I am an American citizen of Scandanavian heritage. I am white, with blond hair and blue eyes. When asked about my race, I, like most (still most?) Americans, select “Caucasian” as my race because I am “white.”

“Caucasian” is something we all take for granted, especially in the context of our supposed bitter rivalry with Russia; which began after Russia kicked Hitler's ass in World War II and America took all the credit (along with the Nazi scientists, propaganda specialists, strategists, weapons specialists, as well as weapon and other technology). The irony of the situation is that when we select “Caucasian,” we are no more than acknowledging our kinship with Russia and the Russian peoples.

It's really quite simple: The Caucuses are a range of mountains in Russia. So, to say you are Caucasian, is to say you are the same as any Russian. We are related, by our very DNA. We are, in fact, one in the same. Scandavians, white Europeans, and white Americans are all universally Caucasian because they all originated within what is now Russia.


So why the big fuss? What the hell is so different that we must now hate our own brethren across the sea, people who live in the land where we ourselves came from? And we are supposed to hate Russians?

Aside from the fact that I don't personally have anything against any individual Russian more than I would or do against any American; I personally see no reason why Americans and Russians shouldn't get along splendidly. Why? Because both are nations of greedy, selfish people who have no morality, and whose lives are lived by exploiting the earth (and it's people, especially in the case of America), and who are in fact destroying this planet's ability to support mankind at about an equal pace.

That America is a climate-change boosting greedfest is obvious. But anyone who thinks Russia is doing any better had better start reading the news and doing so more objectively (including by reading actual objective news, rather than mainstream media propaganda.)

Russians are just as bad as Americans in their blindness to the consequences of their impact on this world. And right now, Russia is digging the final inches of mankind's grave by developing the Arctic and creating a shipping lane. In point of fact, I observed that in 2012 – and I cannot confirm this as fact – it appeared to me that Russia deliberately polluted the ice over the Northeast Passage in order to facilitate the melting of the ice; a crime which in my mind is an order of magnitude greater than any crimes against humanity committed by America. Regardless however; Russia is developing the Arctic, and this will create problems for mankind, and it will create them sooner than anyone imagines.

The simple fact is, no nation on this planet has anyone's best interests in mind because all governments are strictly there to maintain the status quo and protect the ability of the wealthy to continue to be wealthy by exploiting those of us who have morals and choose not to destroy our planet. Governments are the problem, not the solution.

Fossil fuels are nothing more or less than the stored energy of some 500 million years of sunlight on the living beings which absorbed and otherwise utilized that solar energy, and then perished, leaving behind the hydrocarbon molecules created by this solar energy. What isn't recognized, understood, or acted upon, is the reality that the lifeforms that died off took with them carbon that made the planet far too warm for the likes of mammals, especially fragile human beings who survived mass extinctions before – but which were caused by ice ages, meaning humans have survived because of an adaptation to the cold.

Simply put, the open-loop use of fossil fuels to provide the basis for a massive human civilization has restored to the atmosphere that carbon which in previously being sequestered had allowed for the evolution and survival of mankind in the first place. In other words, our use of fossil fuels to create our great societies has cost us our future as a species. We have literally fueled our own demise by tapping the fuel that in being created, allowed for our existence.

But there is a way to use fossil fuels without the threat to our future: we simply close the loop.

A closed loop is a concept where in the case of fossil fuel use, the energy would be the only thing we extract and use and the waste products of harnessing that energy would be re-sequestered. In terms of the chemical makeup of fossil fuels themselves, this means that the hydrocarbon molecules are used for their energy only, and then returned to where they were found or where they will otherwise not be available to the atmosphere. As a metaphor, our present use of fossil fuels is like dragging the corpses of long-dead animals out of the ground and transporting the remains around the world to be burned for fuel, and the exhaust released to the atmosphere. Why can't we simply extract the energy from the dead organisms and return them to their grave?

While a close-loop approach sounds quite logical, it is not recognized by human society in terms of the use of natural resources and thus is not even considered, much less utilized. Human society instead uses an open loop concept – in the example of fossil fuels, the hydrocarbons are extracted from their sequestered location, consumed, and the waste products are released to the atmosphere. Put that way, it's easy to see how global warming can easily be attributed to mankind's use of fossil fuels, especially considering that the plants and animals that were turned into coal and oil were around long before mammals could have evolved.

It is quite simple to close the loop on fossil fuel consumption and extract only the energy. Indeed, all of the relevant technology already exists. The problem is a matter of imagination and will on the part of those who we allow to dictate our lives, and thus our failure to motivate our leaders to act to mitigate the problems they have created.

All that has to be done is to extract the energy, not the fuel, from the wells and coal fields. And then, rather than shipping the fuel all over and allowing just anyone to burn it and release the obviously dangerous chemicals back into the atmosphere 500 million years after being removed; you simply use the energy where you find it, convert it to something we can actually use (safely), and return the chemicals themselves back into the ground or otherwise into a safe form that humans can never put into the atmosphere.

There are many ways this can be accomplished, and in doing so, we can actually create a much better world for people everywhere. Imagine for example automated factories among oil fields, using energy extracted without release of any exhaust, and electric vehicles and ships charged by the same energy so that their goods can be shipped to where they are needed. This would significantly reduce the need for human labor and free us up to do things like improving infrastructure, or even bettering ourselves as societies. We don't need all of that energy at home, so solar, wind, and other alternative forms of energy can easily be used to generate the little bit of energy we need for our homes. Of course, another benefit to having industry located at the source of fossil fuels is that industry will no longer be able to interfere with our domestic lives.

The problem of global climate change being caused by mankind's use of fossil fuels must of course be seen as a problem for it to be solved. But the matter is highly complex, and not even most climate scientists fully understand the problem. So the solution must be philosophical, not one of educating the public. The general public cannot possibly be expected to understand open and closed loop concepts, nor the complex chemistry of hydrocarbons.

A logical, rational being would understand the logic behind the notion of asking oneself “what if I'm wrong.” But society doesn't seem to be logical nor rational, as society has not asked itself whether or not it's position on the use of fossil fuels is tenable. Perhaps then, if we simply made people realize that fossil fuels are just that, the fuels created by fossilized plants and animals whose demise paved the way for ourselves; the mere notion of having respect for the dead might serve to remind people of the dangers of digging up the dinosaurs, whose rein ended so that ours could begin. Perhaps, if people could understand and respect the long-dead, we might not share the same fate.

Close-loop use of fossil fuels for energy is entirely possible, and a necessity if mankind wishes to continue to use this dangerous source of energy, whose storage in the earth made our existence possible. And unless every man, woman, and child on this planet intends for the human species to be extinct, we must close the loop on fossil fuel use.

“Democracy and the Will of The People”


This is the phrase used by President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, to describe the events in Bolivia, wherein the duly elected president, having won the election, was forced to resign and flee the country after the opposition held true on their promise to topple the government if their side did not win the election.

Obviously, Trump is insane, crazy, or just plain lying, right?

Wrong.

Trump truly believes that democracy and the will of the people have prevailed in Bolivia. And he is right.

Sort of.

Let's examine this situation in some detail and see how Trump can possibly be right in suggesting that a coup is about democracy and the will of the people.

As I suggested in a previous blog, the United States of America was founded as a racist nation.

Donald Trump has been accused of racism, of being a white supremacist.

These two facts are not coincidental, and together they explain precisely how Trump believes that democracy and the will of the people of Bolivia prevailed when the opposition illegally took over the government.

The United States of America was founded on the principle of equality; but equality for all white male Christian landowners. Everyone else was considered lesser, and in fact, were not allowed to vote, and thus not participants in government.

And what exactly is the opposition in Bolivia? The wealthy, the elite, the conservatives. These are pale-skinned Bolivians who own property and exploit the natural resources of the nation, including it's people. These are thus the equivalent to American white Christian male landowners.

So in the mind of Donald Trump, only the elite of Bolivia deserve a government.

If that's true, then doesn't it also explain his statements about Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, China, and other nations around the world?

What about America? Do you think that somehow you are any different the poor peoples of other countries? Do you really think Trump is doing a damn thing for you? If Trump only recognizes, only sees the elite of other nations, do you really think he gives a shit about anyone in America except the elite?

Democracy and the will of the people is all fine and good, if you are one of “the people.” The mistake you make is believing that the elite and their slaves in government see you as anything but something to be exploited.

I would contend, as would many, that that core values of the United States of America are enshrined in it's founding documents, especially including the Declaration of Independence, the first founding document and the basis for all others.

The second paragraph starts with this sentence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That sounds an awful lot like a democracy, doesn't it? It sure is noble.

Ironically, it is more “noble” than you might think. The key is in the word “men” and the meaning at the time. To derive this, one need only look at who had the right to vote, to establish the government, and to have all those basic rights: white Christian male landowners. Being white, male, Christian, and owning land meant you were an American citizen, with all the rights afforded you by the founding documents of the nation. Being anything but meant you were not equal, not entitled to these self-evident rights. And to white Christian male landowners, it was self-evident that they were superior.

Curiously, being a white male Christian landowner also gave you another right, besides the right to vote: the right to own slaves. Further evidence of the racist origins of America can be confirmed by the first US Census, which categorized people in 5 categories: free white male adults, free white male children, free white females, all other free persons, and slaves which were counted as 3/5ths of a person. Native Americans were not even counted as human beings.

So let's fast forward to today, and examine who is in the Whitehouse: a white male Christian landowner, a man who thinks America used to be great, and which begs a question yet asked: when was America great in his mind?

So, are the accusations that Trump and thus America is a racist nation well founded, or just conspiracy?

Written 29 October 2018, Posted 7 November 2019



History seems to be repeating itself. Unfortunately, not much attention is being paid to history.

Prior to World War I, the United States of America had enjoyed a booming economy which contracted and entered a period of recession just before the start of World War I. The economic boom of the United States largely followed her war against Spain, arguably the result of a false flag bombing of the USS Maine, supposedly by Spanish-controlled Cuba, which then allowed the United States of America to seize what is now much of the US Southwest, including two of the largest and now most populous states and host to a significant portion of the present US economy.

Factors which led to World War I include many elements which are strong today and included military buildup (arms race, arms profiteering), colonialism, and nationalism (mirroring today's “America First” and refugee crisis issues).

In World War I, the United States sided, late in the war, with the winning side, the allies. Previously the United States was self-declared as being neutral.

After World War I, the United States economy went through another boom.

World War II demonstrates similar circumstances, albeit nationalism in combination with a massive refugee crisis (Jews primarily) were the biggest factors leading to the start of World War II, and the United States had more of a hand in the creation of factors leading to World War II including initiation of a global trade war through the Taft-Hartley act, a 'misguided effort' to mitigate the effects of the Great Depression, which itself was brought on by the Central Bank created just prior to World War I.

And just like World War I, the United States sat back and watched, waiting for an opportunity to enter the war in a manner which guaranteed zero financial risk and created potential for significant financial and political gain, because the United States policy was officially to back the winning side, which at the time, thanks to Russia, was the Allies.

And just like after previous wars, the United States enjoyed significant financial and even political benefits to her entry into World War II, and she did so with little risk to herself (Pearl Harbor, a significant military and asset loss, was almost certainly a false-flag operation in one form or another.)

Today, we have the likes of George Soros to thank for the creation of both a refugee crisis (this time Muslims) as well as a resurgence of nationalism, and again the USA to thank for creating a global trade war and the circumstances which could very well ignite another war, not to mention the likes of NATO and an arms race. It is as though the US is pulling out all the stops in a no-holds barred effort to recreate the circumstances which thrice now have ended with the USA in significantly better financial and political circumstances than prior to wars they entered at little to no risk to itself.


Perhaps a look at history then might well be in order. Perhaps the world needs to wake up and see that the United States of America is not a beacon of democracy, but rather a bastion of fascist nationalist greed exemplified and personified in a man with fiery eyes, orange hair, and a MAGA hat who spends far too much time on Twitter.

The “Cancel Culture” and the other elements of this age of extreme political correctness gone insane are being used to control the narrative of conversations, and it is being done in order to control conversations and discussions in order to ensure that the substance of any topic is avoided in trade for extreme attention to distractions.

A glaring example of the fraudulent nature of this political correct cancel culture is the term “ableist” being used to describe words, with the notion that we should avoid using such words as the words themselves are discriminatory.

An example which illustrates the preposterous nature of this culture says all we need to know:

PSA:
We are replacing an ableist term with the term "dead angle"
It means a spot in your periphery you cannot see or an area not covered by CCTV
You all probably already know what term I'm replacing so I'm not even gonna tell you
Dead angle, use it til other people conform

Obviously, using the term “blind spot” is not intended to be insulting to blind people. But apparently that fact doesn't stand in the way of this cultural nonsense, this, well, contagious insanity.

But I'm not blind, so how can I know if such a term is insulting to me or not? Well, let's use some other examples, because the fact is, I am mentally disabled, and most of the terms said to be insulting towards the disabled, are in fact terms which supposedly insult people like me, terms like crazy, nuts, loco, lunatic, nutter, and whatever other terms they use...terms I use too.

Now, don't get me wrong, if someone called me some term like that as a means to demean my condition, then yes, I would be insulted. But the existence of the term does not insult me. It doesn't affect me, even if someone uses it. If someone wants to try to insult me, that's their problem. But the only person who CAN be insulted is me. And an insult doesn't come from the outside, it is a feeling from within that is a reaction to something outside. So I don't worry about what someone says when they are trying to insult me, thus I cannot be insulted by such terms.

Yet, this cancel culture seeks to eliminate these terms, to alter the very language, based on the notion that terms like these insult people like me, which you now understand not to be the case.

So why? Why all the fuss? Why are people being canceled, threatened, intimidated, shamed, and otherwise bullied for no more than otherwise innocent and common use of language?

The fact of the matter is, the term “ableist” cannot be applied to a word. The term, while relatively new, is defined, formally, as meaning discrimination against the disabled. Now, discrimination is an action, correct? And the last time I checked, words cannot complete actions, only convey information. So how can presenting information be discriminatory? It cannot, discrimination is a conscious decision, which clarifies that it is not only an action, but an action resulting from a decision, hardly something a concept like a word can accomplish.

Obviously the phrase “blind spot” was not coined without consideration for the condition and difficulties experienced by blind people. Suggesting the phrase itself is ableist is preposterous on it's own. But even extending that and suggesting that people who use the term are ableist, or that using the term is ableism cannot be correct because there is no intent in it's use to insult blind people.

So why then? Why have things gotten to the point where some people feel the need to not only self-censor, but to try to censor the rest of us from using terms like “blind spot” or “nutter?”

Why? Because some people, most it seems, are foolish enough to accept this as a real issue, and you are meant to do so in order to be distracted from the real issue: a society which itself discriminates against people.

I live in La Paz, Baja California Sur, playground for the super rich, and I can tell you firsthand that the wealthy of this world do absolutely nothing to benefit anyone but themselves, and that any notion that spending of money by the wealthy benefits anyone is at best a false notion and at worst, deliberate self-deception.

I share my home with some of the wealthiest people on the planet. One of the Walmart family lives here and I just walked by her house a few days ago. Carlos Slim, still the richest Mexican, moors his yacht here in La Paz; though he is by no means the richest person to moor his yacht here.

A regular visitor to La Paz is the “Big Lift” vessel, a cargo ship with large cranes to lift the large and expensive yachts, all custom-made, onto a larger vessel so that the super rich can have the appearance of sailing around the world without the inconvenience of actually having to do so.

I don't read the local news, but in talking to my lawyer, he suggests that the economy is improving here in La Paz. And this then becomes the most important aspect of this essay: that the numbers show that there is economic improvement while reality is far different, because the truth of the matter is, things are actually getting worse from a financial perspective here in La Paz, despite what the number say: vacancies are increasing, infrastructure is languishing, and actual tourism, the core source of income, is falling off in trade for illicit tourism in the form of charters.

So why is it that the numbers suggest that things are getting better when in reality they are getting worse?

It's a matter of perspective. It's all about who those numbers are written for. And any notion that anything any government does is for your benefit is pure folly dear readers, for governments obviously serve only the wealthy.

So yes, if you are wealthy, in La Paz, things look really good for you. And if you run a business that benefits from the illicit tourism and charter trade, then of course things look good for you: for lawyers, real estate agents, charter booking agents who live on the mainland, and let's not forget all the people who drive the boats, clean them, and attend to the guests – all migrant workers who come from the mainland and send the money they don't blow on beer and drugs right back to their families on the mainland.

Worse is the impact on the local environment and economy, the “informal” economy as it is known here in Mexico. Aside from all the illegal operators of tours and charters and the potential disasters awaiting unsuspecting tourists there is the illegal fishing trade which drives species to extinction, harms the environment, and creates secondary hazards such as fouling anchors; all to satisfy the tastes of guests who fly in, cruise, and fly back home; leaving behind meager tips and lots of trash, much of it deposited directly into the ocean.

So if you can afford to ignore the crumbling infrastructure, the vacancies, the increased homelessness, the increased theft and other social strife, the environmental pollution, and the complete and utter lack of safety regulation; then yes, things do look better here in La Paz. But the poor, the environment, the tourist destinations, the mainland, the ocean, even Mexico's own future are paying the price of the wealthy enjoying their playground here in La Paz.

No, I'm afraid the wealthy bring nothing good to the table.

After all, they didn't get to be wealthy by being generous, kind, caring, environmentally conscious, or in any way concerned about anything other than themselves.

Think about that when you realize what kind of people are rewarded by the society you depend upon.

If you wonder what's wrong with this world, look no further than your own self.

Until now, I have excused everyone for being a victim of a society that defied human nature and which has enslaved and destroyed any hope for a future for humanity in it's present state of evolution – only those who can evolve to survive the world made by the rest will be part of any human future, which means they will no longer be human by definition.

But the fact is, I am a human being, I am evolving, and I will survive. And, I am alone as such.

Even as recently as the previous blog entry here, just a few days ago, I believed in giving the benefit of the doubt to the masses, suggesting that global warming is not the fault of every individual. But while individuals may not be consciously aware of the damage they do, their continued dependence upon society for everything, including information about whether or not they are harming their own future, this cannot excuse personal responsibility.

I am no different than anyone else. I wasn't born with a better brain or body. I wasn't sent to special schools. And I wasn't given secret information and told how to learn better and that I should become self-sufficient. True, I was provided with an opportunity, but that opportunity was provided to me by people who saw my life as something to be exploited, by a society already doomed to destruction by it's own will. I was given no special gifts. What I have achieved, I achieved alone, on my own, without society's help and in fact because of society's faults. Anyone else could have achieved what I have achieved in life.

What I did differently was to make different fundamental choices. Yes, the fact that my own family and peers treated me so poorly did encourage me to not want to trust them, but how can trusting someone other than yourself ever be a good idea in the long run? It means you are giving yourself over to whomever you trust, rather than taking personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility.

That's worth repeating.

Personal responsibility.

So what's different about me, what makes me so special; what makes me the most intelligent person I've ever come across; what makes me the only person who seems to fully understand the true nature of society, of humanity, and of our future including climate change which will be the end of humanity seems to be no more than a decision to take personal responsibility. Personal responsibility means I acknowledge the impact of my life. And it is quite the polar opposite to everyone else's personal philosophy which is absolutely self-centered.

Ironically, people judge me, and do so because I do not conform to what they believe I should conform to, which is what they conform to, what you conform to. But in reality, I am, because of my perspective, beyond judgment, especially by self-centered people who cannot take personal responsibility for the condition of the world they live off of.

I will no longer accept anyone's judgment.

In reading about US President Donald Trump, I suddenly came to the realization that he doesn't actually have the skills necessary to be President of the United States, and I say this in a position of some authority on the subject, as a man who suffered injuries which have diminished my skills in executive reasoning.

The office of the President of the United States is part of the Executive branch of the Government of the United States of America. The Executive branch executes the laws made by Congress, while the Judicial branch judges those laws and those actions. But what's important here is that the office of the President of the United States of America is not an office of contemplation, it is an office of making decisions and executing them.

The President of the United States of America, then, is responsible for making some of the most important decisions. That means that the President of the United States of America better either be really good at making decisions on his own (e.g. he better be a genius), or be able to surround himself with the people whom he can trust to give him the information he needs to be able to make the right decisions.

In my mind, being able to make decisions, and choosing the right people to help you make those decisions, are the most important and only truly necessary qualifications for the office of the President of the United States of America.

I do not believe Donald J. Trump, presently serving as President of the United States, is sufficiently qualified to hold the office, based on his decisions and especially their consequences to the people of the United States of America, and the world, and in the long run.

I have read many opinions regarding Donald Trump's position as President, his decisions, and the people he surrounds himself with. Clearly he is unable to understand everything himself and therefore must rely on others to help him find that information. But it is his choice of advisors and cabinet members which requires scrutiny. Countless editorials bash Trump's advisors, but none yet has admitted that it was Trump's choice for the advisor in the first place. And unless Trump is taking instruction from someone else on who to chose, clearly he is unable to make the right choice – and if he was taking advice on choices, that advice is his to ignore or follow and thus makes it his decision.

The Buck Stops Here, is a cry once heard in America. And it is a cry called out by none other than the then-standing President of the United States; Harry S. Truman, who realized that he was ultimately responsible for all decisions made by his office and those who reported to him. Trump seems to ignore this reality, and gets a pass from editorialists – Trump apologists really.

Consider it yourself: Does Trump have ultimate responsibility? If so, why does it seem like he doesn't have full control? Is Trump just a victim, as so many of his apologists suggest? Or is Trump just an out-of-place real estate mogul with ties to the mafia who really has no place in such a position of responsibility.

Should Donald J. Trump really be the President of the United States of America?

Anthropogenic climate change is an issue that is being lumped onto the backs of the innocent of this world by the very people who have created, and more importantly profited from the extraction, processing, and consumption of fossil fuels, and it is a very real issue that has been deliberately confused by these same profiteers in order to sew discord and create a false debate amongst the people most affected by the problems created by mankind's addiction to fossil fuels.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone then that modern society blames the victim of addiction. The so-called “war on drugs” was also predicated on the notion of blaming the victim. And as with the war on drugs, the war on the people continues, this time with weapons of mass distraction in the form of a German teenager and a campaign to try to get you to get yourself arrested, funded and supported by the very people who are responsible for and profiting from the problem they want you to feel bad about and get arrested for.

How in the hell can it possibly be your fault that the planet is losing it's ability to support human existence – the end result of runaway climate change if something isn't done. Of course, it helps to actually understand global warming or anthropogenic climate change. And while those who profit from fossil fuels and the society it is entirely based upon don't want you to know what climate change is really all about, fortunately I have done the research and have written a brief summary of what climate change is really about, which you can read here. .

What is important to understand here is that the people who extract fossil fuels are responsible for removing carbon and other pollutants from their safe storage places deep underground and which have now been placed in the atmosphere. As a consumer, how could you possibly have any understanding what buying a tank of gasoline for your car really means? And how can you possibly have any responsibility for putting those pollutants into the atmosphere? They have warnings on cigarettes which tell us of the consequences of smoking, why didn't they do the same with fossil fuels?

So the question is, why should you be the one who has to do something about a problem you didn't create and couldn't have possibly known you were contributing to? Greta Thunberg, the German schoolgirl who wants us to feel bad, is of course backed by a non-profit organization. And that organization is backed by the very people who created this problem. So too is the case with Extinction Rebellion, whose mission is to convince you to put yourself in harms way? And to what end? What results do these cons posing as campaigns seek?

While on the face of it, they seek to pressure decision makers, the reality is that politicians can't possibly make these decisions. We have a society which is built upon this addiction to fossil fuels. There is no possible motivation for a politician, whose lifeblood is popularity, to take away any of the array of privileges afforded us by fossil fuel use. So these campaign's cannot succeed at their stated goals, so why proceed? Because in the process of bilking you for money, they also provide a valuable service to themselves in putting the blame for the problem they created squarely on the backs of the innocent masses who are already victims.

Is there a solution then? Is there something you, as an individual, can do? Really, how much do you know about climate change, fossil fuels, or anything related? So what can you possibly expect to be able to do? And if pressuring politicians can't work, how can anything else you do work?

There is one thing you can do, and that is to understand one simple truth and act upon it: that the people who have profited from fossil fuels are in fact wholly responsible for the potential future extinction of the human race, and they themselves ought to be the ones to be responsible for fixing the problem they created.

But these people aren't any more capable of solving climate change than you are. Indeed, how can they be if their motivation is to profit from the removal of dangerous pollutants and ensuring that they do pollute our atmosphere and lead to our eventual extinction.

There is an answer: why not simply pressure those who have profited from use of fossil fuels and t he potential future extinction of the human race to be the ones to feel the pressure, to take the heat, and most importantly, to finance the efforts by independent scientists and others who actually can and are motivated to actually do something about the problem.

While I conceived of Save the Planet many months ago, long before Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion were making a mess of things, the idea now holds even more value than ever. We have some ideas on how to mitigate climate change, and we are very motivated to do something about it. We have left society, and thus do not care for the privileges it offers, not over the privileges we have afforded ourselves including through our adoption of alternative energy sources, on top of our extreme awareness of the need to conserve energy and not use more than we ever need, even if it may be freely available.

Our motivation is not to profit. Yes, we do have some selfish motives. The idea of being able to have an oil derrick of our own is quite exciting. But the excitement is, critically, tempered by the excitement I feel for actually being able to manage the financial and other resources and direct them towards solving a problem that could mean the end to all of humanity; something I am quite motivated to prevent.

Unfortunately, having suffered brain damage which rendered me essentially completely socially disabled, I really can't do much, especially right now, to get this campaign going. I am hopeful that things will work themselves out and in time. Perhaps you can help get things started...

La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico, is not what we are lead to believe it to be. It isn't necessarily dangerous, but if you come to La Paz believing it to be what it is not, you may be in for a disappointment at the very least.

As far as sailor's destinations are concerned, La Paz is touted as a place where sailors dreams begin, as the initial jumping off point for all sailors from north America. But the reality lies in the stories we are told as to how the dream began, when an American sailor came to La Paz with a dream, as many who come to La Paz do themselves.

But this man's dream, while initially a life of freedom on the seas as a sailor, became a more ambitious dream. His dream of sailing off into the sunset turned into a naked pursuit of profit, as he went from making pangas to opening the first marina and then on to found the most corrupt organization in Mexico, the private corporation which acts as the nation of Mexico's formal port authority.

For people who come to La Paz with a dream of sailing, this affords a better explanation for the exorbitant pricing of the marinas than does the presence of so many mega-yachts. The expense of La Paz isn't because of several greedy marina operators. No, I'm afraid the cost of marinas in La Paz is due entirely to the greed of the man who created API, which, believe it or not, owns all land under water and even the first 20 meters from the high tide mark. And API is a very corrupt private corporation.

Of course there are sailors who do just fine here in La Paz. But they do so because they have put themselves under the umbrella of protection – and the submission and conformity it requires – of what some call the “gringo mafia.” Kiss a little ass and you don't need to worry about pesky things like visas, tips, work permits, taxes, or even obeying the law.

It's a great racket, but if you aren't in it, it makes life hell down here. Club Cruceros, the manifestation of the gringo mafia, personified by retired boaters who have lived ashore for years, is an entity not legally able to operate in Mexico, yet controls everything socially and beyond, including the illegal broadcasts of the radio net, including the incriminating statement in the script something to the effect that we can't legally sell, so we “trade for coconuts” - an obvious admission of conspiracy to evade the law.

But there are some problems of course. Being in the racket, you have to stay in with the right social groups or you could find yourself on your own, facing all those pesky Mexican laws. And the racket can't last forever, especially not with what it has done to me and my efforts to respond. But the worst thing is if you come to La Paz and try to exist outside of the gringo mafia. It can be done, but it requires you integrate with the culture, and do things how they are done here (hint: not the way gringos do it, nor the way the law is written...so your observations are as good as my own.)

I am not discouraging anyone from participating in the Baja Ha Ha (I'll do that in person). But I do want to offer a warning: if you come to La Paz expecting anything other than what is described here, you are in for a disappointment. Instead, understand what La Paz is, and make your decisions about coming and staying here based on just a bit more truth about La Paz than perhaps you are aware of.

Warning, this article contains spoilers, that is, it reveals information about what is going on in the drama of politics which you may not want to hear. If you enjoy drama, intrigue, and find politics no more than entertaining, and have absolutely no interest in actually doing anything about your own future, I suggest you not read this so as to not spoil your ignorant bliss about what really goes on in the world of the rich assholes who run your life.


No, I do not believe Trump was given the election in 2016 by Russia. Hillary Clinton lost and is such an egotistical idiot as to not be willing to accept that she actually did lose, probably because the Deep State (aka US State Department). But what has happened is that because of the pressure on Trump, because of the accusations, because of the investigations and all of the other efforts to prove Trump was a Russian asset, he has actually become one.

No, not willingly, and not consciously. And probably not even under even the slightest influence of the Kremlin.

But what Trump is doing does actually provide very good long term benefit to Russia. I don't need to go down the list of specific things he's doing, like undermining military dominance by removing limitations which actually benefited the United States of America. Generally speaking, Trump is destroying the empire of America, internally and externally.

All you have to do is look at the information on how American unconventional warfare works. If you found a playbook for how America destroys other countries, all of the boxes would be ticked, and they would be ticked by Trump and his own actions.

Russia doesn't need to do anything for Trump to be an asset, for him to destroy the American empire and make room for Russia, China, and other nations to fill in the gap both politically as well as technologically.

The fact is, the true Russian agents here are the Democratic party, and they are the ones being actually played by the Kremlin. For it is they who have turned Trump and his administration into a viable asset benefiting the perceived “enemies” or more accurately the competitors to America, and has already ensured the permanent reduction in status and potency of America, so far to the benefit of everyone on the planet (that's benefit, not pleasure by the way.)

So, to all you Russiagateophiles and Russiaphobes: Congratulations on being suckered by Russia into helping Russia through the party more than willing to sell out their country: the Democratic Party.

It occurred to me in reading about both Greta Thunberg and the Extinction Rebellion that I am actually doing what these people pretend to be: I am doing something about global climate change. Or at least, I am trying to.

Global climate change is caused by fossil fuel use (see link below for explanation of global warming and climate change and it's root cause). So not using fossil fuels and working towards reversing the flow of carbon into the atmosphere is the only way to solve it. It sounds like an easy task, at least to get started anyway – just stop using fossil fuel.

My idea was to move onto a sailboat. Brilliant, right?

Well, first you have to be intelligent enough to know that it's a good idea and a good way to stop using fossil fuels, and that you should stop using fossil fuels. And for that, you have to have had more of an education than society provided for you, and you have to have been able to think for yourself, instead of just believing everything society teaches you.

Then you have to be intelligent enough to be able to learn how to sail, how to maintain a sailboat, and it would also be necessary to learn how to be completely self-sufficient. Society sure gets in the way of that too, especially because you have to want to learn how to be self-sufficient, because society discourages that kind of thing by it's very nature (otherwise, more people would be self sufficient, and in that were the case we wouldn't need governments...).

Okay, so let's say you were born a genius, didn't need to have anyone teach you anything and all on your own you decided you would tackle humanity's potential extinction all by yourself, and you were able to figure out how to do so, that being on a sailboat was the way to do it, and you found a sailboat that would be perfect for living on for the rest of your life, and let's say you were somehow able to afford it, but only because it wasn't complete. Now, you have to finish that boat.

Oh yeah, that's where I am by the way.

Society has gotten in the way of every step along the way, and every step along the way requires my existence be sustained by fossil fuels, which are destroying my very future. There is absolutely no way I can, in my situation, which is thanks to society not to my decisions, get away without using fossil fuels. And worse, society is preventing me from using the only thing I would need otherwise: land. So because society is both destroying it's future with fossil fuels, and thinks it owns the planet and all the land and resources it is using to destroy itself with, one individual cannot do what it takes to solve climate change.

If I can't, despite all these miracles, how can ANYONE expect to do a damn thing about climate change, global warming, or indeed anything that is wrong with society?

Doesn't anyone out there ever stop to consider the fact that most people should want to fix these problems, and that some people are actually out there desperately trying, and have been throughout history?

Can you not see now that society's problems cannot be solved?

Let me know when you see that the problem IS society.




By the way, we are trying to do something about Global Climate Change, but what we are trying to do doesn't require you to be anxious or scared about it as Greta Thunberg's handlers suggest through her; nor do we want you to get yourself arrested or hurt as the corporate Extinction Rebellion propaganda campaign wishes you would go out and do. No, we just want you to tell the rich people who have made their money in the destruction of our environment to give money to us so we can go out and actually do something about global climate change: because we need to so we can survive out there where it affects us.

Gender identity today is being used as a distraction from real issues, as well as for taking financial advantage of what are no more than victims of an effort to assert more control over society and people in it and the cost of individual lives. Gender identity issues are based on what is essentially disease in the expression of sexual hormones.

Gender is two things: it is biological sexual identity, and it is a role within society. There are only three real biological genders: male, female, and undetermined which equates to essentially a sterile female. These biological genders have a range of expression based on hormones. In normal males, androgenic hormones cause expression of what we know as male characteristics, while the lack of the Y chromosome leads to what we know of as female characteristics.

We know that there is a natural range of expression of these characteristics that can lead to confusion. “It's Pat,” a skit about androgyny, the lack of distinguishing sexual characteristics, is an example from a previous generation. But the actor was simply a female in the lower range of expression of female characteristics who was able to de-emphasize them in the same way that emphasizing them with makeup, bras, etc. allows people to know she is actually female (sorry for the spoiler for those who were unaware.)

Androgyny is a disease. It is the expression of hormones which presents as lack of distinguishing characteristics. This disease can easily be masked by makeup, which is conveniently a universally understood characteristic of females in society.

There are other diseases of expression of sexual hormones as well, and they cause differing expresions of sexual characteristics, including confusing characteristics. History too recognizes these as disease, as females whose hormone expression caused facial hair were the bearded ladies of the “freak shows” of days long gone.

But diseases of expression of sexual hormones are precisely that. So what does it mean, this whole gender identity thing?

Well, for one, on an individual basis, it is a horribly confusing background from which to try to discern what is actually wrong, if anything, with oneself. If there truly is a condition where someone is born sexually as one gender but develops hormonally as the other; the confusion of the present state of gender disease and gender identity issues makes it nearly impossible to sort out the answers and thus come up with the correct one.

The real issue is of course gender identity. No. Simply put, no. There simply are not 100 genders, period. These can better be called diagnoses, than genders. You could say there are three genders then: male, female, and victim.

I honestly believe that the whole of the gender identity issue is no more than a distraction from the real issues, and thus represents exploitation. And since there are not but a few true gender identity cases, then the balance represent exploitation as well, of a financial nature, but also of human dignity and human rights. And what about what these people's actions do for those who truly did develop hormonally and subsequently socially as a gender different than as they were born?

As to the matter of your pronouns: Expect to hear something like“I'm sorry, I'm not going to buy into your exploitation.”

I was often made fun of for being a so-called “perfectionist.” Now that I am older and have achieved a significant level of understanding, I now realize that there are few notions more preposterous than making fun of someone for striving for perfection. In fact, striving for perfection is the only way to truly become human.

What people refer to as perfectionism is merely the philosophy of trying to be correct in thought and action. More simply put, perfectionism is trying to be right.

How can there possibly be anything wrong with that?

But is it really necessary to try to always be as right as possible?

Only if you want to be a human being, actually.

And on March 2nd, 2012, that's precisely what I realized I had been doing in pursuing a philosophy of trying to be right in everything I did and was: that I had achieved human potential. I wasn't really trying to be perfect in other words, I was trying to be human.

Perfectionism as a way of thinking caused me to align myself with what is called Universal perspective. By definition, the Universal perspective is the correct perspective. You could say that the Universal perspective is always the right perspective. So trying to always be right is to always be trying to align yourself with what is universally correct, the Universal perspective.

The Universal perspective is the perspective that would be shared by all humans, one that would be correct for all, regardless of their own perspective. Everything in life has perspectives, and in society and among us humans, there is a perspective shared by all, and typically an individual perspective, which often seems opposite. Moral issues are an example.

The individual perspective is by definition a selfish one, and often is in modern society. So it makes sense that trying to be correct from the Universal perspective involves self-sacrifice. But the self-sacrifice is actually good for the individual in the end because it improves everyone which benefits the individual by improving everything, even if only very slightly, almost immeasurably even; while a selfish act while benefiting the individual, does so at a cost to everyone. And while it may be immeasurable on an individual basis, if everyone else does it, it becomes quite measurably detrimental to all and thus the individual.

Clearly, a Universal perspective is better for all. And a Universal perspective has advantages, such as always being right. But, as it often runs counter to other perspectives, strictly maintaining the Universal perspective presents challenges, and therefore can be a disadvantage. Challenges, on the other hand, are what drove human evolution in the first place. We wouldn't have such complex minds as we do had we not needed them at some point in history. So trying to maintain the Universal perspective in spite of the challenges it presents can lead to development sufficient to overcome the disadvantages.

While I have suffered brain damage and thus now have significant disadvantages as a result, I do potentially have significant advantage over other people in many ways because of my having maintained a Universal perspective in spite of the problems it created for me and overcoming and more importantly learning from those challenges. Had I not suffered injury which inhibits my ability to take full advantage of my experiences and understanding, I would have significant advantage over other people.

Perfectionism then, would make for a much better society, if only everyone in society pursued it as a philosophy. Unfortunately, it seems impossible, unless some revolution in thinking were to sweep through society somehow and cause people to suddenly all at once pursue perfectionism and trying to share the Universal perspective. And even from my own perspective the circumstances are unfortunate: I can neither utilize my advantages, nor even give it all up and try to be like everyone else – thanks to the injuries I suffered, and which are so severe and present so much of a challenge, that I had to seek protection from society itself and ultimately had to leave it altogether.

I do find it ironic that someone who achieved his potential as a human being is now unfit for society. But I do sometimes enjoy knowing that I am treated the way I am precisely because I am human as it gives me a sense of accomplishment in a way.