Every now and then a scenario is brought to my attention that really gets my gears cranking, mostly hypothetical ones, you understand. This one was pretty fun.

Delusion: purpose?

Suppose someone says “You know, it seems to me that it would just be easier to pick something to believe and go with it. I mean, what’s with all the questioning and evaluating? Really, what’s the point?

Read more…

Every now and again, people around me start acting crazy, stupid, or both, and I feel it is my duty to step in and speak out against this nonsense.  Now, keep in mind, while I do not have any particular abundance of knowledge regarding the specific details of this situation, I am quite astute at recognizing patterns, and, therefore, consider myself something of an authority on this matter.

Read more…

In order to speak of libertarianism one must first attempt to define the terms of greatest importance to the libertarian perspective. The first of these terms is liberty. One way of defining liberty is the “freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control” (Dictionary.com). Liberty is exemplified when the individual is in a state of independence so that he may make his own decisions about how his life will be lived. Liberty is threatened when an individual, group of individuals, or governing body tries to enforce control over another individual, group of individuals, or governing body. Liberty is an uncompromising position. There are no “what ifs” or “buts” when it comes to liberty. Either something helps to support liberty that already exists and creates a greater context where liberty can grow, or it inhibits liberty and works to exert greater control and a decreased freedom of choice and action.

Another way of defining liberty is “the absence of coercion of a human being by any other human being; it is a condition where the person may do whatever he desires, according to his wisdom and conscience” (Harper 3). It must be made clear that this definition leaves room for varying degrees and views of morality. Liberty in and of itself is neither “good” nor “bad”. Rather, it allows the individual to decide what is “good” or “bad,” and to make errors in judgment and behavior that they may learn from. Attempts to legislate morality in regards to an individual’s conduct tend to subvert individual liberty. Wherever there is liberty there must also be personal responsibility. If an individual were to value their own liberty they must hold themselves to a particular standard where she not only promotes liberty for herself, but for others as well. As Mary Ruwart has expressed, “Liberty requires respect for the personal choices that others make. In trying to control others, we will eventually find ourselves controlled” (Ruwart 1). One does not have to agree with another’s decisions or how he would live his life. However, at least a basic respect for their right to do as he chooses must be observed. If one individual or governing body were to create a rule which limits another individual’s behavior it only becomes a matter of time before a rule will be made which limits the law maker’s own behavior.

A third way of looking at liberty brings us back to Bastiat’s original question posed above. If we’re looking at liberty in terms of oversight, a libertarian tends to believe “that individuals and society can work out their own problems in the absence of top-down management” (Rockwell 1). It is not any other individual’s or governing body’s responsibility to tell another how to live, think, work, or play. In fact, liberty encourages the individual to have freedom of thought, word, and deed. The idea of liberty is by definition, nonrestrictive in regards to directing an individual’s code of conduct. In fact, libertarians tend to come from a diverse array of lifestyles. In order to further define what it is to be a libertarian one must also consider the other pillars that hold it up.

While the idea of liberty on its own may seem too broad to be pragmatic in today’s troubling and complex social climate, one must understand that libertarianism is not a strict platform of behavioral standards or a code of ethics. Instead, it is a basic framework of principles that all support and build on one another in the striving for maximum liberty. While libertarians may debate specific questions of morality and matters of public policy, the non-aggression axiom is paramount to libertarian ideals and helps to further define what it is to be a libertarian. Walter Block’s assertion that “we’re all libertarians if we agree on the non-aggression axiom and property rights” is an accurate one (Block 5:58). Someone who professes to be a libertarian yet finds exceptions in the non-aggression axiom is undermining the philosophic system as a whole.

Examples of the non-aggression axiom have appeared as early as ancient Greece. The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus is credited with expressing that “The justice of nature is a pledge of reciprocal usefulness, neither to harm one another nor be harmed” (Morgan 423). This is the most basic pledge of the non-aggression axiom. Basically, a libertarian may not initiate the use of force or coercion against another. The only justification for a libertarian to engage in the use of force against another individual or property is in cases where one is acting in defense of aggression. Only in the defensive context may one individual encroach upon another. Unfortunately, this interpretation has taken a life of its own in this age of terrorism.

Some self-described libertarians have tried to argue that we live in different times and the idea of preemptive strikes laid out by the Bush Doctrine are compatible with libertarianism and the non-aggression axiom. This assertion is nothing more than a distortion of what the non-aggression axiom states. Not only is this axiom meant to govern the acts of the individual, but it also extends all the way to the state. Generally speaking, the foundational concepts of libertarianism apply to all of life’s contexts regardless of how large or small they happen to be. Acts of aggression against other nations are just as unacceptable as acts of aggression against the individual. Allowing preemptive acts of aggression is akin to allowing one group to impose restrictions on liberty to another group. Allowing for this exception would only go to undermine the foundations of the entire philosophy. Just as there are no “what ifs or “buts” in regards to liberty, there are none for the non-aggression axiom.

To further define the conditions that liberty and the non-aggression axiom set up, one must also consider the idea of absolute property rights. As Butler Shaffer says, “individual liberty and the private ownership of property are synonymous” (Shaffer 1). Under libertarianism, the ability to own private property is stressed to guide the exchange of goods and services, and as a further clarification in regards to what is protected under the non-aggression axiom. In a manner of speaking, one’s property is an extension of the self. Furthermore, each individual not only owns the extensions of the self but she also owns her person. By viewing herself as her own property and her property as a part of her self, it allows for the non-aggression axiom to be much clearer in regards to what can and cannot be aggressed upon. Each individual has the right to utilize what he or she owns in any way of their choosing as long as it does not violate the non-aggression axiom.

If the concept of self-ownership were rejected, the implication would be that another person has a higher claim on an individual’s life than the individual himself would have. An individual who is the property of another, and not owned by the self, is by definition a slave. Libertarians reject this notion that human beings are born and exist as slaves. The product of one’s life and liberty becomes his or her property. Exerting time, energy, and talents towards a goal which produces wealth of some kind entitles an individual to hold that production as their property. Property is the fruit of one’s labor, so-to-speak. By disallowing the ownership of property is to subject individuals to a life which also in turn equates to a life of slavery. If individuals each possess property, exchange of said property is an eventuality.

The free exchange of property, or commerce, is an offspring of property rights and is governed under the principles laid out above. Therefore, the non-aggression axiom will govern how people engage in trade with one another. This allows an individual to hold his own property and do with it as he wishes, free from coercion. If an individual feels she is being unfairly treated in dealing with another, she may choose not to engage in business with that person. It is this idea of voluntary interaction and exchange which is the key to understanding the libertarian philosophy. Under libertarianism, the belief is that voluntary society is morally and practically the best form of society. In such a system of living, individuals become personally responsible for their own actions and their dealings, and with whom they themselves deal with.

This idea of individual responsibility acts as the glue which holds liberty, non-aggression, and private property together. Without a sense of individual responsibility, no benevolent system will ever come to fruition and exist for very long. If an individual refuses to be responsible and uphold the non-aggression axiom and allows for exceptions to creep into his or her day to day behavior, other individuals will eventually defend against the aggression which in turn will threaten each individual’s liberty. If care is not taken to be responsible in dealing’s of private property, the chances of the same dire result of the loss of property, liberty, and increased aggression becomes more of a reality. These dangers are not only apparent on a personal level, but also in a societal context.

In order to explore real fundamental change in our society, the libertarian philosophy becomes a convenient and effective filter of examination. A society structured under libertarian principles would function much differently than our current society does today. An adjustment of ideas and priorities must take place in order for it to be understood, to take hold, and to succeed. Libertarianism cannot be viewed in the same light as the dominating political philosophies that exist in contemporary American society. During each national election, for example, the voting public makes a decision in regards to which group of people to involuntarily plunder and who to redistribute that which has been plundered. This is done through the mechanism of taxation. Rather than having a debate about whether or not individuals would prefer to retain property and do with it however one would see fit, the debate is framed in such a way that doesn’t even raise this basic concept of the libertarian philosophy.

Individuals do not have the right to use coercion to fix social problems, so the state should not have that right either. If a man were to take the property of a woman and give it to a third individual, we would consider this theft. When the state engages in the same basic activity it is framed as taxation and redistribution or subsidization. If it is wrong to steal, then it should also be wrong to tax. If it is wrong to kidnap, then a government should not be allowed to institute a draft or other mandated compulsory service to the state. That which is illegal in private society should also be illegal in public matters. Instead, individuals are lead to believe that all of these actions are done in the common good of man.

Unfortunately, many programs and systems in place that function under this image do just the opposite. Public institutions tend to be far more inefficient than their private counter parts. People who believe in the libertarian philosophy feel that economic incentives in the free-market should act as the carrot which drives innovation and harbors solutions. Government interventions in the markets are viewed as an act of force or coercion in the dealings of private citizens, which not only distorts market prices but also slowly erodes basic liberty. One may argue that the act of voting will make these actions that of the people themselves. The libertarian would argue that it does not matter who or what the source of such actions happens to be. Increasing the number of people who agree to take property from one individual or group and give it to another does not justify the action or change whether it is right or wrong.

Rather than exercising the right to vote in the voting booth, the libertarian philosophy proposes that individuals take responsibility to stay informed and vote with his actions and dollars. In a true free-market system, each and every time someone engages in commerce, he or she is casting a vote. If the integrity of the person, the product, or service being offered is in question, it is then the responsibility of the individual to cast a vote by disengaging from further business with the entity that is in doubt. If government sponsored coercion in the form of taxation, subsidies, and other meddling in the market place were to cease, the market itself would be determined by man. In an artificially stimulated environment, not only do markets become distorted, but individual responsibility and morality become subverted as well.

In a society that has systems designed to subsidize industry, legislate morality, and exert control over the liberty of man, libertarians believe that many of the incentives and ingrained rugged individualism that is part of the American tradition have been overthrown. If there is no risk of failure, then there is no real incentive to take care of and improve said systems. Rather than taking care of one self, family, and community, individuals rely on the state to take care of basic needs. This leads to an inefficient mode of living, and allows systems and ideas that have long lost their use and value to live on; prohibiting expansion, growth, and progress. Only under the ideas presented in the libertarian philosophy can we begin to adjust our ideas and the systems that spring up around them in such a way that truly benefits the common good, and respects the individual’s right to engage voluntarily in the activities of his or her choosing.

In America’s history, a 1% tax by the British on tea was enough to spark a revolution. Today, we see state sponsored looting on a scale far greater than 1% on a single product. If some time was taken to have an honest and healthy debate about the functions of state in society, and the individual’s role in the absence of a statist entity, ideas could easily begin to shift and adjust toward greater liberty. Through liberty and the non-aggression axiom, individuals could find themselves in command of greater resources and increased peace of mind knowing that each individual were their own house’s keeper. Accepting the weight of responsibility that comes with such a free philosophy would be nil in comparison to the demands placed by the state, the increased poverty, and lack of liberty which comes along with it. Maybe it is finally time to respond to Frederic Bastiat’s question, and take the steps necessary to advance the cause of liberty. Perhaps it is time for another revolution, a revolution of ideas.

Bibliography

Bastiat, Frederic. The Law. Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007.

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden and Civil Disobedience. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003.

Morgan, Michael L. Classics of Moral and Political Theory. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 2006.

Harper, F.A.. “Liberty Defined.” Ludwig von Mises Institute. 09 September 1957. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 17 December 2008. <http://mises.org/resources/2677>

Ruwart, Mary. “The Indivisibility of Liberty.” LewRockwell.com. 23 April 2008. LewRockwell.com. 17 December 2008. <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/ruwart3.html>

Rockwell, Jr., Llewellyn H.. “Liberty Yet Lives” LewRockwell.com. 04 November 2004. LewRockwell.com. 17 December 2008. <http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/liberty-lives.html>

Shaffer, Butler. “Are There Limits to Liberty?” LewRockwell.com 25 June 2002. LewRockwell.com 17 December 2008. <http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer22.html>

Rockwell, Jr., Llewellyn H. “The Lew Rockwell Show” Lew Rockwell interviews Naomi Wolf. 30 October 2008. The Lew Rockwell Show. 10 December 2008. <http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/feed.xml>

Block, Walter. “Rothbard and Big Tent Libertarianism.” Walter Block – Rothbard and Big Tent Libertarianism. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 13 October 2007. 11 December 2008. <http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/25thNYC/11-Block.mp3>

Thornton, Mark. “An Introduction to Libertarianism.” Mark Thornton – An Introduction to Libertarianism. Auburn University Libertarians, 18 January 2005. 09 December 2008.

<http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Thornton-01-19-2006.mp3>

“Liberty.” Dictionary.com. 2008.

Thankfully, Cynthia Mckinney was more receptive to answering the moderator’s questions than she usually is in interviews.  One example of her usual and more difficult style would be when Greta Brawner interviewed her for an hour for CSPAN’s series entitled, Road to the White House.  She displays an Palin-esque quality of avoiding any direct question and talking about whatever she feels.  This becomes annoying at best – angering at worst.  Coming from someone who generally supports her and agrees with much of what she says, I can only imagine what it must have been like to hear her reapetedly ignore the questions posed by NPR’s Neal Conan on Talk of the Nation for someone unfamiliar with her.  NPR’s Scott Simon of Weekend Edition can also be credited with giving her some airplay in one of Cynthia’s better, albeit brief, showings.

Bob Barr is polling at a modest 1.5% nationally and has also benefited by being featured on Road to the White House.  I feel he had a far better showing on both Washington Journal and Road to the White House due to actually presenting some sort of concise message.  Not only that, but he succeeded in the simple task of answering questions posed to him.  What a radical move.  Especially considering the hosts of CSPAN and NPR tend to be far more fair in comparison to most moderators.  NPR’s News & Notes also gave him a few minutes to detail his campaign goals alongside Weekend Edition’s profile of the candidate.

Unfortunately for Barr and Mckinney, neither of them appeared in the only Third Party Debate after the one at Columbia was canceled.  Complete with caller responses immediately following the event, Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin were the only two to take part.  This is a really pathetic result for something I personally deem to be quite important.  I was personally influenced by the Libertarian platform presented by Michael Badnarik in the 2004 election as a result of CSPAN airing the Third Party Debate.  Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin were both also featured on NPR’s Weekend Edition.

After viewing and listening to the minimal coverage the Third Party Candidates receive, I honestly have to say I’ve been the most impressed with Chuck Baldwin’s performances.  He comes off as the most honest of all the candidates and presents the most compelling message.  He is the most outspoken against real issues such as the Federal Reserve, the New World Order, gun rights, and other Constitutional principles.  This is not an endorsement, however.  Unfortunately, I disagree with him in regards to some other elements of his platform.

At the end of the day I am still an undecided voter.  All I know is that I reject the two corporate puppets that most media outlets present to us as the only options.  Its sad that many people believe them.

I had a really good idea..

Wrapped in a shell that is my own consciousness, an idea formed, giving a certain spark of life to something new. A concept, or envisioned thing, if you will, springs forth from the impenetrable fortress that is my brain.

Read more…

Joseph Biden has stated that “we’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis” and that he can “guarantee you it’s going to happen.”  He continued to state that “it’s not going to be apparent that we’re right” in regards to how an Obama/Biden administration would handle such a situation.  Here – take a listen for yourself:

He isn’t the only one that feels this way.  When questioned about Biden’s statements, Fmr. Secretary of State Madeline Albright felt that “its just a statement of fact, frankly.”  Sen. Joe Lieberman appeared on Face the Nation on 06.29.2008 and echoed Biden’s sentiments by saying that “our enemies will test the new president early.” He also went on to tell Bob Schiffer to “remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton Administration.  9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush Administration.”  I’d like to personally thank Joe the Politician #2 for narrowing the timeline for when the next terrorist attack or crisis will strike America and the world.  It will happen with in the 1st year of the next President’s term.

However, that is not close enough.  I think I’d like to narrow it down a bit more.  Lets see what Fmr. Secretary of State Colin Powell had to say while appearing on Meet the Press on 10.19.2008:

In case you missed it, Colin Powell stated that “there is going to be a crisis [to] come along on the 21st or 22nd of January that we don’t even know about right now.”  Oh, really?  What an interesting thing to say.  However, don’t worry!  The United States Military is already in place and engaged in homeland tours – for your protection of course.  Who needs a 2nd amendment and Posse Comitatus when you have the US Army on American soil to protect you?  Oh, wait.

I’d like to relate a story about someone named Luke.

When I went to attend class on Monday, only to find out that the first two of my three classes were cancelled, I found myself sitting outside near the large chess board located near the center of campus. Imagine this thing measuring around fifteen feet on one side, the plastic pieces standing about knee-high. There are always casual players about and at least several spectators engrossed in watching. I’ve taken quite a liking to designating this spot for sitting.

I arrived at school about 30 minutes early, as is typical for me, and headed for that very spot, noticing a game in progress as I approached (also typical). Sitting down, it occurred to me that there was something quite different about this particular game of chess. Not different in that the pieces were upside-down or spray-painted green or anything like that, but still, there was something usual about the present game. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it.

Read more…

Issues such as stolen elections and election reform, fixing the debate structure, ballot access, and even the New World Order were discussed.  Unfortunately due to low coverage, the side drama of Bob Barr and Dr. Paul’s rejection to support McCain, most of these key issues have fallen by the wayside when discussing the press conference.  Personally, I feel this is unfortunate.  The gesture being made and the message being transmitted yesterday is far too important to allow to be swept under the rug.  Bob Barr’s decision to walk out of the press conference without warning shows me that he apparently could not put his ego and personal ambitions aside for one day to take part of something larger than himself.  The Libertarian Party is framing this as “leadership.”

Some, including members of the Libertarian Party, have come down on Ron Paul for his decision to hold this press conference and blame him for “endorsing” other candidates who don’t share his complete views on all issues.  I don’t view it this way.  Ron Paul did not endorse any candidate in particular.  Instead, he attempted to take a step back, freeing up his followers to vote their own conscience with the advice that it should be anyone besides the two front runners.  He can do this because they all agree upon the most basic and pressing issues that need to be discussed and changed before we debate the nuances of far less pertinent issues.  Honestly, I’d say that’s mighty libertarian of him.

I generally consider myself a Libertarian in philosophy when it comes to national governmental structure, but no longer really associate myself with the party.  Numerous factors have amounted to this feeling, the latest with Bob Barr and people in his campaigns being the icing on the cake.  In Andrew Kevins‘ blog today on the Libertarian Party’s website, he states that the reason Bob Barr could not take part or stand on stage is due to the Libertarian Party having principle.  I would like to know where Bob Barr’s principle’s lied throughout his career as a member of the GOP.  I also would like to know where the LP’s principles were when they decided to cast Bob Barr as the figurehead for the entire party.  Not only that, but where are the LP’s principles when they seem to actively try to silence and belittle anyone that feels there are unanswered questions about 9/11?  I’ve had that direct experience with someone employed by the Wisconsin branch of the LP.  Thankfully many members don’t seem concerned about losing that group of voters.

There are more important things to worry about right now than party unity, number of votes, or even that magical 5% in the national election in order to get national funding.  A long term and unified front needs to be built now to fight over the next four years to get the message out.  What good is funding if the debate structure hasn’t changed?  What good is funding when how the votes are cast and counted hasn’t been fixed?  What good is funding when its still nearly impossible to get on every ballot?  Even if all of those obstacles are surmounted, I have one more question.  What good is winning the election if the new president is still unwilling to truly hold the establishment’s feet to the fire and harbor some real change in our foundations and dialog about our nation and those who rule it – elected or otherwise?

I hope the rest of you join me on November 4th in voting for a third party.  Beyond that, I hope you join me in doing all you can to spread the word and take action to help solve the foundational problems that our nation is facing.  There’s a fork ahead, which path are you going to take?

Watch CSPAN’s Coverage of the Press Conference (09/10/2008)

I met myself. I must say, I was not impressed.

This was not the me that I know, or think I know. This was another me, one that rears his head when least expected, to plant the seeds of negativity in the minds of those around me, while I am left to deal with the rampant crop of idiocy that blooms soon after. In others, he inspires doubt, disbelief and uncertainty towards me, my integrity, my ideals and my resolve. Through action, through words, he commands a presence of a nature that is the polar opposite of that which I strive to be. Ignorance and apathy are his playthings, lies become his weapons, and cruelty his entertainment. He is contradiction. He is violent anger and withdrawn depression. He exists as my favorite enemy, a nemesis to be sure.

Would it be considered suicide for me to kill this veritable doppelganger?

Read more…

At the time of this writing, I know that I don’t necessarily know what it is that I think I know.

At the time of this writing, there are still forces in the universe I do not understand.  Their whims, their almost imperceptible moods continue to influence my environment in ways I cannot comprehend.

At the time of this writing, I await that one person who, by her nature, can bring an extra dimension of meaning to my life, without fear of letting me know when I’m totally full of crap.

Read more…

This is not the letter, however, but merely a precursor, if you will; a mere message of preparation for the letter which follows.  You will know when the letter begins, I am fairly certain of that.

This will be no ordinary letter, mind you.  Not like the letter from grandma, or the kind you get when your wife leaves you, or a notice of past due amount from your credit card company, or even the officious type of letter you received a couple of weeks ago telling you that you don’t qualify for federal student aid because you totally forgot to sign up for selective service when you were eighteen, even though you swear you remember doing it.  No, this is quite a different kind of letter.  You have never been the recipient of this kind of letter.  I know this because I haven’t written it to you until now.  It is quite possible, in fact, that after I write it, you may still not be such a recipient, even after you’ve recieved the damned thing.  I’m not sure, as I haven’t decided yet.

Read more…

Delusion: Take a pill. It seems, more and more, that we assign to the category of “disease” a number of conditions which seem to me to exist not so much as illnesses, but instead are misconstrued as such.  This sort of misguided perception threatens to slow, or even completely halt, our progress as a species.

How long can we get away with inventing mental conditions in order to excuse our dumb behavior patterns?

Seclusion: I’m sorry, I wasn’t paying attention. If one were to search diligently enough, one might find entire towns full of children who have been diagnosed with a condition which is aptly named “attention deficit disorder.”  While I do not deny the existence of this condition, I do highly doubt that the sheer number of cases diagnosed are, in fact, justifiable.

Read more…

Is everybody ready? It’s almost time to play that silly game we involve ourselves in every four years or so. Keep in mind that while I do not consider myself an expert on politics, I do consider myself a relative master of pattern recognition.

Delusion: We the people. Yep, it’s nearly that time again, when the two party system engages in battle via television, radio and what is loosely termed “public debate.” This election, at least the choices seem a bit more colorful, if you’ll excuse the unintended pun. Personally, I find it rather exciting to see an African American candidate, with potential for female vice presidential candidates in the mix. This, at the very least, gives the impression of progress, in a manner of speaking. One must ask oneself, however, will this really amount to any measurable change?

Seems to me that no matter what color you happen to be, or what religious background you may have, or what sexual organs you possess, that if you make it far enough to actually run for president, you probably share many of the corruptible traits that any presidential candidate possessed. I imagine that they all have the same taskmasters, anyway.

Read more…

It is important to be aware of those times when we are in error. It is on those occasions that our true character can be tested. One’s response to such a realization, or whether the realization occurs at all, can speak volumes about a person’s dedication to that which can be deemed “true.”

I have, over the years, developed a particular fondness for finding myself in the wrong, and admitting it. There are times, I will concede, that I still find it difficult to do so. However, as this kind of circumstance tends to be one of our best learning mechanisms, the pride I hold for my ability to admit such a fault typically outweighs the difficulties associated with doing just that.

Read more…

The great poets are dead or gone, the final remnants of their genius left to whip about in the wind as shreds of paper dance in the path of a fast moving object. Rennaissance is replaced with revolution. The more romantic notions of this world have all but disappeared, unrecognizable to younger generations, presented in works of art as historic frames of mind. Irrepressible, pure emotions are haphazardly given the slightest considerations in a modern world of more competitvely-colored overtones.

Understanding and reason, and the basis for these things, reside in the mind’s ability to be aware of its self, to contemplate itself, its purpose, its reason for subsisting in such an indifferent universe. Emotion, the intrusive neighbor, dwells several floors down, haplessly barging in on the mind in order to complicate its existence and, at the same time, impose a certain amount of meaning. It yearns to simultaneously satisfy and confuse the mind’s sense of purpose.

Read more…

Delusion: Supposititious. You! Remove the face, and take off that hat. They do not suit you and there no longer exists a need for such nonsense. Please, at least for the moment, allow the real to show through. Prove to me that you’re a real human being, complete with faults and the same amount of apathy that I, myself, can display. If you don’t know, say so. If you don’t care, don’t pretend to. If you can’t possibly stand me, then act accordingly. Anything else would be a complete waste of time.

Seclusion: The customer is priority one! Attention customer service representatives: It matters not that your company believes it is imperative that you tell me to “have a nice day.” I know full well that you do not mean it, that you could honestly care less what kind of day that I have, intended or otherwise. Please, if you must thank me for my patronage, then leave it at that. You don’t care, and I don’t care that you don’t care. Oh, and be sure to relay that message to the idiots on high who insist that you must, at all costs, pretend to care.

Read more…

Delusion: It is what it is. An issue develops, seeming to exist as a potential threat to your mental well-being, with potential for goal-related interruptions, mental distractions or all around retardations. If it were just another human, it would have robbed you of your valuables and left you half-beaten in a ditch by now. Your mind, despite whatever discipline it can cling to, tends to wrap itself around the subject whenever it’s allowed a free moment. You close your eyes for sleep, only to find the problem staring at you in the face with a beastly grin. It even has the audacity to enter your dreams. There just isn’t a line of respect these things will not cross.

No matter how hard you may try, you cannot escape its constant reminding, hoping that you spend your worry on it.

Seclusion: Underneath it all. The more ridiculous of us would allow such an intrusive pest to consume specific parts of our lives until it successfully numbed all sensation in those same specific parts. The moderately intelligent find a way to deal with the issue, sometimes positively; other times, not so much. However, we must ask…are we certain there isn’t more to the situation itself? Perhaps deeper?

Read more…

Electronaut’s content and topics will be chosen and written by him with no editorial oversight. I look forward to the points of view he will bring to thew0rd. You should all enjoy his posts as his writing style is much better than my own. I know we are all looking forward to his posts in the future. Thank you for gracing us with your presence Electronaut.