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.

Comedy, more specifically, making fun, has definite purpose in the uniquely human trait of intelligence (a trait I find sadly lacking among self-described humans...) Making fun of something is useful because it requires you to organize your thoughts and collate them into an argument against what is seen as a preposterous idea that is somehow believed.

Let's use an example of gender arguments and media pundits. In reading a story about this ridiculous distraction from real issues (oops, some truth...), I found myself wanting to make fun of the whole notion of gender being any different than genetic biological sexual identity based strictly on production of hormones which define the outward characteristics of biological sexual identity (debate solved folks.) The pundit in the story I read used the example of an animal as a gender, with the opposing viewpoint stating how preposterous it was that an animal could be a gender.

Comedy erupted in my mind at the notion of the possibilities this man allowed for as counterargument to his own notion which, believe it or not, supports the notion of 100 distinctly defined genders. The fact is there are only three possible genders: Female, Male, and Not Female (XX, XY, and X0). Gender is based on sexual characteristics, which are based on chromosonal sexual identity as noted above. Y is the male gene. X must be present. Two define the gender. Therefore XX is female, and XY is male. X0 is not female because it cannot be male because it lacks the Y chromosome, but because we are born of females, the body is basically female, but lacks sufficient potency to be vital as a reproductive female.

Appearance of gender can be affected by hormone levels which differ from what is expected based on genetic makeup. A genetically female (XX) body which produces too much androgenic (male) hormones will appear more male and less female, and could be confused as a male but which is physically female. This does not mean that the person's gender is defined by appearance. It just means that their appearance is affected by problems with the genetics which define their gender. The person is still a female, but one whose masculine features are explained by hormones. Suggesting that someone has a gender defined by the differential production of hormones is tantamount to a person suffering from lung cancer being called a cancer.

The fact is that what is going on is in fact that diseases are being called identities, and instead of being treated as diseases, are being catered to as identities. This means it normalizes disease. And normalizing disease demeans the healthy and can only serve to cause chaos in society.

I recognize this fact, consciously, and I understand it. And for me, comedy is the best way to try to reach those who believe those who defy all logic and want to either sew chaos, or who ignorantly sew chaos in their pursuit of whatever selfish agenda. Society simply cannot tolerate the notion of people identifying by differences on the basis of biological malfunction. This is one step from total collapse of society because acceptance of such a notion inverts the whole notion of definition, and turns the structure of society inside out by giving power to the diseased and making the strong, who hold society together, be seen as the problem. This will lead to their attack and thus an attack on society itself.

So, suggesting that an animal can be a gender seems quite appropriately comedic to me. And I hope a lot of people out there started thinking about the notion of penguin and other animals mentioned as possible genders. Because comedy like that does what it is supposed to do: it makes us think about how preposterous ideas can be which are not well conceived or are otherwise just plain wrong.

I realized just now that the entirety of the elected federal government of what is still my nation is legally liable for the removal of what I also realized is obviously an insane man from the office of the presidency.

Donald Trump used to be a real estate salesman and developer. He then became a reality television celebrity. He is now the president of the United States of America. This is a powerful office, and represents a significant increase in the amount of power Donald Trump has, after experiencing a similar increase in his power over others when he became a reality star.

It seems then that people are ignoring the axiom that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely; because Donald Trump has taken his position as what is only colloquially known, rather than formally or legally defined, as the most powerful office on earth a little bit too literally. This is exemplified in his most recent message sent through the corporate platform he favors as of the writing of this, wherein the former real estate agent turned reality star is telling threatening the president of a sovereign nation.

How can it be that this man, who has command of the entire military, which has been already authorized to be under his command under the dubious legal guise of the “War on Terror” and thus can actually start wars, wars which can easily become nuclear and bring about the end of everything as far as human beings are concerned. And he is a man who is obviously, when a mature, intelligent, rational individual objectively observes him, neither honest, nor in complete control of his faculties.

So while Trump is on course to end humanity, the sitting government, which has the Constitutional duty to protect the people who voted for them from things like injustice or complete and utter annihilation, is instead distracting itself with it's own insanity.

The United States Constitution, which all elected and officially appointed members of the executive and legislative branches of the government are sworn to uphold, provides and delegates responsibility for the removal of Donald Trump, a responsibility they have not taken seriously but have instead replaced with what is no more than theater, obviously out of self-interest, rather than as a matter of their duty as representatives of the people they are supposed to work for.

That these duties have been neglected provides a legal basis for their removal from office as well. Thus, a legal petition can, and should, be delivered to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, asking for the removal of the sitting government of both branches, and an election scheduled and held immediately which excludes all sitting candidates as being legally and permanently disqualified from holding office as a matter of the same Constitutional mechanism which allows for and requires their removal from office.

Unfortunately, no ordinary citizen can simply petition the US Supreme Court. Only an attorney who is registered with the Supreme Court may petition the court, and such attorneys are indeed expensive. And the Supreme Court, while legally capable of, an I would argue bound to initiate action to remove the government, I do not see it happening except in extraordinarily obvious circumstances.

So, until someone hires an attorney who can file a petition with the Supreme Court, we are stuck with a government that will go down in history as having betrayed the US Constitution and the people of the United States of America and possibly the human race itself, if there continues to be a history that is.

First, it must be stated that “containment” of China, the prevention of China from acquiring global dominance which exceeds passive status, is something I believe is necessary, but only in the event of it's occurrence, not because it is the intent of the Communist Party of China to use it's position of global economic dominance to apply it's political will to the rest of the world. I believe that in achieving global economic dominance, that there is every potential for this economic dominance to inadvertently lead to social and subsequent political dominance.

It is important to understand that this dominance can only be achieved by dependence of other nations, cultures, economies on China which exceed mere economic dependence. This can be demonstrated by present circumstances, wherein much of the world is dependent upon the United States of America economically, but also heavily influenced by American culture and even political will.

As demonstrated by resistance to American hegemony in present times, which manifests as self-reliance and cooperation on a multilateral basis; actions which are solely internal or cooperative and all defensive, rather than offensive in nature, are all that are required to escape these unilateral actions on the part of America. Therefore, only policies and actions which are internal can be effective in preventing China, or indeed any other nation, from achieving the same dominance America has achieved. Further, internal development, as China demonstrates, is also the only way to achieve dominance.

It should be clear that American policies which take action against or otherwise utilize resources to affect other nations, are wasteful and illogical and only serve to weaken American dominance. The clear solution is for American foreign policy to reflect one of preserving American resources and directing them inward towards development. By directing all resources internally, America can utilize it's prior dominance as a basis upon which to develop itself and achieve some natural dominance, but it is dominance that due to this policy of directing resources internally, maintains only economic dominance based only on the relative level of internal development and thus makes no cultural or political threats. This, of course, is an ideal way to maintain peace.

American political infrastructure requires examination and likely alteration in order to work towards policies which reflect more healthy internal investment and direction of resources. Lobbying, for example, and the relationship with politicians who maintain obvious economic, social, and political conflicts of interests in their investments and relationships with lobbyists; is extremely detrimental to any prospect of inflection on the part of American foreign policy.

It is also clear that the policies of the present American administration under the presidency of Donald Trump are the polar opposite of what they should be in order to achieve the stated goals; however uneloquently articulated or conceived they may be.

In my opinion, the reason Donald Trump refuses to release is tax returns is because they will demonstrate that his policies which are his particular way of doing business, have proven to fail before because I believe that his tax returns will demonstrate that Donald Trump destroyed his own financial empire through policies which used his empire's resources to attack others, rather than investing and directly them internally.

The efficacy of this policy of directing resources internally can easily be demonstrated by the progress of nations which have succeeded in the face of US Sanctions. While Iran, Russia, and especially China are excellent examples of this policy working in contrast to the policies of America; a far greater example is Cuba; which has achieved such an astonishing level of self-sufficiency and also economic, social, and political development, especially relative to it's neighbors who were not similarly treated by American foreign policy. Cuba's success proves self-sufficiency and cooperation are far better policies than those employed by America and especially by the Trump administration.

I also believe that Donald Trump represents America's perspective quite well, and that the policies of the Trump administration therefore merely reflect the will of the people. Americans, in my own personal experiences, are resistant to the idea that they might be wrong or even need improvement. More than anything, and most certainly a significant influence at least, Americans are dependent, highly so, and in many ways. So if the people enjoy privileges that come from dependence, it seems unlikely to me that the will of the nation can be changed so easily to one that reflects the need for self-sufficiency.

Leadership is the only possible way to influence so many people to change their perspective so drastically. And certainly having a perceived and defacto leader as Americans have in Trump whose influence is the polar opposite of what is needed isn't going to help. Democrats nor Republicans can provide candidates for the presidency who can lead America to self-sufficiency. So only if a candidate comes along who can successfully lead Americans toward more self-sufficient policies comes along and who has a chance at the Whitehouse, does there seem to be hope for America maintaining economic dominance.

I think the real question here is whether or not America can ever wake up to the reality that using it's resources outside of itself will happen in time to prevent complete loss of all dominance, and what the reaction will be in trying to prevent it from happening. That's an answer I'd rather hear about than know firsthand.

La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico, is a living metaphor representing the struggles spanning the whole of human civilization in this nearly expired second decade of the new millennium. Here, the rich yachting crowds of all levels of decadence and greed are catered to by a government controlled by Americans to the detriment of all else including the people and economy of Mexico, tourists, and especially the environment.

The costs to us and to this planet incurred by the corrupt among us catering to the greedy selfish monsters parading around and daring to call themselves “human” is dire, and can be easily seen here in La Paz, and especially in the Sea of Cortez and nearby Isla Espiritu Santo where the environmental destruction is so bad it can be seen by casual observers as conditions worsen year by year or by comparison with photographs and videos from even recent years. Illegal fishing is a daily routine, out in the open, with the blessing of the client government, whose policy enforcers of all walks from inspectors to police to the Navy of Mexico itself, merely use their position for personal enrichment, with the blessing of their boss – whom is often a relative.

The battle between good and evil; rich and poor; egotistical and altruistic; childish and mature; society and nature; even the survival of humanity itself is played out metaphorically in our own personal battle. Neil Shroyer, son of Malcolm Neil Shroyer Schoen, owner of Marina de La Paz (which hosts numerous illegal fisherman as well as the yachts of the richest of the rich), and founder of API, the most corrupt organization imaginable, a private corporation with government power which they arrogantly believe can usurp international laws, is a man who is behind the discrimination we endure, directly facilitated by his influence, and indirectly by his hosting of dozens of illegal business run by illegal immigrant 'gringos' as well as local businesses able to operate as they are because of the culture of corruption endemic to La Paz and which was brought to La Paz by “Mac” Shroyer as he is known among the 'sailing' 'community' in La Paz, a cadre of mostly retired people who happen to own boats, many of whom are in Mexico illegally and even operate businesses, and all of whom discriminate against us and have done their part to ensure we are left to die in a disabled vessel put out in the middle of hurricane season.

Our lives have been all but destroyed, mirrored in the damage to our vessel, by a marina operated by a business which bilks its own citizens of the tax proceeds of $5 million pesos monthly, launders it through a trashy, dangerous 'resort' used almost exclusively by family and friends as well as to buy influence, and a marina which contaminates the sea every day they operate their local dive and tour boats, a business which has scared all of China away by nearly taking off the leg of a Chinese tourist, decimated the local fish nursery it was built upon and hosted until the son took over, and which would have killed a Spanish dive master had we not intervened and saved his life.

Yet, while our battle represents the struggles that literally billions of people are fighting on the losing side of, despite our progress in not just surviving, but making real forward progress towards victory; not a single person whose battle we are fighting is willing to even consider lending a hand, at least, so far, not without the other reaching into our pocket for our already raided wallets.

We will win our battle, and when we do, we will sail away forever from you and your society, you and your battle, you and your enemy. But those who join us in fighting this battle will themselves win as well, and make it that much more possible for others who cannot fight to also win this war. But unless and until we are joined in this battle, it will remain a struggle, and it will continue to inflict pain; pain we endure yes, but pain we can endure. If you aren't enjoying the pain, or don't look forward to what you do know is inevitable pain your future; then perhaps you might consider that confronting the cause of that pain head on and fighting will make the pain far easier to bear and eventually be able to use it against your foes.

We urge you to examine La Paz for yourselves; beginning with our photographs and videos, and followed by verifying for yourself, seeing for yourself, what goes on in La Paz, what really goes on. Look past the tour boats and civic improvement projects, past the beautiful sights and incredible sea life. Look deeper and see the crime, the theft, the obvious growing resentment towards north Americans and Europeans, the empty buildings and crumbling side streets. See also the illegal fishing, the boats used being hosted on both sides of the navy base as well as here in Pichilingue, and the destruction of the ecosystem and wildlife of the Sea of Cortez by seeing for yourself the present state and examining photographs and videos of what used to be. See also the rich of all kinds; the biggest yachts which won't fit on the Big Lift vessel which pulls the yachts up onto a ship and takes them from playground to playground; the local rich who flaunt their wealth openly while the city crumbles around them; and even the upper class Mexicans who charter the yachts often of wealthy people long dead, to flaunt their relative wealth in anchorages such as Pichilingue where working class Mexicans come to cool off and enjoy their summer on the beach, often polluted by local foreign-owned fish farms.

We are not Mexican, yet we fight the battle on the same side as the vast majority of Mexicans. We are white, and we are from the United States of America. We are more like the enemy in appearance than we are like our allies. This means that we must fight two battles simultaneously. It means that we must not only fight the struggle for most, but we must also fight against those for whom we fight. And, to win for all, we cannot lose to any.

Things are as they are in this world because logic and reason have been lost to most. What sense does it make, reading this, that we fight for you and must also fight against you for your own benefit? What logic is there in treating those who fight for you as enemies? What reason could possibly cause a decision to be made that is against one's own interests?

We will win the battle. Those who join us will also. But the rest of you must at least stop fighting us if you don't want to lose the war and perish along with society. Please, find it within yourself to at the very least wish us luck because you sincerely wish us to have it for your own sake.

I don't involve myself in controversy on the scale of the impeachment of President Trump unless I have something to contribute. My contribution here is a legal analysis of the actual legal justification for the impeachment of Trump; which I believe is justified.

First and foremost, impeachment is meant to remove officials who abuse their office. In the Federalist Papers, impeachment is cited as the only possible check on federal judges, who are appointed for life. But much debate was had over impeachment of the President until it was finally decided that the president could be removed from office for treason, bribery, and “high crimes and misdemeanors” which the Federalist Papers indicate are terms meant to cover abuse of office.

Secondly, we must establish the level of power that the office of the President of the United States is supposed to have. Established as the Executive branch of the federal government, the Presidency was meant to be an administrative office with no real internal power, but wherein all power over foreign policy rested. This fact has long been forgotten and replaced with a disturbing trend of allowing Presidents to abuse the power of their office through the use of Executive Orders.

Impeachment then, is not about specific crimes; but rather about accusations of, and political conviction, rather than criminal conviction, before the Senate. In other words, the process of impeachment is strictly designed to be used for the removal of any federal elected or appointed official who has or is abusing the power of the office they hold, in order to prevent harm to the country.

That the United States of America is being harmed by the actions and policies of the Trump administration may be subject to debate for some, but are clearly evidenced objectively: the United States of America has become the laughingstock of the world, and Trump has immortalized himself as the most prodigious user of Executive Orders, which in fact make him more of a dictator than a leader; which is precisely what the president should be – someone who leads by example, not by diktat. That's why they are called dictators or rulers, they tell people what do or make rules people have to follow, rather than leading by example and encouragement.

So, is there legal precedent for the impeachment of President Trump?

Absolutely.

But it does not, necessarily and most certainly not entirely, lay on his actions related to Biden, Ukraine, and China. Impeachment should rest entirely on the pattern of behavior of Trump which is clearly abuse of his position. This pattern includes use of his resorts to entertain foreign guests and dignitaries; a record of policies and decisions which favor Israel and other nations over the USA, it's Constitution, and it's peoples and which is in my mind the single greatest offense, equivalent to bribery and treason at the same time; his use of executive orders to override Congress which is in direct violation of the Constitution and thus represents a violation of the office itself (not just the oath.); and finally and the least concerning violation is his efforts to seek investigations on his political opponents.

The process should proceed forward in the House of Representatives as an in-depth investigation into the whole of Trump's presidency including his benefitting from the office, his providing benefit to Israel and other nations at the expense of the USA, his use of Executive Orders, and only in the context of the above should the Biden investigation matter be investigated, not as a single, impeachable act.

Once the investigation is complete, an indictment should take place in the House of Representatives. Afterwards, the matter should be taken up by the Senate who will vote to impeach or not based on the charges and investigation in the House of Representatives.

Is this going to happen?

No, because the Democratic Party is insane, and instead of providing viable candidates and governing responsibly, they have abandoned everything in trade for an all-out hate-based campaign to eliminate their perceived enemy. Democrats then, should also be impeached, to be honest. In my mind, and from a purely Constitutional standpoint, the United States of America does not have a functioning government.

But, one step at a time, right? Let's see if Congress can actually perform one of their duties.

One last thing: if the impeachment is successful, and Democrats continue to behave as they do, then I would suggest that there are legal grounds to actually dissolve and banish the Democratic Party from ever again participating in politics based on the fact that their continued behavior would be evidence that their efforts to impeach while Constitutional, they were pursued not as a matter of upholding the Constitution, but as a genuine coup.

Dear Kind but Poorly Informed Teenager:

You are poorly informed. But not to worry, so is everyone else on this planet.

But let's not gloss over the real point here, you are informed, you rely on information from others to make your own decisions. Yours is a society of dependence, and I challenge each of you to figure out who it is exactly that society is dependent upon, in this case, who is your source of information on global climate change?

So the real problem with global climate change is in fact your society, not you. The society that is using you to profit from the ironic reality of your tailored message is the cause of the conditions which have led to global climate change. Society has done this by creating a human species defined by dependence, rather than the independence and individual reasoning we evolved to achieve and survived by.

But perhaps that is too much information for you to contend with. So, let's now concern ourselves with the specifics of this instance of your being informed, and poorly so, about the consequences of your life, a life, in reality, which is a life of privilege and in your case, a life of privilege upon privilege, ironically afforded to you by fossil fuels.

Global warming is a preliminary phase of the inevitable effects of the change in climate created by the restoration of the primitive atmospheric levels of carbon which is part of a process which has only generally predictable consequences to humanity and all other life on earth and which is the result of the restoration of this carbon through the open-loop use of fossil fuels.

Basically, kiddo, your life of dependence and resulting luxury are afforded by your living in a society that is addicted to sequestered carbon, carbon which in being sequestered paved the way for our existence in the first place, and which when restored will of course restore conditions which we could not have evolved in and thus will not be able to survive in.

So, what are you to do about it? Well, first of all, wake up and realize you are just being used so that the very people who are blighting your future can enjoy your future now instead and at your expense now and especially in the future. Second, realize that you have to inform yourself, you have to go out and research, on your own, what exactly is going on. Start with the atmosphere and the grand scale of the cycle of carbon from the atmosphere into fossil fuels and back again; and consider the nature of the climate then and before we started using fossil fuels, and what's happening now. Figure it out on your own. Don't assume that a society that exists because of the cause of our future extinction has the capability to recognize a problem that is no more than the basis of the society itself, it's addiction to fossil fuels and the privilege it brings.

If you really want to protest and encourage others to do the same thing, advocate that they spend every day in the library and in the field when they need to, in order to learn about the climate for themselves, instead of relying on the society that is destroying their future to tell them how to save it; and in lieu of wasting their time in school learning what society wants them to learn and nothing more.

Good luck.

Yours truly,

Self-informed human being

I find myself yet again without the assistance of someone who had offered to help with my most dire need: refuge here in Mexico, because that person has treated me according to the symptoms of my disabilities, despite specifically warning her against doing so. Andrea Geiger, a lawyer employed by the corrupt city of La Paz, Mexico, presented herself as an activist lawyer; an oceanographer by PhD education and specialist in ocean shoreline ecosystems, equivalent to training I myself received – the land version of riparian ecosystems.

Andrea promised the world, and has delivered what I should have guessed I would receive from an employee of a government that should be considered as being completely corrupt and devoid of it's purpose (to serve the people, it's rather the other way round here): nothing.

I do believe I understand now why people like Andrea Geiger treat me the way they do: because I am intolerant of dishonesty, especially in matters of such significant importance as my need for protection as a vulnerable person. And Andrea Geiger is not an honest person; be it because she is just another corrupt government employee or because she suffers some ailment which causes her to forget what she says and writes and also causes her to check what she wrote and instead conveniently blames someone seeking protection from people who treat her exactly as she is warned she is doing.

My life is full of such ironies by the way.

But these ironies are no more than the revelation of the true nature of people. Of course Andrea is a liar. She buddies up with people I've asked her to submit a formal federal human rights complaint against. She can't possibly do anything positive for me. But I have to believe what I'm told and accept referrals and try people out to see what they can do, and I have to believe, for the most part, what they say. And Andrea, initially, seemed believable. I sensed a familiar pattern of behavior developing (I will write about it separately, but this is one element of how I am able to discern dishonesty in others) and tried to make sure I communicated what I needed to ensure that she could not possibly misunderstand me unless she had malicious intent or was otherwise being dishonest (another thing I will write about is my sense that all dishonesty is malicious or my inconsideration for the difference).

Maybe Andrea really could have helped with the human rights complaint, that she offered, unsolicited, after we were referred to her while in a life-threatening situation which she did not even seem to acknowledge much less address. But since she didn't bother asking us what help we needed, and was dishonest about what she said she could provide when pressed to deliver, I highly doubt Andrea even believed I had need for what is in fact my most dire need, and that she is just incompetent, and follows an unfortunate social norm here which I am told is common to Mexico but I will for now believe is only common to La Paz – answers to inquiries with whatever answer in order to seem helpful rather than being honest about not actually knowing the correct answer (never ask for directions or where you can find something here.) I also don't believe Andrea was capable of doing anything she offered, including even following through on my complaint to the human rights commission (which again I did not ask for yet I did pay for – oh yeah, in cash, without receipts, and without any contracts or other documentation or even verbal agreements!)

The lesson here is, I can't learn my lesson. I fled the USA because I was taken advantage of by people I sought help from because I was being taken advantage of. Now it is to the point where the same thing is happening here, but I am no longer in a position to flee, not even this city. No one from outside will help, no one here can help, and no one anywhere believes me. But worst of all is that everyone who has offered to help has taken financial advantage of me instead. What it tells me is what I've known instinctively all of my life: that society is dishonest, and motivates people to be dishonest.

So I guess I really am on my own, despite the gravity of my situation.

Sanctuary


If there was a secret to my survival, it would be my sanctuary.

For my entire life, I have been challenged to the point where I have lived on the edge of survival; that is to say, I have been challenged by a lack of privilege and the need to take care of myself with only limited access to privileges and limited access to benefits equating to a minimal level of survival in society. I have also been on the outside socially, and thus challenged in my every interaction with society and forced to be self-reliant in many ways as a result.

Being so treated by society as to feel like an outsider, I developed a need for sanctuary, a place I could feel I was safe from outsiders, meaning from anyone else but me.

Sanctuary was hard to come by as a child of course. Running home from school every day to avoid bullies, I did manage to find a few hiding spots, but they never lasted. I never had my own room as a child so sanctuary was, for me, always in my mind, and the things I did, and in avoiding others. I often took walks to the park on my own, but mostly spent time at the library hiding in my imagination.

As I grew, my stress grew, and my need for sanctuary grew. So strong became my need, that I left my lifelong home of Los Angeles at age 25 for a 40 acre farm far outside of anywhere in the country and far away from people. I would never return to living in a city.

In 2011, I moved to my final sanctuary on land, an off-grid cabin, literally four hours from civilization by car (three given my driving!) where I made a promise to take sanctuary from corporations, and renewed my vow to leave the country in a year if my housing benefits were not rightfully restored. They were not, and a year later, my ultimate sanctuary was mine to own.

My ship is my home, my hospice, and my sanctuary. Of all the people I have ever met or known, only about a dozen, literally, have been in my home; and of those, almost all were crew or potential crew for sailing.

There is a scientific element to my need for sanctuary, and it coincides with my being so different than most people. My need for sanctuary is a very human need for intimacy, for a truly trusted environment. And with my understanding of empathy and human beings, that cannot happen for me unless there is someone at least as empathetic as I am. I have yet to witness such a thing, but do believe it possible.

For me, this is a difficult need to meet because I cannot communicate well, and most people these days rely almost entirely on verbal communication over what empathy reveals; including body language and non-verbal emotional expressions. Having someone in my presence, especially my home, who is not highly empathetic presents a level of intrusion into my sanctuary and diminishes that feeling of intimacy, that trusted environment.

So why the need for such an environment? Simple: to unwind from the stress of dealing with a dishonest world. I am not like you. I cannot tolerate dishonesty. And all social interaction in society and outside of an intimate environment are dishonest. So I have almost no ability to tolerate social interaction; a far worse condition I now realize than agoraphobia, the fear of social interaction.

When I am in social situations, because the damage to my brain affected my memory in many ways, I am constantly having to calculate and be aware of the truth of the situation. Obviously this is very resource consuming in my mind and does cause actual mental fatigue. And the only way to rest from it is to have sanctuary, to be in a trusted environment, or alone, where no such calculations are necessary.

Thus, sanctuary is my most important need.

And living in a marina where I pay $1700 USD per month isn't fucking giving me that sanctuary because these rich fucking assholes got that way not through their hard work, but through their ignorance of the suffering they cause to others.

Fuck you rich assholes.

Disclaimer: I write essays. These are my thoughts at the moment, nothing more. They are of a highly mature nature, and are not meant for an immature or unintelligent audience. The concepts I present are of a highly advanced nature both intellectually as well as philosophically. This is why I do not allow comments. This essay does well to answer that specific concern actually.

Read with caution, and read to seek understanding of what my thoughts were at the time I wrote this, not necessarily what they are today.



As far as I can tell, I appear to be the only human being on this planet.

A human being, for those reading this mistakenly believing themselves to be so, is not born a human being, but must develop into a human being. A human being is defined by empathy, and by immense intellectual capabilities. A species is defined by it's origins, and we humans are defined by the empathy which allowed us to develop verbal communication, and the tremendous ability to solve problems with our brains which developed to helped us survive and become what we are today.

But society, being the result of a mistake of tremendous gravity, has deprived mankind of the natural course of development which defined us human beings, and so, society produces not human beings, but something far more sinister and evil: you.

You have no empathy, or if you have any, you haven't the intellect to do anything with it. Don't take that as an insult, it's not meant to be. If you weren't aware of the fact that you were not human because you were born into a society that prevented you from becoming a human being, how could you be responsible for your status, and thus how could you be insulted by the accurate description? Of course, if you are still upset, it's merely a sign that you are most definitely not human.

I'm different because I was rejected by society. My own family rejected me. Of course no one in my family were human. So there was no one in my family to teach me empathy, to teach me how to be human. Yet somehow, I was able to become human.

The reason is actually simple. Humans didn't develop empathy on their own, they were taught empathy, just as we have to learn empathy these days. And we were taught empathy, science believes, and I happen to agree, by wolves. And we had a dog in the family when I was born, and being on four legs (crawling) myself, and having been rejected by the humans in my family, I latched onto, and even identified with, the only loving being in the family, the dog, who taught me empathy. Trying to survive a life where everyone hated me presented enough of a challenge to stimulate my brain's natural development.

And so, here I am, the only human being alive on this planet today, and probably the first human being in a long, long time.

And you know what, it's fucking lonely here. I have no one to talk to, no one to share my thoughts with, no one to bounce ideas off of, no one to give input and collaborate with on the thoughts I have. No one else thinks for themselves. Everyone just parrots what someone else believes instead of having their own original ideas and thoughts. And it gets really fucking annoying.

I cannot have a conversation with anyone about anything important or productive. I have a different perspective, one unrestrained by assumptions, by society's limits. I have an actual imagination, not a catalog of images fed to me by society's media. So when I conceive of an idea, it is original, but when I try to share it, there is no recognition of the uniqueness because there cannot be, and instead, there are assumptions, and a destruction of the whole conversation and thus the idea, because there is no one else with an actual imagination to share the ideas with.

Why is this a problem?

Well, that's quite simple. It isn't because I'm lonely. That's just what I feel. No, the real problem, and the frustration that angers me and drives me to lash out at people for not being human, is the fact that society has isolated people from nature, but society is not itself isolated from nature. So while people are affecting nature through society, they are blind to these affectations, which are devastating the planet's resources which humans require to survive as a species, not to mention every other species on this planet.

The real irony is, I'm not the only lonely person. Every one of you, without exception, has identified yourself with society. You are society, society is you. You cannot be separated from society. And if you are a part of society now, you will always be part of society, even if you somehow manage to wrest yourself away and successfully escape society.

The problem is, you never developed as a human, and you are far, far too arrogant to go through the process necessary to develop and become human, because it involves first recognizing something you cannot: that you are not actually a human being.

That's my own personal problem of course. But this does present a huge problem, a more Universal problem: that of the destruction of this planet and it's status as a nursery for intelligence, the unique aspect of human beings which I alone seem to embody. No, I'm not saying I am the only intelligent person. What I am saying is that I am the only one who isn't stupid. Intelligence must be developed to it's potential, else the brain becomes dependent upon society and as a result, cannot function properly as it will be permanently biased – against nature actually!

So, pardon me if I seem a bit of an asshole to you. But I'm not the stupid asshole destroying the planet and sitting there ignorant of that reality and partying instead of doing something about it.

And if you want to stop being an asshole and start being a human being, well, you better dispense with your connections to society and start embracing nature. And if you'd like to come to me to learn how to be human, you better damn well do so in complete and total commitment to developing to your potential, and only after having dispensed with any notion that you might have that anything about society was is or ever will be anything but pure fucking evil. If you come to me under those terms, it will be plainly obvious to me, and if you don't, it will be painfully obvious to you.

The world has some problems. Chief among them are an addiction to fossil fuels, and to power – manifest in this case by an overabundance of nuclear weapons.

America used to maintain it's grip on global power (let's be honest here folks and not pretend, okay?) with the almighty dollar backed by the almighty US Military. Now, America seeks energy dominance as well, as a means to further back the US dollar, especially against the threat of a loss of supremacy in nuclear weaponry.

But would the playing field really be leveled if the world gave up it's addictions to fossil fuels and nuclear weapons?

Let's think about this and perhaps see if a formal analysis might be in order.

Absent nuclear weapons, it's clear that America would still maintain military dominance. In fact, I don't imagine how the power balance in the world even considers nuclear weapons as a realistic element. They're in the background, but they do not affect any decisions made by the major powers of the world. Perhaps a more in-depth analysis is in order, and perhaps it might find there would be some change of balance. Perhaps not.

And what if the entire world gave up fossil fuels. Besides the shock, where would America truly be?

Innovation has always defined America, and innovation has always been driven by challenge. While today that challenge seems to be strictly limited to making as much money as possible damn everything else; America used to actually be defined by true innovation, and not to long ago. My generation were probably some of the most innovative, but we also became lazy (probably because our effing jobs got shipped overseas to...China, India, and other targets of Trump's trade tirade), and the later generations seem to have a spark of innovation in them as well.

So in a world of no fossil fuels, innovation will be the source of real power. This is natural because the definition of wealth is the ability to create, not money. Money is a concept that is represented by tokens with no real value but what's written on them. You can't make anything with money, but you can buy what you need to create. Or, you could just create yourself, by learning and having the skills and drive to do so: innovation, in other words.

With a simple change in attitude, brought on by necessity and a reason to get people off the couch (they could sure stand to lose a few pounds anyway), American innovation can once again be put into play and lead the world in the creation of alternative energy sources. And reaching back again to my generation, our youth was filled with propaganda telling us to conserve; thanks to the embargo of and thus extreme restriction in the supply of fossil fuels ironically; so again, America can also have an edge in changing their use of energy, reducing it to a saner level.

While it may seem improbable on the face of it, America doesn't really need nuclear weapons or fossil fuels to be the greatest nation on the planet. After all, a nation is a people, not it's energy or weapons.