The world is a pretty fucked up place right now. Things are bad for just about everyone.

Everyone except the rich and powerful that is.

So how did we get here? What happened to make our world hell unless you are some kind of billionaire, celebrity, politician, or just plain lucky?

First, I think we need to recognize this reality, that the only people doing well are NOT hard working people who care about others and contribute to society. The people doing well are the very people who are the problem.

It is important to recognize this fact because in reality, we in society are rewarding those people who are the most harmful to society. And as long as society is rewarding those who are harming society, society will continue to get worse for everyone else. And looking at our recent histories, that things are getting worse for most while better for some is clearly evident and proves that society's degradation is benefitting the privileged few at the expense of everyone else.

Once we recognize the basis of the problem we can understand its true nature and work towards solving the real problem instead of constantly covering up the symptoms or making things worse because the problem is ignored. And the basic problem here is that society is rewarding those who harm it.

I have written extensively and recorded countless videos discussing the nature of the disease in humans which is the cause of all of this, what causes people to act in what is actually against their own self interests. Lack of empathy due to failure to learn those vital human skill causes people to ignore anything but their own immediate self interest by failing to develop moral perpective. These people are the architects of modern society.

And it is these people who have the whole world convinced that they are our betters and that they deserve to be rewarded for their efforts.

The reality in America, which is where I will now direct my taxi-ride thoughts, is that these people took over America when real human beings settled in to a nation that had finally reached adulthood and stopped expanding.

America was founded by people who prioritized adventure and risk over safety and opression of their individuality and spirit of adventure. In other words, America was founded by human beings.

Key to understanding America, especially in the context of its staus as the greates experiment in human history in accountable governance is the nature of her federal government, one founded not by and for "the people" but rather by and for stakeholders, those whose hard work built and maintained the nation.

Because of the nature of the reality of who settled north America, the vote was given initially to white christian male landowners, the only kind of people who had braved the voyage to the new world, took all the risks, and forged a nation from wild lands.

Within 80 years, the vote, and thus the ability to hold office, was dilluted, given to all males in a coordinated and and planned effort to give themselves the advantages going forward.

Using a moral issue, these people altered the very nature of America, ending its status as an experiment in freedom and self governance. Slavery was used to distract a population of people who, unlike the stakeholders who founded the nation, dependent upon others for their most basic needs. As such, they were willing to believe those who claimed to have their best interests in mind, an obviously false claim as we now know these people are incapable of having concern for anyone but their immediate selves.

And so we see history repeating itself, with moral issues being used to take power, this time beyond even the loosest interpretations of the US Constitution. And so power hungry are these people as to now ignore any semblence of reason, and gone now are any serious efforts to tey to hide their truee intent.

And yet in spite of how obvious their deceptions are, people are still as inclined as ever to buy into the lies. This can only be because people are even more dependent upon these people than ever, somwthing engineered and obvious but which still works.

What this means is that people are conquered, completely dependent and therefore unable to do anything but be the slaves they are. It means there is no hope for them going forward. The self-declared elite have total control. It is there society now, 100 percent.

But we also know these people are the problem. They are the ones who destroyed Anerica and the rest of the world with it, so how is it possible they could make society work, even for themselves?

The answer is of course that they cannot.


The conclusion then is that unless people recognize that the rich and politicians and celebrities ARE the problem, the problems will only continue to work to destroy society and mankind with it.

The United States of America was founded by white Christian male landowners who fled persecution by their governments and harassment for their beliefs by their fellow citizens.

Ironically, I happen to be a white Christian male landowner, fleeing an oppressive government and people harassing me for my beliefs.

Oh, and did I mention, I am FLEEING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

America doesn't belong to you people, it belongs to people like me. And until America is a country that invites me back with the full protection of the US Constitution, it will remain an evil empire. Period.

I realized today why people hate me.

It's because I do not submit to the station they expect of me. In other words, I do not demonstrate "proper respect" for people's position over me and my status as inferior.

There is a damn good reason I do not give people undue respect: I am hardly inferior to ANYONE.

Sorry folks, you don't just get respect for being something you created yourself as under the guise of society. I have a higher perspective than that, and do not submit myself to society or anything or anyone of or in it. Society is a disease, a cancer that is destroying humanity and this planet. You cannot ever have my respect in those terms, and if you want my respect in the terms of your society, then try fucking earning it.

I realized that I am entitled, according to the US Constitution and other founding documents in their original form. I am a white Christian male landowner in America and that gives me the right to vote and hold office where no one else did for the first 80 years of America.

I am tired of being deplatformed, shut down, censored, cancelled, run out of town, or otherwise ignored. I have something to say, and as a true American, I have every right to say it and you should listen to what I have to say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfUKas0K8vY

First of all, I must say that I am an American citizen presently living in Mexico and attempting to apply for refuge here as a result of my needing protection as a member of several abused classes of Americans, most importantly because of mental disability. I fled my country out of fear of what my government was doing to me and what was being done to me by my fellow Americans.

I hate what America is today and more importantly, I hate Americans for not standing against what America has become, because what America is today is not what America was founded as, and those people who are bashing America around the world and even from within are completely ignorant in their criticism and need to be corrected in their wrong thinking about what is and what is not wrong with America.

First of all, there is only one thing wrong with the American political system, and that is its inability to compensate for a stealth takeover by zealots; manifest presently as a single political party masquerading as two distinct political parties. The founding fathers of America were unable to foresee the power of propaganda and what changes would be made to voting in order to subvert America's foundation as a union of independent cultures bound together by a single desire for freedom; something America hasn't been for about 200 years.

The America people are bashing isn't the America I was born into, nor that anyone else alive today was born into. From it's founding and until just before the Civil War, America was a much different place, a republic, a union of distinct states with powerful governments and individual cultures. Crossing a state line back in those days wasn't just about driving somewhere. If you crossed a state line, you knew it, and it was a big deal.

It seems people have forgotten that America was founded as a nation of people tired of oppression and who longed for freedom and adventure. America was literally the land of opportunity. Opened up by explorers and adventurers, America became the place to go for people seeking freedom from oppression in Europe and elsewhere.

They came to America and created colonies, eventually thirteen individual colonies of peoples from various places, mostly western Europe. These colonies were eventually once again under the oppression of European governments and decided to be independent. The founding documents they wrote ensured that the people would never again suffer under an oppressive government.

And it is these founding documents which are supposed to define America. But America has been taken over by some Americans who don't uphold the same values as those who founded America. Rather, these people uphold the values of the strong central European governments and their ability to control people and especially to control economies, such as through central banks, a vital part of the complaints of the colonies against the oppressive European governments and which is now prominently featured in American life.

America is not as America should be. America was taken over and turned into the very thing that is the reason people sought their freedom in America. And it is those people and their mindset that should be criticized, not the US Constitution or the Electoral College.

So please, to all you international pundits, please stop bashing America. America was an experiment, given to the people of this world by those among you who were brave enough to make a new start on their own, people who, like myself, set off from everything they knew, braved the oceans in boats, and sailed to the promise of hope and freedom. Those people risked everything for a dream. But that dream has been turned into a nightmare by people who have no interest in freedom or adventure. Those same people, that same mindset that drove people out of Europe and into the New World now run the show in America, because Americans seem to have lost their sense of adventure and desire for freedom and are not quite happy instead with their television, games, and other forms of mindless activities.

No, if you're going to criticize America, criticize it for the problems it has – the people who fail to uphold the founding principles of the first and only nation founded by the people and for the people. Criticize those who people like me in America criticize: those who lie, cheat, and steal their way into halls of power instead of feeling compelled to lead their fellow Americans in the continuing experiment of power of and by the people. Remind them who is in charge: themselves.

And for those Americans who bash those who do not support democracy, try to remember that none of you would have even had a vote at the founding of America. At the time of it's founding and another 80 years, only white Christian male landowners were allowed to vote. America was not a democracy as people mistake it, and as America itself likes to say it tries to spread around the world. America was founded as a union of strong, independent states with the heads of Christian families of white landowners being the people who were represented. Everyone else simply worked for the landowners and benefited from their politics.

There was no democracy for most people in America. All white adult males were only given the vote in 1856. Black men gained the right to vote in 1870, but through an amendment prohibiting states from denying it. Women only gained the right to vote 100 years ago, in 1920, but not all women. Only in 1952 were all women finally given the right to vote.

So consider very well your station as a voter, and then consider how the white Christian male landowners of this nation would vote, and ponder just what is really at stake in American politics. Consider also your privilege in being able to do what you can to influence the course of people's lives who provide the backbone of support for the nation you enjoy being a citizen of.

And those of you outside America; consider your part in making America what it is today; for it was the world's rejection of the recognition of the Confederate States of America that doomed us all to the fate of the overzealous and far too powerful federal government of the United STATES of America.

By the way, I was born a white Christian male, and inherited land from my father, making me a full voting citizen of the United States of America per the original founding documents. But being born into the only form of privilege you can be born into in America was not enough to protect me from Americans and the American government. Being a white Christian male landowner, that is, being someone who the founding documents originally said has the vote, who is part of those who govern themselves, doesn't feel like a privilege, it feels like a label, as though I'm a bad person for being born a true American. And while it may not bother me, I wonder how many white Christian males out there, who are the target of so many social campaigns to denigrate them, feel about how they are treated versus their station as described by America's founding documents. I wonder whose loyalty they question.

I present a perspective on why societies collapse from the perspective of modern global society but specifically today in America, a simplistic view based solely on the concept of property ownership.

Innately, we are programmed by nature to understand that we can only own what we create. This instinct within us is supplanted with the notion that we can own what we buy by society.

It is important to understand this, as it is fundamental to the argument presented here.

In other words, we instinctively understand that we can't own something if we didn't make it. We can accept trading, but the notion of owning something we did not create or trade for simply doesn't register with us. It has to be programmed into us.

Society then, differentiates from nature in the respect that you can buy something and therefore own it, which of course applies to land where it does not otherwise. But the important thing to note here is that ownership is changed from creation to purchasing. The definition of wealth universally is the ability to create. In society, this becomes the amount of money you have as you no longer need to create something, you simply buy it.

As a whole, society, because it sees land as something which can be owned, uses the earth's resources. But, because it also sees humans as a resource, it buys their labor. Society from this perspective then, can be seen as exploiting both nature, and itself.

Within society, this looks like exploitation, labor, theft, and transfer of wealth. Labor, while seeming normal, is exploitation of humans as capital, even if it is now socially acceptable because it is compensated for with tokens which are valued by society as wealth even if not instinctively understood as such. So just as society will take from the earth, so will it take from those within itself.

Now think of the transfer of wealth through various means, including exploitation - which occurs when labor is insufficiently compensated as always must occur if there is profit involved. But look specifically at theft, or rather, think of any kind of exploitation as theft, because inately, that's what exploitation of any kind is.

Society then has three basic classes of people: those who gain by exploiting, those who lose from exploitation, and those whose net sum game is neutral, that is, who in the long run neither lose nor gain from exploiting others or nature.

So, here is where we realize why societies collapse. If society is exploiting it's own, and instinctively those who are in the class who lose out in the long run understand that this isn't right, those people are not going to continue to allow themselves to be further and further exploited. The more unequal societes become, the closer they come to collapse. And as the point of an exploitative society like capitalistic society is accumulation of wealth; this also means transfer of wealth. If this continues, it will reach a point where enough people will have lost enough to understand that society is not there to protect them, and society will collapse in one way or another.

Think about the perspective of those who are continually exploited and who must be further exploited for the need for those at the top to continue to accumulate more wealth. These people are constantly exploited, constantly losing what they create. If they have no money, the only wealth they have is what ability they have to create things that money otherwise buys. When those people no longer have the means to feed themselves, they must do something to survive.

These people must survive and to do so they have only two choices: self reliance, or exploitation as a means to acquire the wealth necessary to survive. In other words, crime - from the perspective of society.

Once too many people are forced to exploit in order to survive, society begins the process of collapse. The threshold of course varies by culture as culture influences the perception of survival. "Just getting by" has significantly different meaning in India as it does in the United States of America.

The irony is, society is designed by people who will always win because they have no contact with their instincts. They are completely programmed by society for one simple reason: they are not even human beings. Yes, they are genetically and physically identical to everyone else; but they lack empathy; which gives us a powerful connection to our instincts, instincts which society attempts to program out of us, and does successfully in people who lack empathy.

Understanding this, we can clearly see that the problem with society is that it was designed for - and by in fact - people who lack empathy, because people who lack empathy will always win out in a paradigm of exploitation. Empathy simply won't allow one to exploit another, unless ignored or overcome by programming. Even then, it is a weakness, a reason to pause and think which gives an opponent the upper hand.

Societies then, will always collapse if exploitation is allowed, as empathy is a defining human characteristic. And no matter how hard those without empathy try, they simply cannot keep the majority of people from acquiring empathy, and enough people will eventually figure out that society is a losing game and either walk away or rise up against and collapse the society.

And you wonder why I live on a sailboat that is completely self-sufficient...

Understanding the Presidential Electoral System of the USA

A lot of confusion and far too much ignorance surround the US Presidential Elections. Accusations of the election being undemocratic abound, but are grossly unjustified and merely represent a fundamental understanding of the form of government and political nature of the United States of America, confusion based largely on the fact that the United States of America is nothing like the Constitution describes it should be.

The election of the President of the United States of America reflects the type of system of government and the nature of the union, as described by the US Constitution. The common mistake made in describing the United States of America is that it is a democracy. A democracy is direct government by the people. The founding fathers saw this was not suitable for a large country spread across many cultures, belief systems, ecosystems, and even types of climate. Instead, the founding fathers, who represented thirteen independent colonies, decided America would be a representative republic, where states had equal power to each other and in proportion to their populations.

This was a very practical solution to a serious problem: the use of democracy to steal resources or otherwise exploit smaller colonies – states. That is, the founding fathers had to answer the concerns of colonies which feared their resources would be taken by more populous or powerful states and that these states would have far more influence in federal government.

And so, the Constitution created an electoral college, based on the same system which determines the makeup of the federal government. Congress is elected by the people, the Senate was chosen by the states, and the President was also chosen by the state using electors representing the same number of congressional representatives and senators of each state.

So, the President of the United States, is not represented by the people, because there is a separation that people fail to see between the administration of the federal government, which is the president's duty, and the people of the nation. The president presides over the federal government, which is supposed to be differently but less powerful than the state governments, from the perspective of individual lives.

In other words, the President of the United States of America is NOT the president of the people, he is the administrator of the federal government. And as such, he is elected accordingly, not by democratic vote.

Today, the electoral college is especially important, considering the results of recent elections, especially 2016 when Donald Trump did not receive a majority of votes from Americans but did win the election because of the electoral college. Yes, most people feel unrepresented, but the fault is their own because the President of the United States does not represent the People of the United States America, but rather the Government of the United States of America.

Lack of representation is the fundamental flaw of American democracy and why America has a two-party system that is only superficially two parties. What this means is that after the voting is done, in every place in America where a vote takes place, those whose candidate did not win an election, do not have representation.

This is actually a strange concept to most of the world, and taken for granted by Americans. But the meaning and importance of this fundamental aspect to American politics must be understood because they are vital to understanding and trying to solve long-standing political problems in America.

From the presidential election down to city council, democratic elections in America produce a form of democracy that is socially toxic. In each contest, especially those for representation in government, there are almost always only two choices (one choice is far more common than more than two). A vote takes place and decides the winner. For those elections to select a representative, obviously those whose candidate wins are represented. What isn't so obvious and thus isn't considered, is that those who don't vote and those whose candidate they vote for doesn't win, are not represented in what is supposed to be a democracy, where each and every person can have a say.

The reality is that in a representative republic, as is America per its Constitution though not necessarily in practice, democracy exists in a form that is essentially mob rule. The harshest aspect of this reality though is the ease with which this form of democracy can turn into anything but democracy relative to how difficult it is to maintain anything close to democracy.

Having and maintaining democracy requires an informed voter. This requires a voter be well and properly educated including learning to reason objectively in order to make informed decisions. It also requires a voter that is morally mature(see Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development, the theory for which also acknowledges the need for a mature and informed voter).

When the media cannot be trusted to provide objective information which the voter can use to make decisions, the democratic process can easily be at the hands of those who control the narrative – the media, and those who control the media. And when the education of a society is such as to keep the people dependent upon the society for everything including their very identity, moral maturity becomes impossible.

Without the ability to understand the decisions they make, people cannot have democracy. Instead, they have the appearance of democracy and literally anything goes as a form of government in reality given the illusion of democracy hides complete dependence and that complete dependence allows for complete control. Thus, in this form of government and with people in the worst possible condition, the form of government in America ranges somewhere between a fascist dictatorship and mob rule with nothing good in between.

Consider how a voter feels if they are a Democrat living in eastern Washington; where the ballot was typically comprised of sometimes more than half of the offices uncontested, that is, only one candidate and always Republican. In every single election there is on a ballot in Eastern Washington, not a single Democrat has representation in their own governance, except if perhaps Congress or the Whitehouse are controlled by Democrats. And it is this incidental representation that is the biggest problem with American politics because it pushes things towards mob rule by encouraging completely artificial solidarity which is more like exclusion than inclusion.

Fortunately, this nature of American politics is not enshrined in the Constitution. Unfortunately however, the nature of the system is the result of the nature of humanity itself. America was supposed to be a noble experiment in the potential for human beings to govern themselves. What it has proven instead is the greatest opportunity to exploit human weakness by those humans who are by their own nature incapable of understanding the harm they cause to the species and thus themselves.

The lesson here though is not how to fix American politics. The lesson here is that it cannot be fixed. America was inevitable as it represents human ideal and the reality of failed potential; a dilemma afflicting the human experience: Human beings, at their potential, are ideally suited to true democracy where none rule over others. But there are some human beings who cannot see human potential and instead see only themselves. To these humans, failure to achieve potential provides opportunity for exploitation of dependency, not to mention the opportunity to convince others of dependency where it need not even exist.

America is a failed experiment representing the failure of human beings everywhere to achieve their potential. America's fall then is inevitable, as is the fall of all modern human society because they are all not based on human beings at their potential. Indeed, if there was such a society, it would truly be a model of human democracy.

What can you do with this information? You can't fix society, but you can understand what's wrong. This gives you the ability to decide how to deal with it, especially if your understanding allows you insight into how well you can do in society and perhaps even where to go and how to be as comfortable as you would like. It also gives you the ability to decide to rise above society and find a way to survive it's inevitable collapse. And of course you also have the choice to simply disbelieve and continue as you are; which most people would do.

Good luck whatever you decide.

The United States of America was founded as a union of independent states. This tradition held for over half a century before America became embroiled in an existential sociopolitical conflict over the morality of slavery.

At it's founding, America was a nation built on the notion that owning another human being was a right, and this is enshrined in the US Constitution, as in Article IV, Section II, the final paragraph which, prior to the 13th Amendment freeing slaves, read as such:

“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

So prior to the civil war, slavery was legal, and enshrined in the US Constitution.

However; as the country grew and cities began to grow and which were based on industrial labor rather than slave labor as supported traditional industries in the south, such as cotton and tobacco. As such, big cities and newer territories had little need for slavery.

The problem started when these big city dwellers set their sights on outlawing slavery, and at any cost. This was obviously a major issue in social and political circles, as non-slave states eventually began passing laws which violated the above article of the US Constitution and which deprived southern states of their rights under the US Constitution.

Slavery was going out of fashion, even in the south; but the efforts to end slavery which usurped the Constitution and in doing so factually harmed slave supporting states was the issue which led several states to, in a concerted effort, declare their independence from the United States of America, per America's founding documents which clearly justified the action of these states, which then banded together to form their own union of states, the Confederate States of America.

Perhaps the prevailing thought at the time was that slavery, the indenturing to servitude of another human being, and the recognition that blacks were in fact human beings, was a pressing issue that all of the world supported. Yes, that could be said to justify some of the actions taken by the union against the Confederate states.

The civil war was therefore an unjust war of aggression by people espousing the ideology of democracy as opposed to the representative republic which the US Constitution clearly established. The United States of America, on the heels of a national sentiment to end slavery, destroyed itself by violating its own founding documents to take back territory justly and rightfully ceded by states which were opposed not to the policies of the United States of America so much as by the methods and violations of their own policies in attempting to assert it's will upon the southern states.

If any of this sounds familiar, it's because the Civil War has never ended, and, in due time, the war will once again be fought, and this time around, the rightful side will win and America will become two nations, one which believes in “democracy,” the other which believes in the US Constitution.

But what does all this have to do with the Democratic party?

Everything, because their sentiment, their ideology, is no more than a continuation of the overbearing tactics deployed to destroy America before the Civil War, which means as long as Democrats have any power, America has none. Every time you vote for Democrats, you piss on the US Constitution.

The short answer is no. The long answer is it is a difficult question that requires mankind to face himself and his own evil.

The premise of the Civil War is said to have been slavery. But the issue was not slavery itself; this was not an issue in the minds of those who founded the United States of America. It was, at the time of America's founding, simply “normal” for there to be slavery.

The problem is, people changed and started to realize that slavery was wrong. But these people decided that instead of letting everyone come to change their minds that they would enforce their will upon them. Thus, using the concept of democracy, the people of the big cities who did not continue to rely upon slave labor – the growing middle class urbanites – attempted to inflict their will upon a minority of states.

Again, while slavery was the issue, the reason for the Civil War was simply an overreach of federal power by the US Government in attempting to inflict the will of the majority of states upon a minority of states. These states reacted by attempting to form their own union, separate from the United States of America.

No, that union was not founded on slavery. It was quite literally founded on the notion of freedom, in this case, the freedom to continue an institution the rest of the world also continued but which a class of people, city dwellers who didn't have to rely economically on a pool of cheap labor (because they WERE that pool of cheap labor) had decided to stop supporting.

And so, perhaps now you can understand why the American Civil War is not extensively taught in school (I never learned a thing about it in California nor in the two years I was in school in Oklahoma even.) It was not taught because it was not a just war, rather it was an event in the history of the United States of America that would have taught us today that yes, indeed, America is an authoritarian state, run by oligarchs and through mass-manipulation of people through ignorance and propaganda campaings.

Perhaps another civil war is coming. Perhaps this time, the right side will win.

By the way, look at the history of slavery in the south. It was already unpopular by the time the Civil War started. And propaganda was easier to spread back then – no internet. So people had to believe what they were told, and I have to imagine that newspapers did not tell the story about the Union trying to take away people's slaves, but rather that the Union was trying to inflict the will of the majority of states onto a minority of states at a time when the nature of the United STATES of America was far more clear than it is today.

I know which side I would be on. How about you?

For sailors, La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico, has traditionally been a gathering point for people coming to or leaving the Pacific cruising grounds. Itself the gateway to the Sea of Cortez and it's formerly glorious cruising opportunties, La Paz also became the gateway to and from Hawaii and the South Pacific islands.

Unfortunately, La Paz is no longer able to host sailors as it has grown far too corrupt and expensive for anyone but a very few to come here. And that's partly because of the people who are here. But that isn't the core of the problem with La Paz. As with every other problem in life, the answer can be found in pure and simple greed.

Long ago, a man came to La Paz with a dream of sailing the world with his family. Instead, he found financial opportunities here in La Paz, and eventually established La Paz as a sailing center, eventually encouraging an entire important sailing rally to make La Paz their final destination. But his greed caused him to build infrastructure for satisfying that greed, all the while still appearing to support the sailing community.

As exemplified by the fact that the club has forgone the annoying formality of an election this year, evaded not because of the coronavirus lockdowns as the voting is done by mail and most members aren't actually in La Paz, but for other, more nefarious reasons; namely the candidates for office and their intent to change how things are (including yours truly, candidate for Commodore), this man's efforts do not support sailing and sailors, but the ability of himself and his friends to make as much money as possible.

People coming to La Paz are wondering why slip fees at marinas in La Paz are on par with prices in San Diego, even in spite of the horrible conditions of these marinas and lack of reliable services. Their wonder can cease if they were to pay attention to the boats leaving the marinas for a few hours with tourists on them. These tours are unregulated, and are paid for by all boaters because the marinas in La Paz, unlike just about every other marina in the world, do not charge boarding fees for charters. These boats make tons of money on charters, but none of that goes to the marina except in the form of slip fees. And that means that marinas charge a lot of money so they can capitalize on the money being made on charters, which is wholly unregulated, untaxed, and insanely profitable, bringing in typically in the range of $1000 per hour AND UP!

But this isn't the worst of what's wrong with La Paz. The real problem is the nature of the man who brought sailing to La Paz, and who also founded API, Mexico's private corporation that also acts as the nation's sole port authority. That's right, an American founded Mexico's port authority. And given the level of corruption obvious in Mexico, any fool can know that this man, and now his son, wield immense influence over boating matters in La Paz and throughout all of Mexico.

The problem is, this man is one who believes that if you are not of the same faith, you are not worthy of his favor. And worse, this man will yield his power to destroy anyone who crosses his path, or the path of anyone who knows him well enough to garner such powerful favors.

Sadly then, La Paz is dead as a cruising location. Mazatlan is far better. I hear that instead of the $20 a foot they are charging here in La Paz, that it's only $0.40/foot. Sorry La Paz, we'll take our business elsewhere, somewhere where the people won't be so selfish.

Sorry, couldn't think of a better title.

I have been curious as to why these irrational and illogical events, rules, regulations, hints, suggestions, and mandates surrounding a mysterious coronavirus have persisted and across so many cultures.

I have in fact come to a startling conclusion: The Pandemic Plan, as the US version of this pre-planned action is called, was designed for one thing and one thing only: to give the world over solely to the elite.

The final datum that drove this conclusion is perhaps the most dramatic and revealing; if you consider a perspective other than the narrative we are being fed - that is, if you consider that the Pandemic Plan was in fact an engineered holocaust; this event makes perfect sense. Further, the response from officials is incredibly telling.

For example, from Boris Johnson, the prime minister of Great Britian, we have this little gem:

“nobody knew early on during this pandemic… that the virus was being passed asymptomatically from person to person.”

It's a coronavirus. ALL coronaviri spread asymptomaticaly and the safer assumption would have been to assume it did. This is preposterous and represents an obvious lie.

But what is most disturbing is the nature of this particular lie, because it was used to shore up the death toll, to fake a disease that was far more deadly than it really is: because this line was used by Johnson to justify the decision to place known-infected patients in with the most vulnerable, by placing known-positive and untested hospital patients in elderly care homes and failing to provide adequate measures to control the spread of the virus.

Multiple local and national governments enacted this exact same policy, and it was enacted early on, prior to lockdowns even. The net effect was to vastly prop up numbers of deaths from the virus.

The problem with this lie as with any lie is that time tells the truth and right now, we are seeing the truth about this virus: that it does not kill anyone who is not already dead or dying. We know this because we know that the average age of people dying is the same or higher than the average life expectancy for the particular location of the outbreak.

If the average age of those dying from COVID-19 is the same as or higher than the average life expectancy, it can only mean one thing: this virus is not dangerous. It does not shorten the life expectancy and therefore does not contribute to increased fatalities over anything else. Think about how the age can be higher than the life expectancy: it means that paying attention to this virus is saving people from what would have killed them otherwise: people's lives are being extended because they are receiving medical care for the virus, which can only happen if the virus isn't actually deadly. No, it doesn't mean that no one dies who has the virus. What it means is that it isn't actually the virus that kills. No one really dies from the virus, they just happen to die with it.

The reality is, COVID-19 is actually a comorbidity, not a cause of death. If not one single healthy person has died from the virus, as is the case, then the virus itself cannot possibly be deadly, even to a sick person. What the virus does then is to affect the immune system's ability to protect people from the diseases from which they are already suffering.

So, folks, the startling conclusion is that this virus doesn't actually kill anyone. Not one single person has died by the virus. All the fatalities listed, if they died because they had the virus, are from something other than the virus. The virus just pushed them over the edge is all.

A virus that can only kill with comorbidities is not a virus that can kill and therefore cannot be a direct cause of death.

So, if the virus doesn't kill; they why are we being told it does? Why are we being made to fear something that isn't even as bad as the flu or the common cold?

Events which have occurred during the lockdown are the best indicator of the real purpose of the lockdown; but I'm afraid most people will be unable to see this because of their lack of temporal perspective - their inability to see how events develop over time and what they can lead to (something the human brain is actually designed for and quite good at!). What has happened is a complete loss of social cohesion, an inability for people to protest (except as prescribed) in any meaningful way and related to a complete inability to communicate which provides for a convenient means to manipulate public opinion and even elections. So you have people isolated and lied to in order to manipulate the power structure. And you have expansion of that power structure: the central banks have been handing money - YOUR MONEY - over to the elites hand-over-fist for months now and the wealth gap has grown more in a few months than it did in decades previously. And what of this transfer of wealth? You have expanded and deepened poverty? To what end? War, of course. Because we also have bickering and fighting over economic and border territorial issues, and that can only lead to war. How convenient that the vast majority of the world's population are being driven into poverty, driving them to other means of survival, which makes joining the military all that much more appealing.

This Pandemic Plan is an engineered holocaust. And it has all the appearances of being engineered by the elite in order to simply eliminate all the "non-essential" people to their needs. That the world is overpopulated is obvious. Perhaps the elite have finally decided to do something about it. I know you and I have never sat down and dicsussed the population of the planet and what dangers it represents. But I also know the elite have, and do: Bilderberg; World Economic Forum, Davos, etc.

I have seen the Pandemic Plan. It is real. It exists. And they do not hide it. But they do hide it's intent. But, intent can always be teased out by following the events. And that the Pandemic Plan was enacted in response to a virus that is obviously not dangerous can only mean that the plan had nothing to do with protecting the global population from a dangerous virus. Given the nature of the elite, only one possible conclusion can be drawn:

The Pandemic Plan represents an engineered holocaust.

The only conspiracy that exists is the one to convince people that conspiracies exist in order to distract people with the idea of a conspiracy theory instead of paying attention to the cooperative efforts of greedy, self-interested, pathologically self-centered people who sometimes just happen to use the same means to achieve the same goal of self-enrichment.

What I write here are my observations and conclusions. Nothing more, nothing less.

The wealthy elite have a lot of money to spend. And they love to spend it. But something odd is happening: Wealthy people are buying Nazi memorabilia for outrageously inflated prices and donating it to Jewish organizations.

The rich didn't get that way by making poor financial decisions. Collecting has its benefits, and often those benefits are in fact financial. But buying something and giving it away is purely financial investment in virtue-signalling.

But what about buying artifacts for the express purpose of ensuring their destruction, at least in the sense of the market? Obviously, Jewish organizations which receive Nazi artifacts aren't going to sell them for financial gain. They are therefore in essence destroyed from the perspective of and therefore market of potential collectors.

This is buying history so it can be destroyed. Whether you agree with it or not, it is using money essentially exploited from you to erase history - much like you or people like you are being physically exploited by the Black Lives Matter organization in order to do it's bidding of erasing history.

I make this observation for one reason: to demonstrate the absurdity of the entire notion of wealth. Wealth, strictly defined, is the accumulated ability to create. The wealthiest a person can be is to be able to make things from thin air. In a society where the wealthiest you can be is to have as much money as can be, it should be obvious that what the society values more is the accumulation of a substitute for the actual ability to create.

I make this observation so that hopefully you can draw the same conclusion I have: that wealth has nothing to do with money and because society values a figment over reality; that society has no credibility in reality and therefore exists only as a concept.

Do be careful in drawing conclusions here as you may find that you yourself have no value in reality if you are one who has built yourself - or rather let yourself be built - wholly in concept rather than in reality.

I reason, therefore I exist in reality.

Imaginging you exist in concept only gives you no place in reality. If you are one who chooses what to believe, as most people do and therefore most likely you do whether you believe or will admit it or not; you exist only in concept. It's not too late to wake up to reality and manifest yourself as something more than just a concept.

You betcha!

This article started out as a question of being able to sustainably use fossil fuels in light of the impact of conversion to non-fossil fuel energy would have if the world decided to simply dump fossil fuels one day.

All those people working in fossil fuels don't have to be out of jobs. In fact, there could be a lot more people working in the industry and on those oil fields if mankind decided to use fossil fuels intelligently.

What is wrong with fossil fuels is the pollution created in their use. We extract oil from below the surface of the planet, and that's it. We pull it out, modify it, change it, burn it, convert it to something else, and leave it out of the ground – most of which goes into our atmosphere as the fossil fuels are merely oxidized (burned.)

But an intelligent way to use fossil fuels is certainly possible.

What do we use fossil fuels for? Plastics, and fuel. Mostly fuel. Plastics are a side effect of having to do something with the heavy components which cannot be easily oxidized. So we mostly use oil for it's energy.

So why do we need to extract oil? Why not simply extract the energy and leave everything else underground? That seems like quite an intelligent thing to do.

The concept is simple: make power plants that utilize fossil fuels and locate the power plants at the oil fields, at the source. So, instead of transporting all that oil and fuel around the world and the dangers it entails; why not run power lines instead of pipelines and send absolutely pure, clean, “green” energy from the sources of oil to the people who need it's energy?

But here's the clincher: There are a lot of oil wells, with a lot of oil in them, far more than we could ever use the energy from today. But instead of using that “free” energy to fuel our society and it's wanton destruction of our planet even further, why don't we take advantage of the opportunity and actually use fossil fuels to gather up the pollutants created by our past fossil fuel use, and put those pollutants back in the ground along with the waste products now created by this proposed sustainable use of fossil fuels.

Why not?

Because there is no motivation to fix the problems society has created, because society is run by greedy rich people who don't care about the planet, the future, or you.

Maybe we should have someone else in charge for a change?

In short, Yes.

Trump is a deal maker. Trump is also a gambler; something people forget when considering his business empire which includes his casino. And, as I believe his tax records will demonstrate, he is the head of a kingdom - his own - which he destroyed financially.

These are, to me, indicators of a man willing to do what it takes the get the deal done. And in his case, his being president is the deal.

So, we must ask ourselves, would Trump's chances of being perceived of as popular enough to win the election motivate him to pull the US out of NATO?

What I am asking myself is, under what circumstances would Trump do this. And I believe he would do so at the last minute - before October (so it cannot be called an "October surprise"), and that he would ultimately change his mind, or if he were able to do so soon enough (next week?) that he might pull off getting NATO members to pay up as he's been demanding.

My observation, one I am certain is shared by many, is that Trump cares about one thing: Trump. Consider that when pondering whether or not the man in the Whitehouse might not do something "crazy" like pull the US out of NATO and risk destroying a long tradition of using Russia as a bogeyman to create fear in the voters.

There is another question I am asking myself, as a poker player: what will Trump do if his bluff is called?