying tangent, the point is they applaud efforts to contribute basic necessities to children without acknowledging how despicable it is that parents go without opportunities to provide these things for their children.  This group assisted children of an incarcerated parent, and the child probably typically eats 3 meals a day without the organizations assistance, but it was framed through the lens that she didn’t.  I believe it’s facilitated through a church meaning those three meals probably come with a sermon that does more harm to her mind than the food is going to help her body.


New area, did not plan very well for being here, my car is starting to run rough, and I was experimenting with Kratom to see how it effects my performance.  I was abnormally bitter and becoming despondent.  Maybe not despondent, but the anticipation of failure, the consideration of too many ifs in the wrong direction.  Scenarios imagined produce some degree of the anticipated feelings.  Since your feelings influence the production of thoughts you continue to spiral until you have a solution, greater certainty of the desired outcome, or acceptance of the undesired outcome.  Reaching one of those destinations is the positive feelings that motivates the production of negative thoughts that have negative feelings attached to them.  

I called Holly and off loaded some of that shit.  I was whiney, but I could have went there had she not been encouraging.  My whiney isn’t the same whiney as you conceive it to be, there’s no whine in it, just the word I use to describe when when I’m venting negative shit.  

Some of it I think was the Kratom or the need to take more.  It played some role in the amplification of negative feelings, and increased focus on something that is seemingly impending, but still too far out to be concerned with.  Although if my car goes suddenly and I can’t fix it, this does significantly change my circumstances.  The point being is, my actual circumstances didn’t warrant those unproductive thoughts and feelings.  

I was mildly embarrassed about this morning.  Enough to text Holly when I was at the gym (near the end of my workout when I have maximum endorphin release), that I apologize for calling her with that soft shit.  

She said it wasn’t soft, that everybody has those days.  Maybe, but I don’t like the way it feels.  While this may be interpreted as a value of toughness, it’s actually a competitive value.  Not in competition with the general population, more with the circumstances themselves.  Ultimately, it’s a matter of self worth, where responding to my circumstances like that, is behavior that I don’t value.  

I had a few thought provoking encounters.  I began backing out of Del Taco and noticed a car and stopped.  I waited and when he drove past he looked like he was giving me a dirty look like I fucked up when I stopped about a foot after I began to reverse and was able to see him.  I was upset about that and said as much.  He went past me and had to make a u turn and I had to make a left which put him in my line of sight, so I drove past looking at him pissed off, and he wasn’t looking in my direction.  That made me wonder if he was even trying to do that to begin with.  

After Del Taco I went to Walmart.  This woman’s grown or nearly grown child asked if I could do something for his mom.  I checked my wallet.  Didn’t remember if I had any cash on me and I had a 5 and a 1.  I don’t the income at the moment to be throwing 5s out there, but I put a dollar on their mission since it’s unlikely that $1 will be the difference between getting more money and not missing it and not getting more money.  No likely consequence and value of the feeling of helping out, is greater than what I could purchase for the dollar at that time.  I’m recording these things just because it seems like a good opportunity to apply Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison. 

When I came back out they were still in the same spot.  He asked me about my protein powder.  When I left I told them to have a good afternoon, and along with a few other exchanges the woman probably said God bless you about 3x.  I thought about it later.  Feeling like I should have addressed that superstition, and recognizing why I didn’t.  Her saying God bless you is perceived as an effort of her hoping good things for you in that setting.  In a casual moment, it feels better to give her that than it does to launch into an objective morality lecture and the moral inconsistencies of the Christian deity.  

It is a problem.  The idea that God decides who is blessed and who is cursed because under such a perception, she can never truly understand that her circumstances and my circumstances are largely a byproduct of the decisions of all the people on this planet.  There is no magic, and you can’t understand reality until you acknowledge how it takes place.  This has enormous consequences for communication, the establishment of fact, problem solving, and a number of other things that contribute to negative results.  

When I left Walmart I was in the middle lane and I pulled out pretty far waiting to make a left turn.  This guy pulled up on the side of me looking frustrated because he couldn’t see if cars were coming to make a right hand turn.  I probably would have been upset too but I’m not backing up.  I did watch for the cars and turned to him when he could go.  

I received a callback from UNLV.  I was driving to the gym and didn’t want to get into a focused conversation while I was trying to follow my GPS.  When I arrived at the gym I found a voice message with a person to email RUSC to.  I sent that out today.  I realized there was a lot to take out, and I must have written some of it without internet because when I copied it from the file there were numerous spelling errors in the last few paragraphs.  Obviously I edited what I sent to the UNLV contact, but I already submitted this file to The Independent Institute, so I sent a file that had irrelevant information in it, and spelling errors lol.  I was going to edit and resubmit it, but wrote this journal entry instead.  The content is solid enough to where if it’s understood they should still express interest and if they do I’ll send them a better version.  

I made a press release list of 25 newspapers or newspaper contacts but since I’m on west coast time and didn’t have them ready to send until about 1:15, I decided to wait until the morning to send them.  My email I attached to the 30 I sent out last week was very weak.  The press release itself is solid, but I followed a PR email template and think that may have impacted the effectiveness of the solicitation.  The timing was too, only a few days before Christmas.  I knew that and sent them anyway because it was something to do.  I should probably call when I have the option before sending the press release, if nothing else at least to get the right person.   

I plan on looking at an office space tomorrow.  I looked at some yesterday, but the one available at that location for $349 is too small, and I don’t really want to pay $695 for a large office, and even if I did, the large offices are not available until the 15th or 20th.  

Otherwise I’ll rent a conference room for 2 hours, but I want to have a focus group by the end of next week, or the beginning of the following week.  I just hope I can attract participation for $25 for an hour.  

We’ll find out.


I was on my way to begin the Vegas campaign and I was listening to talk radio.   I don’t remember all the points of the woman’s book, but she was making connections about the normalization of radical leftism through higher education, which seems pretty accurate, but instead of doing something substantive, like showing radical professors, the number of students they taught, and how many of them went on to become professors or researchers, she turns her observations into Marxist conspiracy parallels which is something I will return to.  

She went on to talk about how all the money going to non-profits to influence culture is from the left when there used to be more coming from the right.  She was essentially pleaing for conservatives to spend money on cultural influencing.  What she fails to understand is that conservatives cannot influence culture with their values because they’re based on false ideas.  

God, country, and family.  The problem is your god isn’t real, it’s an inconsistent deity, based on a deity who rewarded obedience and commanded murder and theft.  Then became another deity who teaches submission to tyranny.  Of those who claim to follow the deity they take the forgiveness part and then project their values onto the deity making the deity a better version of their own reflection.  A hypocrite deity, who tells you to love your neighbor as you love yourself but doesn’t love you as he loves himself; since he claims to have created you to be his servant or to be tortured, which isn’t an existence he would want for himself.  More importantly we can tell from his absence that the creators morality is liberty, since he doesn’t impose on his creation.  This is probably my biggest issue with Christianity, the idea that what happens on this planet takes place based on the preference of some tyrant deity.  He blesses and punishes, which insults those who begin or end up in circumstances that exist by way of the people on this planet.  It’s a failure to acknowledge reality and is harmful to beneficial communication.  The deity itself is inconsistent with liberty, forbidding that which does not impose, commanding that which does impose, and facilitating the ease through which tyranny can take place.  The deity was created by man whose understanding is rooted in tyranny.  As far as broadening and deepening traditional Christian values into the American culture there are too many people who know enough that your deity is not the creator and his teachings are not ideal.  The other portion of people who won’t be influenced are those that I’ve mentioned, who take the forgiveness, and then the deity is a genie who grants their prayers when it’s in his will lol, and is the best version of their values.  

As far as nationalism is concerned, you can’t tell people how great the country is when they’re waking up in hell everyday.  The country is not great for them, and no matter how many smiling faces you have telling them freedom, opportunity, prosperity, etc, it doesn’t change their circumstances, or what they’ve endured that led them to those circumstances.  This will not resonate with a lot of people in this country.  

As far as family is concerned as a cultural value in most cases it is, but it cannot always be prioritized because of circumstances.  Not to mention that many who come from families who begin in difficult circumstances often have and develop different relationships with their families.  

 I think those 3 things christian family nationalism properly summarize the cultural identity of conservatism in America.  The point  is unless the conservatives acknowledge their BS, they’re going to continue to lose ground in this country to the leftist BS which in many ways is worse than their own.  

The second guy was promoting a book or study that was making parallels to LGBT promotion to Marxism.  There was something interesting thing he quoted from what he termed as the first book of queer studies.  It’s interesting to me because I stated something similar about dissent for a brief period where I was a member of a political activist group by that name.  I stated that the goal of dissent is for dissent to become the orthodoxy, but of course I meant this in the context where the dissenting conclusion is the correct one, and the orthodoxy is incorrect.  He stated that the idea from the book was that being queer had to be normalized but also that which was normal had to be marginalized.  Then he compared this idea to Marxism.  Whether there is a basis for comparison is irrelevant.  You have the quote from the book and you have the results and the effort which is much more important.  

The woman from the previous segment commented that Marxists realized they would never achieve what they wanted as in government controlled means of production, so they attacked the institutions with the garbage that we have today.  But, Marxism is an idea on production and distribution, if you take that away you no longer have Marxism, you’re left with just the baseless assertions of race, gender, and sexuality as a source of disadvantage, the promotion of false ideas about gender and the promotion of LGBT sexuality, attacks on free speech, and the effort to deny the existence of truth.  They run a meritless cold war campaign to their brainwashed audience that Marxists are taking over the country, and whether they’re Marxists or not, the problem isn’t Marxism which they admit is essentially dead, the problem is what you’re saying Marxists are responsible for.  

My issue with LGBT promotion is the potential harm it causes to children.  They’re being introduced to concepts that are not true that will influence them to make decisions that will alter the course of their life and development.  It’s not true that some people are boys in girls bodies and some people are girls in boys bodies.  Same sex sexual attraction develops (there’s no genetic basis for sexuality, but I’m not saying that sexuality is a choice I’m saying the attraction develops), and some people adopt values that are consistent with the opposite sex.  There’s nothing wrong with a person expressing those values.  But when these concepts are falsely expressed to children for some they can and will latch onto the concept and apply a label to themselves for the attention, identity, and social benefits.  As far as a person looking how they want to look, dressing how they want to dress, talking how they want to talk and what gender they want to have sex with I don’t have a problem with that, and there are very few people who do. 

I do have an idea for a proposal but it would probably be a state level for a proposal which defeat the purpose of it since states that allow radical sex ed and gender studies into the curriculum of young impressionable students probably wouldn’t pass it. The legislation would be for equal time to address what’s being taught. Where whatever is in the curriculum can be addressed and has to be taught with the opposing argument. The problem is any state that would pass it is a state that probably isn’t teaching it, and any state teaching it probably wouldn’t pass it. Then again, it may be enough of incentive to encourage people who typically don’t vote to vote in state representatives who would support the legislation. Of course if you’re going to vote for a candidate to pass this legislation the same candidate could probably have it removed from the curriculum. I haven’t looked into where these things come from.and who is responsible for what it taught to children.


I do anticipate some backlash to OPLs strategy to those who are so unaware as to not understand how this country’s political system functions.  The criticism being that motivating people who otherwise wouldn’t vote to vote for legsilation that advances their interests which changes the outcome of an election is a subversion of democracy.  On the state level there are some consequential differences, but at the federal level the difference in public policy between democrats and republicans is much less meaningful than accomplishing OPL legislation.  Since the districts we focus on are contested, the majority that may be offended by a largely irrelevant outcome is not much larger than the minority who voted for the OPL selected winner.  Public policy is decided by industry and other special interests so long as the non-industrial interest does not impact an industrial interest invested in the majority party.  The difference between democrats and republicans is which industries interests will be prioritized in public policy based on how industries invest in the parties, and this difference doesn’t have much of an impact on the lives and opportunities of citizens, despite the sharp contrast in rhetoric and position on issues made to seem important to keep the public engaged in the soap opera.  

One difference for former college students was the prospect of partial loan forgiveness.  This was a good move by democrats to capitalize on the popularity of the idea among that student debt holding demographic.  Credit to Bernie Sanders, but also the blame to Bernie Sanders.  More so the blame to college students and former college students who proved that they are exactly like the industrial interests that many of them claim to be opposed to influencing politics.  

They voted with their interests, to take priority over disadvantaged people in this country, and there are a good many people who are comparatively disadvantaged to people who have student debt.  These are advantaged people essentially receiving government assistance.  The foundation of happiness is built with one of 2 materials.  The first being an income opportunity that allows the person to have time and money.  The 2nd is an income opportunity performing work they enjoy doing that is adequate to provide basic comforts.  People with college degrees typically stand to make more money than those who do not, and they’ve also positioned themselves to do work they enjoy doing.  They’re greatly advantaged over the bottom 50% of income earners who earn less than $38,000, more so over the 22% earning less than $18,000 per year, in better opportunities for income, and performing work they’ve chosen.  These people used their votes to take something from the government for their own interests, deprioritizing the poor, whereas industry provides funds to campaigns to encourage people to vote as they prioritize their interests above the interests of the public.  Either way, it’s advantaged parties prioritizing their interests over the interests of the disadvantaged, demonstrating that debt relief voters are the same as industry when an opportunity arises to prioritize their interests over the interests of others.  

I mention this for those who contend that there are significant differences in parties on the federal level for people.  In this case the democrats offered something to a group and they took it, although it still hasn’t been completely fulfilled, but the lives of poor people in this country, their circumstances and opportunity remains unchanged.  More importantly, this was an executive action not an act of congress.  The same as the vaccine mandates which is actually a significant difference between parties for a limited period of time under the Biden administration, but the makeup of congress had no impact on that policy.  

As far as budgets and bills that were passed these were passed with bipartisan support.  Legislation is a product of each congressperson inserting something for the industries they represent into bills.  Many industries invest in both parties.  The point being, OPL isn’t subverting democracy by using non-voter margins to decide house seats and possibly deciding which party will control the house.  OPL is giving the non-voting margins something to vote for and using this leverage to accomplish legislation that will meaningfully improve the lives of people in this country from the bottom to the top.  Otherwise, you have two groups of people who are voting for candidates because they like the things they say and public policy has little impact on the lives of the public.  

I exchanged a few messages with a woman on a dating app.  She said I intrigued her.  I asked why to gain insight into how she perceived me based on my profile.  She provided an explanation that was essentially a mirror of my about me section.  I thanked her for her insight and then she sent me a reply saying that she saw me as the whole picture because she was an empath.  Initially I wasn’t going to respond since we’re on the app for different reasons, but I was bothered by it.  I wrote a response and didn’t send it.  I didn’t send it because I don’t believe she would have got anything out of it, and she’s looking for someone to be a fixture in her fantasy and I’m not interested in being that.  

Unsent Reply         

The big picture?  I’m not trying to be condescending, but the picture people see can be no bigger than the frame its seen through.  Symbolically, within the frame fits what people will accept as being true because that frame or perspective is required for their joy.  Outside of it there are the things they can’t see because it challenges their invested perspective.  Invested meaning their values (what causes them to feel good) rely on life being what they think it is.  

The big picture of me is, in my late 20s I asked why I was as I was and the world is as it is.  Answering those questions through objective study provided me with the causes of the problems which led to the development of solutions.  Long story short, once the light is on, you can’t shut it off, re-insulate yourself with false ideas and content yourself with frivolous entertainment.  It’s like if you woke up everyday and you had a sink full of dirty dishes, you would do the dishes, not go about your life never looking at the sink.  And once you know they’re there, you can’t stop knowing that.  

I liken my situation to the whole house being overloaded with garbage and I can’t wade through it like it isn’t there.  My life is dedicated to addressing the garbage because I’m not content wading through it.  I mention this because it’s the long explanation that we’re looking for different things on here. My quality of life has a very low ceiling based on the general stupidity that is prolific among this species.   

One of many things faulty about modern psychology is the labeling of tendency.  It provides opportunities for identity, and those seeking identity will attach the label to themselves through selective analysis of their experiences, and then they’ll consciously try to create evidence that the label is accurate.  Similar to astrology.  A person can respond differently to the same thing depending on their general circumstances and mood.  In one situation they meet the criteria of one personality type and in the other they represent something different.  It’s a lot of bullshit for the illusion of believing you understand something about yourself or someone else.  But those who play usually play together, so if you keep company with people who subscribe to it you’ll all help it land and seem real.  Same as people who believe in astrology will frequently cite behavior being a product of their sign, personality type people will point to their personality type as to why they’ve engaged in some behavior and it’s equally ridiculous.  

I was probably most irritated by her saying that she saw me as the whole picture which to me was extremely arrogant, condescending, and inaccurate.  1st because the only information she had about me was what was listed on my profile and two brief messages.  She could have read information on my websites but she clearly didn’t given her response to the question of why I intrigue her.  To see me as the whole picture requires a perspective capable of understanding the whole picture which as far as I can see doesn’t exist on this planet.  They try to reduce you to something that fits within their frame while failing to realize there is so much more beyond their borders.  

I sent a press release to 30 media outlets of varying size about RUSC. I only sent 30 because of the timing being the week before Christmas but I wanted to do something. This week I’m preparing to contact the economics department of colleges, contact businesses, and then pay to put my press release on the wire first week after new years. I’m also going to secure a venue and try to hold a focus group. I need something to pan out to motivate me.


I’m someone who has been to many places for an impressionable amount of time at each location.  By impressionable I mean a month or more, where an accumulation of experience serves as the basis for feelings associated with a particular location as an object.  I was thinking about this because I’ve considered going to Vegas because it’s in the center of 3 contested districts but have felt apprehensive.  Some of this apprehension is it being on the west coast and some of the prevailing stupidity that exists out there, but I think some it is a product of my experiences out there, and the difficulty of my circumstances during that time.  

When I think about Texas, I have a positive opinion of the place.  Some of this is due to the general courtesy of people in that place, but outside of that and maybe some positive experiences working or with co-workers (there are negative exp. as well) my general circumstances were pretty good.  Making money and not having to worry about housing.  There was the underlying not having time element of it, but that feeling was drown out by the feeling that earning money was progress towards my grander ambition where I am now.  The point being is, my opinion of Texas is a product of my experiences and circumstances generally being better in Texas than they were in most other places.  

Vegas was rough circumstantially, and the roommates I had, especially the second situation became a source of near daily agitation.  I was able to save enough money to buy a car, then fix the car enough to leave with less than $1000.  My first week out there and I believe I wrote about it in a journal entry from around that time, I was almost scammed out of I think $170 or more.  I worked with a guy and he paid me for the day and said he only paid daily for the first 2 days.  I figured he would probably agree to pay daily after that since he made it about people not coming to work and I would clearly come to work everyday.  On the second day he asked if I needed some money and I told him I needed the money for the hours I worked that day.  He said he told me he couldn’t pay me every day, but I reminded him that he said he would pay daily on the first 2 days.  He paid me and we were supposed to work the following day.  I called him at 730 and he didn’t pick up.  I got a hold of him sometime around 8 and he said we’re probably not going to work.  I spoke to him later in the day to see when the work would resume and he said he couldn’t tell me.  I never heard from him again.  Seems likely he intended to have me work on draws of what he agreed to pay me, or nothing at all until “pay day”, and then when payday comes I don’t hear from him and he’s stole $600 or more of labor from me.  

Outside of that it was hard to find work out there.  I was there when Vegas was still in pandemic mode, and since it’s west coast and I believe had a democrat as a mayor and or governor, it was very restrictive and the casinos were only allowed to operate at ¼ capacity.  Presumably there was less work and more people competing for what little work there was.  

The first place I stayed I think they intended to keep my money I paid for the room and kick me out.  In fact she subtlety tried to.  There was a gate around the apartment and I could not get the key copied.  I took it to locksmith who told me that they needed permission to copy that kind of key from the property owners.  When I say gated the gates are between pieces of the apartment building, probably about 9 feet high.  

We established that I would call her when I needed the gate opened.  I get back to the apartment probably 9pm, probably first day I worked, possibly second or third day there.  I call her repeatedly and she doesn’t pick up.  I had to go to the main gate where it is open at the top and climb over the gate to get to the apartment.  I had a key to the apartment but not to the gate.  When I entered the apartment I knocked on her bedroom door and her boyfriend said she was sleeping.  There were other instances after this where she was in the apartment and I had to climb the gate.  There probably would have been more if not for me and others propping open the gate.  

After a while they were doing things on the periphery.  Things that seemed intended to agitate me but could also just be things they were doing, where if I address them, there’s plausible deniability of intent, and I look like I’m trying to cause problems.  I also wasn’t in a position to be kicked out, where if I reacted to something she could call the police and have me kicked out.  

Eventually the sum of those things and another incident culminated in my departure.  It was 2 days before I was moving out and I thought I already had a place.  It was very cold in the morning and they left the door open as they walked out.  Even with this there was some deniability of the intention because sometimes I would leave the door open.  I slammed the door and they came back.  

She said they left it open because sometimes I leave the door open.  The difference is I open the door when it’s 60 to 70 degrees outside, not when it’s 40.  She tried to kick me out but I said I’m not leaving.  Her boyfriend said it could be me and him instead of me and her.  I was happy to oblige him because of what they were doing, and I can hit him, I can’t hit her.  He went in the room and grabbed a pistol and said he doesn’t play the same way I play.  I told him if  he was going to shoot to shoot.  This wasn’t the first time I’ve had a pistol pulled on me.  As a man, if I’m going to get shot I’m going to get shot, and I may not do what I was going to do, but you’re not going to make me do something because you have a gun.  She deescalated the situation and we agreed it would be cool and I would be out on my move out date.  

They left and came back and it was awkward.  I went to look at another place and it was cheaper than the place I thought I was going to get and available that day.  I decided to move in that day.  

This was not a good situation either.  To get attention, the woman would try to create sympathy for herself by playing the victim to people around her.  If you were doing what she wanted you to do she would be very sweet to you, and you become the one that she talked about others to.  If you didn’t she was harassing, sought nearly every opportunity to make your life hard, and you would have to listen to her talk shit about you to her brother when he came by and people on the phone.  A lot of the shit was falsely presented and there was no explanation for.  I remember her telling probably her mom that she felt like a prisoner in her own home, she can’t stand to be around me, and it was crazy, because I stopped interacting with altogether.  I would come in the house after work, go to my room, and be quiet with maybe the exception of an occasional laugh.  Before she found out that I paid rent for a room, not rent for a room, caregiver, and activity partner accomodation, it was the same thing about her brother, although her brother probably did take advantage of her, but he did do things for her.  He strangely earned what he gets from her, it’s almost less the value of the things he did for her, and more the value she had of his attention.  An exchange of his attention and the things he did for the money he was able extract from her.  

The house was disgusting but I didn’t really notice it in the snap decision I made.  Roaches all over the place.  I kept the light on in my room to keep em away.  I cooked but the taste of the food was always tainted by the awareness of the surroundings l, where it was stored and prepared.  I stopped cooking, maybe a week to 10 days into my stay.  

When I first got there I did all the dishes, and rewashed some of them that were still dirty.  After I stopped cooking in the kitchen she would talk about how I don’t help with the dishes or help clean, but I was only in my room, used the bathroom and took showers but always cleaned up after myself.  Speaking of which, to spite me she left shit on the seat so I would have to clean it up.  Little did she know I was petty enough to shit at the gym.  She had audacity while talking on the phone to say the tenant will clean up the yard and rake the leaves.  Something that I may have done had she not become so vindictive about me not participating in things with her, like meal planning, cooking for her, watching TV with her, listening to her stories, and being willing to do things for her all the time at a moments notice.  These are expectations you have to bring up in the beginning when money is changing hands.  Would have also been nice to be given a heads-up that you have a serious roach infestation before I move in.  If these were the expectations I would have tried to find something somewhere else.  I think she said it on the phone to see if I’d do it because by that time she was already on a vindictive streak and I just shut myself off to her.  Few word answers to questions, in my room or in or out the door and that was it.  Even when she became intent on making my life difficult, I still took the garbage out for her and brought the bins from the house to the curb on garbage day because this was something I agreed to when I moved in.    

She would stomp past my door.  There was a time when it was close to or after midnight and I had to be up for work 5:30am to take a 2 hour bus ride to be there by 8, and she knocks on my door and asks if I wanted pizza rolls or something like that.  I said no I want to sleep, that I have to be up early.  She told me I had to use the back door to come in and out after being there for about 10 days or more.  It was solely an effort to inconvenience me and try to provoke a response.  She preferred conflict to the absence of interaction.  

Funny, but one night I came back from work and she had all lights off in the living room.  As I make my way to the hallway she had a towel or something like that in front of this fake plant at the center of the hallway.  I bumped into the plant blocking the mouth of the hallway, I may have moved it and walked around it after bumping into it.   Then I turned on the light and it looked like a very poorly thought out trap.  Like I was going to run into the plant, slip on the towel and hurt myself.  It was very funny to me, had all the components of a home alone scene.  

The point being, my circumstances in Vegas were difficult, 2 hour commute to go to work, usually about an hour on the bus to and from the gym, going to Walmart would take 3 hours, and then I had the constant poking from the people I rented from and all those experiences serve as the basis for the underlying feeling I have about the place.  

While I think I should start a campaign there, the feelings from my experiences cause me to not want to start there.  

The day before I left the hotel yesterday I thought about how unique of a situation it is to leave somewhere and have no where to go.  That’s a problem very few people in this country ever experience.  

I’ve written about my isolation previously.  It’s largely the effect of individual development.  I haven’t wronged people to cause them to not want to associate with me.  I’ve written about this before, but the point is, when you go through a great degree of personal development and learning by yourself no one else goes there with you.  People think you’re crazy because they don’t understand you, and they don’t understand you because they’re not interested in the things you’ve become interested in.  Not to mention they’re operating out of popular misconceptions about life that they want to keep intact to preserve their values, or the feelings that they get from doing what they do.  It’s like Dewey observed, unless a person likes what the group likes and behaves how they behave he is out of the group.  Those are not the exact words or the full explanation but that is the idea.  

I have a little bit of money and I have a transformative idea and transformative medium of achieving that idea, and understand how numerous interests could benefit from the execution of the idea and the mechanism, which will pave the way for other transformative ideas.  It’s so difficult operating out of these circumstances.  I have the Field Operations plan pretty much completed which outlines strategy including most of the specifics.  I completed creating an academic submission of RUSC to see if economists will do the research to better gauge the anticipated impact.  There’s a publication that seems sort of pseudo academic, features academic papers but isn’t an academic journal.  I’d rather submit it to an academic journal because the idea is novel and is more likely to lead to the research I’m looking for.  At the same time it can take months to find out if it will even be reviewed, whereas all I really need is for it to be published and for economists to be able to cite it to do the research.  I should probably submit it to the publication I’m considering.  

I have a problem in knowing who and how to contact industry and politicians.  I’ve considered calling corporate offices and pitching until I reach the right person.  I’ve also considered contacting politicians through their contact forms where hopefully whoever reads the contact would forward it to the representative.  I tried calling the national committee but no one picks up.  

I thought about contacting a lobbying firms in the hope of gaining contacts or facilitating communication with their clients.  Other than Pepsi who owns a significant amount of fast food franchises, I’m not sure if RUSC will have a very strong impact on the interests of their clients.  Or, I don’t know if the industry (retail)fastfood) is represented through large lobbying firms, since the industry doesn’t seem to have interests at stake as it relates to public policy at the federal level.  Yet even if they do not, some of their clients definitely have an interest in one party controlling the house over the other.  To represent that interest the firm may want to see if a party supported OPL legislation, and if they did, to make their clients aware of efforts to elect that party.  It’s a pretty cheap investment in gaining the desired outcome.    

I’m also thinking about how some of these efforts could adversely impact what I’m trying to do.  It seems everything is something that has to have something else done first, but to do that thing the other thing has to be done first.  I feel like I’ve spent a bunch of money and haven’t done anything.  Of course I recognize that there are a lot of things that needed to be thought out during this time I haven’t done anything.  I have done things, and even today where I’ve felt unproductive I finished the academic submission that may need to be revised for the publication that I have in mind.  It’s the difficulty of the circumstances and knowing that I need funding to finance a solid operations campaign.  

I plan on submitting this paper and then making a list of local news outlets, even lesser known local papers but in contested districts and sending a press release summarizing OPL and RUSC.  I already wrote the summary.  I just need to make the list.

On the subject of figuring things out I think RUGO has only been RUSC for a few days, where RUSC is significantly better in essentially guarenting what RUGO would potentially do, and creating additional benefits in the RUSC form.  Missing the evolution of that proposal would have been a great setback.  I was already considering it becoming something like RUSC, where either through the state legislature on a state by state basis, or through labor pushing company policy the gratuity option would become the service charge.  

I’m plugging away in a sense but not very efficiently.  And the lack of efficiency is killing my confidence and sapping my motivation producing greater inefficiency.  Not to mention my motivation already suffers from years of the human propensity to ignore and reject without reason or explanation.  Not my motivation as far as the general goals are concerned but my motivation to work on specific tasks.  To do something requires the prospect of a positive feeling, that either comes innately through the task or end of the task, or where accomplishing the task is perceived as progress towards some goal.  There’s a positive feeling associated with progressing efforts.  But over the course of years of having those efforts ignored or rejected without reason or explanation, subconsciously these acts are perceived as leading to that end and you lose the anticipation (subconsciously) of the act producing the positive feelings.  It makes it harder to get work done.  In procrastination, you become acutely aware of your present circumstances and the stress from that causes you to seek stimulation to relieve that stress which further distracts you from getting done what you need to get done.  And you’re bleeding money all the whole.  

I’m in a very rough spot.      


I made changes to the Round Up Gratuity Option last night.  Mainly removing the option to maximize and increase the benefits of the program.  I’m radically more enthusiastic about the proposal than I was prior to these changes.  While I believed it would be successful in its previous form I believed it was going to take a strong marketing campaign to encourage a level of participation to create the benefits in the degree that I forecast.  Now those results are pretty much guaranteed if I can pass the legislation.  RUG, as it is known now, will produce an unprecedented increase in wages for the bottom 50% of income earners in this country.  The success of RUGTC will put pressure on congress to pass other OPL legislation based on the success of this RUGTC.  Establishes credibility, and it’s also a prerequisite for a balance stimulus in changing low demand jobs currently facing labor shortages to high demand jobs.  As well as reducing the cost of a balance stimulus as low income earners increase their income moving into higher income groupings and changing balance stimulus qualifications.        

There was recently an article published about StarBucks new tipping option consisting of a response from a customer and an employee who had a negative opinion of the option.  I wrote about it briefly a few days ago.  RUG will address both the customer complaint and the workers complaint.  The worker feels uncomfortable asking customers if they want to leave a tip.  RUG automatically rounds up the price and its company policy.  Additionally, most customers are not concerned with contributing they’re nickels and dimes to ensure the employees of these establishments are well compensated.  What they don’t want is to be faced with the pressure of having to decide to add dollars to every purchase they make.  They want the price.  If it’s $9 instead of $8.58 they’re not going to have a problem with that.  They just don’t want to sit across from someone who just made them their order, get their purchase for 8.58, and then be asked if they want to tip.  The following is the new version of RoundUp Gratuity Tax Credit.  The petition can be signed at https://www.oplnow.com/round-up-gratuity-tax-credit-incentive/  

Round Up Gratuity is a charge applied by businesses in high volume transaction industries in the amount of the difference between the total price and the next dollar that is distributed to the employees as gratuity.  For example, if a customer’s total is 87.63, they would pay $88 and $.37 would be placed in a gratuity fund to be distributed to the workers.       

High volume transaction industries are businesses who average 5 in store purchases per hour per employee and are primarily represented by retail and fast food.

As of January 20th, 2020, it is estimated that Walmart locations average about 10,000 car visits according to The Institute of Transportation Engineers.(1)  Not all cars entering a Walmart parking lot are there to make purchases.  Let’s assume there are 9,000 transactions per day.  There are about 45 people working per shift.(2)  If we presume the store is open 16 hours per day that total daily gratuity would be split between 90 workers.  Since there is no greater likelihood that a total will be closer or further away from the next dollar the average round up is $.50.  $4500 split amongst 90 workers is $50 dollars per person, or an additional $6.25 per hour.  For other businesses such as fast food which may have a higher ratio of transactions per employee the earnings could be greater.  

1: 8th and Walton, 1/9/2020  https://www.8thandwalton.com/blog/walmart-foot-traffic/  

2: Stephen Comeau who managed the electronics department in a Walmart from 2013 to 2020 reported about 45 workers present during a typical shift.  https://www.quora.com/How-many-Walmart-employees-are-working-in-the-store-in-during-an-average-day-at-the-same-time 

To encourage businesses to implement Round Up Gratuity we want to offer those businesses a 10% payroll tax credit.  The public does not lose 10% in tax revenue because what’s provided in the payroll tax credit will be exceeded by what’s gained in income tax from people who previously paid little or no taxes, paying more or some taxes as their incomes increase.  

Round Up Gratuity will serve a variety of purposes.   The median income for a fast food worker is $25,100,(3)  which is very near to 2/3rds of the national median income as well as 1/3rd of the household income.  The median income for a gas station attendant is $23,601 per year.(4)  The average income for a retail store associate is $28,000.(5)  RUG will increase the income of millions of people employed in those industries.  Just as, if not more importantly, RUG will increase the income of all unskilled workers.  As the incomes of people employed in high volume transaction industries increase, other industries in competition for unskilled labor will have to offer higher wages.  For example, if a person can earn $20+ per hour working at Walmart, a company who is hiring people to dig a hole is going to have to pay something comparable to hire him, otherwise he’ll seek employment in retail or fast food.  

3: Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2021 “Fast Food and Counter Workers”.  https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes353023.htm 

4: Salary.com, 8/29/2022 “Gas Station Attendant Salary in the United States”.  https://www.salary.com/research/salary/alternate/gas-station-attendant-salary 

5: Zip Recruiter visited 9/19/2022, “Retail Sales Associate Salary”.  https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Retail-Sales-Associate-Salary#:~:text=How%20much%20does%20a%20Retail,%2Fweek%20or%20%242%2C401%2Fmonth.     

Retail and fast food continue to experience a shortage of workers.  RUG will dramatically increase the wages of people working in these industries and increase demand for these jobs.  A byproduct of this demand will be a more reliable, efficient, and stable team benefiting the employer and the customer alike.  Reliability and employment longevity are faciliatetd through a high quality income.  Efficiency will improve as the workers have a stake in the amount of transactions they are able to process on a day to day basis.  Growing demand for these jobs will allow these businesses to hire employees who are committed to team and company goals, instead of having to settle for employees who will show up.     

In 2022 we spent about 620 million dollars minting coins.  I have no way to forecast an amount of savings but I would think we could conservatively save 100 to 200 million dollars per year in the cost of minting coins since RUG would eliminate the need for coins in high volume transaction industries.  Admittedly, the savings isn’t very significant, but what is significant is the cumulative impact of this change being spent into the economy as opposed to it being lost, destroyed, or stored.  Many people lose their change, throw their change away, or it sits somewhere and is never spent, or is spent infrequently.  Instead of it being withheld from the economy it will be spent into the economy by the recipients of the round up gratuity.  

79% of families who received SNAP benefits in 2018 (6) had at least 1 employed member of the household.  22.5% had 2 incomes and 8.4% had 3 or more incomes but still qualified for benefits.  RUG will decrease spending on government assistance by increasing wages among all unskilled workers, directly through the gratuity and indirectly by the impact it will have on the labor market.  Again, I cannot forecast what the reduction will be, (7) but considering the United States will spend about 550 billion dollars on welfare programs in 2023, and considering the anticipated increase in wages for people in high volume transaction industries the savings will be substantial.  

6:  The United States Census Bureau, 7/21/2020 “About a Third of People Who Received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Had 2 or More People Working”. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/07/most-families-that-received-snap-benefits-in-2018-had-at-least-one-person-working.html   

7: An estimate can be made based on the total amount of transactions within all HVTIs, multiplied by .50 and divided by the workers to arrive at the annual round up per worker.  Then adding the average RUG amount to the average salary would provide us with the anticipated rise in income and the total could be compared to income qualifications for benefits.  The before RUG and after RUG can be used to gauge how many people would no longer require benefit supplementation and we could arrive at an estimate in savings.  This still doesn’t take into account how many total unskilled workers would establish incomes that don’t require government benefits from improvements in the labor market for unskilled workers. 

Round Up Gratuity will produce the following benefits

  • Workers in high volume transaction industries will earn substantially higher wages.
  • Unskilled workers will earn higher wages through improvements in the labor market.  
  • Business in high volume transaction industries through the payroll tax credit as well increased reliability, efficiency, and stability from their employees.  
  • The public will benefit from increased revenue as income taxes paid exceed the 10% provided to businesses through the tax credit.  
  • The public will benefit from decreased spending through reduced demand for coin currency.
  • The public will benefit  from decreased spending through a reduction of people reliant on government benefits.  
  • The public will benefit from economic growth as low income people increase their income, purchase more goods and services, leading to more profit, more investment, and more employment.  

A high volume transaction business or a retail or fast food business will receive a 10% tax credit for implementing a round up gratuity program.  To be eligible for the tax credit the business must maintain 100% of the base wages paid prior to the implementation of RUG, and 90% of base wages adjusted for inflation.  The reason for this stipulation is to prevent companies from reducing the base wages after the implementation of RUG, which would eliminate the benefit to the worker and to the labor market.  The 90% of base wages adjusted for inflation is to ensure that base wages still increase nearly on par with inflation without overburdening the company. 


I came across two examples today of how people are unable to separate information from the lens it is presented to them.  The first is the Brittney Griner spectacle.  On ESPN’s Pardon the Interuption with Tony Kornheiser and Mike Wilbon, they talked about how relieved they were that she was back home and called her a political prisoner despite having committed a crime in that country.  As I mention in the comment I don’t really care one way or the other because the consequence of the trade will probably have no impact on the lives of anyone in this country despite the narrative that is being promoted on Fox News.  I wanted to record this observation because this story demonstrates mass manipulation.  

Pardon the Interruption (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWIG-ifENYc)

Crazy.  She wasn’t wrongfully detained; she brought a substance to a country that was illegal in that country.  It happens to be very illegal in that country and many drugs are across the world.  Then he traded a high value prisoner who may facilitate violence against people around the world.  Why did he do that?  Because people on the right will be outraged, and then it can be used as something to call them racist or haters of women which will motivate their base.   I personally don’t care about it one way or the other because it probably has no impact on the lives of anyone in this country, but it is a story that has held their attention and will be used for political marketing.  It’s insane that they call her a political prisoner when she broke the law of that country.  I can’t remember a time when the media, even sports media, could make blatantly false statements.  Luckily she’s a gay black woman, because had she been a straight white male athlete she wouldn’t have been released.  Honestly, it was  a move to boost support among their base and to use it to reinforce the idea among stupid people that republican’s are racist because they know there would be outrage.  This outrage is stoked by the right to rally their base in drawing attention to a marine who may actually be a political prisoner (I’m inclined to believe he was a spy but that’s not an informed opinion) accused of espionage.  It’s stunningly effective mass manipulation.  Controlling what people are paying attention to, which by the way, has no impact on the lives of anyone in this country, and making a decision for the sole purpose of political marketing including producing a response from your opponents that can be used for additional marketing.  

That’s the comment I left, and while claiming her race, gender, and sexuality played a role in her release may be controversial, I think it’s accurate.  If Pat Connaughton brought thc cartridges to Russia it would have been reported once and you wouldn’t have heard about it again, because If you take away race, gender, and sexuality there’s no political benefit.  And then you’re left with just a basketball player for an arms dealer and the left becomes outraged and remember that they’re pro gun control. If it was a republican making the same deal for Pat Connaughton, it would be promoted by the left as evidence of white male privilege. A republican adminstration probably wouldn’t make a deal for Pat or Brittney. Maybe Trump would for Brittney seeing it as an opportunity to challenge the position of the left that he’s a racist, but he probably would have got the marine too. This isn’t argument about racial, gender, or sexuality privilege, it’s only a privilege when there is a specific incident that can be used for political gain. The point is that controversy is created for political gain and the act is motivated by the anticipation of the aforementioned effects.  

On the other side of it, beyond it being politically advantageous for Putin in Russia in obtaining the release of someone who is seen as a political prisoner through the Russian lens, he probably believes that forcing Biden to trade an arms dealer for a basketball player will be advantageous for Trump’s reelection in 2024.  He gives the American people too much credit in the ability to form independent opinions based on facts alone.  Which brings me to a better example of people being unable to separate information from the lens through which it is presented. 

You can either watch the video otherwise the relevant content is laid out in my comment.  Joe Rogan was interviewing a bee keeper who was using the appearance as a platform to draw attention to what she presented as issues for bees, but the issues she mentions do not have any consequences attached to them.  Her presentation included bees are facing destruction of habitat, die from pesticides, and essentially have a poor diet because they’re being used to pollinate mono-cultures.  She mentions that there are an abundance of thriving bee keepers who ship bees around the country to pollinate these mono cultures.  Which means they’re not dying from consuming pesticide sprayed crops in numbers large enough to make bee keeping unprofitable, she mentions no consequence of their poor diet other than it’s not natural (referring to synthetic pollen substitutes), and again we can infer that if they were unproductive due to a poor diet or were dying in mass due to a poor diet that bee keeping would be unprofitable and wouldn’t be a growing industry.  I looked through the comments and a majority had expressed the importance of helping the bees.  I responded with the following to a person who said exactly that.  

Joe Rogan Bees Go Extinct So Will Everything on the Planet (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF-3hBv0umo)

Bonnie Wingard Thank God someone recognized..we need to help the bees

Orion Simerl Why do we need to help the bees because they don’t have a wide enough variety in their diet?  If there was a problem with the bees there wouldn’t be this thriving beekeeping industry.  Where do we need bees? They can be sent there.  It’s amazing that people cannot take the information and separate it from the lens that it’s being presented through.  If there is a market for bees there will always be bees.  Nothing she said is of any consequence.  She said that bees die from pesticide use, but, if there is a thriving beekeeping industry they’re not dying in numbers large enough to either not be reproduced for the following season, or enough to make bee keeping unprofitable.  She mentions their diets but can’t state what the consequence is of that diet is.  We can go back to the previous point, that if the diet of the bee affected its ability to pollinate crops, or caused the bees to die in large numbers beekeeping wouldn’t remain profitable and there wouldn’t be so many beekeepers.  She could have come on and talked about how mono cultures have created a thriving beekeeping industry that serves as the livelihood of so many people.  Places where bees are dying off may be a new market creating openings for more people who like caring for bees to earn a living doing it.  Instead she has an irrational attachment to an insect and used her appearance on the Joe Rogan show to present a problem that isn’t a problem and people lack the critical thinking skills to separate the information from the lens.  


Interesting how gun control effectiveness has shifted from the metric of gun crime rate, or gun injury rate to gun death rate to serve the interests of those who support gun control.  This can be misleading for a few reasons.  The first is proficiency in firearms where states with less strict gun control measures tend to have a culture where people are more proficient in the use of firearms leading to more firearm related deaths; whereas states with stricter gun control measures and less proficiency may have more gun crime and injuries and fewer deaths.  The second aspect of a higher gun death rate being misleading is conflating self defense with homicide.  This goes hand and hand with gun control states potentially having higher gun related crime with lower gun death rates, because the population does not have the means to defend themselves against criminals.  Groups promote the metric that supports their position even if the conclusion their promoting is wrong based on the omission of context. It’s also important to note that while gun death rates may be lower in some states that have stricter gun laws, they rank higher in the homicde rate than many states that have less strict gunlaws. Which returns us to the point that is the problem that people are killed by guns, sometimes by people in self defense or defense of others, or is the problem that people are being killed?  

Oregon has narrowly passed a ballot initiative restricting the sale and ownership of firearms.  While there are restrictions on the type of firearms that can be owned the state has created a requirement that a person must have a permit to purchase a firearm which seems unconstitutional and should probably be overturned through the courts.  A person must demonstrate proficiency in the use of a firearm prior to receiving a permit.  A right cannot have a proficiency stipulation attached to it.  It would be like if to exercise your freedom of religion you had to have a permit showing proficiency in your stated religious identification for it to be protected.  Or if in order to have free speech protected a state requires you to obtain a permit to demonstrate proficiency in articulation or oration.  

When I wake up in the morning I drink a pre-workout powder for caffeine mixed with phenibut and then read whatever articles are in my google news feed while I allow the mixture to wake me up and take effect.  I saw an article where Starbucks customers were complaining about being given the option to tip.  This is somewhat troublesome for efforts to implement the Round Up Gratuity Option Tax Credit.  Not that I didn’t know customers could be prejudiced, which is a component of why the tax credit is necessary to gain implementation by nearly all retailers and fast food restaurants to normalize the process and prevent prejudice against individual businesses.  

One complaint stated 7 dollars for a coffee, Starbucks makes enough money to pay their employees better.  Of course if you can afford 7$ for coffee you can afford an extra dollar to ensure the person providing the service has a decent quality of life.  As far as the subject of StarBucks makes enough to pay their employees better wages there are a few things to consider.  The average Starbucks location makes about 1.2 million dollars a year in profit, and employees about 20 people.  The average location has on average 500 transactions per day.  Between customers who do not tip and those who tip more than $1 if the average is  customers tip $1.50 per transaction  this equals  $375 going directly to the employees.  Since all 20 employees are unlikely to work each day we’re probably looking at about 12 working during a typical day, with 6 working 4 to 5 hours and 6 working 8 hours.  Those working 8 hours would receive 2/3rds of those tips which is $247.50, divided by 6 =  $41.25 each or roughly $5 more per hour.  The part time employees would receive 127.50 divided 6 = $ 21, divided 4 is again about $5 more per hour.  If we call it $400 more per day on labor that Starbucks pays, that’s about $150,000 or over 10% of a store’s profit.  

Can Starbucks afford to pay its employees $5 more per hour?  Yes and no.  When someone makes an investment they are making that investment based on achieving the highest return.  In order to make an investment and deal with what comes along with operating the business they’re looking for a certain return on investment.  If you can open up a starbucks and anticipate that you’ll earn about a million dollars per year, you may not make that investment if you’re only expecting to make $850,000 per year.  Why?  Because there are other investments for the same cost and maybe less the headache where you can make over a million dollars per year.  This means if Starbucks changes it’s business model people will take their money out of Starbucks and put it elsewhere.  Which means fewer locations and fewer opportunities for people to purchase the service.  

Secondly, a company’s profit doesn’t determine the wages it pays.  The labor market determines how much a company is going to pay its employees.  The labor market is determined by the amount people are willing to work for in an area to do a certain job.  We could say the same thing about any business.  A guy who is a roofing contractor and makes $10,000 on a roof replacement that takes a week, could probably afford to pay his employees who do the work a portion out of that profit.  He isn’t going to do that because that’s the amount of money he wanted to make to facilitate the service, and if he makes less than that he may consider a different line of work where he can make more money on his investment.  

Tipping whether through roundup plus, set amounts, or percentages facilitates non-compulsory balance.  There are many people in this country who can afford to add onto their purchases to increase the quality of life for people working jobs that do not pay very well.  Those who cannot afford it do not have to, and those who can are able to increase the income of those less fortunate than they are.  This increased income allows those who earn lower income to spend more which benefits everybody in the additional products and services they are able to purchase, as well as in the money they can save to apply towards some income enhancing endeavor in the future which produces the same aforementioned economic benefits.  

As mentioned in the RUGOTC outline, as people in these high volume transaction industries earn more through round up and tipping, it changes the labor market, because companies in industries whose employees do not receive tips are competing for unskilled workers with tipped employee industries.  This means they have to offer higher wages to attract unskilled talent.  It also means that skilled workers have to be paid more as unskilled workers earn more.  No company is going to pay more than is demanded from labor to perform a particular job.  This is why RUGO and other tipping programs are necessary to increase wages as a way to change the labor market for low wage workers.  

From an existential moral standpoint it provides more opportunities to confirm that people are pieces of shit.  Something evident by complaints from customers for being given the option to tip.  With more opportunities offered to well off people, the more opportunities they have to confirm that they’re content with maintaining and advancing their advantages over others.  Interestingly enough, most disadvantaged people would do the same if they were in more advantageous circumstances.  


While reflecting on the 2022 midterm election results I wondered if people understood?  In 2020 there were over 130 congressional elections decided by fewer than 50,000 votes, and probably two dozen decided by less than 15,000 votes, some within a few hundred votes, one district was won by only 6 votes.  In 2022 there were over 90 districts decided by less than 40,000 votes, with many being similar to 2020, and many being decided by much less than 40,000 (hundreds, thousands, and ten thousands). 

 OPL doesn’t need to swing a majority of elections to pass its legislation.  In 2022 5 districts swings control of the house, and 2 senate districts change control of the senate.  There are 5 districts that could swing with less than 15,000 people voting in these districts for one candidate or the other.  That means 75,000 people could have decided control of the house.  

To pass legislation we create a voter bloc in each district capable of swinging the election from one party to the other, depending on which party supports our legislation.  Eventually we expand it improving the certainty of determining control of the house.  Where one election we predict 5, the next we may predict 10, the next it may be 20, and so on and so forth until OPL decides control of the house no matter how the public votes. Where those in secure districts remain secure, and there are not a enough contested districts that will go one way to prevent OPL’s desired outcome.   

We unite these people through popular legislative ideas aimed at improving income opportunities and other impediments to liberty.  And only OPL can do that because it is born out of pure intentions.   

This creates other implications.  If certain industry who invest more heavily with one party over the other know their interests can be prioritized depending on how one group in this country votes, first, they’re going to support that group to ensure they get the result they want, and second, they’re going to encourage candidates they support in key districts to publicly support the legislation and fight for it’s passage.  And if they renege (It’s 3 books lol) we vote for the other party in the next election and swing control of the house.  This means The Organization should be able to pass at least one piece of popular legislation every term, where some may be adopted without the need to use the voting bloc on popular support and merit.  

I can’t get people to support this, but people afford radio ads to save fucking orangutans.  And you wonder why this world is the way it is?  


Just a few thoughts about a few things I’ve seen.

I saw an article that the governor of Illinois has provided a billion dollars for citizens including landlords to pay their rent.  It’s a good thing if you have the resources to help your population who are unable to house themselves, to house themselves, even though he’s essentially appropriating money to property owners.  If this money isn’t appropriated for that purpose, their housing industry loses a billion dollars.

What people fail to realize is it speaks to a more serious issue.  The fact that there is an environment where people in Illinois are unable to earn an income that meets their most basic necessities.  Pritzer as the Illinois governor has presided over this environment and has not proposed any solutions to improve income opportunities for those who cannot afford to pay their rent.  Some of this is probably a product of their covid policies, but it highlights how democrats service the condition of people being poor and impoverished, without providing opportunity for the poor to improve their circumstances.  As mentioned, they’re also able to serve donor interests by providing a billion dollars to the real estate investors who rent to the poor, and rental property ownership is typically highly concentrated.  Huge investment and management companies who own a large percentage of apartments.       

I saw another advertisement for Mayor Lightfoot’s Safer Chicago Plan.  Without looking into the details of this plan I assume it must be loaded with ideas to improve income opportunities since the best predictor of criminality including violent crime is the household income a male is born into.  We also know that the pre incarceration median income of incarcerated people is about 2/3rds the median income of the general population.  If she is attempting to make Chicago safer from crime, this begins with improving income opportunities.  Or maybe the plan reverses her increases on vice taxes.  Lower income people are the greatest consumers of tobacco products, meaning increasing taxes on tobacco is increasing taxes on the poor.  

In another advertisement Lightfoot takes credit for a statistical reduction in homicide and crime. Statistics for political campaigning can be cherry picked by choosing a period of time where a decrease can be observed. 2nd, a reduction in crime and homicide may reflect a national trend and is not neccessarily the result of policy changes. COVID lock downs, economic downturns, among other things can have an impact on crime where when these things change there will be a reduction in crime. Most importantly, crime ebbs and flows where periods of high crime and homicide can be followed by reductions often since reported crime leads to arrests and prosecutions reducing the amount of criminals committing crimes in periods following. This is to say a reduction in crime and homicide can either be contrived through selective comparison, or unrelated to the policies of the mayor. Those who support her will watch an ad, parrot the statistics, and give her the credit.

If I was interested I would read the plan and provide a thorough criticism of it, but the investment of time doesn’t serve any positive purposes.  These are casual reflections on items that came into my field of attention.  Like Pritzer who shares responsibility for residents in his state being unable to afford their rent and requiring a billion dollar allocation, Lightfoot shares responsibility for the issue of safety requiring attention.  

As I wrote in the previous entry about the Union Rights Amendment, most proposed solutions are nothing more than campaign promotion tools, and or a means of funneling public funds into private hands.  This leads into another article I read that a ballot initiative to add an amendment to the state constitutions of Louisanna and Oregon failed to pass.  It’s essentially meaningless gesture since slavery is prohibited at the federal level through 13th amendment.  It’s essentially meaningless because no one own slaves or is trying to own slaves.  The reason the amendments didn’t pass is because they could have had consequences in the context of programs for prisoners.  In Oregon the amendment could have impacted reform programs for incarcerated people and also stopped state revenue generating practices that presently exist within Oregon Corrections.  In Louisiana the amendment they were trying to pass could have expanded the power of the state to use forced labor from corrections.  

Rehabilitation of inmates requires the changing of an inmate’s circumstances.  I began putting together a petition for the state level to introduce a work program for inmates with less than 3 years remaining on their sentences.  Instead I created eligibility for inmates to receive balance stimulus after their release.  If an inmate is released back into the same circumstances that led them to criminality to begin with, chances are they engage in criminal behavior again.  If they have an opportunity to earn money and can leave with a 5 figure nest egg they have a much better chance of becoming productive members of society.  In the absence of a balance stimulus, and in the absence of a work program that offers inmates compensation, a work program especially if it is a work program that allows an inmate to acquire skills in some vocation is better than nothing at all.  The inmate will develop productive habits, work ethic, and learn skills that may aid upon his or her release.  The programs also help pass the time for the inmates and often include additional perks (In any kind of work capacity incarcerated)  In Oregon, the token amendment would have harmed people.  

People are signing these bullshit ballot initiatives that don’t do shit, so some group of people tyring to reinforce their biases can claim a state constiuttional amendment accomplishment.  It’s difficult for most people not to sign it, as refusal without explanation implies that you’re for slavery.  You’d have to explain that you’re not signing it because you don’t want to validate the dedication of time, energy, and resources to something that has no impact on people’s quality of life.  That’s why I wouldn’t sign it.


Before I talk about a half day of canvassing and the complete futility of that endeavor, I want to acknowledge the Illinois right to unionize bill since I’ve seen it in my news feed and heard it on the radio.  The short explanation of what it does is to allow people to collective bargain and an amendment to the Illinois constitution to prevent right to work bills.  It’s pretty stupid because it doesn’t do anything other than give the Democrats something to market as a progressive change that doesn’t change anything.  LOL.  I did laugh out loud after writing that because it’s funny.  You already had the right to collective bargain and the amendment does nothing because if the majority reverses you can get rid of the amendment.  They wouldn’t spend money on the advertising if stupid people wern’t celebrating the victory of nothingness and the progression towards nothing.  

As far as unions go I won’t express my personal opinion of unions which is more from a worker’s perspective than a general perspective, from a general perspective I think it’s positive for workers to be able to unionize to grant wage, benefit, and workplace concessions from their employer since a single a employee is at the mercy of the labor market.  If people with your skills are working for a certain amount of money in that area no matter how much a company makes, they’re not going to pay more than that.  Unions can be effective for some workers to increase their income, benefits, and conditions.  

A union cannot always achieve increases.  There is a limit to what a company can afford.  Where a union fails to get increases, increases can be achieved through other means.  Round up gratuity is one of those means.  

Today there was a woman who after I explained the beginning of it to her while I was waiting on a manager, said she declined all the round ups for donations at checkout.  Had she said she thinks people wouldn’t round up I would have reminded her about the great difference between donating to charity, and providing a small tip for the person who provided you service.  Come to find out she didn’t know what I was talking about because she said where does the money go?  This was after I explained round up gratuity gives the customer the option to round up and the money is distributed to the workers.  LOL.  Tell me you didn’t understand it without telling me you didn’t understand it. 

First Walmart I went to the manager said she would put it in the break room.  Later I went to another Walmart and suggested it to the manager and she said she couldn’t put it in the breakroom.  This was just prior to a manager at TJMax refusing to accept the handout on the grounds that she couldn’t do any soliciting.  It’s insane to see people so adamantly opposed to their own interests.  These were the only three negative experiences but close 12 hours later no one has signed a petition for about 6 hours worth of effort.  I would have continued but thought I reached an amount of contact that would allow me to gauge the potential effectiveness of canvasing.  Distributing X amount of handouts will produce X amount of pledges.  

I anticipate it being a failure as an effective means to attract attention.  People are uninterested. 

The last handout I gave to a manager at Walgreens raised some concern.  She asked if I contacted corporate?  In the moment I told her weren’t looking for sponsorship until we collected some signatures.  Later I wondered if she asked so she could submit the idea to corporate herself?  She seemed to understand what I was saying.  

That may raise the question as to why I’m not contacting companies and encouraging them to implement round up gratuity directly?  If one company introduces round up gratuity it benefits the workers from 1 brand of stores.  It doesn’t produce the benefit to the labor market, and only potentially raises the wages of one store brand of workers.  Most importantly it may not be effective at one store, since effectiveness will increase with normalization.  On the other side of it, it could create a disadvantage for that store as a potential irritant to customers that would cause some to shop with a competitor.  Offering a tax credit to businesses will cause many businesses to implement a program at the same time.  On the fast food side of things this isn’t really an issue since they have exclusive rights over their menus.  When you want a $5 biggie bag and your total is $5.50, you’re not going to get something else because you don’t want to feel compelled to spend $6.   Trying to accomplish this on a store by store basis may make it  not beneficial to the company, much less beneficial to the workers, and reduced benefit to the public since one store brand will not have a significant impact on the economy through widespread increased incomes, including outside of high volume transaction industries through the impact on the labor market.  

I was also exhausted after the 6 hours which doesn’t make too much sense considering what I was doing wasn’t very labor intensive.  In most places other than the gas stations I asked for a manager.  Once the manager arrived I introduced myself and the organization, and I explained the Round Up Gratuity Option Tax Credit Legislation.  I had a funny confusing moment in the day.  I was traveling down 176 and there is a road that branches off.  Off of the road that branches off there is a Mc Donalds which is loosely connected with a Walgreens a few stores down.  I stopped at the Walgreens and spoke with the manager and since there wasnt too much activity at the Mc Donalds I stopped at the Mc Donalds to speak with someone there and leave a handout.  I pulled out onto the road and knew where 176 was, but I went back the way I came on 176.  In doing so I revisited a Walgreens I was already at.  I went into the store and went to photos because thankfully there were customers in the front.  I looked over the counter and it was a manager I already talked to.  I was confused.  LOL.  I said did I just talk to you at another store?  She said no you were just here.  Pretty funny.  I looked stupid.  Didn’t feel stupid but it would have if I wouldn’t have recognized the store associate and asked her to page the manager.  

I was venting a little bit after realizing how futile the effort was.  Shit always feels hopeless, more or less.  When you think you have something that may be able to attract some attention and then you realize it isn’t just ineffective but completely fucking useless you reevaluate what the situation actually is.  I live among a population whose truth depends on how something makes them feel, not based on fact, reason, rationale, or consistency.  Based on yesterday’s entry, this is a people who can’t do basic math to arrive at a reasonable conclusion about risk.  Most importantly, most people don’t really care about anything outside their immediate circle of concern.  You have to either reinforce or reference something they already believe or are familiar with to have their attention.  The species produces the results it has produced since it began to organize itself, products of tyranny.  Tyranny that grows from self deception and drowns out the essential ingredients for intelligence.  One essential ingredient to intelligence is honesty, otherwise, a person isn’t thinking about the subject, they’re thinking about how the subject causes them to feel and accept or reject information based on what it means to their values.  

I was called an iconoclast.  I had to look the word up. I didn’t know what it meant, I don’t think I’ve ever heard it before.  A person who attacks cherished beliefs or institutions.  Superficially that does describe me, but it only describes me because people’s chosen beliefs including their ideas about institutions are founded on things that are not true.  It’s a byproduct of loyalty to the truth in its utility to liberty, and the satisfaction in the idea of justice in the liberation it stands to produce.  

After I left the gym today I went to the Dollar Tree nearby because I needed garbage bags.  The person checking out in front of me told the cashier god bless you.  It’s disgusting to hear that kind of ignorance.  If you god blesses he is a tyrant because he chooses good outcomes for some and not for others.  Essentially creating a disadvantage for others, and giving others an advantage based on some subjective bias, even if earned through obedience.  It’s no surprise that human beings being tyrants would create tyrant deities.  Use these tyrant deities to gain contentment and compliance from the population.  Christianity is the dominant religion on this planet because Constantine recognized that the religion didn’t promote challenges to the state and at the time it was advantageous to his ambition to unite Rome.  Jesus wasn’t officially defied until over 300 years after he died at the council of Nicea in the early 4th century.  

The proof is in the pudding.  Why did Adam and Eve fall out of gods favor?  Not because they ate the fruit but because they were disobedient.  Why was Abraham counted as righteous even though he was willing to kill a child?  Because Abraham was obedient even unto evil.  A god that commanded genocide, the killing of children and the elder, and the forcibly taking of land from the Cannanites.  Something that clearly didn’t take place because DNA evidence confirmed that people living in modern Lebbonon, areas of Syria, and the Palestinian terretories share specific genetic characteristics.  It’s so ridiculously primitive to believe that god created people to do as he says and he’ll reward you but disobey him and he’ll harm you.  

That’s a human understanding and mode of operation.  People have no ability to acknowledge contradictions because their perspective is built on contradiction they repress.  The Christian deity is a hypocrite.  According to their deity, god’s first commandment is to love god with all body, mind, spirit, and heart, and the second commandment is to love your neighbor as you love yourself.  According to the Christian belief god has created human beings to be his servants, or to be tortured for eternity.  This is a situation that god wouldn’t want for himself, which means he doesn’t love you as he loves himself, and yet he tells you to love him more than he loves you, and tells you to love others as yourself when he doesn’t love you as he love himself.  

I address these things principally, since pointing out contradictions between the known universe today and the known universe when these deities were created isn’t convincing for those who are willing to deny the same science that makes their way of life possible.  There was UFC fighter recently who claimed the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.

Leaving those things aside we know all the happenings on this planet are the result of the decisions made by the creatures on this planet and other explainable natural happening.  We know the human constant is that all people want to do what they want to do at all times.  This means action that imposes is wrong and action that does not impose is right.  Of course in world where systems create individual circumstances, and systems function through participation and produces benefits for some, that inaction can be an act of imposition, among other things.  The absence of the creator suggests that the morality of the creator is liberty.  This means the creator does not impose on beings that do not impose.  It also means the creator is irrelevant since it does not help you in life, and based on laws of space and morality the creator does not help you if consciousness survives death.  There’s no benefit of worship or obedience, which is the basis for the statement it’s just to avoid useless sacrifices.  Imposing on yourself is wronging yourself, so avoiding imposing on yourself is the righting of a wrong.  

I have a new strategy I’m going to start tomorrow I feel pretty good about.  We’ll see how that goes.                   


I don’t remember where I saw it, it was either in a news video or I may have read it in my news feed, but there was some interesting information about covid vaccines.  There was a study that found about 6 out 100,000 people, primarily males under the age of 24 develop myocarditis after receiving a covid vaccine.  Myocarditis is inflammation of the middle muscle in the heart and can precipitate a heart attack or stroke.  When not fatal, myocarditis can lead to permanent damage to the heart.

I’m not against vaccines for people who are older than 65 and/or have a serious medical condition, but it highlights the excited stupidity of the general population that people who are that young are receiving vaccines enmasse.  If you’re looking at the last years of your life a covid vaccine is a good idea because anything more than a brisk breeze can kill you, including covid.  A vaccine may buy a few months or a few years worth of life.  But for people who are younger than 24, you have a higher probability of getting Myocarditis from the vaccine than you have of dying of covid if you happen to become infected. 

The data I’m using is from the CDC counting cases, deaths, and deaths with underlying medical conditions from the period of March 2020, to September of 2021.  This is the data I gathered while working on the book The Covid -19 Media Project.  It’s representative of the viruses characteristics since it is a span of over a year and half.  This is also a period before vaccines.

There were 17 million cases among people who are under the age of 39.  There were 12 people who died out of 17 million who did not have underlying medical conditions.  Which means if you’re a healthy person under the age of 39, you have a better chance of experience myocarditis from the vaccine than you have of dying if infected with the virus.  5 (rounding down) out of 100,000, or 1 in 20,000, versus 12 out of 17 million, or 1 in 1.4 million healthy people under the age of 39 will die if infected with the virus.  The chances of experiencing myocarditis from the vaccine is 72x greater than a healthy person under the age of 39 dying if infected with covid.  The chances of dying from covid versus a young person getting myocarditis from the vaccine is even greater because there’s a good chance the person wouldn’t be infected to have the 1 in 1.4 million chance of dying from covid.  There are 158 million people aged 0-39 in the United states.  In a year and a half there were 17 million reported cases in the US among people aged 0-39, which means you’re chances of being infected were only 1 in 9.29.  If you’re under 39 your chances of experiencing myocarditis from the vaccine is 668 times greater than your chances of dying from covid if you do not have serious underlying medical conditions.  

The media, pharmaceutical companies, essential businesses, and other businesses who benefited from covid in other ways, as well as health officials basking in the spotlight, academics who could bring attention to their work by reinforcing the narrative, politicians who saw it as an opportunity to serve their donor interests and create support for their party, whipped up hysteria and are still riding it to the bank today.  

Yesterday I addressed a few main reasons people say they vote, but there is one difference between the parties that could seriously impact people’s quality of life.  That’s if there is, or appears to be a new covid variant that could lead to the masks, social distancing, vaccine mandates, among a plethora of other restrictions justified through a false threat to public safety.  Of course most of that is on a state by state basis, so it doesn’t apply much to electing federal legislators.  

If you were to read back in the previous collection of these entries you will probably find the following in a few entries.  The following is an excerpt of the introduction from the book The Covid 19 Media Project.  It’s just a table of the numbers through which risk can be assessed, and compared.  Bias may not be able to be overcome, since most of the population is motivated by feelings they don’t understand, but the numbers do confirm the fact that for a person without serious underlying medical conditions under the age of 39, the vaccine is a much greater risk than the virus itself.  

It also shows that only a few percent of the population could die if infected, which means it was never a threat to public safety.  The supreme court ruling Jacobson v. Massachusetts which was the case that established that an infectious disease could be a threat to public safety, the disease was smallpox.  Smallpox at its deadliest could kill 30% of the population whereas covid would likely only kill about 1%.  This isn’t why covid didn’t qualify as a threat to public safety.  It doesn’t qualify as a threat to public safety because covid could kill a few percent of the population but only 1% would die, whereas smallpox could kill 100% of the population but only 30% would die.  Smallpox is a threat to public safety because it is randomly deadly and anyone infected could die of the virus, whereas covid “only kills the weakest segments of the population”, and therefore only a few percent of the population could die if infected.  That has been and remains the biggest and most implied misconception of the virus, that anyone could die if infected.  That’s why young people in this country have experienced myocarditis.  

The table below along with analysis of data of the survival rate of the hospitalized with underlying medical conditions support the conclusion that Uros Seljak of Berkeley reached after studying the Italian data:  “If you want to know what your chances of dying if infected with covid, it’s about the same as your chances of dying of natural causes in the next year”.  The reason we are where we are at economically with the inflation that we have and damage to the world economy, is not because of Covid19, but because of the response to it through the hysteria created among the population.  It’s very troubling when a population will not or does not know how to investigate risk for themselves.  This isn’t only on the left, but also on the right where most people on the right cannot tell you anything about the data, they will only parrot something they read on dubious website or heard on talk radio.  It’s also troubling because covid 19 is called covid 19 because it was discovered in 2019.  The coronavirus is always changing with new variations being discovered annually or sometimes multi annually.  It wouldn’t  be difficult to resell a vaccine resistant covid variant to at least half the population again and induce more hysteria.  

September 15th 2021

Total Covid-19 Deaths: 667,000

Age Range                      Total Deaths(1)         Deaths, No Underlying Conditions(2)                  

0   to 17 Years Old          439                            1 (3)

18 to 29 Years Old          3212                          3

30 to 39 Years Old          9240                          9

40 to 49 Years Old          23,501                       94  

50 to 64 Years Old(4)      110,689                     1340  

65 to 74 Years Old          147,568                     7525

75 to 84 Years Old          176,763                     26,514

85+        Years Old          187,342                     54,329  

1:  CDC Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease Covid-19, Table 1 Data As of 9/15/2021 Accessed 9/16/2021 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm         

2:  Statista “Percentage of People Who Died From Covid-19 in the United States from January 22nd to May 30th 2020, by Presence of Underlying Medical Conditions and age.”  The sample size is 40,243 covid-19 deaths for which underlying medical conditions were known which is a large enough sample size to represent the characteristics of the virus between age demographics.

3: The rate provided in the source for the presence of underlying medical conditions is .1 which seems to be the minimum value.  If 1 person died in that age range the percentage of people who died with no underlying medical conditions should be  .23.  It is possible no one in this age group died and the minimum value is .1.  Erroring on the side of caution I have assigned 1 death with no underlying medical conditions to this age range.  

4: The age groupings align from groupings 0 to 49.  After 0 to 49 the provisional death count statistics change to 50 to 64, 65 to 74, 74 to 85 and 85 plus, whereas the percentage of people who died without underlying medical conditions continues in 10 year groupings.  The higher the age the more people who die without the presence of underlying medical conditions.  To reconcile the unlike age groupings that occur above the age of 50 I used the higher age value of deaths without underlying medical conditions and halved it.  In the age group 50 to 64, deaths without presence of underlying medical conditions ages 50 to 59 represented .9% of deaths in that age range.  Deaths without underlying medical conditions in people aged 60 to 69 represented 2.4% of deaths.  So the value used for the age range 50 to 64 years old is represented by 1.2%.  Although the number of people who died without underlying medical conditions who were aged 60 to 64 may exceed 1.2%, for people who are 50 to 59 years old none of those people died at a rate that was above .9%, so this method of reconciliation seems like a fairly accurate compromise.  I preferred this estimation to a range, since 2.4% of people in the age range 60 to 69 represents more people aged 65 to 69 than it does 60 to 64, and would have the effect of grossly inflating the number of people who die without underlying medical conditions between the ages of 50 to 59, which make up the majority of the age range 50 to 64. 

There were 17,008,087 cases of covid-19 among people aged 0 to 39 and there were 12 deaths among people in that age range infected without an underlying medical condition.(5)   The chances of a person who is under 39 years old dying if infected with covid 19 are about 1 in 1.4 million.  In the article when I say the healthy population interacting with one another when there were restrictions is a matter of sickness and recovery the numbers support that conclusion.  People aged 39 and younger represent 52.2% of the population.  

5: Statista Total Number of Cases of Covid-19 in the United States as of September 14th, 2021, by Age Group.  https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254271/us-total-number-of-covid-cases-by-age-group/

There were 4,714,501 cases of covid-19 among people aged 40 to 49, and there were 94 deaths occurring in this age group among people who did not have underlying medical conditions.  A healthy person aged 40 to 49 has a 1 in 50,154 chance of dying if infected with covid-19 or .05% chance of death.  

There were 6,291,163 cases of covid among people aged 50 to 64, and there were 1340 deaths among people in that age range without underlying medical conditions.  A healthy person aged 50 to 64 has a 1 in 4694 chance of dying if infected with covid. 

There were 2,310,603 cases of covid among people aged 65 to 74 and there were 7525 deaths of people without underlying medical conditions in that age group.  A healthy person aged 65 to 74  has a 1 in 307 chance of dying if infected with covid 19.  Which is to say that even for a person who is 75 years old without underlying medical conditions that chances that they will die are exceedingly slim.  

There were 1,176,504 cases of covid among people aged 75 to 84 and there were 26,514 deaths.  A healthy person aged 75 to 84 has a 1 in 44 chance of dying if infected with covid, or about 2.5% chance.  

Finally, we have people aged over 85 who represent the bulk of people who have died of covid-19 without underlying medical conditions.  There were 654,197 cases of covid among people aged over 85, and there were 54,329 deaths, roughly a 1 in 13 chance of death or 8%.  People in this age range are at risk of dying of anything due to immunosenescence.  As we age our bodies lose the ability to fight off viruses and other infections. 

For the general healthy population people aged below 74, which represents 93.1% of the population, the chances of dying from covid-19 are so minimal as to be negligible.  For the 4.9% of the population who are over 74 they have a 2% chance of dying if infected, and the 2% of the population who are over 85 years old have an 8% chance of dying if infected, but even this group has an elevated risk of dying from everything.          


A portion of the previous entry pertained to a poll asking if people voted.  I did not vote and I mentioned that one of the reasons was because I didn’t have a permanent address to register to vote from.  I was traveling with a company for about 5 months saving money to get myself off the ground living in hotels.  Now I have some money saved waiting for the completion of OPLNOW.com website and I’ll be traveling promoting that.  It was disingenuous to include that in the explanation, because even if I was operating from a permanent location I wouldn’t vote.  I explained the reason I didn’t vote in that exchange.  The short answer is the difference between the policy of the democrats and the policy of republicans doesn’t have any significant impact on my life and opportunities or the life and opportunities of most people in this country.  Especially not those who could most benefit from a government that was concerned with empowering the underclasses for the benefit of all people. 

I didn’t really think of it before this, but OPL gives people who don’t vote because politics doesn’t significantly change their lives, something to vote for.  It was created as vehicle to pass legislation, and I did think about how OPL could motivate people to vote who haven’t voted before, just didn’t really think about how widespread that explanation is.  Almost half the country doesn’t vote in most elections.  2020 was something of an anomaly as voter turnout is concerned where only 38% of the voting age population didn’t vote.  

But what was at stake?  What is at stake?  Did people go to the polls because they were concerned with women’s rights?  What do they think they will accomplish?  A constitutional amendment?  Do you think 3/4th of state legislatures are going to pass an abortion rights amendment, even if you could put a 2/3rds majority of one party in both houses of congress?  It is a legal issue or it is a state issue, so no one voted for women’s rights in this election.  

Who voted for action on climate change?  What do the democrats do at the federal level about climate change?  They give huge amounts of public money to private companies to build renewable energy infrastructure, but not enough to make a significant impact in the reduction of emissions.  During the Obama Administration he spent about $300 billion on subsidies for renewable energy.  The Biden bill, I think it was the inflation reduction bill or some goofy name like that, spent $300 billion on subsidies for renewable energy.  During his first year, I don’t know if it passed or not there were appropriations to finance private research on renewable energy generation, storage, transmission, bio fuels, carbon scrubbing, as well as some other research pertaining to reducing emissions.  

This helps reduce emissions?  Not significantly enough to avoid a 3 degree C warmer world by the end of the century.  The two issues I have is what is being spent and how it is being spent is enough to satisfy industry, but it is not enough to reduce emissions and I don’t believe that public funds should be used to pay for private assets.  They would argue that spending $300 billion on subsides purchases more renewable energy than spending $300 billion dollars on renewable energy infrastructure.  

I remember during the Obama Administration there was a solar farm being constructed for something in the neighborhood of a billion dollars.  I used to use as an example for Centers for Economic Planning, because the company put up about 400 million, the rest was covered by grants and 0 interest public loans.  But as soon as construction was complete they would get a rebate, I think was an an advance on a depreciating value tax credit over the life of the infrastructure that was over 400 million dollars.  I don’t know if this particular project was successful, I remember hear about problems with CA solar farms it may have been one of them I don’t know.  But that’s irrelevant to the point.  The point is the public put up all the money to build the infrastructure, but NRG would gain possession of it along with the contract to sell the power to Pacific Gas and Electric.  Once the infrastructure was complete, the public got a billion dollars of renewable energy infrastructure, for slightly more than a billion dollars.  

This approach to incentivize the creation of renewable energy infrastructure actually retards the process.  If you are or plan to be in the power generation sector when subsidies expire you’re not going to invest in renewable energy infrastructure, you’re going to wait until there’s a democrat in office who will give you public funds to create it.  Renewable energy infrastructure project are only being undertaken when there’s money from the government.  

Now it isn’t that I don’t have a renewable energy plan.  It just isn’t as thorough as I need it to be to create a petition for it.  To make I’ll need to retain the assistance of engineers or some other people with specialized knowledge.  I’ll explain momentarily.  The US government should be spending money on the construction of renewable energy infrastructure annually.  But instead of subsidizing the construction, they should be building it and selling it to the utility companies.  Bernie Sanders had the right idea to build it and put it under the authority of the Power Marketing Administrations.  

If Obama would have spent his $300 billion on renewable energy and put the infrastructure under the authority of the PMAs, the public would have gained an asset and earned profit from the sale of energy.  This profit can be reinvested to build more renewable energy infrastructure, and can also be used to subsidize the cost of power to low income people, without spending tax dollars.

Normally, I am not for the public being involved in the market as a producer of goods and services, but power generation, and the implementation of renewable energy is a public necessity.  If the public is going to pay for the infrastructure for a service that is a necessity for the public, in that service and in the reduction of emissions, then the public can provide that service, at least in part.  

The federal government building infrastructure for renewable energy and selling that energy at a profit to build more infrastructure would do what to the market?  It would encourage the private sector to invest more into the creation of renewable energy infrastructure to get in on long term generation before the public.  

The reason I need people with specialized knowledge to complete the petition is it has to be supported by a plan for the amount.  Say for example we want to spend $150 billion per year on building renewable energy infrastructure to sell the utility companies who will sell it to the public.  I don’t want a petition that is an appropriation of a dollar amount designated for that purpose.  I’d rather have a reference to a thorough plan showing what will built, who will manufacture, deliver, and assemble it.  How the power will be transported and stored, and what utility will be purchasing it and an estimation of the annual revenue potential.  I have this idea on the back burner, as well as some other petitions I didn’t include in the initial 7. Off topic, but I have an idea similar to round up gratuity to address shortages in hospitality staff.  Don’t want to stray too far here but I’ll bring it back up at another time.   

Anyway, if you voted for climate change action, you voted to do little more than marginally reduce emissions and use public funds to pay for private assets.  As well as slowing investment in renewable energy once the subsidy runs out.  

It showed 50% of people believe the economy and job creation was the most important issue.  This doesn’t really mean much, with Biden we had an infrastructure bill which doesn’t have a major impact on the economy.  Providing states with money to retain private companies to repair public infrastructure.  Every spending bill the appropriation of public funds to private profits directly or indirectly.  Policy differences between the democrats and the republicans typically have very little impact on the economy, which is to say for most people there isn’t going to be any more or any less opportunity based on which party has a majority in congress or occupies the white house.  

Clinton presided over a period of great economic growth, but had Bob Dole, or H Bush been in office this growth would have still occurred.  It was a product of advancements in telecommunications, microprocessors, and other innovation being brought to market that would have occurred no matter who was in office.  

If you’re voting to improve the economy you probably suffer from 1 of 2 delusions.  That democrats are going to stimulate the economy through spending, or that the republicans are going to lower taxes, and deregulate to increase private investment to create more jobs.  

Maybe you voted for college loan forgiveness?  I read that it is being blocked at least in a few states by the courts who are ruling that debt forgiveness must come from an act of congress, not an executive order.  Most of us are unaffected by partial loan forgiveness, at least on the surface.  Some could be affected since we’re essentially using public funds to help an advantaged group.  If you have a college education not only do you typically have better income opportunities as far as pay is concerned, but you also have the luxury of working in a field that you chose as opposed to earning a living to survive based on local availability and your skills.  I read an article that stated 73% of people polled who anticipated receiving student debt relief were going to use the money they saved to eat out more and travel.  Meanwhile you have people who grow up in circumstances where they spend most of their lives within a 10 mile radius.  I don’t agree with student debt relief for the same reason I don’t agree with corporate welfare, because if we as a people are going to use our collective resources to help a group it should be an advantaged group.  Either way my life and the lives of most people in this country who do not have student loan debt will be the same either way, since it’s lost revenue not an appropriation.  

It could become an appropriation.  I know of people who signed up for school to take out loans and would keep the money that was beyond what was required by the school.  Then not go to school.  I wonder if any of the people who receive loan forgiveness are among those who gamed the system for a quick hand out.  If their loans are forgiven will they be able to apply for new loans to do it again?  I know a few people who did that but don’t know exactly what it is they did.  

If you voted for school loan forgiveness, maybe you’ll get something worthwhile.  

We could keep going with this but I want to relax for a little while.  


I’m waiting for my website to be finished.  I sent a message to the designer asking him when it would be complete and he responded in a week or so.  He put together the mock up consisting of the home page and the petition directory in less than a day.  There are 7 petition pages which are essentially just one design with the content, and a form containing a few basic fields and an area to sign.  Then the submission emails me the form and signature.  Beyond that there is a contributions page containing 3 ways to contribute: either contact us and we have things you can do, a one time donor option, or a membership option.  He has to set that up and make it function through my stripe account, but that is just about all he has to do.  It doesn’t make sense to me that it would take a week or so.  Not to mention I asked for a date not an estimate.  I figured one of two things.  Either A: he doesn’t want to get it back to me in a day because he’s worried I’m going to call the price in question because of how fast he got it done.  I’m not, I just want my product.  Or B: he puts his time into creating these mock ups and gets deal after deal and he’s behind on other people’s projects. 

I seriously considered going to my bank and doing a chargeback because I was under the impression that it would be done by the weekend.  It’s now Thursday, he had the mockup done on Monday and I paid him Tuesday morning.  Were we talking about a week from Tuesday, a week from today which is Thursday, or were we talking about a week or so which maybe 10 days away?  I notified him that I was considering doing a charge back and going with another company.  I told him I’d decide by the end of the day.  

He emailed me back and said he just had a lot of stuff going on and that he’d finish it by tomorrow or Monday at the latest.  I was satisfied with this so long as I get it on Monday.  I apologized to him.  I could have approached the situation better but I’m thinking about what it could be and the fact that he told me it would be a week or less and he started on Friday I think.  Had he told me it would be two weeks to complete I wouldn’t have hired him.  Now we’re essentially looking at a week, but when you have most or at least half of it done in a day, you don’t expect it to take more than 2 days to complete.  

I’m no really concerned about rehearsing any presentations since I’m beginning with RUGO front and center and have a plan for who I will present it to on a daily basis.  There’s no need for that.  I should run my books through another editing phase since members will receive free books.  Also be good to brush up on content maybe update some data to the most current.  

I have been spending a little too much time on youtube.  I’ve had some lively debates on a few videos.  Mainly an officer charged with excessive force for deployment of a taser on a non-compliant suspect, and the other a poll about voting.  I shouldn’t say lively debates because the people who reply to my comments have nothing of substance to contribute.  The first few comments are substantive and after that it’s them saying things about me or taking the non-sequitur route.  I can unravel it in each comment but it often leaves me wondering if they know they’re wrong and just continue to reply to get a response, or if they’re truely that stupid.  By that I mean having no rational basis for their position, but still trying to maintain it despite having to know they are wrong.  

This Matt Mconhay with a perm looking dude kept on saying nothing.  At one point I told him that his whole comment consisted of opinions not rooted in any basis of fact and went onto respond to it.  Then he responded saying that my comment was purely opinion.  I had to make choice because he probably didn’t even read my response and just copied what I said.  Do I leave it alone or do I itemize how my comment was not opinion?  I decided to respond and thought I’d put it on the website.    

In the other exchange there were a few times when I was significantly irritated.  When people show they cannot comprehend and produce a thought pertaining to what is said yet want to keep making statements that don’t apply to the comment or the general subject that’s stupidity at it’s finest.  My frustration isn’t just in what’s going on, it extends into the implications of what is going, how people think, and how people retard themselves through self deception in efforts to maintain their perspective.  Maintaining their perspective is crucial to protecting their value of objects, or ensuring the things that make them feel good can continue to make them feel good.  I’ll provide additional commentary to the exchanges.  

In the past, most notably in the book Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History 2019-2020 I’ve recorded youtube exchanges because they provide an untainted sample of what and how people think, including commitments to biases that produce denial.  So while this could be interpreted as me chronicling winning debates against stupid people, that isn’t the purpose.  The purpose is more showing how people have strong opinions founded on nothing but their preference for those opinions.  People assign truth to ideas not based on logical fact founded calculations, but purely based on want the thing to be true based on what it means to maintain their perspective and how that perspective maintains their ability to like things and feel good.  

The video comes from Rebel HQ titled Chicago Cop Gets Felony Charges or Excessive Force.  https://youtu.be/k_Rp2rFHxCQ 

Since I describe the circumstances and sequence of events within my comments and go over them a few times during the course of different exchanges I won’t summarize the video and make this more repetitive than it already is.  I will say that the video is a news cast and it is intentionally misleading.  This a tactic of news editing to attract more attention to the story by making the officer seem malicious.  This is why we should have the Media Disclaimer Mandate on the screen.  

The video begins by showing just the final clip of the event.  The moment where it appears the suspect is going towards the ground and then he is tased seemingly before he has a chance to.  This is done to create a first impression where the officer’s actions look wrong.  There’s an emotional connection made that will bias the viewer later when the full context of the event is revealed.  The second two inaccuracies are statements that are inconsistent with facts.  The reporter calls the suspect an innocent man.  The man is not innocent because upon making contact with the officer, the officer attempts to put him in restraints which is lawful while detaining a suspect to conduct an investigation based on reasonable suspicion.  He broke the law on camera when he pulled away and ran from the officer, resisting and obstructing his investigation.  He’s not an innocent man.  The media also said he was compliant which he was not.  First he pulled way from the officer when the officer tried to handcuff, second he ran, and third which is the most crucial aspect of this use of force is the suspect went to the ground with his hands on the ground and then got back up.  Then slowly went to the ground and may have been ready to spring back up again.  He was not being compliant and given his behavior there’s no reason to believe he wouldn’t have got back and maybe tried to run again as he did previously.  The suspect is also behaving strangely, possibly under the influence of drugs, doesn’t have identification, and the officer knows nothing about who he is, why he ran, and why he’s being non-compliant. 

Interaction with the suspect is based on the suspect walking through a yard and the officer responding to a call about someone pulling on gates and moving suspiciously around people’s property.   

Orion Simerl

The officer should be acquitted of the charges.  He’s conducting an investigation based on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is prowling.  The officer has the right to detain the suspect while conducting his investigation.  While attempting to put the suspect in restraints, the suspect fled.  In addition to reasonable suspicion for prowling the officer has probable cause for obstruction,hindering, or resisting since he pulled away and ran while he was being lawfully restrained.  The suspect stopped running and began negotiating with the officer to put his taser down.  The officer issued multiple commands for the suspect to get on the ground.  The suspect initially ignored the commands.  Then the suspect began to get on the ground but got back up.  Given the observed indecision of the suspect, the fact that he has already resisted restraints and ran, it’s reasonable to believe that he would have ran again.  The officer is sworn to enforce the law which includes an obligation to arrest people who break the law.  When a suspect is non compliant an officer may use force to gain the compliance of the suspect.  Using the taser to ensure a non compliant suspect who has already ran and is refusing commands to get on the ground is not an excessive force.  Had the suspect not resisted being put in restraints initially, the officer would have finished his investigation which would have probably consisted of verifying the suspects identity, and seeing if the caller could identify the suspect as the person who was prowling.  If the suspect would have got on the ground and not got back up the officer would have detained him, verified his identity, found out if he was prowling and why if was, and then made a decision as to whether or not he wanted to charge him with obstruction for pulling away and refusing restraints.  The officer didn’t do anything wrong, this is the product of politically motivated DA, and the media exploiting anti police sentiment to attract attention to their broadcast.


There is zero reason to detain him though.  Cop pulls up, questions him, checks his pockets then threatens to arrest him for lying with zero evidence of that. Guy is in front of his own house getting harassed by a cop. If the guy really wanted to flee, the super out of shape cop wasn’t stopping him…. But you’re right, cops should be able to do whatever they want to you just because & you better listen, after all they passed high school.  

Orion Simerl @McDamaged  

The suspect can be detained because there is reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime based on the totality of the circumstances (Terry v. Ohio).  The circumstances are as follows, LE was called because they received a complaint that someone was prowling.  The officer observes the suspect in the area walking through a yard.  The officer makes contact to investigate on the basis of reasonable suspicion.  In such an investigation an officer has to identify the suspect.  The suspect doesn’t have an ID.  Even if he did have ID during the course of his investigation, at any time he can detain the suspect while he conducts his investigation.  Go read Terry v. Ohio so you can understand reasonable suspicion and what an officer can and cannot do during an investigation.

McDamaged @Orion Simerl  

Everything I find on terry v Ohio pertains to searching a suspect. He allowed the officer to search him & the officer found nothing. It doesn’t say you can arrest him over nothing. He threatened to arrest him for lying with zero evidence to back up that claim or that he had/was committing a crime he also found nothing on him. The yard he seen him in was his own yard which he informed the officer. Terry vs Ohio was a cop who witnessed 2 men checking windows and when he searched them he found a gun on both of them.

Orion Simerl @McDamaged  

I understand that you don’t want to read more than a paragraph google search or use even the most minimal amount of common sense when the conclusion damages your subjective interpretation of justice.  If you read the case law Terry v. Ohio establishes that an officer may investigate bases on reasonable suspicion which may include a search depending on the nature of that suspicion.  A person has the right to remain silent but they must identify themselves and they can be physically detained while the officer conducts his investigation.  The suspect is already detained before the officer attempts to cuff him.  An officer has reasonable suspicion to investigate if it is reasonable to believe a crime has occurred, is occurring, or could occur based on the totality of the circumstances.  Again we have the call that prowling is occurring and the officer observing the suspect engaging in behavior consistent with the reported crime.  A person being investigated must identify themselves to the investigating officer.  The suspect was being detained for his investigation into the prowling report and to establish his identity.  The stop and the officer’s attempt to place him in restraints is 100% lawful.

Andre for eoc Usbeusivn @Orion Simerl  

even if the detention is valid the use of force with the taser was not, which apparently the cop who did it even knows, considering he claims it was “accidental” lol but sure keep boot licking im sure the cops are all your friends man you love government agents we get it.

Orion Simerl @Andre for eoc Usbeusivn  

The suspect was not compliant.  He began going down after being told multiple times, but he didn’t go to the ground and began coming back up each time he was going to the ground.  That is not compliance.  Considering the suspect ran once and now is wavering between getting on the ground or not getting on the ground it’s reasonable to believe he may run again.  What options does the officer have in this situation where he is obligated to detain and possibly arrest the suspect for obstruction or hindering his investigation, and resisting detainment?  He can go hands on which is extremely dangerous since he is by himself or he can wait and hope the suspect doesn’t run again.  It’s very easy to miss with a taser.  If the suspect makes a sudden movement and begins running from what is a running stance he doesn’t know who he just let escape.  It’s unfortunate if what you’re saying is accurate that the officer said it was an accident.  Something he probably said based on encouragement from the department to avoid repercussions from the publicity surrounding the incident.  Had he not, Graham v. Turner brings us objective reasonableness.  Which states that the use of force must be judged based on circumstances at the time and whether in the moment a reasonable prudent officer would make the decision.  At the moment we have a suspect being investigated on reasonable suspicion for prowling.  The suspect did not have identification, and did not have a key for the house he claimed he resided in.  The suspect resisted restraints and ran from the officer.  The suspect refused lawful commands to get on the ground.  The suspect began to go to the ground but then got back up.  In the moment the officer doesn’t know who he is, and what he may have done to cause him to  pull away from the officer and run from him.  In the moment the officer is justified to use force to ensure the suspect doesn’t run away since he is refusing commands and being non-compliant.  If he said it was accidental then he blew his defense.  As for the boot licker comment, what does that mean to you?  Does that mean a person who understands the law and how it is applied to actions and events who doesn’t believe a law enforcement officer should face charges when in his service to the public he acts lawfully?  It’s funny because I see right through you pieces of s**.  I call you a piece of s** because if you were concerned about abuse of police authority you would study the law and the statistics.  You would know that there are 55 million police contacts in the United States each year.(1)  Then you would know that a handful of controversial uses of force which in most cases are lawful, does not constitute a systemic problem with policing.  But you’re not concerned with that.  You’re concerned with advancing your bias because of the positive  feelings you derive from a fake moral position and the opportunities the position creates for you socially.  Second, as I stated, you would learn the law.  Terry v Ohio, Graham v. Turner, Tennessee v. Gardner, Pennsylvania v. Mimms etc, so when you see something you can know if it is legal or not.  If you were really concerned with criminal justice and policing, you’d be concerned with changing the circumstances that produce criminals, which is rooted in the household income a person is born into, and the income opportunities people have.

1: I added the notes for this post.  I cannot include them in youtube exchanges because youtube will reject comments that contain URLs.  Elizabeth Davis, Anthony Whyde, BJS Statisticians, Lynn Langton Ph.D., former BJS Statistician, 10/11/2018 “Contact Between the Police and Public, 2015”.  Bureau of Justice Statistics.  https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6406 

New Exchange

Nota Person

Lick boots pussy

Orion Simerl @Nota Person  

I’ve provided a summary of the circumstances that form the legal basis for the officer’s actions and you’ve failed to challenge or dispute anything within that summary.  Instead you express your bias through false assertions that I have a bias towards police officers.  Then you go internet tough guy and call me a pussy when I could beat the shit out of you.  How much time have you done?  How many interactions have you had with police that weren’t a product of you and your half gender friends waving signs about shit you don’t understand?  I’ve done 6 years in jails and prisons.  Had probably 100 interactions with police, made a living from criminality for a significant portion of my life.  Been treated unfairly by some police but didn’t allow those interactions to color my perception of all leo.  For a time I was biased, but that’s the nature of being a criminal.  Although the laws are not all just there’s a reason for laws.  All people want to do what they want to do.  Which means any act that imposes is wrong and any act that does not impose is right.  (Imposition has many forms and sometimes inaction is imposition but not relevant to this point). We agree to laws and the enforcement of laws that prevent imposition because we are freer with laws than we are without them.  LEO are tasked with protecting the liberty of the public, which is one of the most noble professions on this planet.  It would be nobler if all the laws reflected the interests of the public, prevented imposition, and we lived in a nation where all people had adequate opportunities for time and money, which is the motivator of most criminal behavior, but the essence of the job is still the same.  LEO shouldn’t be punished when they act within the confines of the law when serving the public.  That’s the reason for my comment.  Of course when they act outside of the law they should, and when they do I summarize the circumstances and show why the act is unlawful.  As opposed to you who sees anything that can be ignorantly interpreted as wrongdoing by police as wrong doing because it advances your anti police bias that is built on feelings not reason.  You’re a puppet.

Nota Person @Orion Simerl  

bro it’s okay you like the taste of boot. You don’t need to keep writing paragraphs detailing how loose your butthole is and how police cock fills it.

NOTE: I resort to playing the game with him.  

Orion Simerl @Nota Person  

Looks like you’re projecting, but that’s another concept you’re probably not familiar with.

Nota Person @Orion Simerl  

mans took one psych course in prison and now thinks he’s smart. Project these nuts lol

Orion Simerl @Nota Person  

Man (well maybe a man you have some LGBT shit going on in that picture) cannot make a sustained point concerning the subject of controversy.  so he uses adolescent insults in lieu of anything worthwhile to write.

Nota Person @Orion Simerl  

bruh if you want to know something know this: these cops will be the first ones to arrest you for not wanting your kids to get hormone suppressants. These cops will be the first ones to take your guns. They don’t think they serve you or anything romantic like that. Stop being so naive. To them, it’s just a job. It’s a paycheck. I don’t actually judge them too much. They have to feed the kids and all, but they still can and will kill, maim, imprison, etc you if you make their job hard or if they are ordered to. If you want law and order this system will only give you that if you give it your soul.

Orion Simerl @Nota Person  

That’s purely opinion from someone who doesn’t have experience on either side of law enforcement (criminal, legal, statistically).  Sure, if a mother is trying to give her children hormones and the father tries to stop it he may be arrested according to the law and the police would be the ones to do it.  In that situation I wouldn’t fault the officers for enforcing the law I would fault the law makers, and citizens for allowing parents to f*** up their children.  Guns are protected by the courts, taking people’s guns is a fundraising tactic for the NRA, a call to political action from the right, and an empty solution to violence that is not a solution from the left.  Not to mention as we saw during COVID many law enforcement officers, primarily Sheriff’s refused to enforce COVID mandates based on their oath to the constitution and rightly believing that COVID didn’t qualify as a threat to public safety to be used as a justification to take away the rights of citizens.  I’m also a felon who cannot legally own a gun but I do support the right of others to own guns to protect their persons and property.  I know it isn’t about those specific examples, it was more about the same police who enforce laws that are inherently good, enforce laws that are against things that you think I like.  

Funny, because you’ve clearly stereotyped me based on an objective analysis of law and application as a conservative, which I’m not, but they are right about some things, the same as liberals are right about some things, with both leanings being both wrong about most things.  And yes, some officers approach policing like working in a warehouse, punch in, write some tickets, make some arrests and punch out.  Some police are worse than that, they’re ambitious so they’re looking for crime as opposed to being reactive to it, they’re trumping up charges trying to earn promotions.  But most police, even if they don’t see themselves as the defenders of liberty, have a genuine desire to help people and are not trying to make anyone’s life harder.  Anytime a suspect is noncompliant they assume the risk that comes with necessitating the use of force which can result in them being seriously injured which is the nature of force.  I’ve been pulled over without cause, had excessive force used against me, and had police dump excessive and exaggerated charges on me, but overall most of the negative treatment I’ve received has been because of my behavior.  As I stated before or it may have been to someone else, 55 million police contacts per year, and a handful of controversial interactions that are typically lawful.  Even if every controversial use of force was actually excessive force, it represents a very small fractional percentage of police and policing.  

You have it backwards, where you believe most police are bad based on your selective viewing of police, because you seek out information that reinforces your bias.  How many videos have watched of police being killed?  2 officers are killed every 3 days on average.  This provides context for what happens when police approach suspects lackadaisically, or when they withhold force in dangerous situations.  Often these situations don’t seem dangerous to the public until the point where an officer is being shot.  The reason I comment on these videos is because the general anti-police factions who want to express their opinion about what they’re seeing don’t know what they’re seeing.  They have no understanding of law, why an officer is doing something or what authority he is acting on.  It’s like a person who has never watched a football watching the game, seeing legal hits and saying they’re penalties.  Then pretending that they’re concerned about the person being tackled but it cannot be true because if they cared they would learn the rules.  That’s what I hate about the anti police factions and most activists in this country: their positions are rooted in false moral feelings for taking the position, the social opportunities the position creates or maintains, and the positive feelings coming from image promotion through the position.  Because when you care about a problem you learn about it and figure out solutions, and when you only care about what the problem does for you personally, you seek out information that reinforces the idea that the problem is a problem and avoid information that challenges that belief.  LibertyAndTruth(dot) org

Nota Person @Orion Simerl  

everything you just said is purely opinion from someone who took a few courses in jail lol

Orion Simerl @Nota Person  

You can’t, I’m rubber you’re glue me by inaccurately trying to apply a statement to my comment that I’ve accurately applied to your comment.  Also never taken a course in jail or prison, other then HSED when I was 18.  

1: Stating that an officer will arrest someone who tries to interfere with a mother approved medical process if it breaks the law is not opinion it is fact.  

2: Stating that police will not take away guns because it is protected by the 2nd amendment is not an opinion, it is a fact.  The motivation as to why citizens are concerned about the government taking away their guns being A: NRA fund raising, B: Republican’s activating their base, and C: Democrats proposing gun control as a solution that does not solve any problems to activate their base, is not an opinion, but a logical deduction based on the motivation of said groups, A: why would the NRA promote the idea that the government is coming for guns when the right to bear arms is protected by the second amendment?  Because if the right to bear arms isn’t threatened, they have no reason to exist or for people to become members and fund their organization.  B Why would republicans promote the idea that democrats want to take away guns when they know the courts will protect the second amendment?  Because if people think their right to bear arms is under threat they’re more likely to vote.  

2C: Why do democrats propose strict gun control as a solution to violence mainly mass murder, when they know they’re limited by the 2nd amendment to enact federal gun control legislation and that the measure will not reduce violence?  Because it encourages their base to vote if reducing violence is important to them.  C Why doesn’t gun control prevent violence?  Evidence that gun control doesn’t reduce mass killings is evident by the Australian data where prior  20 years prior to the 1996 massacre where 36 people were killed where gun control did not exist, and after that event when gun control was implemented there were more mass killing events and more mass killing incidents in the 20 years after gun control.(1)  More importantly, as it relates to gun violence in general, states like California who have strict gun control laws have higher rates of gun violence than many states like Arizona that have very lax gun control regulations. (2)  

1: Orion Simerl “Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History 2019-2020”, pg 46.  “In Australia, in the 20 years prior to the 1996 mass shooting there was a total of 95 people killed in mass murder events. In the 20 years after 1996 there were 96 people killed.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia Each incident is cited with a news citation in the wiki article.

2: https://everystat.org/#California Gun injuries 29th highest.  https://everystat.org/#Arizona Gun injuries 37th highest.  California has a gun control rating of A for restrictiveness and Arizona has a rating of F.  While we can say that this comparison is cherry picked, and it is, the fact remains that California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and yet ranks 29 in gun injuries which means presumably 28 other states with fewer gun restrictions have lower rates of gun injuries.  Which means gun control on its own does not prevent the use of guns. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state 

3: Sheriffs in some counties around the country did refuse to enforce covid mandates regarding them as unconstitutional (ref available upon request).(3)

3: This really doesn’t need a citation and there plenty of articles on the subject but here is one to substantiate the point.  https://time.com/5921863/police-enforce-covid-restrictions/   

4: I am a felon with a substantial battery and an escape conviction, who has had other felony charges dropped.  I cannot legally own a firearm.  

5: You did stereotype me based on an objective analysis of this incident because I didn’t mention anything about my position on firearms or children being given hormones but you presumed I was for one and against the other as would be consistent with conservative stereotypes.  

6: There were 61 million police contacts in 2018.(5) The first return on search didn’t want to go to my notes to find my source on 55 million assertions.  A dozen controversial examples of policing represents a small proportion of policing which qualifies as a very minute exception and not normative policing.  

5: Department of Justice “Contacts Between the Police and Public 2018”.  https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbpp18st.pdf 61.5 million, and I believe this is the most up to date data on the subject.  

7: 2 officers are killed in the line of duty every 3 days.(5)  

5: I was wrong about this.  I thought I remembered seeing a number in the 200s but for 2021 it was actually 129.  A little more than 1 officer every 3 days.  https://www.police1.com/police-heroes/articles/129-officers-killed-in-line-of-duty-in-2021-fbi-report-says-cFWzKEn9J20qC0sH/ 

7: It is self-evident that people who are truly concerned about things learn about them so they can address them.  Everything I stated was fact, or in the instance of different entities’ motivation for misleading the public about guns, a logical deduction to the most likely cause.

The following exchanges are from a youtube poll asking did you vote?


Not all the responding comments are negative and I’ve included the positive comments and neutral comments for what they add to the subject or for my response to those comments.  

Orion Simerl 

I don’t have a permanent residence to register to vote from, but even if I did I would not have voted.  At this point, you’re voting to determine which industry’s interest will be prioritized in public policy.  That is the difference between a democrat or a republican.  This could change in 2024 with the creation of The Organization for Popular Legislation.


I agree with you! There’s like six parties yet we’re all divided by two? Once my vote as a libertarian matters, then I’ll vote. But now it’s “vote to get the other guy out”. How counterintuitive.

Orion Simerl @Miraa2k12  

OPL creates and promotes legislation and collects voting pledges to pass that legislation.  The goal is to have a number of people pledge a vote for the candidate who supports the legislative agenda that exceeds the margin of victory in the previous election.  Website oplnow dot com should be up by Friday and we’re going to begin campaigning around the round up gratuity tax credit hopefully Monday.  The objective is to control elections through a voting bloc to force concessions from industry where we can achieve specific legislation to achieve quality of life improvements.  Until the website is finished there’s more information on LibertyAndTruth dot org

New Exchange

Carl Frye

Organization for Popular Legislation, does that have anything to do with job creation and economic development?

Orion Simerl @Carl Frye  

Yes.  I have people working on the website now.  First legislative outline being promoted is called The Round Up Gratuity Option Tax Credit.  Round up gratuity allows customers to round up their purchases from high volume transaction businesses and for that money to be distributed to the workers.  High volume transaction industries are businesses like retail and fast food, walmart, target, mc donalds, gas stations etc.  We’ve estimated that a full time Walmart worker would earn about $4.50 more per hour if Walmart implemented a RUGO.  Other businesses like gas stations or fast food restaurants could make even more.  To encourage businesses to implement a round up gratuity option we’re offering a 10% payroll tax credit.  This won’t cost the taxpayers money because what’s lost in the 10% payroll tax will be made up for in additional income tax collected by people making more money in those industries.  In addition to increasing the wages for workers in these industries, it will also increase the wages of other low skilled workers.  Companies that hire low skilled workers will be competing for low skilled workers with high volume transaction industry low skilled workers who will make more.  In other words, if a person can work at Walmart and earn 20 plus dollars per hour with round up gratuity, they’re unlikely to want to dig holes for 15 dollars an hour.  Meaning companies looking to hire people to dig holes will then have to pay wages comparable to what other low skilled jobs are paying.  Of course when you increase the purchasing power of the bottom 50% of income earners they have more money to purchase goods and services, leading to more profits, reinvestment, jobs, etc.  This is only one of 7 legislative ideas we’re promoting.  Our emphasis is on improving income opportunities recognizing that most problems are a product of inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money.

New Exchange

Detonation Pyrotechnics 

You don’t vote then don’t bitch. You lose that right when you don’t exercise your most important right.

Orion Simerl @Detonation Pyrotechnics  

Public policy is determined by political investment where the difference between candidates has no meaningful impact on my life or the life of others of a similar socioeconomic status.  To vote is to legitimize a political narrative that is false, where there is no choice since a candidate must first be selected by money before they can be voted for by the public.  I have every right to complain and you have none because you voted for this, legitimized the charade, and I did not.

New Exchange

Mike Ouxma 

No one is going to vote for you bunch of pot heads trying to start your own party.

Orion Simerl @Mike Ouxma  

Doesn’t mean much coming from someone who is too stupid to comprehend the subject he’s responding to.  Maybe you need some pot to broaden your comprehension skills?

NOTE: I began the comment insulting, mainly because his comment is devoid of any effort to understand what it is he has a problem with.  No one mentioned anything about using marijuana and OPL is not a political party.  He sees things I’ve said as being challenging to his outlook and this motivates him to make a comment.  

Mike Ouxma @Orion Simerl  

So I hit it right on the nose otherwise you wouldn’t be so upset. Typical liberal

Orion Simerl @Mike Ouxma  .

Not upset, you’re retarded.  You stated no one is going to vote for a bunch of pot heads which shows 1: that you think what I described is a political party running for office.  This means you didn’t comprehend what was being described.  2: There is nothing from what I wrote that implies me or we are pot heads.  Your conservative bias and preference for maintaining the myths your perspective is built on sees anything that challenges mainstream ideas as threatening and liberal.  I am not a liberal and also not a conservative, where the left is right about some things, the right is right about others, but for the most part both groups are wrong about most things, and the subscribers like yourself are strung along by political narratives that have no impact on people’s quality of life.  Now you can get back to your talk radio and resume allowing your feelings about ideas direct you to letting other people think for you.  Or continue poorly thought out comments about things you don’t understand for my entertainment.

Mike Ouxma @Orion Simerl  

which one of you pot heads came up with the idea of “majority rules” in a Republic? Let’s hear your first proposal. Let me guess,abortion or something our constitution already covers. Trans rights? Gtfoh! Lmao

Orion Simerl @Mike Ouxma  

You have no ability to articulate an original thought or intelligently participate in a conversation, only spout out the stereotypes that you think the rest of the world who is not you consists of.   Who said majority rules?  Now you’re dumb ass (you are stupid with a capital S) with no basis is claiming myself or my organization takes positions on trans rights or abortion for which there is no evidence of from anything stated.  Like I said, you lack the ability to participate in a conversation and draw from things floating in your head and spew them randomly.  Since I already ran down with another commenter proposal 001 is called Round Up Gratuity Option Tax Credit, a market based idea to increase income opportunities for the bottom 50% of income earners.   Round up gratuity allows customers to round up their purchases from high volume transaction businesses and for that money to be distributed to the workers.  High volume transaction industries are businesses like retail and fast food, walmart, target, mc donalds, gas stations etc.  We’ve estimated that a full time walmart worker would earn about $4.50 more per hour if Walmart implemented a RUGO.  Other businesses like gas stations or fast food restaurants could make even more.  To encourage businesses to implement a round up gratuity option we’re offering a 10% payroll tax credit.  This won’t cost the tax payers money because what’s lost in the 10% payroll tax will be made up for in additional income tax collected by people making more money in those industries.  In addition to increasing the wages for workers in these industries, it will also increase the wages of other low skilled workers.  Companies that hire low skilled workers will be competing for low skilled workers with high volume transaction industry low skilled workers who will make more.  In other words, if a person can work at walmart and earn 20 plus dollars per hour with round up gratuity, they’re unlikely to want want to dig holes for 15 dollars an hour.  Meaning companies looking to hire people to dig holes will then have to pay wages comparable to what other low skilled jobs are paying.  Of course when you increase the purchasing power of the bottom 50% of income earners they have more money to purchase goods and services, leading to more profits, reinvestment, jobs, etc.  This is only one of 7 legislative ideas we’re promoting.  Our emphasis is on improving income opportunities recognizing that most problems are a product of inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money.  Think, ask a question before ignorantly opening up your sewer pretending that the small minded catch phrases that you’ve memorized are somehow applicable to something you know nothing about.

Mike Ouxma @Orion Simerl  

ok blm junior,I’ll keep my eye put for y’all but I’ll tell you,you’re going to be stuck with liberals and felons. Good luck getting votes out of them. Just be honest and tell us you’re there for the grifting.

NOTE: The BLM junior comment is particularly funny in consideration of the other exchange where I’m accused of being a boot licker or having a pro police bias.  

New Exchange


Then you have zero right to complain about any policies or laws that enstatite.

Orion Simerl @Ozark1987  

I already answered that meat puppet programed response.  There’s no significant difference between the two parties and the policies of both parties have no impact on my quality of life.  Public policy is determined by political investment, the difference between parties and candidates is which industries interests will be prioritized in public policy.  To vote is to legitimize the idea that one party or the other represents my interests or the interests of the public.  Why vote when whoever is elected is going to do the same thing as the other candidate?  The only thing that changes is the rhetoric and how the interests of industry is packaged and sold to the public as something that benefits them.  Furthermore, I have every right to complain because I didn’t vote for this shit, and you did.

Ozark1987 @Orion Simerl  

you’re a fool and need to go do some research instead of just drinking the media koolaid. Dumbass

Orion Simerl @Ozark1987  

Nothing I’ve said is a position that comes from mainstream media.  You strike me as a fox news watcher who also listens to right wing talk radio.

Ozark1987 @Orion Simerl  

I don’t watch mainstream media, but keep regurgitating their nonsense and blaming other people for watching mainstream media. Nice deflection

Orion Simerl @Ozark1987  

Again you’ve failed to address anything within my comment, only claimed the origins of my comments come from MSM except that recognition that public policy is directed by political investment and both parties represent industrial interests is not a mainstream media point.  However, your position that there’s a substantive difference between parties and that voting is important is a mainstream position.

Ozark1987 @Orion Simerl  

it’s not a valid point period. There is literally no logic or reasoning that backs that up. Only your emotions.

Orion Simerl @Ozark1987  

Really,?  Thomas Ferguson papers showing the flow of political money how industries separate their donations between parties and candidates, including companies who support both parties and both candidates in presidential elections.(1)  If a company donates money to one candidate because they support this candidates position on policy, why would they also support the other candidate whose policies are supposed to be different?  Because it’s an investment.  Beyond this is how presidential candidates rely on donations of 1000 or more for 90 percent of their itemized donations, with 2/3rds or more coming from donations of 10,000 or more.(2)  You cannot be competitive without donations from industry.  90 plus (don’t have notes in front of me I’m at gym) percent of campaign contributions for Congress people come from less than 3/10th of a percent of the population, i.e wealth and industry.(3)  2004 study from Kansas showed that companies who lobbied for the American jobs creation act received 224 for every 1 they spent lobbying.(4)  Sunlight foundation found that the 200 most politically active corporations receive about $1000 in subsides, tax credits, grants, and contracts for every 1 dollar they spent on lobbying.(5)  Name a bill that doesn’t benefit industry.  You know nothing and can’t even put forward an argument or state a fact.  Saying my position isn’t valid is an opinion not supported by fact or reason.

1:  I’m referencing the papers Party Competition and Industrial Structure in the 2012 Elections: Who’s Really Driving the Taxi to the Dark Side?  And  “Industrial Structure and Party Competition in the age of Hunger Games: Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election”  Ferguson, Joregenson, and Chen.  These papers track the flow of money from different companies to candidates.  The 2012 analysis was interesting because it showed how in the republican primary how popular candidates could not remain competitive due to lack of funding.  Both papers have a tables that categorize contributions by industry and show what percentage of firms within an industry contributed to which presidential candidate.  When the percentage totals more than 100% it means some firms donated to both candidates.  There was also a paper on the 2020 election I didn’t finish reading because according to the lead author they couldn’t accurately track the money and it took a more traditional political science approach.  It put forth ideas about how events like Covid, labor sentiments, among other things influenced voters.  My conclusion about why Trump lost in 2020 and won in 2016 was a little simpler.  I believe Trump won in 2016 because he received in the neighborhood of 1.3 million votes from Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016 and did not receive these votes in 2020.  This combined with the democrats coopting every left leaning grass roots movement to effectively get new voters to the polls is the reason the democrats won in 2020.  This isn’t to say Trump can’t win in 2024 because he won’t have the support of Sanders voters.  Presidents get credit and fault for whatever is taking place during their presidency and people will contrast their situation under Trump to their situation under Biden and he may win on the strength of that in 2024.  Although Desantis would probably be preferred by the republican establishment.    

2: Citing same papers from FN1: In 2016 75% of Trump’s campaign was financed by donations exceeding $10,000, and 72% of Clinton’s campaign was financed from donations of at least $10,000.  In the 2012 election “almost two thirds of itemized financing” for Obama’s campaign were donations of $10,000 or more, for Romney it was more than 70%, while both candidates relied on donations of over $1000 for “about 90% of their funding”  

3: Open Secrets Dollarocracy https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/dollarocracy/04.php   “Donations from individuals giving $200 or less make up a fairly small wedge in the fund-raising pie: a little over 10 percent of the money collected by House members and about 15 percent for senators.” The remaining 85 to 90 percent of funds came from less than 3/10s of 1 percent of the population.

4: Raquel Alexander, Susan Scholz, and Stephen Mazza. “Measuring Rates of Return for Lobbying Expenditures: An Empirical Analysis Under the American Jobs Creation Act” University of Kansas, Lawrence. Pg 1 companies who lobbied for a tax holiday provision in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 received “in excess of $220 for every 1 dollar spent.”

5: Fixed Fortunes: Biggest Corporate Political Interests, Spend Billions, Get Trillions. Sunlight Foundation , by Bill Allison and Sarah Harkins, 11/17/14 http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/11/17/fixed-fortunes-biggest-corporate-political-interestsspend-billions-get-trillions/ The Sunlight Foundation examined 200 of the most politically active corporations in the United States between 2007 and 2012 and found that during the period these corporations invested 5.8 billion dollars in political spending, and over the same period received 4.4 trillion dollars in federal business support.  The report concludes “…the nation’s most politically active corporations for every dollar invested received $760 from the government,…(and some corporations) received 1000 times or more”.

New Exchange

B Weinmann

If you don’t vote you don’t really get to complain

NOTE: This the third person to post the same cliche so I entered the response a little hostile.  

Orion Simerl @B Weinmann  

Shut your dumb ass up read the other responses to that meat puppet reply.  3 people with the same cliche statement is evidence of indoctrination.  Voting changes what when both choices are the same thing under different rhetorical branding?


It was time for me to leave Premier.  I appreciate the opportunity Mark gave me to save some money and try to get myself off the ground.  I did leave a little earlier than I might have liked but I’m at where I’m at.  

I went to Chicago to get started.  Well not really.  I thought the hotel was about 20 miles outside the city, northwest suburbs area, but I’m actually about 40 miles out.  Good in the sense that when I don’t need to go to the city I don’t have to deal with traffic and the Cook County bullshit, but bad because it means I’m about an hour and a half away.  I came here largely because there were multiple closely contested congressional races in 2020, but with the midterms only days away it could change making Chicago a less optimal place to be, especially in the winter.  

When the nature of your business relies on the idea that a marginal number of people can determine the outcome of elections, you have to begin your campaign in districts where the margin of victories are relatively small.  It’s a matter of can we get 50,000 pledges to pass specific pieces of legislation in an area with 750,000 people in it.  That’s 1 person out of 14, that seems doable.  Of course when the margin of victory is smaller you need fewer pledges to meaningfully encourage a candidate.  20 thousand pledges to a candidate who won their district by 10,000 votes is serious, especially if the pledges come from people who didn’t vote in the previous election.  At the same time, if a candidate’s margin of victory is typically a few hundred thousand votes based on a common bias in the district, there’s no way you would ever get enough pledges to change the outcome.  If the objectives are important enough maybe over time, but beginning it’s better to be in areas where the voters are most evenly divided.  The path of least resistance.  The margin of victories will probably be similar to 2020 or at least reasonably well contested.  Districts don’t usually go from being decided by 29,000 votes, to a 100,000 votes.  You have near equal divergent bias among the voters so the outcome will always be relatively close.  Democrats vote for democrats, republicans vote for republicans, and some small percentage of the voting population changes their votes according to something that’s made to seem important to them in the political narrative. 

There’s two things OPL is doing.  The first is letting a candidate know that their chances of winning their election may hinge on whether or not they want to publicly support the legislation demanded by the pledges.  The second may be a bargain with industry, since although most industry is represented to different degrees by both political parties, there are some industries that have much more influence among one candidate or one party.  The difference between a democrat or republican in office determines which industries interests are prioritized.  Once OPL establishes its presence, the candidates who support OPL will do so with the blessing of their donors, and industry will concede the demands of the organization and the supporting public to have their candidate elected to improve their influence over other policies.       

I’ve just had two ideas for promoting and making money.  The most difficult part of this is finding an in to talk to people.  Main methods are to start a group or attend groups that are civically oriented.  Now I have something where I’m not completely reliant on those two mediums to reach an audience. I’m not going to write them here though.  Proprietors secret.


Yesterday I was finally able to establish a bank account for TOPL.  This was an important step for me.  After weeks of working 6 or 7 days every week and often having little motivation after work I have 4 days off.  I’ve finished creating the outline and content for the website.  Unfortunately I don’t feel good because I’ve been squandering so much time and there are things I can be doing.  

It has been difficult for me to focus.  Part of this has been my inability to obtain marijuana.  It’s been about 4 weeks since I’ve had any.  Prior to this I may smoke a bowl at night 3 to 5 times per week.  An 8th of an ounce or 3.5 grams usually lasts about a month.  For me marijuana eliminates distractive stress and uneasiness and allows me to focus on objectives and stimulates thought towards those ends.  Through what I think and what I accomplish while under the influence improves my mood.  Without it I’m overwhelmed by the depression facilitated through my circumstances, and this depression causes me to escape it through unproductive activities like playing poker, other games, and watching youtube videos.  This in turn produces more depression because upon the cessation of that stimulation I’m painfully aware of the time I’ve wasted.  Eventually I sink low enough to do something and feel mildly better through whatever it is I did that feels somewhat productive.  Then the cycle will repeat.  

I have a great lack of social opportunities, relationships, and interaction generally which is detrimental to my well being including cognitively.  Enhancement of my mood can lead to the creation of opportunities but at the same time my perspective, values, and interests generally prevent the establishment of meaningful social relationships or quality interaction as I perceive it.  I’m not lonely or saddened by the acknowledgement of my loner status, only concerned about the negative impact it may have.  I also feel that this will correct itself once I’m actively advancing the goals of TOPL.  There are also negative cognitive effects from the work I do which is very repetitive.  

My awareness of these things creates stress subconsciously that has a negative impact on my mood and also has the potential to create cognitive decline.  I feel the weight and I don’t feel as sharp as I did even a few months ago.  Although reengagement into content or the focus of my attention can reverse that.  The issue is it’s difficult to know in the moment how much stress is diminishing my abilities.  There have been periods in my life where stress was significantly limiting but I didn’t realize it until I revisited material from that period.  All stress isn’t the same.  There is stress that improves the mind when it’s front and center and you’re conscious of it.  There is other stress from circumstances that is worn like a vest in the sense that you’re not really aware of it but it’s there, it weighs you down, and it dulls you without you being aware of it.  

I’m not a person who is given to a great deal of worry contrary to what the previous paragraphs may suggest.  I’m reminded of those things periodically and I move on.  Otherwise, I’m accepting of all outcomes while trying to control the things I can control to obtain the desired outcomes.  Worry is a product of the subconscious creating objectives to reduce or eliminate uncertainty or to arrive at a place where a foreseeable unacceptable outcome is acceptable or made acceptable through preparation of how one will proceed should the undesired outcome occur.  The positive feeling that motivates worry is the elimination of the negative feeling through the reduction of uncertainty or the ability to accept an undesired outcome, both of which are the basis for fear.  While I live with the absence of fear or at least relatively in the absence of fear compared to most people, fear can be a positive in the sense that fear can fuel a person’s drive.  My drive is fueled through self worth and justice.  This is why I feel like shit when I’m unproductive.  I also recognize that I may accomplish more if I was motivated more by fear, but at the same time, having been motivated by fear during a time when I was more stressed (the period when I was going to court in Florida) my execution also suffers when fear is motivator.  I would also accomplish more if I had access to marijuana.  

I’ve established the bank account for the organization.  Next I need to have the website built.  I have a 30 page outline that includes all the content and functions of the website.  Now I need to hire someone to create it.  I was looking at resumes on craigslist about a week ago.  I plan on hiring an assistant essentially to open doors, schedule presentations, make phone calls, and do other things that I don’t want to do.  I found a web developer and contacted him.  At the time I didn’t have the TOPL bank account established but I thought I might try him out at redesigning this site for a few hundred dollars, and if he performed well I would retain him to design the TOPL site.  

I sent an inquiry asking about his rate and he told me he charged $35 per hour.  I told him that I wanted a flat rate since I would have no way of knowing how long it actually takes him to complete the job.  This is a wordpress site which should be pretty straightforward.  I have a PHP issue that has to be corrected but from what I’ve seen online someone who knows what they’re doing should be able to correct that issue in less than an hour.  From there the old theme is uninstalled, a different theme is installed, and then there’s some customization of the theme.  I would expect a price that reflects 5 to 8 hours of work.  He sent me a reply that it would take him 34 hours, or about $1200 to do this.  I may be willing to spend somewhere around this amount to create the TOPL website although I think I can probably get it done cheaper, but there’s no way I’m willing to spend that amount to redesign a wordpress website.  If he’s trying to charge for 34 hours on a wordpress website what would he try to charge me to create the TOPL website?  After I sent him an email explaining that having this site redesigned wasn’t worth $1200 he sent an email asking about what my budget was.  The problem is he already tried to gouge me so I don’t want to work with him.  It’s like if you needed an oil change and they told you it was going to be $300.  If you refused and they asked what your budget was for the oil change you’d already be inclined to go elsewhere since they began with such an unfair price.  

This site looks atrocious.  I may need to spend a few hours fixing the PHP issue so I can change the appearance myself which won’t be great but it will be better.  I need to find someone to create the TOPL website because what I need it to do and how I need it to appear far exceeds my design abilities.  Unfortunately, I cannot really do anything until I have the TOPL website up.  

Once I have the TOPL website up I’ll begin promotion wherever I’m at which may be Winslow, AZ.  This will primarily be practice since whatever district Winslow is in, or Flagstaff since I think it’s 50 to 70 miles from Winslow, probably isn’t contested.  The strategy of collecting voter pledges for legislation becomes viable when the margin of victory for a congressional candidate is less than 50,000 votes, which in 2020 represented about 135 seats.  

I plan on finishing the job in Del Rio and the job here in Dallas which should take about 3 and a half weeks.  After this I believe we have a few weeks until the job in Winslow will begin.  Whether I go to Winslow to begin the job may depend on what I’m able to accomplish in those few weeks.  If I’m ready, I may be able to get rolling at that time.  I see myself presenting TOPL and the legislative outlines and attracting interest, pledges, membership, and donations.  With a little bit of that I should be able to meet with politicians and get some of them on board with most of TOPL’s legislative agenda.  With their support this may rapidly bring that agenda to the broader public and bring it into the popular political narrative and accomplish changes that will improve the quality of American life.  


Ive been working very hard at work as I enter into these last 6 weeks or so of employment. Outside of work, the work towards my broader ambition outside of this 6 weeks of construction has been slow and at times frustrating. My DBA The Organization for Popular Legislation is now valid and I have an EIN number that I can use to open a bank account in the organizations name. Haven’t had the time to open the bank account for the Organization but it doesnt seem like a priority at least until I have the website up. I’m currently having problems with this website. I cannot access the theme editor. I created a new hearder, something simple that moves away from the generic header that’s there now.

With the new website and ambition I can seperate some the political from this site. This site has been under a very old domain orioncs.net that I don’t want to get rid of because of because it’s a collection of a lot of different pages and versions of pages which are not public but stil accessible by me through the admin screen. I also own LibertyAndTruth.org that I forward to this site. I should create a new website using that domain. Right now I don’t have the time for that. It would be pretty simple in that I would take my active pages and products and put the site on some other hosting. It’s something I could probably do on my own. I also own OPLNOW.com which may be The Organization for Popular Legislation website. I’ve created an outline for what will be on the website but this is something I need hire someone to build. The difficulty is hiring someone to build it while still understanding how to update it. I say Oplnow.com may be the website for OPL because OPL might be TOPL. I have purchased TOPL.app but the problem with TOPL.app is pelple are unfamilar with that extension, and the extension itself implies that the destination is to an app and not a website.

I have to decide on an acronym. I like TOPL because the idea of the organization in a sense is to do just that: to topple politicans who will not support popular legislation. Installing switches through the establishment of voter blocs who can give an election to a candidate or take an election away from a candidate. It’s unique in that it proposes legislation that will signifcantly change the lives of people in this country. It’s built on an accurate depiction of problems and political functioning. Much of the country is going to vote according democrat or republican, progessivism or conservatism, or even some other bullshit even more insignficant than that. In many districts across this country elections are decided by 10s of thousands of votes. If there are blocs in different districts of 10, 20, or 30 thousand votes, incumbants who have won previosly by smaller margins are going to be very inclined to support the OPL/TOPL agenda. I am leaning towards TOPL but on the other hand it may be unduly aggressive.

I do plan to hire someone. The first reason is because I don’t like to talk on the phone and there are going to be a lot of phone calls to make. Some of those calls will be contacting to groups to arrange meetings and events where I can appear before groups, explain TOPL/OPL and the pledges and see if I can gain pledges and interest. Other calls will be appointments for other calls. Setting up calls with potential donors who I can discuss my plans with and try to gain their support. I know I need someone to schedule promotional appearances, bypass gate keepers, and create opportunities for me to get in touch with people I am interested in getting in touch with. Before they can do this they will need to understand enough about the organization and some of the ideas to perform the marketing tasks successfully. Another task will be will be opinion based, like TOPL or OPL.

I’ve created 2 pledge summaries, the second one is probably the most difficult of the 10 I plan to begin with. I should have the other 8 finished in about a week. I need to create a TOPL video introduction outline. That’s my priority. Everything else on my list is complete other than the petitions and the video outline.

I started this entry to share the first draft of the Balance Stimulus Pledge Summary which I condensed from the final draft. The first draft was very choppy in how it was written and I took it places it probably didn’t need to go. I’m not going to share it until I have a chance to edit it. Then I’ll share that draft here. Below is the OPL logo, a TOPL logo shirt (the logo will just be the letters), and the heading banner for the site that I cannot upload. It’s not a great improvement but it is some improvement. My grafic design abilities and concepts leaves a lot to be desired. I’m also leaning towards TOPL because the logo looks better. The OPL logo I have now looks like Obama is running for a third term. LOL.


The past few entries in this journal have been very substantive content.  Unfortunately I’ve done almost nothing but sleep, eat, and lay in bed after finishing an early day at work today and I need something to get me off of youtube and into something productive as the day is approaching its end.  I have a few random things I’ve written down on my list and a few realizations.  

About a week ago I wrote about relative value where the same sum of money means different things to different people based on how that sum can facilitate some end for the individual or entity.  In the original post the comparison was between what $35 means to me versus what $35 means to the city of Chicago.  Essentially, what the city can do with $35 versus what I can do with $35, and how soon that $35 could become relevant for both parties.  

Today on my way to Walmart there was a man with a sign on the freeway off ramp.  I remembered I had cash on me so I gave him $2 as I often do when I’m in a position.  After I rolled up the window I thought about why it feels good to give money to people with signs.  It’s in the relative value.  Where $2 is not going to be very relevant to me in the immediate future, and $2 for him will presumably facilitate some immediate end.  Food, beer, drugs, etc.  If you have $0, even $2 immediately improves your opportunity.  I’ve always understood that it felt good through the acknowledgement of improving someones liberty without expending much time or energy to do it, but today is the first time I considered relative value as a subconscious factor in producing the positive feeling.  

There was a woman in Jacksonville, TX I saw on two occasions when I was here in Dallas previously.  I was thinking about calling her to see if she wanted to meet up tonight because I feel like I need some of that relief socially and sexually.  It’s more sexual with her than it is social which is cool, but at the same time it’s a great investment of time and a decent investment of money.  $80 on hotel room, $40 in gas, $30 in alcohol, probably $30 in food, and not only 4 hours of driving round trip and probably 15 hours spent from the time I leave to the time I get back, but also probably a day of recovery involved on my only day off to be productive. 

Yesterday I looked at a few locations of tightly contested congressional districts of 2020.  I was recently in Chicago visiting my daughter and I thought about how shitty it would be to live there.  Vice taxes, high gas prices, horrible traffic, tolls to get anywhere, high rent prices, and so on and so forth.  Yet there are 3 congressional districts in and around Chicago that are highly contested.  It’s also a densely populated metropolitan area that makes it easier to reach large numbers of people for voting pledges.  It’s close to my daughter.  And it’s relatively close to other metropolitan areas with closely contested congressional districts, in Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri.  While there are many reasons why I would not want to begin in Chicago, based on my objectives, it’s difficult for any other location to compete with Chicago.  

One drawback is the time when I’ll be finishing up the work we have and when I’ll be ready to begin OPL operations.  It will be in November after the midterm elections.  It is also possible we finish these jobs before then without starting another.  The point being we will be entering winter.  Being from Milwaukee I’m no stranger to midwest winter weather but that doesn’t mean I enjoy it.  This may be a positive since people during the colder months may be more inclined to hear someone talk about new ideas and new ways of accomplishing those ideas with outside activities being more limited and uncomfortable.  That is one of my strategies.  To call groups and ask if I can present OPL to them.  

There is a job Mark mentioned that may begin in November in Cheyenne, WY that would be a remodel.  This would consist of about a week on two weeks off situation that I may participate in.  In this scenario I would use those two weeks off to begin in Denver.  There are no close races (less than 30,000 votes) in districts in Denver, but it would essentially be practice anyway.  

I’m going to have to make use of the telephone in this endeavor.  I do not like talking on the phone.  

I have a few random thoughts and realizations I wrote on my list to discuss.  They don’t seem sd relevant as they did at the time but I’ll express them anyway.  This past Ferguson paper I didn’t finish reading which was the first of his election papers I didn’t finish.  I wrote briefly about what I did read from it and I was disappointed by the mainstream left bias that seemed pervasive throughout the paper.  However, it wasn’t this content that prevented me from finishing the paper.  What prevented me from finishing the paper was it being an analysis of what caused Trump to lose the election and my mind is fairly made up about the difference between the two elections.  Maybe I shouldn’t say my mind is made up, obviously if information came to my attention that challenged my theory and put forward a better theory I would accept it based on its merits.  Most people are going to vote with the party they vote with and the country is somewhat evenly divided along partisan lines.  What swung the election in 2016 and what swung the election the other way in 2020 was the voting tendencies of Bernie Sanders’s supporters.  In 2016 12% of his supporters who voted in the primary voted for Trump, and another 12% didn’t vote for Hillary in the general election.  In 2020, Sanders endorsed Biden and many of his followers did not vote for Trump.   To me anything else that happened between 2016 and 2020 that may have persuaded independent voters, or party voters to vote for Biden over trump pales in comparison to the number of Sanders supporters who voted democrat in 2020, who either voted for Trump in 2016 or did not vote for Hillary in 2016.  That was the difference to me.  

A lot of politics and people’s understanding of it is vague problems and vague solutions.  Illegal immigration is a problem and we’re going to secure our borders.  Criminal justice is a problem and we’re going to fix the criminal justice system.  Climate change is a problem and we’re going to reduce our emissions.  Taxes are a problem and we’re going to cut taxes and create jobs.  Then there is rhetoric related to the topics about what has to stop, what has to start, and eventually you get bipartisan support on legislation that claims to do things that funnels public funds into private hands.  People don’t know and only care as much as something stated reinforces their biases. 

In an article I recently wrote and submitted to some atheist organizations I had a gaff of sorts.  What was meant by the statement was that all happenings in the universe have causes through natural physical laws, but stated it as the four physical forces which is but isn’t what I meant since motion is created through causes not directly attributable to those forces.  I understand some physics conceptually, but not specifically and I shouldn’t have stretched into the general specific without a solid foundation of how those forces actually work.  The point was that all motion is explainable and to introduce consciousness as a force that produces motion.  Beginning with an individual’s circumstances, understanding, likes, and morality.  

I can X off those 3 things from my list.  I have some other things on that list I need to begin working on but may begin tomorrow.  I think I’m going to make an L&T shirt and maybe an OPL shirt.  Need to hit that gym tomorrow. 


I’ve taken the first steps towards the formation of OPL (The Organization for Popular Legislation) in obtaining an address in a state to register the organization and in filing for a DBA and an EIN in that state.  I didn’t choose the state for any particular reason other than it was one of the states that allows DBAs instead of LLCs which is a little more of a process, a little more costly, and when you have next to nothing financially (I have some money I’ve been saving) there isn’t much concern in limiting my liability, or protecting my private assets from company liability.  

So what is it I’m trying to do here?  The vehicle is to create legislative outlines and create a list (like a petition) of people who will vote for or against a candidate based on their position towards OPL’s legislative agenda, or specific pieces of legislation that OPL is proposing.  Those pledges will be forwarded to a candidate in an election and congress people.  The goal is to obtain enough pledged votes to swing elections to one candidate or another.  In this, these legislative initiatives will determine which candidate is elected.  We think of it as the creation of a switch.  Where those who recognize the quality of life improvements that will be obtained through OPL legislation will decide who is elected.  In districts where neither candidate will support OPL legislation then candidates can be presented who do.  The organization will fund its operations through donations.  

This does not create democracy within our plutocracy.  Industry is still going to control most of public policy and most of the public will still tune into the soap opera narratives.  What it does is allows the public the opportunity to through their collected voting power to pass legislation that serves the public’s interest, while industry is determining the rest of public policy.  Most legislative outlines are aimed at improving the income of the bottom 50% of income earners.  Some of this is in the interest of industry, and other aspects do not harm the interests of industry.  Legislation that does not harm the interests of industry but improves income advances the interests of industry as more people have more money to spend.  This is not an us versus them situation in anyway, only in that the interests of the bottom 50% of income earners are prioritized, which benefits not only the bottom 50%, but the top 50% as well in economic function, the public budget on every level of government, and general quality of life improvements.  Although the organization does prioritize below median income earners in it’s legislative initiatives, holding that most human problems are a product of inadequate opportunities for people to have time and money, the legislative proposals are rooted in the morality of liberty.  

The human constant is that all people want to do what they want to do.  It’s ideal for people to be free from imposition because it allows all people to do what they want to do.  Circumstantially trapped is a person whose income opportunities are roughly equal with their expenses and where most of a person’s time is spent accumulating that income.  With very little money and time, and the prospect of unmeetable financial obligations a person has a very small chance of improving their income and freeing themselves from those circumstances.  

Circumstances are determined by systems and systems exist through collective consent and participation.  Consent is typically determined by an individual’s benefit from the system or sometimes religious, nationalist, and other positive spin ideas on struggling.  The greatest consent is from those who have had success.  Participation is either a product of the previous, benefit and perspective, or the necessity to survive.  Since people’s participation in these systems produce trapping circumstances for individuals, this is collective imposition on those individuals.  This isn’t to say that anyone in the top 50% is answerable to anyone in the bottom 50% for that individual’s circumstances, or that individuals in the bottom 50% are justified in imposing on individuals in the top 50%.  This is because no individual’s participation is directly responsible for that individual’s disadvantages.  It’s a collective effort that needs to be address through collective efforts and processes.  

While I say systems, I don’t believe systems politically and economically are a problem.  When we’re talking about political and economic systems we’re talking about capitalism and socialism.  The distinction is simple, how do we decide how we’re going to produce in terms of the goods and services we require and want?  In socialism, the government decides and quality of life will be determined by how well that government represents their constituents, how well they can execute the will of those constituents, and how similar the preferences of the public are.  Even in the purest form of socialism where people democratically would decide all things, there are people who would be forced to purchase the products made available to them, work jobs they do not want to work, and overall, have a limited amount of options based on what the majority decided.

In capitalism, people with money decide what is produced since through money you can obtain all capital.  Capital being anything possessed that can generate revenue.  We have a different mode of deciding what is produced, but people still have limited options.  Those without capital must rely on those with capital for income opportunities.  Instead of the decision of what will be produced being determined by a majority it is still determined by much less than everyone.  Although we have the same effect where some are forced to work jobs they do not want to work, capitalism is still superior since the free market allows them more choices for employment, allows them to enter the market if they discover or acquire some capital, and excludes the possibility that a person will be assigned a job.  

True happiness is built on one of two foundations.  1: A person makes enough money and has enough time to do what they want to do.  2: A person earns a comfortable living for something they enjoy doing.  Both are rooted in liberty.  A person’s ability to do, is based on their possession of time, money, and know-how. Know-how can typically be obtained through time and money.  I think about this when I think about student debt forgiveness.  Even the piece meal used to buy votes of $10,000 and $20000 forgiveness I think is misprioritization of interests.  A person who has an education not only typically has better opportunities for income, but they’ve also had an opportunity to obtain the know-how to earn a living doing something they want to do.  

Often overlooked in the few examples relative to people within their socio-economic who rise to great heights, is not only the lack of social mobility within he bottom 40%, but how much of this is rooted in an individuals development who grows up in a financially stressed household.  People born into low income households are less likely to develop productive habits and interests.  The problem with capitalism is not capitalism itself, but by birth disadvantages that prevent people from participating in decisions of production, having the means in terms of time and money to bring a product or service to the market, or being able to participate in a production through the career of their choosing.  This lack of opportunity and social constraints that accompanies it, is also responsible for a lot of issues that impact everyone.  It limits economic growth, produces criminals, creates drug dependent people, sometimes mass shooters, dependency on government, an increased cost in law enforcement, criminal justice, security, incarceration, health care, food share programs, publicly funded health care, as well as other spending required to maintain order, through the enforcement of law, and contenting the poor with the basic staples required for survival.  People who are not desperate rarely become criminals and have the means to pay for their own food, shelter, utilities, healthcare, and so on an so forth.  Don’t misconstrue these statements as OPL being against benefit programs, we are not, only that we seek to reduce the number of people reliant on these programs by promoting legislation that provides people the means to provide for themselves.  

Of course I think about if what OPL is doing can be replicated or if different groups could form around other legislative agendas.  We have switches on top of switches.  The issue is OPL’s motivation is pure, and the legislative ideas it proposes are founded on an accurate understanding of functions and improving individual liberty.  Sure, other organizations can form that do what OPL does using different legislative proposals, but these organizations will not have the unifying power that OPL does based on its intent, understanding, and more specifically understanding how each proposal impacts different interests in regard to class and industry.  And nearly all political motivation is rooted in the reinforcement of bias or the promotion of an interest that benefits some over the public.  Other organizations will fail to maintain wide spread support even if it is achieved temporarily. 

OPL will bring the public’s interest to the negotiating table.  Where a certain industry may prefer a candidate who will prioritize their interests and will direct certain candidates they support to welcome OPL legislation, as well as candidates themselves who will position themselves with industry that supports OPL legislation and who will support OPL legislation because the consequence of them not supporting OPL legislation will be the loss of an election.  We’re not democrats, republicans, conservative, liberal, or radical, but we have the capability of working with all groups and dispositions to accomplish specific liberty enhancing goals.


The following is an extension of the 9/10/2022 entry below. Many of the points made do not require reading the 9/10 article to understand but this entry begins after a point made about how Chicago prohibits the sale of flavor salt nic vape juices. This forces people to pay about twice the price for nicotine to purchase flavor and nicotine seperately. The entry itself is a moral analysis of one of my actions.

Chicago has the crime that it has because of the inequality it has and how that inequality is exacerbated by the policies of the city that feed on the poor for revenue.  Is increasing the cost of vaping an issue for the poor?  For some, who like me, quit smoking cigarettes because it is less detrimental on your health and cheaper, I’m sure it has.  They have one of the highest taxes on tobacco in the nation.  Vice taxes are essentially taxes on the poor since people who use them regularly typically do so to cope with their situation in life.  Those stupid Truth non smoking advertisements demonstrated that in showing that something of the neighborhood of 70% of people who smoke are either in poverty, or under the median.  

The ad is stupid because they use the statistic to claim that tobacco companies, who mind you, cannot put ads on television for their product, are targeting these people and convincing them to smoke.  The truth is, nicotine isn’t just a drug that is addictive, it is a drug that can create calming sensations and increase focus, and people who are circumstantially trapped enjoy those sensations.  Poor people smoke, and tobacco recognizes that is their market income demographic and targets their marketing towards that demographic.  If you could target a group and use marketing to get that group to use your product you wouldn’t target the poor, you’d target the rich, who have more money to buy your product.  Today tobacco marketing isn’t really about targeting new customers, it’s about reminding people of your brand so they buy your brand over their competitors.  

I went to CVS to purchase water because it was right next to the place I was picking up a pizza from.  I went to self check out, I saw two items and the price was almost double.  I asked the clerk if he could remove the item.  He told me it only rang up once, the second item is the cook county water bottle tax.  It isn’t even a deposit charge to bring in the bottles, it is a tax of 5 cents per bottle.  When I looked it up I also saw they added a liquor tax.  When you vote for candidates based on their race, gender, sexulaity, and rhetoric, these are the kind of tax the poor in the name of justice policies that you get.  

Now in that same vein, do I feel for the struggles of the people in Chicago?  Fuck no.  I say that not because I’m not concerned with their liberty, since I am concerned with liberty always, I say it because it’s hard for me to give a fuck if nobody else there does.  If the people of Chicago, or the people of most places in this country gave a fuck, they would understand the problems and understand the solutions.  Instead they’re obsessed with maintaining and promoting their biases so their pursuit of information and what they accept as being true leads them to those ends.  It’s in part motivated by moral feelings based on false ideas they refuse to expose to challenge, and partially image promotion, where the qualities they pretend to embody are valued by a group.  The exhibition of those qualities feels good because it increases their self worth.  Their self worth is increased because they perceive others as having a higher opinion of them. 

It’s all a we’ll pray for you statement.  Outside of that being the stupidest shit to say since your act does nothing to improve the circumstances that someone is dealing with, it’s also a statement that tells the person that you don’t care.  Take mass killings for example, people say we’ll pray for the victims and the familys.  News anchors have said things to this effect.  What you’re saying is you don’t care enough about the issue to understand why it happens to prevent it from happening.  I won’t go into specifics here, but a big part of the reason people cannot understand it, is because 1: it causes them to confront deep seated beliefs, and 2: which is a wide offshoot of 1, they have to acknowledge that these are the results that the people in this country, often themselves indirectly included, produce.  The political, economic, and social systems in this country produce people who indiscriminately want to kill other people.  We’ll pray for you since we want to maintain our narrow perspective on life while giving a low energy image promotion of compassion.  They’ll couple that with feeling bad about the event which further increases their self worth in the idea that their sad feelings about the event makes them a good person.  Some of those bad feelings are produced by them imagining themselves as the victims.  Then they’ll break the news to others and they can “vibe” back and forth about how bad they feel and how tragic it was.  I hate the word vibe.  I use it to describe positive sensations created from image promoting and moral feelings produced subconsciously or contrived through imagination of empathy.  Whereas most use the word to describe positive feelings they typically cannot identify.  

I had a few happenings today that relate to something I wrote above.  I said I am always concerned with liberty.  This is going to lead into something different but let me provide an example from my day.  I’m usually courteous in traffic although this depends where I drive as different areas have different collective habits that forces you to drive differently to get where you have to go.  You have to be less courteous in some places if you want to change lanes or not be excessively pushed back in traffic.  Today I’m on my way to lunch and there is a woman trying to exit a parking lot and there are a lot of cars behind me on the street.  She’s going to be there awhile.  I left nearly enough space for her to get out if there was anywhere for her to go.  The light turns green and the car in front of me proceeds.  I wait and signal to her that she can go.  I dely the cars behind me for about 5 seconds and she pulls out.  

The deed isn’t relevant.  I do it because if I was in that situation I’d like for someone to let me out, and the idea of my appreciation towards such a person if I were in that situation produces the positive feeling, subconsciously but with signatures that make the process consciously known.  What is relevant is as I proceeded behind her to my destination, I thought about the time she would have to wait compared to the time I caused people to wait.  Where if there were 20 cars behind me who were delayed 5 seconds and it would have taken her a minute to get out, the 100 seconds overall is greater than the 60 seconds.  Yet I still feel it is morally appropriate because the 60 seconds means more to her liberty than 5 seconds does to ours.  That’s just to say one person loses more ability to do in losing a minute, than 20 people do in 5 seconds.  The simple explanation is a person can do something in a minute whereas most people cannot do anything in 5 seconds, other than turn out of a parking lot.  This is an example of how much I’m thinking about liberty.  

Another example I’ll provide occured at a New Mexico Walmart that I recorded in the camp journal.  I basked in the pride of my embodiment of that principle and the execution of my explanation thoroughly after it occurred.  It’s some good feeling shit.  The gentleman was after me in line but only had a box of kitty litter whereas I had a lot of items in my cart.  He offered to let him go ahead and he initially resisted.  I told him I’d rather wait a short time than for him to have to wait a long time.  This isn’t to say I’m perfect in execution or will always make a liberty based decision, but usually if I do not, it comes to mind and even if it isn’t relevant it comes to mind.  And I do not justify, I seek to understand why it happened and try to prevent it from happening again because it reduces my self-worth and feels bad.  

This ties into something else.  I’ll start it with what precipitated the thought.  To give credit, a man named Tony who works at the building I’m working at was bringing up conspiracies and fringe talk radio points rooted in Christianity that I was initially not responding to seriously to because it doesn’t create a solid foundation to have discussion, and much of it requires more research than I care to partake in since the only application of the research is to dispute conspiracy theory and often these theories are rooted in the acceptance of things that are false that the individual will not allow to be challenged.  He did make a valid point in saying he read a book a while back where the author stated that if borders were open across the world, there wouldn’t be enough jobs in the places that have jobs.  The places that have jobs would develop unemployment problems and we can speculate the issues we would have there.  To which I agreed, and took the discussion to a place that’s relevant to me.  I stated that the laws we have, and the enforcers of those laws in CBP and ICE do a good job of maintaining a population of illegal immigrants from the southern border in this country to a level that doesn’t interfere with the opportunities of Americans.  I mistakenly said they’ve kept the population below 10 million but I meant to say 12 million.  

He mentioned an ICE head talking to congress and all the congressmen listening.  I speculated that he was probably testifying about local police departments and cities being non-cooperative in their investigations.  He neither confirmed nor denied that he testified about that, but it’s plausible.  Otherwise it’s possibly something he said was taken out of context to reinforce a conspiracy theory or a rightwing agenda.  Which is the other relevant point that immigration has been made to seem like a problem for a long time to elect people to implement a solution for a problem that isn’t a problem.  It isn’t just the left who does it, the right does it too.  He mentioned that it was bad at border towns, and shared my experience in Del Rio, where there’s nothing illegal immigration related that seems to have much of an impact on people’s day to day life in that city.  

We moved from this topic into globalist conspiracy theory.  I gave my general rebuttal which is that the powers that be, those who benefit from this organization of people benefit from this organization.  They don’t want a one world government because they already have power through what exists.  Then he brought it to Christianity, and told me I would have to stand before his god.  Before I conclude the event, that’s what I’m giving him credit for, bringing this up and stoking distinctions between god, creator, and deity.  It’s an important lesson for me.  

I explained to him after numerous interruptions that his god is a hypocrite.  The second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as you love yourself.  This deity claims to have created you to either be his servant for eternity or to be tormented for eternity, which are purposes the deity would not like to come into existence for.  This means he doesn’t love you as he loves himself, which means he’s telling you to do something that he doesn’t do.  More importantly it means your deity is evil.  I didn’t go further into it because we were parting ways and he was pretty worked up by that interaction.  He said I called god a hypocrite.  I didn’t call god a hypocrite and I didn’t even call his deity a hypocrite.  I just explained that his deity commands things he doesn’t do which is the definition of the word.   

A person’s god is their highest value.  Some people’s gods are heroin, some their children, and many have other gods.  Your god can be known by what you do, and how things compare to it.  That is your god.  

Your deity is the entity, real or imagined, whose approval you seek, and you seek this approval by doing the things that you believe the deity likes.  This is why most people’s deities are also their source of morality.  Some of it is image promotion between the individual and their deity.  It’s positive feelings that come from their perception that the deity is pleased with what they’ve done and is consequently pleased with them.  It improves their self worth and feels good.  

The creator is unknowable as a being that can be interacted with but his qualities can be known through his creation.  Unknowable in the sense that no one can ever know if they’re in the presence of the creator or in the presence of something in between.  Qualities known through the conscious experience within his creation.  I won’t go into all the details as I’ve done on other occasions but the absence of the creator magically intervening in his creation is suggestive that the morality of the creator is liberty.  And through that likelihood we can understand what the creator will and will not do and why something exists rather than nothing.  More important than speculating about the qualities of a creator it is more important to know the creator is irrelevant.  Irrelevant in that the creator does not help you in this life, and does not help you if consciousness survives death because morality is a determinant of motion and a being or a soul’s space will be determined by their understanding and application of morality.  

My god is liberty, my deity is myself, and the creator is the creator.  My deity is myself because that is the entity whose approval I seek to maintain and increase.  At times, although my deity follows my god, my deity is more than morality, and at times I have to subordinate the will of my deity, or take a hit on self approval to advance the interests of my god.  In some cases, to please my deity in the short term will harm my deity in the long term because much of my self approval is drawn from the advancement of liberty based goals, and actions that are morally correct.  Probably easier to understand through people who are religious who find themselves doing things that are not consistent with their deities.  

Lastly, what this means about me, is I could hate every person on this planet, and I would still be doing the same thing, because it isn’t about you, it’s about my god, and my deity.  Or to put it another way, it’s about the inherent feelings derived from knowing and doing right, and gaining the approval of myself in doing those things.  I don’t hate everybody.  There is a part of me that would probably hate most people if I knew enough about them to make an informed judgment, but generally, in the limited interactions I have with most people I like most people based on what they do in those interactions.  I like Tony.  He’s good at his job, respectful, helpful, and generally is pleasant to be around.  I don’t have a problem with him because of the crazy shit he believes because I don’t see it as negatively impacting how he interacts with other people.  I also don’t say he or any other person following any other false religion is going to hell, or a space of tyranny, because if whatever false beliefs you have lead you to an application of morality where you do not impose on others, even though the doctrine itself is generally harmful, if it doesn’t cause you to behave tyrannically, then your appropriate space is a space of liberty.


Yesterday my daughter want to go to the Lincoln Park Zoo.  I was leaving the zoo and noticed there were workers in the cash lane and appeared to be working on the cash kiosk.  I did have cash to pay but I also suspected that the machine may be out of service and I may not have to pay the $35 for parking.  The worker asked if all we had to pay with was cash and I said that’s all we have.  We were directed to go to the lane over and hit the help button and tell them they said to let us through because all we had is cash.  Instead the worker walked over hit the button and told the gate to let us through.  

If we look at this incident isolated from the circumstances that precipitated it the casual applicator of morality would conclude that I imposed on the property (didn’t pay for service creating a loss of income) of the city of Chicago. 

I also have enough money in the bank where I wasn’t going to go without or be limited in what I would be able to do because of that $35.  However, there are circumstances that produced that outcome rooted in a disadvantage associated with credit and the actions of the city of Chicago.

I was denied a rental car reservation because when using a debit card Dollar rental in addition to a $500 deposit requires a credit check and I couldn’t pass the credit check.  Instead of being able to rent a car for $235, I had to rent on the spot from Enterprise for about $400.  It cost me about $150 because I have poor credit, much of it the result of having unpaid medical bills due to not having health insurance.  

I also needed nicotine.  I typically vape salt nic in 35mg.  Chicago has a ban against selling salt nic vape juice.  The pretext is to protect children who already could not purchase it.  The purpose is to the assign false causation for kids vaping and then propose a solution that isn’t a solution for the appearance of concern and taking action.  I had to buy a zero flavor vape juice and then 5 packs of nicotine to get the juice in the neighborhood of 20mg.  This cost $50 instead of the typical price of $20, and would have cost $60 for me to get the juice to 35 which is my usual dosage. 

I’m already in a position where I’m going to spend a lot of money because I haven’t seen my daughter in over a year, although we do text, talk on the phone and I send her and her mom money.  Spending money is difficult for me because of what it represents to me.  I see working as doing time.  It’s a countdown to being free.  I’m working to save enough money to get my organizations off the ground and position myself to be doing what I want to be doing while maintaining a reasonable amount of comfort in doing it.  When I’m spending money I think about what I had to do to get it, and what I have to do to get it back.  In an event like this trip where all expenses are a cumulative sum the stress involved with the cost causes me to place a high value on places where I can save.  But it isn’t going to be at the expense of my experience with my daughter.  

Truth everything and liberty is truth.  What is the justification for the use of deception to impose on property?  I wrote an article based on a real life situation where an act was contemplated but no action was taken called balance in morality.  I took it down because of how I thought people would try to use it for imposing purposes.  Deception is justified when the truth will cause a person to be imposed on and the deception doesn’t meaningfully impose on the individual being deceived.  

In this situation we have the deception imposing on the perspective of the worker.  It isn’t meaningful because the consequence for him believing this doesn’t impact his ability to do, or his motivation outside of the outcome of facilitating the theft of parking services.  Which he bears no responsibility for because it wasn’t his intent.  Second we have the consequence which is the theft of service impose on $35 worth of revenue for the city or the zoo if there is a distinction.  Without the addition of the $150 additional cost of the rental rooted in my inability to afford or procure health insurance because of my lack of any physical residence, coupled with the extra expense imposed by the city to procure nicotine, I’m probably seeing the cash lane blocked and going through card payment, if for nothing else to save time.  

For 1 the cause of the action was produced by the circumstances of these extra expenses, one of which was the decision of the city in their prohibition of my product, and the prohibition of it does not prevent imposition because it doesn’t address the issue it purports to resolve.  Any law that doesn’t prevent more than it imposes is morally wrong.  The value of what they imposed on me directly is roughly equal to what I directly imposed on them, without using general circumstances imposed by the general population as a justification.  

2nd, we consider the relative value.  What $35 means to the city of Chicago versus what $25 means to me.  As a proportion of our overall assets, and when that money could become relevant to our liberty.  Of course $25 means much more to me than $35 to the city.  The extent of the imposition without any justification is insignificant.  

I’ll add to this later, have things I want to had about how other Chicago, cool county, and IL policies impose on the income of their citizens and drive other problems.  


Social media giants like FB, Instagram, and Youtube are communication platforms with billions of users worldwide, and hundreds of millions of users in the US, representing roughly 2/3rds of the population.  These companies rely on users sharing information with one another to attract attention to their ads in order to make money.  These companies are a person who owns and operates property that exists for the transmission of communication which means they are a utility.  

Utility means a person who owns or operates for public use any plant, equipment, property, franchise, or license for the transmission of communications or the production, storage, transmission, sale, delivery, or furnishing of electricity, water, steam, or gas.

Traditionally, I presume the transmission of communications is thought of as the infrastructure through which information is communicated, but the application isn’t as much of a stretch as it seems.  The purpose of defining a utility is to have a legal standard of practices for the public to access necessary services.

The first direction this can go is recognizing that social media sites are the wire that connects an individual to a random audience and a random audience to an individual, which means they own equipment (servers, programs, etc) used for the transmission of communications, and therefore they are a utility.  A utility cannot deny services without good cause, which means social media sites cannot censor content.  Good cause represents something that is vital to the business or public interest, like payment, or something involving safety.  

The direction begins with understanding a community is not a private community if it consists of a majority of the population.  This isn’t the same as a brick and mortar club only on the internet, where like minded people get together to talk about their lives and give their opinions on happenings.  It’s a public space facilitated through private property.  Courts have already recognized it as such in part; where something stated on social media is treated the same as something stated in a public space.  Freedom of speech applies to public spaces, and therefore, a private company that facilitates a public space, where the content is shared by the public and for the public cannot subjectively decide what the public shares.  

It creates a threat to public safety since a company choosing what information people are allowed to share, empowers that company to deny people the right to share information that harms the company’s interests or promotes a worldview or perspective they do not agree with.  They have the ability to steer the collective perspective and opinion through the content they allow people to share with one another.  The average person in North America spends 2 hours and 6 minutes per day on social media.  These impressions, that social media giants allow them to be exposed to create a significant role in shaping their perspectives and defining the limits of controversy.  The fewer things that are allowed to be discussed and the way in which people are allowed to discuss them implies more things have been decided, and make things that are less controversial more controversial.  We’ve seen how this censorship has been used to persuade public opinion through the Israeli siege, occupation, and development in the Palestinian Terretories.  

While I was writing this I did a search and discovered that I wasn’t the first person to think of social media companies as utilities.  I have been a long time proponent of free speech, but I’ve only recently become concerned with the imposition on free speech by social media.  I discovered there is material dating back more than a decade recognizing social media as a utility.  I mention this because on the wiki page there is also a section containing counter arguments for the idea that I can address.  

““Opponents of this theory say that social media websites should not be treated as public utilities because these platforms are changing every year, and because they are not essential services for survival as common public utilities are, such as water, natural gas, and electricity.[10] Furthermore, opponents fear that imposing “utility” status on a social network site, and forcing regulation might lock such a site in as a real monopoly, which consequently, will stop innovation, and counteract competition. Opponents point out that because social media are constantly evolving, innovation and competition are necessary for its growth.”

The two main arguments are that social media sites are not essential services for survival.  The same argument could be made about telephone companies.  A person being able to talk to someone is not essential for survival, except that sometimes it is, and even if it isn’t, it is still considered a utility.  The Arab Spring, where people in multiple Arab nations protested for the redress of grievance and regime change was facilitated through social media.  Although there were negative outcomes like in Libya and Syria, much of which can be attributed to outside interference from the United States and other western countries, social media has allowed people to make changes to public policy and the organization of government that are not possible without it.  It does this by creating a public space for individuals to connect with a random audience, and it is the only way to reach a random audience of that scale.  It can be essential for survival depending on a person’s behavior and their government’s disposition to that behavior.  

It is also essential in the disadvantage that is created for those who do not have access to it due to violations of community standards.  If a social media site does not like what you say or how you say it they can prevent you from communicating with a random audience that represents over half the US population.  

The second argument, that competition is required and competition would be stifled if social media giants were considered utilities is only true if the assignment were made without any forethought.  A social media giant is utility not because it is social media and facilitates a public space, it is a utility because it facilitates a public space that includes over half of the population.  New social media sites will not be considered utilities until they reach a certain number of users.  The same as a caterpillar is not a butterfly even if they are the same organism, a new social media site is not a utility until it becomes giant relative to the number of people in a given area.  Holding social media giants to the standard of utility, where the company must serve the public good, and cannot deny users access without good cause won’t stifle competition or create long standing monopolies any more than they are as a typical publicly traded company.  

The same as Facebook made a better Myspace, another company can make a better Facebook.  When Instagram invaded Facebook’s market share, Facebook bought Instagram.  If Facebook was a utility such an acquisition especially if Instagram was also considered a utility at the time of the purchase would be subject to greater review of whether or not the acquisition was in the public’s interest.  Not only is recognizing social media giants as utilities not a recipe for creating monopolies, it is protection against them.


There are many reasons why I would really like to quit this job.  The main reason being I have a very solid plan to begin the promotion of my material and have a good degree of confidence that I have enough money saved to begin making money through that plan.  There are however a few reason why a month or two would be better.  Like in the documentary pumping Iron when Arnold says to Lou what are doing here.  A month or two would have been great for you.  But who knows I’d be bigger too.  LOL.  

There are a few reasons another month or two could be beneficial.  The first reason is having more money.  The more money I have the more I can spend before I become concerned about money.  Although there could be a scenario where I am better with less where the less I have the more aggressive I am.  Yet that aggression could be counterproductive because it will be motivated by desperation.  

The issue I have is timing itself.  I’m not running for office but the plan does have to do with influencing politicians.  For this reason, it’s a bad time to get started two months before the midterms in November.  

Another reason why it doesn’t make sense to immediately quit and begin putting this plan into motion is because it requires the organization of some material, the creation of some material, a website (made by someone who knows what they’re doing), and it requires some incorporation.  I originally planned on a non-profit but every non-profit will prevent me from doing things that are essential to the purpose of incorporation.  This means I’ll probably start the organization as an LLC.  These are things I can do while I’m still working.  

I plan on talking to Mark either tomorrow night or when I return from Chicago on Sunday.  My only problem with the job is that Mark has kept a very low production guy on the roster, and I don’t want to keep working 6 or 7 days a week.  I need two days consecutively to prepare for what I’m doing.  If I work 8 hours 6 days per week and sometimes 4 hours on a Sunday, it’s about the same as working 10 hours 5 days a week.  If there’s a lot that needs to be done I can give him 12 on Fridays where site access is available.  Given my productivity and my general ambition in life I think he should be alright with this for me.  

I don’t think he understands that he could find a quality permanent installer.  If he listed the position in jobs we could try people and would eventually find someone who is better than what he has.  He mentions we’re ahead overall but we’re behind.  Jay is a big part of that who I believe finally finished the shower surrounds.  

When I came back to Del Rio after being gone for 10 days I was surprised to see how little was done.  I was also surprised the shower surrounds were not done since 5 days after I left Mark told me Jay cut all the back panels which wasn’t true when I returned after 10 days.  As I understood it he had a day it rained during those 10 and there was also a Sunday during those 10 so we can count that as 8 days.  Even if there were more than one rain day then you would expect more to be done on the inside.  The only thing that was done after I returned after 10 days was vanity mirrors installed in the La Quintas, and the nightstands were installed on the headboards, which I perceived as Jay trying to make the headboard install better.  When you ask about the shit he’s doing he lies and says he isn’t doing it.  

Jay can cut 20 back panels in 4 hours.  He can cut and install about 50 side panels in 36 hours.  His assignment when we left was to cut the panels and distribute them to 52 rooms.  Instead of cutting all the panels and distributing them he installed some of the panels to be insubordinate for the inherent satisfaction he derives from not doing what someone tells him, and to provide an excuse as to why he didn’t finish what he