I'm turning to this because I guess I feel unheard. --or whatever emotions are associated with that.
I perceive myself as a good, benevolent person. I think this mostly because I have no ill motivations, and genuinely have progressive/good-future-making motivations. I don't usually get jealous, I want people to succeed, even if it means they are better than I am. I am also willing to help people succeed as long as they just ask me for help--provided that I can help them.
I think I'm peace motivated--but I focus on long-term peace rather than short term concessions. I want to resolve conflicts with lasting resolutions rather than short-term appeasements. I'm open to anything. Everything is subject to negotiation, everything has a price-tag and if you can figure out what I don't even know about how much I value something or why I value something, you can have it.
So it bugs me whenever people make accusations about me that are negative. They might be true, but they aren't what I perceive, and that makes it difficult to face. I come around eventually--I would come around quickly if I could only see it, but I can't always see it, even when I want to see it.
The way these accusations are presented helps--obviously there are more gentle ways of saying things--but not always. What helps me is being specific. Obviously, I don't want to be these negative things, and telling me that when I do X it causes Y, which is not something I want to be, can put it into perspective for me.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Sunday, September 18, 2016
Exploitation System
I've read up briefly on the problem with the current US dollar system and it was described in a unique way:
In other words, by the FED "printing out money" they are allowing the fulfillment of national debt obligations, but only by forcing everyday citizens to need twice as much for their locally inflated prices.
In a very weird way, the federal reserve's method of printing money is more like renegotiating national debts in light of inflation. It is as if I went to my creditor and said, "look, I've paid you X amount of dollars, I owe Y amount of dollars, but could you reconsider my X as valued higher simply because you have greater purchasing power with that X now than you did back a few years ago?
On a more macro level, I think countries are stupidly agreeing to this kind of negotiation and still accepting international bonds because in an equally bizarre way, their currency goes up when the $USD inflates--again, they agree to this simply because their purchasing power goes up because of it.
All of this happens on a massively large scale with no accountability for the micro level (surprise surprise, just like everything else in our human existence from overuse of pesticides, polluting the ocean through dumping of waste, killing off the bison, etc)
But, pause for a second because credit needs to be given where credit is due (no pun intended): what this kind of "renegotiation" really does is create a buffer for $USD expenditures and purchases. Put another way, it postpones international inflation from affecting US markets. (postpones, but does not eliminate). In other words, if I conduct international business and I trade $USD for $MXN (Mexican Pesos), I can buy a whole lot more goods for my money, then when the market has blips and bumps in Mexico or China or Japan or Europe, it doesn't hit the U.S. until businesses have had sufficient time to react.
If the USD drops in value to a critical level and the FED "prints more money," (a complicated process that only partly has anything to do with printing and more to do with lending and giving away money), these countries that have split investment in the USD, (Whether because the government has purchased bonds or commodities or international businesses it's the same) benefit by being able to pick and choose which currency is worth more--they can establish new long-term contracts in light of a declining dollar and/or force exchange to their currency, plus they get their USD that were owed when they negotiated the bond.
But this doesn't help the average american. Large international businesses like Walmart, and Apple are going to pocket their profit and not trickle it down to their customers. Oil companies like BP and Shell will raise prices saying that it costs them more to produce the oil, and then make a killing off of the exchanges.
This in turn affects your average american who does not have access to international business--sure, people believe in the lie that they will get their retirement money which is based on investments in international and national businesses, but it is a lie because they don't have control over it. They put all of their money at risk and yet do not control that risk themselves--a broker business or hedgefund manager controls the risk and scoops up the cream of the profits and they give the minimal that they can get away with giving you and when the risks become too high and there are issues and you lose your money in a great recession/depression/whatever, they just blame it on the market and go on their merry way because they already made a killing off of you.
This whole system is exploitation at it's greatest, and everyone turns a blind eye to what they are doing by saying "well, my little exploitation here isn't going to affect the whole system because I;m only a small part of the system" yet EVERYONE is doing it. Everyone is exploiting everyone else.
Brokers make millions of dollars a day on money they don't actually own. Banks make millions of dollars a day on money they don't actually possess. The FED gives away money to big banks on a whim chance that it will improve things. Congress keeps borrowing money that they will never be accountable to pay back (Their terms aren't long enough, first of all, second of all, they rely on the FED to ensure that it gets paid back--and it does!) Businesses exploit their workers by not offering them fair wages. Businesses exploit the government by lobbying for laws to be passed that benefit them at the expense of the american public (healthcare laws I'm looking at you).
The whole human race is disgusting!
If there is some intelligent life out there capable of reading this and doing something about it, please liberate me from what mankind is doing.
It seems our entire species is founded on the exploitation of everything else.
...Consider that there may indeed be "cycles" of or changes in the supply and demand for Pine Boards -- when some new territory is opened to cutting, the supply of boards may increase -- or when a building boom occurs, the demand for pine boards may increase.
But should we allow the "National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)" to change the definition of a "FOOT" so that we can have the illusion of more "board feet" of pine being available when supplies decrease?
I mean that way, if the "official" length of a foot was cut in half, then lumber mills could still supply the same amount of "board feet" from half the number of trees. But beware -- when you specify lumber for building a house or garage, you will need to then ask for 16ft long boards for the walls (and not 2x4's but rather 4x8's) -- because otherwise you will end up with a really short building!...
In other words, by the FED "printing out money" they are allowing the fulfillment of national debt obligations, but only by forcing everyday citizens to need twice as much for their locally inflated prices.
In a very weird way, the federal reserve's method of printing money is more like renegotiating national debts in light of inflation. It is as if I went to my creditor and said, "look, I've paid you X amount of dollars, I owe Y amount of dollars, but could you reconsider my X as valued higher simply because you have greater purchasing power with that X now than you did back a few years ago?
On a more macro level, I think countries are stupidly agreeing to this kind of negotiation and still accepting international bonds because in an equally bizarre way, their currency goes up when the $USD inflates--again, they agree to this simply because their purchasing power goes up because of it.
All of this happens on a massively large scale with no accountability for the micro level (surprise surprise, just like everything else in our human existence from overuse of pesticides, polluting the ocean through dumping of waste, killing off the bison, etc)
But, pause for a second because credit needs to be given where credit is due (no pun intended): what this kind of "renegotiation" really does is create a buffer for $USD expenditures and purchases. Put another way, it postpones international inflation from affecting US markets. (postpones, but does not eliminate). In other words, if I conduct international business and I trade $USD for $MXN (Mexican Pesos), I can buy a whole lot more goods for my money, then when the market has blips and bumps in Mexico or China or Japan or Europe, it doesn't hit the U.S. until businesses have had sufficient time to react.
If the USD drops in value to a critical level and the FED "prints more money," (a complicated process that only partly has anything to do with printing and more to do with lending and giving away money), these countries that have split investment in the USD, (Whether because the government has purchased bonds or commodities or international businesses it's the same) benefit by being able to pick and choose which currency is worth more--they can establish new long-term contracts in light of a declining dollar and/or force exchange to their currency, plus they get their USD that were owed when they negotiated the bond.
But this doesn't help the average american. Large international businesses like Walmart, and Apple are going to pocket their profit and not trickle it down to their customers. Oil companies like BP and Shell will raise prices saying that it costs them more to produce the oil, and then make a killing off of the exchanges.
This in turn affects your average american who does not have access to international business--sure, people believe in the lie that they will get their retirement money which is based on investments in international and national businesses, but it is a lie because they don't have control over it. They put all of their money at risk and yet do not control that risk themselves--a broker business or hedgefund manager controls the risk and scoops up the cream of the profits and they give the minimal that they can get away with giving you and when the risks become too high and there are issues and you lose your money in a great recession/depression/whatever, they just blame it on the market and go on their merry way because they already made a killing off of you.
This whole system is exploitation at it's greatest, and everyone turns a blind eye to what they are doing by saying "well, my little exploitation here isn't going to affect the whole system because I;m only a small part of the system" yet EVERYONE is doing it. Everyone is exploiting everyone else.
Brokers make millions of dollars a day on money they don't actually own. Banks make millions of dollars a day on money they don't actually possess. The FED gives away money to big banks on a whim chance that it will improve things. Congress keeps borrowing money that they will never be accountable to pay back (Their terms aren't long enough, first of all, second of all, they rely on the FED to ensure that it gets paid back--and it does!) Businesses exploit their workers by not offering them fair wages. Businesses exploit the government by lobbying for laws to be passed that benefit them at the expense of the american public (healthcare laws I'm looking at you).
The whole human race is disgusting!
If there is some intelligent life out there capable of reading this and doing something about it, please liberate me from what mankind is doing.
It seems our entire species is founded on the exploitation of everything else.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
A battle was lost today
How shall I put this?
I don't want to reveal too much too soon, but I suppose I will release a tiny part of a secret and leave my fans guessing about what's going on inside my brain.
I've found a way--provided I am able to accumulate enough money up front--to live on less than $5k per year, which I intend to make by online work. This is all part of a larger, master plan called operation Self 100.
Self 100, I suppose, isn't a classified secret, but like a specific religion would put it, it is "sacred" to me, so I'm not going to talk much about it in depth. (that's a joke, btw).
Self 100 is 100% self sufficiency--to create more than 100% of what is consumed. It applies to: food, water, clothing, electricity, rent/lease/taxes/mortgage, etc. It's a full lifestyle that relies entirely on renewable systems, bartering, and concise planning.--think of it as living the way colonists did, except without the rampant exploitation of resources [colonies could only last until the resources were depleted and then require imports, Self100 can last until the person doing it gives up/dies, but someone else could take over at that point].
The sad truth is that governments get in the way of self-100 because they expect you to produce and pay taxes--even if you don't benefit from those tax things. Thoreau tried to combat this but failed with multiple lawsuits, so rather than evade it all together, I intend to make just imports to pay the export tributes off.
As the title suggests, however, a battle was lost today, and I'm not talking about a legal battle or a physical battle, but rather a mental battle. Part of preparing for Self100 is conducting feasibility scenarios to explore the full scope of Self100. Self100 isn't supposed to be limiting in any way--it's supposed to allow you to have whatever you want provided that you find a way to incorporate it into the whole system and make it "renewable." For instance, you could do self100 on a rental system where you rent a home or lease a business or any number of things that ultimately bring you an income, which means you could do self100 in a city, you could self100 your business you could self100 a lot of things, but I've found that smaller, privately owned is the cheapest route and easiest to fly under the radar.
The moment that you get big enough to be noticed, other people are going to want a slice of the pie and your exports go up which require you to bring in more inputs and often times that means doing things you don't want to do just to pay off the exports. --That's the complete opposite of what self100 means. It means you don't have to do anything you don't want to do because your entire system is self sustaining.
The scenario I played out was somewhat depressing though. There is something that I want to incorporate into my long-term plan and when I looked into the costs, I found out the following scenarios:
Option A - $0 - $1,200 With the assistance of the government (something I would consider a MAJOR input and I don't know if I want to do that or not)
Option B - $5000 - 12,000 The typical method. No benefits no drawbacks but there are certain usual risks that might be better avoided.
Option C - $26,000+ An alternative that eliminates the risks of option B but provides others. The wait-time is as long as 24 months before some level of stability is achieved, but there are a lot of forms to fill out and monitoring.
Option C became invalid when I saw the price tag, and option B is a lot of money for someone who only does online work and doesn't want to get strapped with debt.
I guess the biggest thing to understand is that: Controlling the means of production gives you freedom. That's all I want to do with self-100 is create a system where I control the means of production and don't have to do anything I don't want to do and that will truly last forever.--That's how I intend to rule the world.==No exploitation.
I don't want to reveal too much too soon, but I suppose I will release a tiny part of a secret and leave my fans guessing about what's going on inside my brain.
I've found a way--provided I am able to accumulate enough money up front--to live on less than $5k per year, which I intend to make by online work. This is all part of a larger, master plan called operation Self 100.
Self 100, I suppose, isn't a classified secret, but like a specific religion would put it, it is "sacred" to me, so I'm not going to talk much about it in depth. (that's a joke, btw).
Self 100 is 100% self sufficiency--to create more than 100% of what is consumed. It applies to: food, water, clothing, electricity, rent/lease/taxes/mortgage, etc. It's a full lifestyle that relies entirely on renewable systems, bartering, and concise planning.--think of it as living the way colonists did, except without the rampant exploitation of resources [colonies could only last until the resources were depleted and then require imports, Self100 can last until the person doing it gives up/dies, but someone else could take over at that point].
The sad truth is that governments get in the way of self-100 because they expect you to produce and pay taxes--even if you don't benefit from those tax things. Thoreau tried to combat this but failed with multiple lawsuits, so rather than evade it all together, I intend to make just imports to pay the export tributes off.
As the title suggests, however, a battle was lost today, and I'm not talking about a legal battle or a physical battle, but rather a mental battle. Part of preparing for Self100 is conducting feasibility scenarios to explore the full scope of Self100. Self100 isn't supposed to be limiting in any way--it's supposed to allow you to have whatever you want provided that you find a way to incorporate it into the whole system and make it "renewable." For instance, you could do self100 on a rental system where you rent a home or lease a business or any number of things that ultimately bring you an income, which means you could do self100 in a city, you could self100 your business you could self100 a lot of things, but I've found that smaller, privately owned is the cheapest route and easiest to fly under the radar.
The moment that you get big enough to be noticed, other people are going to want a slice of the pie and your exports go up which require you to bring in more inputs and often times that means doing things you don't want to do just to pay off the exports. --That's the complete opposite of what self100 means. It means you don't have to do anything you don't want to do because your entire system is self sustaining.
The scenario I played out was somewhat depressing though. There is something that I want to incorporate into my long-term plan and when I looked into the costs, I found out the following scenarios:
Option A - $0 - $1,200 With the assistance of the government (something I would consider a MAJOR input and I don't know if I want to do that or not)
Option B - $5000 - 12,000 The typical method. No benefits no drawbacks but there are certain usual risks that might be better avoided.
Option C - $26,000+ An alternative that eliminates the risks of option B but provides others. The wait-time is as long as 24 months before some level of stability is achieved, but there are a lot of forms to fill out and monitoring.
Option C became invalid when I saw the price tag, and option B is a lot of money for someone who only does online work and doesn't want to get strapped with debt.
I guess the biggest thing to understand is that: Controlling the means of production gives you freedom. That's all I want to do with self-100 is create a system where I control the means of production and don't have to do anything I don't want to do and that will truly last forever.--That's how I intend to rule the world.==No exploitation.
Friday, September 9, 2016
Free Food before Free Medicare
I can't remember if I wrote an article on this or not, but I'm going to now, tell me if you've heard this before.
I'm so completely pro free food for everyone, and here's why.
Important Definitions:
"Free food" --not processed food, a better term would be free produce allotments. Fruit, Vegetables, Milk and Grains (not flour, just grains).
"consumption" --I don't mean $ amounts per say, but some sort of veggie credit system that doesn't equate to dollars. Something like 279lbs of fruit per year, or 146lbs of grain, or 428 lbs of vegetables per person.
"Paid for by the government" -- The tax money should be given to the food distributors who sold it to the end user and traced back to valid transactions with food producers/aggregates. Therefore, if they buy 500 corn at $.1/head from farmer dan last month and 1000 corn at $.2/head from farmer jill, they sell 1200 to this food program and can apply 1k to the 1000 they bought from jill and 200 to that they bought from dan. --the difference they make could cover their distribution expenses and they could still sell the other produce at normal price for profit.
"revolving monthly system" -- The alotment doesn't carry over to the next month, you either use it or lose it.
I think people should be given free produce allotments based on a national average for the previous year of consumption.
Even if it was 50% of annual consumption, and it was given to EVERYONE, I think that would be perfectly fine, not affect the economy negatively, not discriminate, and not encourage people to stop working and would probably resolve the American hunger dilemma and improve national health.
Do away with food stamps.
It would work on a revolving monthly system, so they couldn't carry it over.
Why I think it would work
They couldn't spend this money on fast food or other goods.
They couldn't spend it on boxed/processed foods.
They could not easily trade it, because everyone they could trade with easily, already has it.
Produce eventually goes old so they can't horde it.
Starving children can use it.
It would encourage people to eat healthier.
The money goes back through the economy chain, meaning more farmers have an incentive to produce food providing jobs. The distributor gets a job as well.
This isn't a huge impact on the economy--we would be taking a product that litterally everyone uses and give it to them for free--unlike health insurance which is the right but not the obligation to collect on a claim under specific circumstances that will likely never happen. Produce is consumed daily by everyone unless they only eat out.
People who don't normally go to the grocer would do so and might find other things to buy with the money they saved by buying produce.
I'm so completely pro free food for everyone, and here's why.
Important Definitions:
"Free food" --not processed food, a better term would be free produce allotments. Fruit, Vegetables, Milk and Grains (not flour, just grains).
"consumption" --I don't mean $ amounts per say, but some sort of veggie credit system that doesn't equate to dollars. Something like 279lbs of fruit per year, or 146lbs of grain, or 428 lbs of vegetables per person.
"Paid for by the government" -- The tax money should be given to the food distributors who sold it to the end user and traced back to valid transactions with food producers/aggregates. Therefore, if they buy 500 corn at $.1/head from farmer dan last month and 1000 corn at $.2/head from farmer jill, they sell 1200 to this food program and can apply 1k to the 1000 they bought from jill and 200 to that they bought from dan. --the difference they make could cover their distribution expenses and they could still sell the other produce at normal price for profit.
"revolving monthly system" -- The alotment doesn't carry over to the next month, you either use it or lose it.
I think people should be given free produce allotments based on a national average for the previous year of consumption.
Even if it was 50% of annual consumption, and it was given to EVERYONE, I think that would be perfectly fine, not affect the economy negatively, not discriminate, and not encourage people to stop working and would probably resolve the American hunger dilemma and improve national health.
Do away with food stamps.
It would work on a revolving monthly system, so they couldn't carry it over.
Why I think it would work
They couldn't spend this money on fast food or other goods.
They couldn't spend it on boxed/processed foods.
They could not easily trade it, because everyone they could trade with easily, already has it.
Produce eventually goes old so they can't horde it.
Starving children can use it.
It would encourage people to eat healthier.
The money goes back through the economy chain, meaning more farmers have an incentive to produce food providing jobs. The distributor gets a job as well.
This isn't a huge impact on the economy--we would be taking a product that litterally everyone uses and give it to them for free--unlike health insurance which is the right but not the obligation to collect on a claim under specific circumstances that will likely never happen. Produce is consumed daily by everyone unless they only eat out.
People who don't normally go to the grocer would do so and might find other things to buy with the money they saved by buying produce.
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
What Humanity Gave Up
I think I know how to explain this now!
I call it, "What Humanity Gave Up." And the point of this thing is that humanity gave it up but did not need to give it up. When people talk about greed being the root of all evil or money being at the root of all evil, this is really what they are talking about. So let me explain this to you and then I'll conclude and hopefully it all still makes sense:
Originally, mankind possessed the land, they grew crops, hunted, built homes and lived pretty simply.
Then, factions formed--or perhaps in the process of discovery, they formed--either way it doesn't matter, factions formed. People started to get greedy and envious and other people hit on hard times and they all did the same thing: they attacked those people who were outside of their faction.
Again, their motivations were: They wanted more than they had. --Everyone could fall into that category, whether because they had 0, nothing, and wanted enough to meet their needs, or because they wanted more so that they could live the life of luxury--they merely wanted more. Then, they used force to get what they wanted: more.
To protect themselves, these farmers and hunters had to develop weapons and defenses. Some people had to devote more of their time training than farming in order to be at sufficient skill to protect those who were farming and hunting and building.
In boiled down terms: because someone wanted to fight, someone else had to defend. Attackers and defenders were formed, and some did both: attack and defend.
But those defenders, the original humans, the ones who truly had a grasp on what it meant to be human--they gave up the life of farming and hunting and building and existing, just because someone else forced them to--some other human who was greedy and out of line and rogue and evil.
Conclusion:
The thing that humanity gave up was freedom. True freedom.
We could have been an idealistic society where everyone is given a parcel of land and told: make do with what you have. And some people who were given worse land than others could have just accepted their fate and struggled through life and died, possibly a short life.
This type of society could still buy and sell, it could be capitalistic so long as there was no force--only free will to give and take according to their own conscious.
But, the reason that this society is idealistic is because at some point, someone gets greedy, someone says "my capitalism is superior" and they make deals that are unfavorable and "forceful" in many regards (blackmail, for example, or deceptive, pressure tactics, etc).
We gave up true freedom a long time ago when we decided to protect ourselves from others who would steal from us.
These days, American society is tipping towards an even stranger philosophy. The belief was instilled early on in the founding of the US goverment that people were obligated to take care of the poor--specifically that they were obligated to EDUCATE those who can't afford education so that everyone would be given an equal ability to vote. Previous to that point, to receive an education, you had to work for it, you had to save and then pay for your education. Today, we have politicians seriously promoting free college education--paid for by the wealthy, just as it was in the past. And let's be honest, the arument does not need to be stretched much to fall in life with the original intent of the founding fathers: to make sure peopel were smart enough that they could make an educated vote--even with a high school education they can't make an educated vote, so what difference would a cheap college education make?
This argument for public schooling extended to today where we offer free assistance to the poor via food stamps, housing vouchers, baby formula, etc etc--because if they aren't in good health, how could they focus enough mental capacity to make an educated vote?
We can argue many different ways that socialism is merely the act of taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots for no other reason than to give the have-nots a better chance at living. This, in theory, could be a good system, but it relies heavily on force: Big brother takes from those who have and forces it to be handed out to the have nots.
Both Capitalism (deceitfully robbing the poor by "capitalizing" on limited resources) and Socialism (forcing those with means to give to those without means) are doomed systems.
The reason they are doomed systems is because of greed and more importantly FORCE.
Wherever there is force, there is no freedom. If you do things out of force, you do not have freedom.
If you pay taxes of any kind because you are threatened with jail time or confiscation--then you are being forced and it is no different than when the bad guys came to the farmers and demanded food from them. This is force. If you are drafted against your will--this is force.
Half of humanity gave up freedom when it forced the other half of humanity. Until we can find a remedy for this, there will be no freedom.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
I have a warped sense of Friendship
This article was prompted by a conversation I had with Courtney, but I'm going to stray from using the traditional dialectic format.
I was attempting to tell her how difficult it is to have fans and stalkers and how my personality is the type that wants to be nice to everyone and have no enemies. I told her that I have tried two methods to deter these people from bothering me: 1) Telling them off in some form; 2) ignoring them. I think both responses fall under Competition/Aggression vs Avoidance, but I don't need to take this article in that direction.
At one point in our conversation, I made a realization about all of these people. A few of them actually:
First, I realized that I have an agenda with each of them, and that agenda is that I want to be friends with them.
Second--and this is where it gets complicated--I think they all want to assimilate me.
I think they want me to share an emotional bond with them as strong as the emotional attachment that they have with me. And somehow, (if you've read my other articles) that we'll experience the exact same things and be completely on the same page and unified. They want me to be on the same level that they are and when they are giving, they want me to be giving, then when they are passionate, they want me to be passionate, or playful or angry. They want me to be so firmly connected to them that I'm a continuation of them as a person, and that's no good. It's not good for me. It's unrealistic.
This theory explains a lot... my previous ex's were attached to me because I really was emotionally tight in that way with them, but then they fell apart when I strayed because I am my own person.
Every date I've been on in the last two years has gone the same way: if I wasn't emotionally mimicking them, they wouldn't be interested, but if I matched their emotions and parroted back to them, they would want to come back for more. All of my "fans" or stalkers or whatever you want to call them seem to be holding out for hope that one day I'll suddenly become just like them and emotionally connect to them and never let them go, but to me that's a little nauseating.
I like people for being themselves and being respectful of me. I like to connect emotionally with people, but I don't expect it and don't hold out for it, and don't pine for it. I want to share experiences with people, but I want them to form their own opinions and emotions of those experiences-- let me repeat: I do not want them to mimic my emotional responses to experiences that we share. I want them to form their own emotions and opinions. --I don't know what I have said in the past; it's been a while since I re-read what I have written, but connecting on that level is not the raison d'etre.
The raison d'etre for any relationship is to share the same moment of time, both feel positive emotions regarding it, and then both communicate about what they are feeling.
It is watching a moonrise together and person A sharing a story about how their father used to take them star gazing and how it felt so peaceful and safe, and person B sharing their emotions about how they are so glad to be around person A and how they make them happy.
--Notice: Both people shared different things in this hyp-examp. One was emotionally nostalgic, building neural pathways between the association of person B and their father. Person B was feeling emotionally grateful, happy and content that person A was in their life.
I would love to be EITHER A or B.
That's where I think I have a warped sense of friendship.
I don't care about WHAT emotions are expressed as long as they are positive.
I also don't care what the experience is, so long as it can be talked about positively and communicated positively.
Those seem to be the ideal ingredients: positive emotions, and communication. Though, the communication is more of a catalyst. The positive emotions are necessary for sure, but sometimes you don't need to communicate to trigger the reaction.
At least... this is what I've found anyway.
I was attempting to tell her how difficult it is to have fans and stalkers and how my personality is the type that wants to be nice to everyone and have no enemies. I told her that I have tried two methods to deter these people from bothering me: 1) Telling them off in some form; 2) ignoring them. I think both responses fall under Competition/Aggression vs Avoidance, but I don't need to take this article in that direction.
At one point in our conversation, I made a realization about all of these people. A few of them actually:
First, I realized that I have an agenda with each of them, and that agenda is that I want to be friends with them.
Second--and this is where it gets complicated--I think they all want to assimilate me.
I think they want me to share an emotional bond with them as strong as the emotional attachment that they have with me. And somehow, (if you've read my other articles) that we'll experience the exact same things and be completely on the same page and unified. They want me to be on the same level that they are and when they are giving, they want me to be giving, then when they are passionate, they want me to be passionate, or playful or angry. They want me to be so firmly connected to them that I'm a continuation of them as a person, and that's no good. It's not good for me. It's unrealistic.
This theory explains a lot... my previous ex's were attached to me because I really was emotionally tight in that way with them, but then they fell apart when I strayed because I am my own person.
Every date I've been on in the last two years has gone the same way: if I wasn't emotionally mimicking them, they wouldn't be interested, but if I matched their emotions and parroted back to them, they would want to come back for more. All of my "fans" or stalkers or whatever you want to call them seem to be holding out for hope that one day I'll suddenly become just like them and emotionally connect to them and never let them go, but to me that's a little nauseating.
I like people for being themselves and being respectful of me. I like to connect emotionally with people, but I don't expect it and don't hold out for it, and don't pine for it. I want to share experiences with people, but I want them to form their own opinions and emotions of those experiences-- let me repeat: I do not want them to mimic my emotional responses to experiences that we share. I want them to form their own emotions and opinions. --I don't know what I have said in the past; it's been a while since I re-read what I have written, but connecting on that level is not the raison d'etre.
The raison d'etre for any relationship is to share the same moment of time, both feel positive emotions regarding it, and then both communicate about what they are feeling.
It is watching a moonrise together and person A sharing a story about how their father used to take them star gazing and how it felt so peaceful and safe, and person B sharing their emotions about how they are so glad to be around person A and how they make them happy.
--Notice: Both people shared different things in this hyp-examp. One was emotionally nostalgic, building neural pathways between the association of person B and their father. Person B was feeling emotionally grateful, happy and content that person A was in their life.
I would love to be EITHER A or B.
That's where I think I have a warped sense of friendship.
I don't care about WHAT emotions are expressed as long as they are positive.
I also don't care what the experience is, so long as it can be talked about positively and communicated positively.
Those seem to be the ideal ingredients: positive emotions, and communication. Though, the communication is more of a catalyst. The positive emotions are necessary for sure, but sometimes you don't need to communicate to trigger the reaction.
At least... this is what I've found anyway.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Follow-up to where has all the money gone?
There were 2 points I wanted to make in the original article--just before I got sidetracked about confirming my original argument about needing $12.40 to be sufficiently independent and on your own.
The first point I wanted to make was that somehow people survive by being sub-average. My original article was based around averages and medians. But sadly, people aren't average, and they are resourceful when their life is at stake. They find ways to cut corners, they make "sacrifices"--or rather, they make decisions about what their priorities are and they pay those bills first. They jump on opportunities that come their way and they manipulate people into giving them those opportunities.
Many people get ahead by pairing off with others. They pay lesser rent because they're splitting it between 3 or 4 roommates. They eat dinner with mommy and daddy so that they don't have to pay for meals. They get discounts on everything and big ticket items they get grandpa and grandma to buy for them.
On the surface, these people look as though they are independent and on their own, but they aren't completely independent--their lifestyle hinges on someone else. They wouldn't be able to afford their nice car if they didnt' live at home. They wouldn't be able to afford to live in a nice neighborhood if their parents weren't paying some of their rent. They wouldn't be able to go on vacations if someone didn't give it to them as a gift. Discounts, deals, and charity are what hold these people together.
Second point.
Way way way too many people spend their money on drugs and marijuana. They come up with pet names for the hobby and justify it in their mind like: I need this because it helps my anxiety and I don't have to pay for expensive pills instead. Or, I wouldn't be able to make it through the week if I didn't know there was something to look forward to on the weekend.
At the end of it all, they don't get too far ahead in life because they're busy living in the here and now--and not even a real here and now but instead a fantasy they dreamed up in their head while they were doing rec. drugs. I have never known anyone who lives on their own and smokes marijuana, maybe my network isn't big enough, but they always rely on someone else to pay part of the rent so that they can spend their money on weed.
In some, people are so full of shit.
They may, in many ways, appear to have their life together, yet they aren't quite there. The reason is, that to get there, they have to choose that lifestyle. They have to choose to work 40+ hours per week and drain themselves completely to be paid more than 15/hr. At that point, they are so tired or stressed out and they are barely getting by they just veg in front of a TV screen or computer or theater. They don't have the energy to do anything with their life.
This is how the world works these days, unfortunately. You have to make a decision in life to choose the lifestyle you want to live and say to hell with the money. The only people making a lot of money are hustling others and getting rich off the backs of people who slave away for them.
You pick a lifestyle, you live it, whether that means drugs or making money, or living privately on your own, or travelling, and you devote all of your resources to that thing. You sacrifice for that thing. You suck up to people. You may lose your own self respect or you may be put in uncomfortable situations with other people or otherwise, but it is the life you choose and you have to take a lot of 'bad' along with it.
The first point I wanted to make was that somehow people survive by being sub-average. My original article was based around averages and medians. But sadly, people aren't average, and they are resourceful when their life is at stake. They find ways to cut corners, they make "sacrifices"--or rather, they make decisions about what their priorities are and they pay those bills first. They jump on opportunities that come their way and they manipulate people into giving them those opportunities.
Many people get ahead by pairing off with others. They pay lesser rent because they're splitting it between 3 or 4 roommates. They eat dinner with mommy and daddy so that they don't have to pay for meals. They get discounts on everything and big ticket items they get grandpa and grandma to buy for them.
On the surface, these people look as though they are independent and on their own, but they aren't completely independent--their lifestyle hinges on someone else. They wouldn't be able to afford their nice car if they didnt' live at home. They wouldn't be able to afford to live in a nice neighborhood if their parents weren't paying some of their rent. They wouldn't be able to go on vacations if someone didn't give it to them as a gift. Discounts, deals, and charity are what hold these people together.
Second point.
Way way way too many people spend their money on drugs and marijuana. They come up with pet names for the hobby and justify it in their mind like: I need this because it helps my anxiety and I don't have to pay for expensive pills instead. Or, I wouldn't be able to make it through the week if I didn't know there was something to look forward to on the weekend.
At the end of it all, they don't get too far ahead in life because they're busy living in the here and now--and not even a real here and now but instead a fantasy they dreamed up in their head while they were doing rec. drugs. I have never known anyone who lives on their own and smokes marijuana, maybe my network isn't big enough, but they always rely on someone else to pay part of the rent so that they can spend their money on weed.
In some, people are so full of shit.
They may, in many ways, appear to have their life together, yet they aren't quite there. The reason is, that to get there, they have to choose that lifestyle. They have to choose to work 40+ hours per week and drain themselves completely to be paid more than 15/hr. At that point, they are so tired or stressed out and they are barely getting by they just veg in front of a TV screen or computer or theater. They don't have the energy to do anything with their life.
This is how the world works these days, unfortunately. You have to make a decision in life to choose the lifestyle you want to live and say to hell with the money. The only people making a lot of money are hustling others and getting rich off the backs of people who slave away for them.
You pick a lifestyle, you live it, whether that means drugs or making money, or living privately on your own, or travelling, and you devote all of your resources to that thing. You sacrifice for that thing. You suck up to people. You may lose your own self respect or you may be put in uncomfortable situations with other people or otherwise, but it is the life you choose and you have to take a lot of 'bad' along with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)