It’s about time for the Smashwords Store sale, which is starting July 1st and lasts all of July. All my books, including my new one, Contagion Phase 1: Biosphere, will be free.
Meanwhile, the typing up of Contagion Phase 2: Beginnings is underway. And I’ve completed the first round of editing of the Mind Master Chronicles: The Pretender (Book 3). Here is the summary:
The Mind Master emerges from the shadows in order to play a game. Only it’s not the game he sold to his contestants online. No, that was a simple reality TV show, a promotional tool for their futures. In reality, the Mind Master’s game is a battle of wits to the death.
The editing for Mind Master Chronicles: The Pretender is going faster than it did with Biosphere. I had to make a lot more content changes with Biosphere.
I haven’t been writing as much as I’d like. I read an article recently on budgets — how you can focus on the interest rate or on the balance as your primary goal. I’m an interest rate person since it is the most efficient. Still, when you chip away at a lot of things rather than get fewer things done faster, you oftentimes don’t feel like you’re getting anywhere. And that can affect your morale. Still, I’m planning on continuing to try to do two pages a day per book because it keeps the pacing right for a book length story. Trying to add content later if you find the book is too short tends to harm the book. I will just have to dig deep and try to resume my schedule. Yes, I believe in taking breaks on occasion when I hit blocks. Putting too much pressure on yourself just creates anxiety. But you do have to prod yourself from time to time as well in order to keep the momentum going.
Update: Amazon is again offering up to $3.00 per transaction for Prime No-Rush and Amazon Delivery Day Rewards. The amount of Digital Rewards given seems dependent on the quantity of items purchased and what day of the week you purchase the items. It seems you need to buy four items at a time to qualify for the $3.00. The books I write qualify for Digital Rewards, so in theory you can get one of my eBooks if you get the $3.00 maximum reward once.
The Attack on Capitalism Is an Attack on Free Will
Free will is a mixed bag. Obviously some seriously destructive things come from it. And yet, I don’t see people willing to give it up. I’ve seen people willing to turn themselves over to sadists — get some high off of that — but that’s still that person’s choice, and it is a choice that can potentially be revisited if the sadist turns out to be less impressive than originally believed.
It may be because the masochist might change their mind that free will is something sadists are determined to strip away from people. In other words, it may be the desire of sadists to act out their fantasies on someone else without restraint and without consequence. It may also be arrogance — where they think they should be worshipped as false gods.
Our society is in the throws of a takeover of sadism. Having boundaries is evil. The free will of others is considered evil. It doesn’t matter if the tyranny results in a large death toll; it’s a worthwhile sacrifice because it destroys the free will of the masses. And that is a laudable goal in the minds of malignant narcissists and/or sadists.
The article, “The growing popularity of degrowth.” (Thompson, 2024) is an interview with the author Kohei Saito who wrote the book Slow Down. “Akielly Hu, Grist’s news and politics fellow, discussed the growing popularity of degrowth with Kohei Saito — a Marxist author whose 2020 degrowth manifesto quickly turned into a bestseller in Japan and beyond. (The English translation, called Slow Down, was just released last month.)” (Thompson, 2024) The article’s author, Claire Elise Thompson defines degrowth in this way, “If you like the idea of a perpetual three-day weekend, you might be one of a growing cadre that supports the concept of degrowth: a school of thought aimed at shrinking economies and moving away from GDP growth as a metric of success, while instead emphasizing universal basic services and social well-being.” (Thompson, 2024) In the article, Kohei Saito’s philosophy of slow growth is discussed. Kohei Saito’s belief system stems from Marxism. She describes this as a utopian prospect. First off, forced tyranny has usually been considered dystopian, not utopian. But Akielly Hu appears to be buying into a world where people are made happy by being given an extra day off a week. “Hu was also inspired by Looking Forward’s drabbles in writing the lede of her piece, which paints an image of a degrowth future: Imagine a world where you work three or four days a week. In your free time, you play sports, spend time with loved ones, garden, and engage with local politics. Overnight shipping, advertising, and private jets no longer exist, but health care, education, and clean electricity are free and available to all.” (Thompson, 2024)
Meanwhile, people would exchange any meaningful work for a job where you are just given a stipend in exchange for going through the motions. Only you won’t have to go through the motions for as many days a week. There would also be no discretionary income, no savings, no upward mobility. There will, I’m sure, be tight restrictions on what they allow you to buy. In fact, that is pretty much what Kohei Saito says, “‘But at the same time, we should start talking about the need to reduce the number of cars, for example, or industrial meat consumption, or frequency of flying. Maybe we should ban private jets. Maybe we should ban domestic short-distance flights because we can take trains. These things must be also prioritized.’ ” Kohei Saito continues, “‘The problem with the existing mainstream green capitalism discourse is they never talk about reducing our excessive consumption and production, because that’s not something capitalism can accept. For everyone to live a decent life on this planet, the Global North needs to give up what is unnecessary. That’s not something capitalism can do.’ ” (Thompson, 2024)
So meat is out, trips beyond a certain distance from your house are out, and I’m guessing medical care that prolongs your life will probably also be out since it not only adds to the price of socialized health care, it also causes an unnecessary carbon footprint. The article “Our pets are part of the climate problem. These tips can help you minimize their carbon pawprints.” by Kimberly Richardson states the following about unhealthy pets. Kimberly Richardson quotes Gudrun Ravetz with Vet Sustain as saying, “Avoiding animals with known health problems will reduce the need for veterinary intervention, which has a carbon footprint, and most importantly will reduce unnecessary suffering in terms of poor health and welfare.” (Richardson, 2022) I’m assuming the same would apply to human beings with health problems.
I suppose some people like the prospect of allowing someone else to make all their decisions for them — actually I know that those types of people exist. The global elite are trying to sell their total domination and control as a utopia where you are just taken care of — where you have no worries and are safe. But that world doesn’t exist in this life, and it’s certainly not going to be delivered by people with a depopulation agenda.
In the end, capitalism is the economic system that signifies free will. And just like free will, it can be destructive. The best solution would be a society of people who take personal responsibility for themselves and self-regulate. Then, hopefully, the good would outweigh the bad. But the people steering the ship aren’t interested in Christianity and desire to cut God out of the world. They want a society of people who will admire their narcissism and obey and worship them. But how do you accomplish both a narcissistic /sadistic bent in society while still having a society that won’t self-destruct: tyranny and social control. And tyranny and social control require a new economic state-controlled system such as communism or fascism.
By the way, an eerie thing happens when fascists say you can rest more. At the concentration camps in WWII they tricked people into the death line by promising the sick, the elderly, and the children a less arduous workload. Work won’t set you free, but it’s a bad sign when they no longer value your work. After all, how many ways do they have to show they don’t believe in the intrinsic value of human life? So it’s not good they no longer see us as useful to them at all.
We need to have representatives that represent the people, not just bureaucrats that push forward their own agendas — constantly forcing the citizenry to engage in behavior against their free will by stacking these bureaucracies with fellow ideologues. They even prevent “We the People” from making even the barest of decisions on our own or from substantially influencing public policy. The laws enforced are about social control, not public safety. It’s become a system of favoritism, not of equal treatment. And yet, even the favorites can’t rely on being treated well from one moment to the next.
I remember when illegal migrants were being put up in fancy hotels. Apparently, those days are over. Sanctuary cities throughout the country are now evicting migrants from shelters after a set period of time. In a way, it makes sense. There should be an acknowledgement that this unrestricted migration can’t be sustained and that a city can’t afford to house a limitless homeless population. But because this is illegal immigration not legal immigration the structure and resources are just not there to smoothly transition people into an independent life. Once these people are evicted, what will happen to them? And once new people come in and find no support, what will happen to them? In other words, there isn’t enough condemnation of the open border policy itself coming from these sanctuary cities. You can’t simply kick people out on the streets and expect them to manage. How exactly do they think they’re going to get back to the border? Back to their countries of origin? And that’s assuming their countries of origin will take them back. Are the migrants even going to be allowed to cross back into Mexico and Canada? I’m not even sure the sanctuary cities want them to leave the United States, but they just don’t want to deal with the ones who aren’t fortunate enough to get adequate jobs and housing themselves. Their attitude appears to be to let someone else bear the cost; have other states and cities’ societal structures torn apart by the lack of preparation and the lack of structure you get from illegal immigration.
Meanwhile, it isn’t as though these migrants have been being treated well since the fancy hotel days. No, I don’t like the sense of entitlement I’ve seen. To my knowledge we’ve never had an immigration period where people came expecting to be taken care of. They used to want the opportunity for a better life, not to have that better life handed to them on the back of the people already living in the country. And still, it isn’t just the citizens of the United States who are suffering here; it’s also the migrants themselves. This is one of the most cynical, disrespectful things I’ve seen done in the name of humanity — encouraging people through demonstrations and promises of reward to debase themselves in order to come here. Where is the sanitation? And how are these people supposed to afford our inflated cost of living by taking on unskilled jobs when at least one of the reasons they were brought here was to drive down wages?
And the woke people who once upon a time, when they claimed to want the migrants in their cities, tried to feed us the line that these were refugees awaiting an answer to asylum requests. But I don’t see a refugee camp or even a recognizable crisis aside from the chaos created by the sheer number of homeless people they compelled to come here. No, these “refugees” are now being treated like intruders, not victims of a crisis. And they are being treated that way by the same people who encouraged them to come in the first place.
Still, this problem won’t be resolved by shoving people out onto the streets. We need to re-establish legal immigration. People need to be vetted before they are allowed to live here. And the free hotel stays and such to entice people to come here need to stop.
And we need to stop electing people who take all of our power of governance away from us, refuse to represent us, and then refuse to take responsibility for the fallout of their decisions.
Most people are born with a sensitive side. Society increasingly appears to have a pathological hatred of it. It’s possibly because you need God if you have a sensitive side in order to keep your sensitive side alive. Whereas those who don’t have a sensitive side are convinced that they don’t need Him. And perhaps they don’t want to need Him, and they don’t want others to need Him either. Regardless, there is an open antagonism toward sensitivity in our society. Society has encouraged people to have no sensitive side and forgo attachments.
Our socialization process in the school system seems to be geared toward giving children a “thicker skin.” Having a thicker skin is considered a good thing, feelings are not. But without a sensitive side and attachments people become disposable.
And the attack on sensitivity has never been worse than it is now. Now they are going after children sexually. And sex is a very effective way to destroy a person’s sensitive side. But the UN, the WHO, and the WEF are all pushing for the sexualization of children. There are no good reasons to do this — only bad. Reducing sex to an act of mere physical stimulation reduces the odds of incorporating emotional, mental, and spiritual components to the act. People, especially sensitive people, want more than just physical stimulation. But how can you achieve that experience — sex as a part of love — if it’s been made into only a physical reality?
Physical sex alone also suffers from the law of diminishing returns. Like a drug addiction, over time the high diminishes and you require something additional such as drugs or violence (such as sadomasochism) to keep things interesting. This flies in the face of the argument that training children to engage in sex as a mere physical act is a good thing. In reality, the sooner you start, the sooner you will lose interest. Which brings us to the real reason why there is a push to sexualize children: pedophilia. For some adults traditional sex no longer holds any interest. Only debauching the innocent and the sensitive seems to turn them on. So, they are seeking access to a victim pool. They are looking to normalize it into society. They are trying to convince people that reducing sex to a mere physical act at a younger age is a good thing for children — when clearly it is not. It’s all about insensitive people trying to find stimulation because they are cold and jaded. Because you can’t be satisfied with anything without a sensitive side. And unless you have an irrational aversion to sensitivity and a hatred of God, why would you want to destroy that element in any human being — let alone a child? In the end, by introducing children to sex as an act of mere physical stimulation you are preventing them from experiencing it as an act of love. Children need to spend their formative years learning who they are as a total person, which includes mental, emotional, and spiritual development. Sex at an early age could also potentially kill a child’s sensitive side. We need to stop catering to adults looking for more and more sexual stimulation. It’s gone too far already. But for those who have convinced themselves that sex among children is no big deal, I will submit that this need for stimulation in the adults who advocate for it could still progress even further. What’s to stop torture and murder from coming next?
At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
And Jesus called a little child unto Him, and set him in the midst of them,
And said, “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
“Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
“And whoso shall receive one such little child in My name receiveth Me.
“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
“Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
“Wherefore it thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
“And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
“Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of My Father which is in heaven.
“For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost.
“How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
“And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
“Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.” (Matthew 18: 1-14)
When I was in art school, there was a clock — just a generic one you could hang on the wall. It was low enough that anyone could reach it. I didn’t discover the time was off until I stayed after class to work on an assignment. Then, I headed to my next class. Only I heard the sound of the clock tower ringing while en route. The clock in my last class was five to ten minutes slow. How could this be? The time was then fixed on the clock the next day, and I assumed the problem was over. But, lo and behold, the clock ended up five to ten minutes slow again. The professor suggested that the clock might be winding down. I pointed out that clocks that are winding down don’t keep a consistent time. My theory was that someone was setting the clock backward intentionally, so that they would have extra time to arrive to class without being counted as late. Who cared how it affected the rest of us?
A girl in my class challenged me with the, “Why do you care so much?” argument. She was offended apparently by my desire for rules and structure — as so many people are. I pointed out to her that she had a class right after this one in which she told me had a strict tardiness policy. So, really, it affected her far more than me. But she was more offended by my attitude than by the actions of the person getting her into trouble. Because ironically our release time from class was being determined by the time on this clock that everyone now knew was faulty. The professor also didn’t seem to be bothered by the faulty clock. Once the onetime reset was done, nothing further was attempted to fix the problem. And yet, he still insisted on having us be in class “on time,” or we’d be counted as absent. He also continued to release us from class “on time” — all based on the faulty clock.
What I learned from this experience is that some people really hate rules and standards applied to themselves. And they are more invested in shutting down people who have standards than in their own best interests. Yet, those same people don’t mind insisting that other people be made to live under their rules and standards.
Eventually, I just relied on my watch. I could afford to be released late. If people who couldn’t afford to be released late would rather see my quest for consistency and standards fail than fix the problem, so be it. But really, what is the point of a clock with the wrong time?
The article, “Inflation is slowing. Here’s why prices still aren’t going down” by Charlotte Morabito, is about inflation and seeks to answer why prices aren’t going down. The author makes the following points: “Historical data suggests a key factor in bringing down prices is a slowdown in consumer spending. Despite nearly half of Americans reporting they’re in a worse financial situation than five years ago, they’re still spending. Retail sales were up 2.1% year over year in the first quarter of 2024 and consumer spending jumped in February and March.” (Morabito, 2024) The article explains the difference between disinflation and deflation. Disinflation is when the rate of inflation growth is slowing down. Deflation is when the prices go down. “There’s an important difference between inflation increasing more slowly — a phenomenon called disinflation — and inflation reversing itself, which would lead to prices coming down. Economists call the latter deflation, which is typically associated with a shrinking economy and potential recessions.” (Morabito, 2024) So, the prices going downward is actually a bad thing? Good to know.
Apparently, they have a new term for those who have a problem with the higher prices: “money illusion.” ‘“This cycle is a concept called money illusion,” said Sabrina Romanoff, a clinical psychologist. “People with money illusion … don’t take into account the level of inflation in an economy,” she said. “So they wrongly believe that a dollar today is worth the same amount that it was the year prior.” ’ (Morabito, 2024)
Yes, it seems those of us who actually expected an improvement in their personal circumstances are suffering from some sort of mental syndrome. It reminds me of the term money dysmorphia in the Dickler article, which describes how some people don’t see how great they have it since they are too busy comparing themselves to others.
Now we are mentally questionable because we expected the higher interest rates to drive prices down.
Also of note in the article is the following: “Wage-increase data may also seem inconsistent with consumer experience. Wages have been rising since January 2022, but the pace of the increase has been slowing down and, on average, it is just keeping up with rising prices. An analysis from Bankrate estimates the gap between inflation and wages won’t fully close until the fourth quarter of 2024.” Once again we’re supposed to believe that it’s the rate of increase that matters, not the cumulative inflation increase in comparison to the current wage.
The fact is the article reinforces the theory that domestic demand is responsible for the inflation. Both the article and the prevailing theory coming from the woke media seem to ignore global demand, such as from China, for our resources; cuts in supply for things like food, energy, and housing; as well as the printing of money coupled with excessive spending by the federal government. Unless these issues are addressed, how can the inflation be resolved? Instead, the article’s author is content blaming the consumer for continuing to spend. What are they supposed to do, not eat? Not pay their rent?
Their utilities? Where does this attitude we’re buying luxury (unnecessary) items come from? And what are we supposed to do, hope that people tap out of their credit and can’t pay their bills, so they’ll stop spending money? The implication from the article seems to be that that’s the only way we’ll see a reduction in prices. And one might conclude it’s the only way they’ll lower the interest rates on credit cards as well.
In the past, the general understanding of inflation was that the demand for a good or service exceeded the supply. The implication was that any increase in the supply of money was in the hands of the consumer. In this case, the money is in the hands of the government and whatever special interests and agendas it decides to fund. There is no generalized proportional increase in wages for the workers, despite what the media says.
Instead, they are bringing in cheap foreign labor to undercut already proportionately low wages. This is to prevent a wage-price spiral — where the corporations would be forced to pay higher labor costs to compensate for the increased cost of living. They say preventing a wage-price spiral is good for everyone, but in reality it’s mostly good for the corporations. Bringing in foreign labor doesn’t just freeze wages, it can also reduce them. It also manages to drive up demand, putting pressure on price inflation. The corporations are also using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the foreign labor workforce — pay for their housing, food, healthcare, education. The taxpayer is paying the social costs of these workers while the corporations are just reaping the benefits of the cheap labor. This is a fascist system.
Meanwhile, in economics ideal price is determined by a bell curve. At the center of the curve is a price sweet spot. Free market systems are interested in that sweet spot since it allows companies to maximize profit. It shows the intersection where demand plus price can yield the maximum profit. Increasing the price has a tendency to decrease demand while decreasing the price has the tendency to increase demand in most things. Any price above or below that ideal price will decrease the profit. But in the fascist ideologically based system, supply is being artificially cut in areas such as housing, food, and energy, so that corporate profits can be somewhat maintained — though not at the level they were at under the free market system.
This keeps demand artificially high in comparison to the supply. That way they can keep prices and profit high while providing less. In other words, people can’t live without food, even if they can’t pay for it. And the few who can pay will pay whatever they have to in order to be able to eat. By targeting inelastic goods — essential items — for supply cuts they can force people to pay more for the item and thereby partially compensate for the reduction in quantity sold.
There is no intention to supply the world’s population with what they need to survive.
That way they can starve out the general population of necessary resources while still reaping some profit in the bargain — a compromise between greed and ideological fervor — and well in keeping with depopulation goals.
One of the things I’ve noticed lately is that about the only people you can’t deny having a relationship with are psychopaths. If they want you or want what you have, that’s it apparently. And really, it’s counterintuitive but it seems as though the worse a person treats you, the more you’re obligated to relate to them. Part of it is people’s warped idea of the concept of forgiveness — which in this case is more like masochism. You can forgive people from afar. You don’t have to have or start a relationship with them. Not only are there a lot of unrepentant people in the world who have no intention of changing their behavior, who continue to feel entitled to having their will at other people’s expense and are all too willing to use violence or the threat of violence in order to have their way, there’s also the loss of trust and post-traumatic stress to consider. Sometimes the damage to a relationship is far too great to recover from.
But the sympathy rarely goes to the victim of abuse. The perpetrator is allowed to be angry. But as the victim, if you’re angry you’re the problem. You’re a worse person than the perpetrator because you won’t forgive — which really has been redefined by our society to be the same as reconcile. And if you have to be angry as a self-defense mechanism, people take for granted that you have other feelings, too. You are hurt; you are grieving; you possibly loved this person. You’re afraid.
But in a way it makes sense. Psychopaths and malignant narcissists would rather just be themselves without having to put on a show. They want to treat people however they please without those people running away from them. And what better way to get someone to keep taking their abuse than to convince them that they don’t have the right to reject them?
In the end, you’re not supposed to focus on how your abuser treats you but rather how they feel. And how they feel is apparently a justification for whatever they do.
On the soap opera, The Bold and the Beautiful, there is a character named Hope. She was reared with the adults around her buying into her fantasy life, largely shielding her from the disappointments of reality. Then, she grew up and, lo and behold, the greater reality didn’t match what she wanted it to be. Early on, she managed to find a man who was willing to playact that her reality was real. His reward seemed to be the childlike enthusiasm she would display when her admirers, including him, would present her with the façade they had created for her. Only Hope isn’t a child anymore. She also isn’t delusional. She is aware of reality; she just doesn’t accept it. She might act enthusiastic from time to time in order to manipulate those around her into letting her have her way — often at their own expense — but fundamentally, she is a bitter, angry person who will never be satisfied with the reality that actually exists. The reality she wants is one where her will triumphs over everyone else’s — where her thoughts and feelings matter more than anyone else’s do and everyone appreciates her the way she thinks she should be appreciated.
The similarity between the Hope character’s worldview and the woke worldview is that they want to and feel entitled to force compliance to their will on the rest of the world. They also want to and feel entitled to change reality to suit themselves.
The woke seem to believe that if they can get all people to buy in to their greatness then they’ll be happy. But people who expect total approval are rarely ever happy. And who can control every living person and what they really think? And even if they could silence those who don’t see their greatness, their efforts will fail because the woke themselves are not delusional. Fundamentally, they are narcissistic, not delusional. And a peculiarity of narcissism is that while narcissists believe they are great, they are aware that this greatness isn’t reflected in reality. And at the end of the day, that’s what the woke want — to change reality. And yet, scarily, the woke seem to think if they can get 100% compliance to their version of reality — even if they have to kill to do it, then they can alter reality. But they can’t. The only Being who has the power to alter reality with a word is God. And reality will always be whatever God says it is.
If talent wasn’t the deciding factor why someone won a competition or became successful in the world, we at least believed that it was. Now it’s almost a disadvantage to be talented, for talent comes from God. Satan can’t give anyone talent. What he can do is temporarily offer prosperity and reward to people who serve him. He can also have it declared that you have talent and have earned your way to the top. But really the reward is based on ideological servitude to Satan, not on talent. It’s interesting to note how invested people have become in this newfound pecking order. If one’s rise to success can be traced back to God, then anger and possibly even violence ensues. It’s also interesting to note that some unfortunate celebrities have given Satan undeserved credit for their ability, and one has to wonder if this isn’t so they won’t be blocked from reaping the rewards from their God-given talent. For the narrative has to be that allegiance to Satan and/or the increasingly woke world system is the way to achieve success in this world. And people who have no talent, or even one’s who do and lie about the source of it, have to give credit for their achievements to Satan or at least to the world system. So, you see, the people who are in the position to make winners and losers in the world can’t allow the talented to win if it means giving credit to God. Now even talented people have to choose between moral integrity and success. If it was ever true that you can succeed in this world merely on talent, it no longer is.
