Happy Autumnal Equinox

Look to the spiritual guidance of Buddha and shun seasonal affective disorder

Porn should be banned

Ban it in all forms. A person taking a nude photograph of themselves should be charged with possession, and distribution if they sext.

Even if it's dirty talk. Lewd words are pornography, and therefore all romance books should be banned. Disagree? Well, anything you would hide from a young person counts, and therefore should be banned. 50 Shades of Grey, Game of Thrones, or any movie with a sex scene. Any sex not between a couple is by its nature gratuitous.

Now, you may argue within the context of two persons dating some of this should be allowed. But why? People are allowed to date as many people as they like and break-up at will. It would be easy to claim, "I, Jane Onlyfans, am in a relationship with any and all willing participants, please send donos 💖," thus, creating a slippery slope. Unless dating like marriage becomes state-sanctioned, it can lead to pornographic-like behavior and therefore it is a moral. hazard.

Sex should be allowed, but well-regulated. If others can hear you, you have not only created pornographic content but distributed it without consent; it is also harassment. Any garment of a sexual nature or that could reasonably come undone should fall under the purview of federal obscenity laws.

If you're caught consuming anything of this sort, it's only reasonable you should be at least fined. If you cannot pay your fines or repeatedly offend, the only clear solution is that you are led from your dwelling in handcuffs, under the threat of violence if you resist. If you are found guilty you should be sent to prison where you be subject to involuntary servitude as allowed by the 13th amendment.

Half-Baked Hot Takes™

The true propellant of climate change in this "hottest summer on record" is Uber Eats and other ride programs.

The physically lazy receive all the criticism, but are part of a triad including the intellectually lazy and emotionally lazy. Don't speak unless you've mastered all three.

The overlooked duty of police isn't direct effectiveness rather the threat of arrest or inconvenience. Without this ready possibility, why not crime.

Homelessness isn't impossible to solve just because there's no money in it. Anyone can claim homelessness by walking out their front door, exponentially increasing demand. People in power likely realize it's a "moral hazard" if you let someone plot a small shed without taxes, others won't want to pay either. It's closely tied the the failure of mental health services. All these are short sighted, though. A just-comfortable-enough studio would provide a baseline stability people need. The tax is likely a wash versus the negative effects of having people on the streets.

As someone said, the trans hysteria is the "Satanic panic" of our time. Failed hysteria in political ads in Michigan proved this. What's more scary? Just ordinary men. If people don't view transwomen as women, certainly they instinctively find "effeminate men" less threatening.

The adrenochrome trade is real 100% confirmed

Adrenochrome is fun to joke about and to consider but it occurred to me it's 100% real even in its exaggerated, non-scientific street form.

Let's do a rational run-down:

An adrenochrome ampoule

Is organ harvesting real? Yes.
Do cannibals exist? Yes. Armie Hammer can attest to this.
Do people consume everything? Yes.

People consume every odd concoction on earth under the belief it is a miracle cure for sexual stamina, erectile dysfunction, beauty, youth, or cures for illness. People believe rhino horns provide erections and animal suffering makes food taste better.

Now, keep in mind, there only needs to be one regular adrenochrome paying user on planet earth for the adrenochrome trade to be real. Even if it was a myth and didn't exist before, certainly by now there's someone insane enough to believe it.

Are the rich willing to buy anything? Yes.
Are some of the poor willing to do anything for money? Yes.

Listen to the way people talk about placenta and stemcells. If we're already willing to accept people are okay with murder for an icy new set of lungs from an organ harvester, seems like a complete waste to throw out perfectly good adrenochome. Even as a non-cannibal with no interest in adrenochome, food waste is a great sin. So if someone were to say to you, "Hey man, I'm out of the blackmarket trade and I'm throwing these away, do you want them?" You take that six-pack of freshly harvested adrenaline glands—as you're currently boycotting Bud Light—and become the life of the block party.

I love a good villain

I love a good villain. They can and do and should exist. The only problem we face is there are not enough of them. Disagree? Because for all their faults, villains break the facade. Villains poke at the myth that humans are "innately good," which is merely a mistaken assumption for the reality that cooperation with others aids self-preservation. A common complaint with writing is that villains are almost always more interesting. The problem is good and purity are simple. Meanwhile, villains have horrendous self-justifications and traits but with it, they have a few good points. There's entire online communities dedicated to the idea that Thanos did nothing wrong. We're familiar with the yin and yang. Most know the second most popular book after The Bible.

Technology: more dangerous then, or now

I despise Stephen Pinker's simplistic, forward-looking, forced optimism he maintains to sell books. Yes, because of technology, things are people more safe and predictable on a day-to-day basis. Because of cameras and the easy travel of information, it's harder to get away with things. Serial killers like so many other things are all but retired thanks to advances in technology. The cult leader is an endangered species because now you can double check their claims of a space-gate created by aliens. Jim Jones killed over 900 people convincing them to drink cyanide-poisoned Flavor Aid. It's reasonable to assume this type of crime would be difficult to pull off in the era of cellphones and lightning quick media dissemination. It's easy to draw a conclusion that the world is made safer by this proliferation of technology. This may not be the case.

Imagine this as a thought experiment. I will use two examples to please both sides of the unhinged political isles. Antivaxxers: imagine a media personality shilling minimally-tested vaccine use to the masses to cause harm and/or for personal gain. Provaxxers: imagine a media personality advocating against vaccine use to the masses to cause harm and/or for personal gain. Now keep in mind even the most sound science is contested and repeated proof is integral to the process. New science by its nature will be hotly contested and more so if its in light of a global health crisis where time is paramount. Also keep in mind in the U.S. as example trust in government institutions has been around 20% for a long time (Pew Research), this is not the domain of a fringe political party, it represents the vast majority. In this environment, what is the equation for how much damage one media personality can cause? I imagine it's not quantifiable. But if thousands can be willingly convinced to poison themselves with detergent as happened with the "Tide Pod challenge," I believe a motivated person with a platform of millions and a good enough narrative could outdo the mere 900 deaths of Jonestown by multiples.

Speech: more dangerous consolidated, or free

Free speech I believe is the most important thing to secure but I also understand the trepidation against it, and the hysterical headlines associated with it. Sure, people kill people, and guns more efficiently, but the propaganda of say, "stopping the spread of Communism" is what sold the ideological motivation to do it at a mass scale. The proliferation of the internet is free speech incarnate. If you were born into the ruling class and powers that be, free speech should terrify you. Why wouldn't it, it means upheavals, it means any injustice that created your comfort may be exposed, and the more well-off you are, the more you're under the microscope of the down-trodden and dispossessed. Also, because of you're privilege, it's harder to see their point of view, or how you too could benefit from a more balanced society. Think of it this way: would you rather be the richest man in a war-torn country with no running water, or an average man in an apartment with WiFi. Kim Jung-un may run his own country, but I imagine most people from western countries wouldn't trade into his poor infrastructure, isolationist position if they are even moderately wealthy.

The internet provided a balancing and reshuffling of power. More accurately, though, it came in conjunction with the cellphone, its pictures and videos, and the ease of data distribution. You can mark the beginning in 2007-8 with the release of the first iPhone and social media platform Facebook inching closer to critical mass. In November 2006 comedian Michael Richards went on a racist tirade that was recorded on a low-quality cellphone video, sparking likely the first instance of "cancel culture" as we know it today. With this technology rose content creators and their own personal brands each with their armies of fans. The strength of the internet, by some, can be seen as a weakness. With podcasts, blogs, and streamers, everyone has access. Even the nastiest personalities have a contingency to make profit via crypto. This dynamic causes discomfort and contention between different factions in the largest social platform ever created, where people argue how to police and vie for power while promoting themselves in what could aptly be called an information war.

Alex Jones

Alex Jones once famously and astutely described himself with, "I'm kinda retarded." It's notable because "retarded" itself as a word is on dividing line between what's proper and poor taste. Alex Jones himself seems to be the battleground between appreciation for free thought and ironic veneration versus censorship and fear for speech to cause real world harm. What makes Alex Jones compelling is not that he's crazy, the mentally ill screaming in a padded cell won't sustain a crowd, it's that he's precisely half-crazy. When you're half-crazy you have the unpredictability that makes you indefinitely compelling. Here you have a figure who has undoubtedly caused harm in the world that's quantifiable and by his own admission. The related matter is how much importance we place on individual human agency. Perhaps Alex through naming names triggered the pre-disposed to harass families of Sandy Hook, but it does not seem intentional and does seemed informed by his own mental illness. The fevered fight over words makes itself apparent in the lawsuits. If there was criminal negligence on an aircraft a payout per death would max at $500,000 on the high-end. The successful suit against Jones for causing distress reached a verdict of about one billion dollars, indicating to anyone of sane mind a failure of justice.

Ye

Alex didn't shy away from controversy even as his trials remain on-going, he hosted Ye. The new mainstream liberal thought is there are no benevolent billionaires, and billionaires shouldn't exist. If this is true, they should love Ye. He rejected billionaire status, after all. I recognize him as a villain but can't help but admire him. He did what we all preach and espouse which is to shun money and material possessions in the name of integrity and personal beliefs, it just so happens many of his are reprehensible. He's a racist, a tragic figure, refreshingly honest. He trolled with intentionally inflammatory language suggesting his love for Hitler and the Nazis, under the guise of "loving everyone." Clearly, he's attention-seeking, amusing himself, and to some degree believes anti-Semitic tropes. But his sin at the end of the day is merely speaking his mind which contains incredibly ignorant insights. The ownership of any hateful act he inspires, though, lies within that individual. Chris Brown beat a beloved black artist and can still tour America, I doubt Ye the same. Many with domestic violence charges rebound. George Floyd was exalted of horrendous crimes upon his death. Many people beat, kill, steal, or sexually assault, and receive more empathy than a man who's merely a wrong and outspoken bigot.

Fuentes

During Ye's downward spiral he kept in close touch with other undesirables. One was Nick Fuentes, a hispanic white supremacist and self-professed incel who is canceled by banks, on a no-fly list, and hosts a popular show from his parent's basement. I find his unhinged, petty hatreds compelling to listen to in small doses. Reviewer Roger Ebert once said, “The Birth of a Nation is not a bad film because it argues for evil. It is a great film that argues for evil.” There is an equal elegance for a bad cause here. Nick is young, bright, charismatic and attuned to irony, making a lot of his reprehensible beliefs memefied and digestible to his audience. He reminds me of a young David Duke, the hate coursing through his ice-cold veins not yet crystalized and deforming his face into something demonic and unrecognizable. It will likely get there. Why free speech is important is that bubbles like these will form unchallenged and hence grow in strength and numbers to zero defense or counterargument. There's also a cynicism in throwing these people aside, as total cancellation suggestions that those wrong cannot change. When I see Nick I see a projection of isolation, an island made by his own intelligence, too stunted by alienation or insecurity or sexual hangups. He reeks of someone who sought acceptance and mentorship, was met with rejection, and tripled down into an even more hateful mess for validation and attention.

Roger Stone, Stefan Molyneux, Martin Skhreli, and the rest

Who could not love Roger Stone, the deranged drug-using bisexual, with Richard Nixon tattooed on his back, seething, shouting and grinding to teeth to nubs during the videos of his deposition? Or Molyneux, whose hate and insistence on IQ and genetics undermines the fact both his parents were institutionalized. Who could not admire Milo Yiannopoulos's feeble attempts to rage-bait himself back into relevance, or the way his legitimate intelligence tries to fight a worldview at odds with his sexuality. Who could not like Steve Bannon (#BanosDidNothingWrong) as he fights for the Little Man with his background in Harvard Business School and Goldman Sachs, using Bill Clinton's rape victims to undermine his wife's presidential aspirations, or trying to arbitrage digital assets in World of Warcraft. Who could not be charmed by the self-persecution and the unconscious self-parody of Andrew Tate. Who is not a fan of Martin Shkreli's attempt to make blatant the fraud that is generally par-the-course for American business.

The age of the villain

Villains are important, and not only because they are an inevitable bi-product of free society. A smart citizen will understand "the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance." It's a heavy cost, but preferable to the cost of a life suffering from a total lack of spontaneity and surprise that a focus on safety and surveillance would entail—an ever-encroaching movement where every aspect of life is tabulated, categorized, and rendered inert. The distinguishing element in my chosen villains, is they exhibit a form of honesty about their villainy, if not forthright then by the brazenness and transparency of their behavior. Villains exist no less predictably than predators in wilderness. Unlike those predators, they operate camouflaged and cloaked from discovery, in a trend that's slowly changing with the increased access of information. Not only is this preferable from a diagnostic perspective, the world is more interesting when it shows its cards.

The bet heuristic

Oftentimes when I'm struggling to determine personal belief about something I use a simple heuristic. It goes as follows: imagine the question or decision in the context of the bet. What are you betting? The entirety of your savings, skill, and material possessions. Your 401k, savings, your house and method of transport. You also lose the ability to readily and easily regain them, so you lose your skill. If you're a woodworker or pianist, you lose your hands. If you're a singer, you lose your voice. If you're a writer, your creative drive. You lose any ability for a bailout. Then, when you've accurately put yourself in this headspace, consider the initial question again.

The use of this heuristic is it cuts through self-deception and self-denial. Many deny the moon landing, claim the earth is flat, or believe that Hillary Clinton eats children. I imagine most would change swiftly with this level of skin in the game, and perhaps even only with it as a perspective. Though it can be used for serious decision making, the absurd examples are more fun to talk about.

I used this when considering the alien/Area 51 story of Bob Lazar. "Is Bob telling the truth?" Much of his story, personality, and demeanor lean toward credibility. He is intelligent. His rationale and reasons are well-constructed. It also helps if its an idea interesting, compelling, or personally fulfilling enough that I desire it to be true. When looked at it through the lens of the bet heuristic, the fuzzy, positive points get subdued and a more objective point of view emerges from the contrast. He has equally big issues against credibility, between sketchy college references, convenient migraines and running a whore house.

As compelling as his story is, I'd put money on Bob being a pathological liar. It's still an educated guess, but the heuristic helps me to my actual belief.

An analysis of There Will Be Blood (2007)

There Will Be Blood is a largely tonal film, made great by its beautiful cinematography, soundtrack, performances, set design, direction, and creative use of lenses. It evokes the feel of a 1950s frontier film in look and style but done expertly with modern technology. There's also a lot of metaphorical elements and symbolism in the film (e.g. marking the baby's forehead with oil) like is common with all the great writer-directors.

Somehow, P. T. Anderson beautifully photographs near-impossible scenes. In a way the whole movie is a metaphor for a man making it alone. It begins with the protagonist alone in a black hole maybe 50 foot deep, in struggle and in toil, with nothing but tools and a few explosives. He gets the gold. Only in scenes a few years later does he have a few more men, paid workers and believers in his vision, as he experiments and invents in ways to secure oil.

He continues, with an orphaned boy and a fake backstory to continue his career as an oil man. He has finally made himself a success and is a man of considerable talent. His con helps him succeed at the cost of isolating him. There's not too much violence for a film titled There Will Be Blood, making you question its title. Perhaps it's meant as ironic. There's no blood-ties. There's no familiar familial comfort in Daniel's life. His son isn't his. When Henry asks about his son's mother, he doesn't want to talk. He can't bear to lie more, especially to his brother. He doesn't enjoy or desire to explain himself in any capacity.

Of course, his brother isn't blood, either. Daniel has no connection to family. From not wanting to share any of his motivations, he finally opens up with Henry about wanting to own the nice house in the neighborhood, to have it, live in it, clean it, even raise children in it. This is the first time in seemingly his adult life Daniel has been honest with someone about his desires and moments later, he sees through Henry's deception. Henry says he knew a man who claimed to be Daniel's brother who died of tuberculous and used his story, there's a potential subtext where Henry may have killed him. When confronted Henry claims to be his friend and he's correct. The bond of them both being cons, similar in intent and manner, binds them more strongly than blood could. Daniel kills what is essentially his shameful shadow.

Daniel also has a lot in common with Eli, the false prophet. Daniel uses a child to sell a vision, Eli uses a church. They both manipulate. Daniel is better and can bully Eli. In turn, the rich, established oilmen try to psyche Daniel out into selling his property. You can see Daniel's insecurity as the self-made man from simpler means, as he grandstands before them upon succeeding without them. The oilmen see Daniel as he sees Eli, unworthy of their company, let alone as equal business partners.

Unlike The Master this story is more or less straight forward. Daniel Plainview might just be pathological pride, drive, greed and insecurity taken to its natural conclusion. He's chosen a life of success even over moral values, which blocks out the possibility of any love he may desire. Throughout the film there are cracks in his highly-driven, hellbent exterior where what's left of his humanity breaks through, often in his affinity for children.

If I were to speculate on why Plainview despises people, the first hint would be the irony of his last name. We see him make his own way, alone. Nothing was given to him, so why would he give any person a benefit of doubt. He sees simple people with disdain because they lack his intelligence, they lack a capacity for evil or to even see it as such. Daniel's dog-eat-dog mentality brings him riches, but he's not intelligent enough to see it brings him misery and a lack of closeness with those he loves. In the end all he has left are material possessions and pride. Were Daniel to admit the truth of his cons to himself the cost would be to see his life as empty, but also endear himself to others and to an extent gain sympathy.

The only time Daniel is forced to confront himself is during the baptism scene with Eli. Though Daniel views the church as a fraud, the humiliation he experiences here is the closest he ever is to human. So deep is his aversion to shame, when he enacts revenge toward the end of the film he can punctuate his life with pride by proclaiming, "I'm finished!"