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.