An individual, an American, a moon to be free.

I have no doubt that the moon should one day be colonized, that it should happen in my near lifetime, and that the fruits of it belong expressly in my pocket to the regard my work should attain it. The moon, barely within mankind's grasp, was traveled to once and all but forgotten after we realized there was no oil on it. That the idea of putting oil on the moon could be accomplished was far too out of our reach, because any idea of self-sufficiency or boldness, human initiative, had long been lost on us. What did remain was the desire for oil, but not for humans, rather humans for oil, to collect as much of it as possible so that at one point we might be glad to have it, right up the point that the bony mess from which it was derived from those 'saurs too long ago resembles our bare fixture.

The moon can be colonized, however, because it is expressly within our reach. I want to go to the moon, and the nearby stars. I love America. Beautiful land, beautiful country. But it's not what it once was. I say Make America Great Again, but the people in California want to make it something else. Probably a figure resembling in its end that bony mixture. The frontier. You've got to love early America because it was freedom, not just in abstract principle but in embodiment. And you could go out into the open, uncharted land and make your own house, do your own thing, ride your own horse, and be your man.

Being a man is wonderful, and the responsibility, bravery, and boldness in charity that came with it at one point, once indeed a natural disposition for all those acquainted has been cast into no more than a bedtime story or a small homage at nostalgic hours. Ah, what disdain I cast upon those ignoramuses, and indeed despite it I take it upon my broad shoulders to fix it, if broad shoulders be any form that acts boldly and with civil mischief, and if civil mischief be not sin but merely a quaint or humorous wordplay I use to signify the desire for freedom in that where there is no arbiter of action but God, or nature, yet definitely no other man, depending on his will. Oh, how lovely it would be, too, as the Founders and their kin rode horse and gun to build a country against idiots--talking about the British, to be clear, in case the leftists want to assume I mean my countrymen or some other vain misinterpretation--to ride a spaceship and railgun to the moon, to build my own lunar cabin, base, or fortress. Not with the idea of solitude or some random love affair with nature, as some seem to think, or as others would oddly attempt to act out. No, but rather a pretty practical yet holy affair simply wishing to put my talents to the use of nature as God intended them to be put to use, not to work for the sake of oil but to use the resources of the Earth and its stars for my gain, or the gain of those I deem worthy or in common love, which are all those who love freedom, and is that not us all?

Who can deny the appeal of sailing to the moon in a spaceship, charting my own course, our own destiny? It's a story like this that gets so many to love it, and yet this love affair is to be dearly appreciated, because it's not a wanton one out in the woods, nor some spectacular sight to behold for its own sake as if nature, derelict of duty, decided that she was to obeyed summarily without appreciating the common form that she gave birth to that governs above it. If human nature consists of free will, then it ought to be free.

That's what this is: a solemn plea, too, I think. I plea to the world to sail to the moon, in ship and star, as we colonized this beauteous country and set foot in common glory. No one owns the moon, just as no one owned America, except all Americans, and remember that with the Homestead Act we could be reimbursed for our troubles for filling the land. What I'm asking for is a lunar homestead act. Give me a spaceship and 40 acres on the moon, and I shall turn it into gold. In fact, I demand it. Because if man holds the world in common, and the moon be in our reach, then doubtlessly it falls into my common hand to be conquered, or ordained, or obtained or otherwise manifested into some more fruitful form than it is now.

Why work ourselves with such hilarious things like oil when I could set up a base on the moon? "Oh," they would cry, ignoring the stupidity of their voice, "but it might be dangerous to go the moon!" It never occurs to these people that danger is what some people want, and that a life lived without any danger, or for the sole purpose of avoiding danger, is hardly fulfilling in any meaningful capacity. A man dies doing what he loves, and people grieve, not understanding that he perhaps dearly enjoyed that death, because it was good one. Or perhaps that they would have preferred to avoid it, but they wouldn't have done anything else, because they loved to live that type of life. This is not to advocate for BASE jumping, but not against it either, but it certainly does advocate for skydiving! And if that's too risky and it to be condemned, then I ought to condemn all those who condemn it, and perhaps consider sending them to some other planet to be colonized far more distant from the moon, such as Australia was a penal colony; they can be charted to a red rock on Mars for their ignorance against human nature.

Daringly I say this, for I am a daring man. It's hardly possible to be daring these days without hearing all sorts of protests, along the lines of it's too dangerous, you're absurd, how could you do anything that hasn't been done before several hundred times and replicated to the point of utter banality, and so forth, each statement itself becoming increasingly less original that if the very first person who expressed incredulity possessed any mediocrity of originality, by the time you get to the seventh, or in some cases 18th person who says that I ought to not be so bold, I'm hardly even listening, and instead imagining what type of lunar rock is best to build a base out of, or how I should achieve fueling my spaceship to go and mine rocks, asteroids, resources.

Even the act of me saying I want to go to the moon, set up my base, be a cool brave guy taking my own chances, usually gets me not only looked at with incredulity, but it's as if I've said something supremely or superlatively outrageous, characterized only by mischief and despair, and altogether necessitating or requiring a form of what is often called polite reeducation, which is usually a term used to describe a series of gasps and half-hearted slogans about entering some form of workforce which usually benefits very uncivilly detached, unrighteous, or un-Christian people, or otherwise putting my bold and many talents to a use outside the bounds of my own wit and superiority, yet to be applied to an illusory or decrepit form. If God, sitting on his throne in heaven, could look down and see these people, it's clear to me that by any ordinary reading of Scripture he'd make a credibly manifest appointment of their stupidity, which is what he must be doing right now, through me.

If these people operate only by being told, then they're told now.

At any rate, my lunar base ought to be very big and large, almost as big as my ego, which is almost as big as my competence, the both of which are far larger than most, if not all other, men's, and certainly larger than most other people's at large. That's because I'm good at what I do, very good, and not used to submitting to phony directions.

In my quest to make this therefore, I submit an open plea to America to let me colonize the moon on their behalf. Not me specifically, of course, because I'm not that conceited. I mean me to represent all those would go. They should just give people spaceships, invest very heavily in the space industry, and otherwise provide compulsory measure. They can probably do so by stop sending so much foreign aid to those Godless countries and let Americans go and colonize the moon. We'd bring space guns, too, so when those atheist Chinese or Russians come, we can send them to their Maker. They'd not be too far off, in space. Isn't that the heavens?

Which is my case in point. We love oil, but we don't love what oil could do for us. We could use oil not to fill up gas stations, but to fuel personal spaceships so an individual can on their own go to the moon as for Thanksgiving.

I propose that justice must be sought, and it must be attained through any means necessary, darkness or light. Make no mistake! The destiny is the light of the world, which shines greater than the darkness, and the darkness comprehends it not.

I am not talking about those who have achieved oneness with the light. Nor am I speaking of those who are pursuing the light, and doing so through the light, which is a far more effective, better, and fruitful manner of seeing Jesus Christ. I am talking specifically about those who do not believe or wish to believe in Jesus, or those who have tried to but cannot make any progress, perhaps especially make negative progress, by only using the journey of light to get there.

For those people, I speak to specifically. And the way to maneuver in this case is to understand that all roads fully followed lead to God. Therefore, the worst sin is not necessarily choosing the road of darkness, but for choosing the road of neither light nor darkness, but staying middlingly in between.

To you, if on your journey to Jesus you cannot take the path of light, then take the one of darkness instead; it will lead you there anyway if you go all the way down.

I cover the history that led me to this conclusion, including the philosophy of authors like Milton and Dante. My foundation is from that light is triumphant so any full congregation with reality will make it appear. Seek the light.

There's a difference between good and evil. It is black and white. That's not to say there's something that can have elements of right and wrong, except there is such a thing as ultimate good and its opposite. Acknowledge that, or begone. It's a good thing to be good. And yet, some people aren't, now here on Earth. Those of us would like to change that. What's interesting is that the worst people in the world are not those who are outright evil, nor certainly those who are good in the superlative sense, as much as any mortal can. The worst people are those who are neither good nor evil, the ones who are in between, who swear allegiance to a more fledgling sense of entity.

There are many passages and proverbs and ideas throughout culture and time that give this general sense. A very popular one is the idea that a half-truth is the worst of all lies. It has a lot of sense to it. The idea with that one is that a half-truth carries elements of truth, so it's more likely to be believed than a complete lie, therefore causing more harm. Pedestrian nonsense? No. In fact, it's not even limited purely to Western culture, although the idea is more developed in our regard, no doubt.

In I believe, and I could be misremembering, Hinduism or Indian proverbs, there's one proverb of them that questions: What man achieves perfection first? (Or what man achieves perfection with the Lord first?) He who loves God or he who hates God? And their answer, interestingly, is he who hates God, because he who hates him will think of him more often. Now, there is some truth to that, although it's vastly oversimplified, and largely untrue. People who show faith and goodwill toward God, thinking of him often, will achieve oneness far simply and more directly. But in some cases, there is some value to be derived from doing the outright opposite, but it must be done totally. This is not to blaspheme: the ultimate goal is oneness and goodness in Christ. And if you can do that directly, as many can, that's superior. Give me one moment.

It echoes with what Christ told us. In the parable of the Sower, and similar stories, there is the idea that we must listen to the word of Jesus in order to see the light, and grow. Those who hear the word but do not think of it, do not see it, perish. What do I mean by this?

The idea I'm putting forth goes back to a common Christian theme derived from those like Milton and Dante. It's not of them, but generally or commonly derived from them. I develop this idea further. It's that indeed, the worst of all sinners are not those who serve God, certainly, nor those who serve Satan, or evil. It's those who serve neither God or Satan, who serve something in between. Not necessarily themselves, as serving yourself is a form of the opposite of justice. It's people who do a bit of both. Those who are sometimes good, sometimes bad. Sometimes serve justice, sometimes serve selfishness. Those people are the worst. My idea, and this is commonly echoed across a lot of Christian sources or thinking, is that if you serve God, obviously that's good, you've already succeeded.

But if you ultimately and totally serve selfishness, you're the most selfish person there is, then eventually you will see the face of God. And you'll see justice, its light, and will be compelled to do good. Even Satan, as they say, once once an angel, and if you know Satan totally, you will see the light of that. And you'll choose to be with Christ, instead. The worst people, therefore, are not those who totally serve evil, because if they did they'd see the face of justice, as evil is justice warped. It's those who serve kind of justice, and kind of evil, because they see the face of neither justice or evil, and can never therefore see the face of God, and come to the light eternally, and be one with the Lord the Father Almighty. Make no mistake, I am not saying evil is good. It's not: my very testimony here is intended to get people to do justice. I am saying that even if you were totally evil, you'd see justice. People's mistake here, that I'm calling out, comes from being kind of evil, where they cannot see anything. But, obviously the better path is to achieve justice from the beginning, to do good in the beginning and end. That's my point.

I really do mean that. I can prove it with a simple example. John Locke made a great point in his Second Treatise. He was quoting somebody else. I'd like to borrow portions of it. If you are totally selfish, then you want to love yourself, and for everybody else to love you. In a very selfish manner. Now the best way to do that is to extend love toward everybody else because they, like you, perhaps, want to be loved. So if you selfishly want divine treatment, you must extend that to others. It's the only reasonable way to expect it from others. In this way, a purely selfish man very practically engages in the Christian ethos of peace, and mutual harmony just by wanting that extended to himself, and no other.

Now, if you are motivated by the desire to help others instead, then that's fine and actually better, and in the end that's what it will lead to in either direction. If you want to serve only yourself, or only serve others, then eventually that will lead to serving everybody, and serving God.

The worst sinners are those who are not totally selfish, and obviously not those who are totally selfless; but those who are somewhat selfish. For they see neither the face of God, nor the face of what once was with God in Satan. I am not advocating that people be selfish. I am advocating that for those who cannot see the light in other people despite trying their best, fine. Then be selfish. Don't hold yourself back. Be the most ultimately selfish person you can be. Don't care about other people, and curse them. Care only about yourself to the utmost and highest level. Don't care about yourself a little bit, but then be kind sometimes. No. Be kind never, and extend kindness and goodwill only to yourself forever and without any restriction. Because if you do, you'll realize the best way of doing that, I hope, is to extend goodwill to others, or you'll in some other manner hopefully see the value in yourself through such selfishness, thereby enlightening you to the truth.

The goal is to be one with Christ. To believe in him and do good works on his behalf. And the other things. We tell people to extend unmitigated kindness, to be good in all cases to achieve this belief and its manifestation. And you should. That, in my purview, is the better option; nothing I say should be inferred as a diminution of that fact. What I am saying is that for those who can't do that, then go the other route, and you'll wind up here anyway if you follow it through.

And I should make it clear: if you are already one with God, then stay there. Don't start committing evil to make yourself more one, or something. No, you've won. Be good, as you will it. This is for people who are not one with justice. If you are already, then you're good. If you are already on the path of light to there, stay there.

This book attempts to highlight the significance of life. It points out that there are two distinct forms of life as I see it relevant: life that is untainted, proud, and pure, versus life that has willfully corrupted itself by opposing the Lord (though still untainted and pure because of the divinity of all humans; I only mean tainted in a human sense). It is inspired by Colonel Carey's arguments in favor of Manifest Destiny for America. In it, he argues that America should liberate other nations that oppress their people, with force if necessary, to protect the innocent of them. He acknowledges this could result in tragic collateral damage, but that it is a sacrifice to be made under these conditions. I agree. I anticipate counterarguments, however, that question the validity of the desire to protect the innocent when the argument revolves around sacrificing portions of them, as they may say.

But to be sure, this is not the case. It's not the case because there is a difference between taking life that is corporeally corrupted and evil by choice--that harms others--where innocents only get caught in the crossfire despite the best of efforts for them to not be so, versus willfully harming the innocent. The willful harming of the innocent is the very thing the Colonel and I seek to prevent in the first place! I exemplify this at first by making an analogy with abortion, where being pro-life for the unborn baby does not preclude accepting the realities of just warfare in this circumstance. One is innocent, whose potential inconvenience for unappreciative mothers is not willful and thus cannot be treated so.

I move on to discuss the broader issue at hand, where we understand as Christians and Americans the value of life to be something that is inherent, and so must be protected. It is never the goal to end life. We hold life to be sacred and superordinate. This compels us to protect innocent children, babies, men, and women against those who would harm them. And those who would harm them, too, are not deserving of death. They are deserving of what is necessary to prevent further harm from occurring. The terrible face of war may involve the slaughtering of unjust people who could otherwise be reconstituted calmly, and innocents maimed, but that is neither the intent nor the enterprise. All war revolves around peace. A respect for peace is the very thing that compels the righteous to protect the peaceful.

Having proven that broader issue, confirming the value of life and understanding it is this value that leads us to manifestly take action, I provide why Manifest Destiny is a deductive manifestation of a kind regard for human welfare. Jesus forgave those who knew not what they did, who showed remorse, or who were good in essence. He turned over the temple of those who did not. Sparing precise examples of how and why various countries harm their people, the book lists overall methodologies and philosophies other nations use to subjugate people, even of the most seemingly civilized sort. The people who rule, as well as those who blindly follow, must be stopped, and the book delivers cutting reasons as to how that aligns with American-Christian jurisprudence.

I end it with a call for reflection, and an understanding of why our lives are all so important: mutual divinity in Christ, assertion of eternal goodwill, and a perseverance to preserve and spread it.

Colonel Carey has gone to great lengths to provide insight on the just cause of invading, using force against, liberating foreign nations. At the behest of the best of the U.S., this is an auspicious endeavor. No doubt some will use the moment to criticize the Colonel's respect for life! They might say that sacrificing many innocent Canadian lives, or Mexican lives, showcases a plain disregard for life. This intends to point out that the desire for liberation and saving life is false because there is no regard for life. This criticism is based on a false premise. Liberating nations that choose to behave tyrannically, to subjugate their citizens, targeting only those inferior people but in the crossfire incidentally and tragically killing innocents is different from the wanton taking of human life. It is inherently separate from engaging in forceful affairs because of a genuine and forgivable mistake, or some act of nature that caused it.

I'll make it clear that I would find I very much support Colonel Carey's argument in the book, the one regarding Manifest Destiny. I would urge being cautious of the approach, and ensuring we clearly articulate the level of forgiveness we have to the Canadians who do evil but don't know what they do, in separation from the ones who step far beyond the boundaries of justice and act willingly in disobedience from God. My embodiment of opposing arguments is to dismantle them.

I notice from Carey's other writings that he is a libertarian, or a conservative. He's likely in support of pro life and being against the principle of abortion, because of the inherent value of human life, which is at the center of much of his work. Supposing this is true for the sake of the argument--or using the example of any person being in favor of it for that sake--the opposition would try something like the following. This chain of attack is used to embody various objections having to do with the sanctity of life.

The individual would state that if you are not in favor of terminating an innocent human life, an unborn baby, no matter how much that mother may find her an inconvenience, this shows a palpable regard for human life not embodied in the disdain for Canada's subjugation and subsequent liberation with potential for innocent, tragic casualties.

This story covers the infinite cosmos of space. Space is a brutal and outlandish affair, characterized by emptiness and glory. There's so much beauty in space, and it surrounds us at all points. But what is space if nothing, except something to be explored! That's why on one fine occasion, the character in this lovely quaint yet futuristic novel goes to space. They do so in the near future, when humanity has seemingly put its differences aside to negate their affairs unfruitful, and put forth ones more agreeable in the light of humankind.

In space, the protagonist ventures in a kind of ship. There's a lovely economy in space. This symbolizes how the economy can produce spaceships of a great and magnificent sort. The economy, through its spaceships, can have people in them, going to space, not worrying about anything. They can mine asteroids, go to the moon, and visit their colonies. It's kind of like early America, with the opportunity and new land. You can go out and claim your space territory on this epic land. And how wonderful is that!

The conflict arises when a space plague enters the facility. Oh, but the plague is nothing to be concerned about compared to man's idiosyncrasies. So it's not to be so terribly feared in the same way, is it? This plague is just a type of pestilence that rots away. But the people manage to cleverly find ways to combat it. It travels through space, but through their effective cooperation they invent ways to cleverly end it. Then they continue going about in epic space.

There is some fear in how they will defeat it at first, though. This plague comes to bite people, and it has some weird ability to somehow travel through space. A weird natural act. And though it's natural, people will stop it. It curses through the facilities and villages. The protagonists own land he established on one colony was affected, a bold and little but brave land here. Leadership had to be taken, and although the methods were abstruse, the wisdom not obtuse. This is the tale of an epic space play, where the night is saved through a fledgling and daring American space economy. A battle of exploration, and fervent deed.

Were a person to go to space, I think they'd have a lovely time. That's why I, on one decided occasion, ventured to there. This was not a one-time expedition to be forgotten, but a long wish. Space is full of stars and cosmos, all of which have a name. It was no coincidence, then, that I was cruising down a mighty ship past one star. This star was the sun, wish thus far we had managed not to crash into. But we weren't quite near it. We were, or rather I was, exploring some other more navigable spot.

Have you ever wondered how to speak wonderfully? You probably already do, knowing how wise you are to have stumbled across this survey of text. I once surveyed an arrangement of text, and it was quite nice, except that it had some text that was quite fine, too. The thing I didn't like about it was that it could be loud sometimes. I just asked it politely to stop, and it did. And that's the essence of speaking. We articulate ourselves, we move ahead, and we deliberate.

So this book goes over precisely how to speak. Speaking is a process that involves two main types of planned and unplanned. Planned speaking is a process aided by careful reflection prior specifically for that moment. You'll be aided in being knowledgeable of the subject. When we're talking about unplanned speech delivery, you'll do as well as you can, which is great, and then might have to fill in holes.

Break a speech up into parts. It's teleological. That means it's always directed at an end, that of answering the continuing questions that evolve over affairs of societal circumstance. We don't speak because we want to say random words, but because there are bigger questions to be answered. If you keep your audience in mind, then, and treat it just like answering these pure sets of questions, it's a walk. Now, there is a history of speech that involves understand why writing is important. We also need to understand that being eloquent indeed requires having the audience closely in mind, gauging their reactions, and so forth, because speech is a two-way affair.

I go on to discuss the detailed processes of forming speech. Writing is something that should be possessed as a skill to carefully aid the formation process, and I cover how to skillfully use it to gain effective speeches. Then the delivery must mirror this process, and I deliver specific techniques on how that is accomplished.

Process

So, how do we train people to deliver a speech? There is deliberate speech delivery. Giving a speech with a pre-constructed plan going into it to that is specifically designed to be used during speech. To conduce good results. Then there is spontaneous speech delivery, giving a speech without such a plan. Both are essential to speech. We teach people how to deliver a speech by teaching them both of these aspects and their functions. Deliberate speech delivery, the fundamental aspect of speech, should be mastered first, however. And it should be understood why it is the basis.

Overview

Speech delivery involves 3 parts: construction, cognition, and execution. You have to construct the speech. Then you have to be cognizant of it and its key parts when delivering it. Then you have to actually deliver it, keeping its structure in mind while executing its content. Each of these processes is very difficult.

We create a distinction between deliberate speech delivery, which must be mastered first, and spontaneous speech delivery. Deliberate speech delivery is speech delivery that is fully planned, and for which pre-existing hierarchical speech structures or outlines have been created (specifically for the purposes of speech), committed to memory, and are used. Deliberate speech delivery is the essence of all speech delivery, as speech by definition is supposed to be deliberate. Spontaneous speech delivery thus tries to emulate it to the best of its ability, and can do so in various ways. Spontaneous speech delivery is speech that is in some way delivered without a pre-existing mental outline created for the specific purpose of speech. We will cover both.

Construction requires attention to be paid not only to the content of the idea, but also its relation to the spoken format of speech delivery. A speech has to be designed for the exact nuances of speaking.

Cognition requires an awareness of those ideas to be present in the mind of the speaker when they are speaking. To be aware of what they are saying, what they will say next, and how it all fits together. This is a process aided by construction, because those ideas should have been laid out in a way that fosters ease of use and manipulation. Then there is execution.

Execution is actually delivering those ideas in an intelligible fashion. Keeping the structure in mind. Knowing how to speak while also keeping a detailed layout of one’s ideas that’s modern and up to date. All of these aspects incorporate elements that tap at the core of speech itself and its history.

History of Speech

The history of speech is defined by writing and ideas. Speech draws upon these two things immensely. Speech at its core has to do with ideas. Because speech is fundamentally a way of expressing ideas.

Writing is also closely related to speech. It is another way of expressing ideas. An understanding of writing is fundamental to understanding speech because speakers often structure their thoughts with writing. Speech’s history and techniques have been thoroughly refined and based heavily on writing. And an understanding of different ways of expressing ideas, one of the two ways, can help with the understanding of expressing ideas in the first place, which is at the core of speaking. Speech at its core is the expression of ideas.

Nature of Speech

These techniques are complex and difficult to learn. And because they have to do with the raw expression of ideas, they are difficult to teach in formats other than direct ones. Teaching people about the raw expression of ideas using a format other than the direct raw of expression of ideas itself is difficult.

Not only that. Speech is the live expression of ideas. Writing, by contrast, is the reflective expression of ideas. Teaching people how to express their ideas live in a format other than the live expression of ideas itself is one step too far removed for any real substantial progress to be made in the great majority of cases unless one already has what what would constitute a firm grasp on the subject. It can be done and self-taught, but to learn it from others a format that is agreeable is necessary.

And there’s more. Speech is not just the live expression of ideas but the live, two-way expression of ideas. Speech is always designed to be heard by others live. It’s different from writing where there is no live communication. You will write something, and then publish it, but you will not interact with the audience live as you write. Speech is always two-way. Not only will you adjust the content of your speech during discourse, but there is something else as well.

Even when monologuing, speech is still two-way. A speaker giving a speech to an audience on a stage is participating in two-way communication, live, as he speaks. The audience is giving feedback live. Through how they react. And the speaker adjusts his speech. The audience will sometimes look confused so the speaker speaks more about that idea. The audience will look excited so the speaker gets to the point more quickly. The audience provides non-verbal feedback that is taken into account by the speaker and they must adjust the content or structure of the speech to account for this.

The speaker must do this deliberately. The speaker must adjust the content of their speech based off of the input of this live, two-way form and adjust the content of their speech deliberately, on purpose, matching the adjustments that should be made. It is a conscious and practiced effort, conscious in the same way that a speaker must have a grasp on what they’re saying. The live, dynamic, two-way nature of speech, including giving one in a monologue, is so fundamentally opposed to writing and learning other things because it is the raw expression of live, dynamic, two-way ideas. If you think about math, it too can be boiled down to if it must to the reflective expression of ideas. Speech cannot be. Certain formats are more agreeable to this fact.

What is the expression of ideas? It is an idea being made intelligible to humans. If ideas exist in their own right, then expressing them is the domain of speaking and writing. The two are fundamentally opposed to each other. Good speakers are not good writers. The reflective nature of writing is not conducive toward the dynamic and enterprising nature of speech. The dynamic nature of speaking requires an incredibly dynamic understanding of the ideas behind the speech in a way that is totally foreign to writing.

And an understanding of ideas in writing similar to how one would understand ideas in speaking would only detract from the reflective nature of writing. It would detract from the purpose of writing. Which would make it meaningless.

The skillsets for speaking and writing are totally different, and do not complement each other. Writing has to do with the reflective expression of ideas. Speaking has to do with the dynamic expression of ideas. The only thing the two have in common is that they both express ideas. But the way they do this is totally different. Speaking is its own huckleberry.

Speech is designed with the knowledge that both the speaker and the listener will have mere seconds to receive, process, and reflect over the information. Constantly changing. Writing is designed with the knowledge both will have much longer, minutes, days, even many days, to contemplate the ideas, and will likely use much of it. The techniques and methods for both are thus fundamentally different and dissimilar, and must be mastered and considered separately.

You are speaking when you are speaking, and you are writing when you are writing. And you are always speaking when you are speaking. And always accordingly only writing when you are writing.

Having talked about an overview of speech and its nature and history, a detour might be taken. Before delving fully into the process of speech delivery, into the process of speaking, it may be helpful to go over the meaning and essence of speech itself.

What is Speech?

When talking about delivering speech and its content, it can help to better understand the entire meaning behind it. What is speech? What is its purpose? Why speak? And on the contrary, why listen to others? Why listen to them speak? What is conversation?

People speak because they want to convey a certain viewpoint on the world. They want to illustrate a certain viewpoint about the world.

Why do people listen to others speak? We want to hear what they have to say. Why? Why do we want to share our viewpoint on the world?

All questions and answers are a set of answers to a much larger question. The unity of which will provide a complete answer. During a speech with a Q&A, the speaker gives a speech, and after that the audience asks questions. For example, during a technology speech about the state of the new iPhone, a speaker will discuss the new features it will have, its power, and its domination over Android. This is already an answer to a large question. The audience will ask further questions about the new iPhone. The speaker will answer. The speaker will ask the audience questions. The audience will answer. It is all an answer to one big question. The questions the audience asks are an answer to the big question. The questions the speaker asks are all an answer.

When a speaker speaks, they are answering questions about that bigger question. When a speaker asks a question, he is providing an answer to that bigger question. The audience provides an answer through their answer. Imagine one friend visiting another friend’s new apartment. Person A has recently redecorated. He has just let B into the apartment and is greeting him. He starts giving a speech about the state of his room and why he put it together like this. Then about the walls and why he kept some of them with empty space. He then asks Person B if he is a fan of walls and empty space in room decor.

All of this interaction is an answer to a much bigger question. In this case, it is, “How do I get across that I enjoy seeing Person B, how do we get along, and maintain a productive relationship, and be friends?” Showing him the apartment seemed like a good idea, and also asking a question seemed like another good idea. Person A was monologuing for quite a bit about walls and interior design. Asking her if she appreciated the design answered the bigger question because it showed Person A cares about her opinion, if they should keep talking about the apartment decor design or if it’s boring, and gives them a chance to speak. It provides answers to the bigger question that’s posed. In short, Person A asked a question to provide an answer, and wanted person B to provide an answer to that same question, because person A believed her response would be valuable in answering that question.

Alternatively, everything that is done can be thought of as a series of questions to one answer. In this case, A and B’s interaction was all a series of questions to the answer. The answer is “Person A and B, I and Person B, we are designed to be friends.” Then everything they did in that scenario was a series of questions to that answer. “Is it true that we are designed to be friends? If so I should be able to welcome you into my apartment and greet you, and show you my apartment and its decor. Can I do that? Can I welcome you into my apartment? Can I greet you? Can I show my my decor? Can I ask you a question to make sure you’re comfortable talking as well and to show I want you to talk?” The answer is “Person A and B are designed to be friends.”

Either manner of thought about the philosophy is fine. The point is that the theme is understood.

And the point is that the reason people hold conversations, give speeches, and ask and answer questions, is to answer the much larger question overhead, or to ask questions to the much larger answer overhead.

With that brief overview finished, a look at the actual process of speaking can be undertaken. This is the process of deliberate speech delivery. The basis of speech. Speaking consists of 3 parts. Construction, cognition, and execution. Including deliberate speech delivery.

This story covers the endeavors of a lovely gentlemen known by the name Surreal. His story is both surreal and practical, taking place in the day and age of today's America. He's a very discerning man, and notices the things that are happening, and doubly moves to combat them. He plots to end the unsightly occurrences by using the powers of the earth to undermine them. Surreal is a patriot, and disdains those who aren't. It is by the Christian Protestantism we were made, shall live, too.

The story begins in San Francisco, which is a birthplace of the modern forms of technology which are very interesting, yet sometimes fruitful. Surreal endeavors to politically strike against the forms of technology by taking strategic civil action. He goes to City Hall and puts and end to this by showcasing, in patriotic regard, the list of grievances the City of San Francisco has engaged upon its inhabitants. He shows how the lack of unity is directly tied to an infrastructure not geared toward the eternal practical gain of man and woman, their children alike. No, it's geared toward the phony illusion of what's called progress, geared toward a mayoral administration which admires the appearance of change, and geared toward a city in desperate need for reconciliation with the Lord but finds only in its wake manipulative torment upon those unable to see it, having been so, with forlorn element, deceived by that administration.

Yet Surreal is not so deceived and, discerning conscience, speaks boldly at City Hall. This sparks something of a rebellion, where his passionate words spark a movement across the city with himself closely at the helm. He forms a group at this, and moves to better the city of San Francisco with more effective means. This city serves as a beachhead for what comes later in the novel, where he deploys these amassing forces to divest away with technology, but the other fruits that it represents, and baptize America by fire and water as it was, but needs to be in more fiery and glorious water.

Surreal awoke. Surreal was a young man, handsome, and well-tuned. He perused. He lived in San Francisco. He strolled around his apartment, gazing at belongings. It was a fine day that moment, but the country had been taking a plunge down whatever lane could hardly be called memory. That is to say that things had taken an improper twist. At the news broadcast he surveyed, he noted how the pundit opined, with no insignificant reason, about the increased likelihood of civil war.

Still, things like this hardly troubled Surreal, because he was attuned to matters of chaos and disfunction, and accordingly fancied himself capable of regulating them. He'd certainly done so before. Surreal picked up a pen on the stand beside him, and tossed it, catching it easily.

America is at a state of harm and division. Polls show there is a significant proportion of the population that views civil war as likely. Armed civil war. There's something deeper going on in our consciousness that is causing this. It's moral relativism, in a nutshell. I seek to determine why this is, and the various factors present in the American psyche. By doing this, I provide a solution.

Moral relativism resulted in identity politics for the benefit of individuals and their small in-groups instead of everybody. It results in disloyalty and chaos. The rising political violence is a manifestation of this. I analyze the psyche of America and through themes and patterns reveal the inner consciousness. I recognize the consciousness of the conservatives and few liberals who oppose the rising tide. I define them in comparison, and how this consciousness leads to what we see. It's defined as a fight from conservatives and those few liberals against the progressive leftist agenda. It's the TV, the social media, and the powers of the Earth used in reverse: not for people but people for the powers of the Earth.

After proving this, I show how the nation can move on by fracturing the leftist consciousness. We fracture them with fire and water. We play their game since they refuse to obey reason. We offer them water only after they realize their foolishness. Then we bring them to the good state of consciousness, which, appealing to God, rights every wrong. It's a poem that displays the differences in the American psyche and how they originate in thought. As I prove The Fruits of States, people are moved by principles, as humans are the ultimate embodiment. So we need to methodically operationalize the right ones.

The collective consciousness of people in America is at a state. It is very wanting. We've been liberated of most of the structures of rigid or enforced dogmas, and are free to chose which, or whether at all, ones to subscribe to. Yet this has produced much chaos in the American psyche. What was predicted to give rise to a varied plurality of individual methods for bettering us all, has instead produced a myriad of often opposing views and stances of the world, with some overtly antagonistic to the principles which make up this country, like liberty, justice and freedom, especially in the sense of how it is classically and normatively to be understood, as it being something absolute, and to be absolutely pursued for us all in mutual benefit. Instead, many groups in America now believe things like there being no supreme order, and no duty to benefit all mankind; because what, they argue, constitutes benefitting us all? This line of thinking has dangerously challenged the unity of the country, usually based on an understanding of a great common good, and replaced it with a series of relative stances that have more dogmatic ends at their core. The irony of replacing what was called dogma with more or worse dogma is noted; but this irony has been replaced itself by a set of disparate ironies, many of which lack this one in common.

I fear my brief may have been too abstract. Let me specify. America at one point was united by believing in a common good. Throughout all of America's tension and division, this was acknowledged. But now, people question whether a common good exists, and whether there are only relative goods for various groups. This is the fundamental crisis in America. It is what leads to the fighting and disaster we see. In this sense, America has never been more divided. Even during the Civil War, we still agreed in some common good: we just strongly disagreed on how to achieve it. But now we disagree on the existence of a common good in the first place. It is for this reason that many people warn that the current toxic political climate could be leading to something far worse than has been seen.

People's flaw in America is the desire to benefit themselves, but not in a manner ultimately for the common good, but only as an end of itself. Now, certainly there are many who would desire to benefit all Americans, who acknowledge that can be done. But this cohort is being challenged by such a number never seen before, and it risks being overtaken. The rise of the socialist and Islamist mayor Mamdani in New York, the increasing violence against the right including the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and the acceptance of it by the left like a recent Virginia official winning election despite graphically calling for the murder of his political enemies' children, are all examples of this.

This country has always faced violence. There were fights in Congress in its early period. What is different in this century is the nature of the fighting. Before, people would fight but always on the lines of, "This is not best for America," or "You're harming us, you're harming people." But now objections of various groups and factions will argue that, "You are harming me," or "Regardless of what is best for America (or to hell with America, there is no such thing or shouldn't be), we should do this because it helps me and me alone." What is so troubling about this is the refusal to better people at large. It's the denial of America or that it should be valued. While America certainly has faults and to the degree it does always had had them, people's criticisms of America now often stem from things that are untrue, illogical, or wrongly applied. For example, I criticize America for not allowing individual liberty as much it should, by right of the people. However, there are those who justify their actions by criticizing the U.S. for things like selfishness in areas where it is quite generous, for inequality or economic injustice in places where it is very equal and economically fair. Even worse, they argue that these deficiencies demand a disloyalty to the nation at large, rather than an attempt at improving those weaknesses. Instead many wish to place their loyalty only in themselves, to the end of improving their own weakness.

This is extremely dangerous. So I view America as at a dangerous time. We need to recognize that although there are many who view people as one, there is a startlingly large people who do not. These numbers threaten us all. If these people reach a majority, there will no longer be any nation, but a place of total strife and chaos, where we see people warring with each other in factions and groups, with no common tie, and those of us who seek the opposite may find that difficult.

We need to stop this. By we, I mean to say everyone who has the common good of Americans, the people here, at heart. Who oppose the opposite. We need to confront these people and stop them, because they are gaining dangerous traction, corrupting the affairs, and they do this with certain things at heart. They wish to benefit only themselves, and are thus very far from justice. They're very far from us in their betterment. We must keep that in mind in our approach.

Consequently, we might need to be a bit selfish when speaking to them. These people won't listen to reason; they're incapable of hearing it through their own volition. And any attempt at using that to guide them will fail, because that's what they've chosen. We need a very aggressive stance. It's the only logical response to people who only know of that world. A world of selfishness, of refusal to pursue common justice, to be a part of what makes America truly so great, in that sense. At the same time we must remember what we fight for. Yet we cannot let this stand.

Therefore, I make a critical distinction in typical conservative or anti-progressive/radical leftist thought on the subject, because of course the very progressive and radical left is at the heart of all this; as they openly espouse, making it difficult for even moderate leftists to not be denounced in non-trivially egregious ways. Whereas the line of thinking thus far has generally been to guide the left toward justice and goodwill through reason and patience, I diverge by claiming that is not correct. You cannot use justice and goodwill to those who do not hold those as values, and who hold only themselves at their core. Throughout this entire enterprise against them, we have fundamentally been misunderstanding the correct movement. We've made a big mistake. This is the only way to rectify it. Fire can be fought with water when that side allows fire hydrants, but if they deny the utility of them, it must be fought with fire. We must respond against them as brutally and with such fierceness as they use. It needs to have at its core the pursual of common justice and freedom, what makes America good and what unites Americans. It needs to be intended to evoke that. Yet in that enterprise, we need to act as fiercely and ruthlessly as these destructive individuals do to make that happen.

What I'm basically saying is that when a radical or progressive leftist says that we are fascists for holding values of individual liberty and justice dear, we do not calmly explain to them why that is false. They won't bite, because they have as described chosen to be deaf. Instead, we call them a communist for being a radical leftist, for believing in the moral relativism of all individuals, the lack of individual liberty being supreme, and for the wish to use the state to arbitrarily command their own selfish, unjustified will. If they call us Hitler, we call them Stalin, and we tell them their badge reeks of starvation. Through this, they might realize the delusion of their ways, and we might show them how selfish they are. If we can portray like this, through example, how selfish their viewpoints are, then only offer a chance for real American and common justice, we will win.

If they gloat at being a communist, we gloat at being a fascist. If that's the game they want to play, the only way to win is to demonstrate their stupidity like that, and then offer them the path of justice. But we must be so. Yes, they're that far gone.

Reasoning is a dutiful affair which in no small fashion compels to view the world more eloquently, and divest proper rights to those who are worthy. The rights of mankind. Now, in order to reason, one must have a very specific process. This book shows how reason can be done carefully, by taking an objective view of one's surroundings, and analyzing them for any utility. Reasoning is teleological, so you need to have in mind the object of your desire. There are patterns from reasoning that can be seen, but they need to be identified in unconventional ways because situations are distinct from the patterns from which one derives their conclusions. In order to derive the best conclusions, you'll also need some subjective element. It's a final skill which is very difficult to master, but when incorporated can remove some of the mistaken elements that reasoning can involve, it being something involving inherently novel territory where patterns are meaningless from them.

In order to reason, a close analysis of everything is conducted. The reasoner needs to be aware of both the past, present, and future with the future being most firmly fixed in mind. It's not for no reason that emotions can be brought into it, and the first stage is always passionless. There are things that can only be seen by doing away with notions possessed before. Only after it has been materially confirmed by reason of it substance, is the process worthy of commendation.

The subjective element is articulated. It's a tactic to be done only by people who have mastered this most fundamental element. After that, the reasoner can include certain heuristics and techniques they have learned and committed to memory. This should be done under the careful guidance of the greeter and objective intellect. That's why it's done in this two step stage.

The first step in reasoning is to objectively assess the situation. Detachment is key. The one engaging in it has to analyze the situation somewhat ruthlessly for any possible item, and every possible entity, that could be useful toward the end. Reasoning is teleological, sighted toward an end. It's important to stress the level of objectivity and detachment the one engaging in reasoning must exercise: they must view the situation totally impartially, as if "from a bird's eye perspective," where every actor, entity, and outcome is viewed without subjective weight, without giving non-factual weight to any part of it. That can be a very difficult process, especially when the matter at hand is grand or important, which when reasoning it often invariably is, but it is necessary to facilitate the best process, equally invariably.

Because reasoning is a process that is aligned only with an end, the end must be firmly fixed in mind. It is toward this end that all objective analysis must be grounded against. The situation needs to be analyzed not for arbitrary values, but all possible values that could bring about that end. There is a subjective process to reasoning, but it comes later. The first step is an impartial analysis of all objects and entities.

Make a note of everything that could be useful. Try to commit it to memory if possible. Note the connections between these entities. Detachment is key when doing this because objects and entities often have strange or unpredictable pattern sequences that connect them together, but these cannot be properly observed or utilized without engaging a method of observation that is independent from what can be understood when immersed in a situation from the perspective of an entity in it. The analysis must be viewed from the pattern of an entity outside it. It is actually like viewing something from within chaos, as opposed to watching it from a drone.

The observations and formulations made at this step must be grounded in something, moreover, and these associations must be made clear and themselves analyzed. An entity might be considered to be useful toward an end, but what gives the one reasoning the idea that it is so useful? Is that which gives it weight a reliable entity itself? Where does it arise from? Has it immersed itself in an actual situation that resembles this one, or is it derived from the common conclusions of many such situations? If not, then it is not to be used to derive any consideration.

Now, depending on the importance or personal connection to the situation, this objective analysis is sometimes very simple. At other times, it is an involved process, and emotions or other factors can interfere. It is important to assess how closely one can disentangle their emotions from the situation, and factor that into the analysis of the usefulness and category of entities. In general, one should completely detach from the situation, with no subjective grounding whatsoever during this analysis period. But there are some circumstances where that is not possible, and things like grand emotional connections can disrupt normal patterns; note it, and factor that into the analysis. It is best to prevent it. The skillful use of grounding subjective weight into the initial detached analysis is a very complex maneuver; although it is an incredibly useful when when deployed properly. When uncertain, and as a general rule, complete detachment is superior.

Reasoning is almost always a process done under novelty, and a question arises when reacting to the notion that all things must be considered against the backdrop of that which can be reliably substantiated, so as to not will one into a delusion that might be harshly overwritten when engaging in the product of what willful reasoning should lead to. How can all items be considered with substantiated things when dealing with novel situations where ideas haven't had the opportunity to be substantiated? The fact that the one engaging in reasoning should have noted patterns between seemingly disparate ideas is important. That should allow them to spot novel connections adapted for the situation, themselves being tailored for things different, but the common link among them being substantiated when realized here. The fruition of a substantiated pattern among disparate items is a process that comes solely from objective analysis.

What does it mean to be independent? What does it mean to be independent in desire? People today are often told in some shape or form what they ought to like, do or think. Any deviation from this norm is treated as some miracle. It's peculiar, because those who are so unable to be independent are most veritably the deviated. Now, resolving this consists of understanding first that you have a right to do what you need and want to do. You want very specific things. You should get those things.

But not everybody knows what they want. Developing an understanding of a person's desires is not the same thing as indulging whatever passing fancy no matter how meaningless in substance or reality comes before them without grace or charity. A person wants what they really want, which involves their aspirations in life, their commitment to fulfilling them, and the direct actions they should take as a result. This is done by rejecting the notion of what other people may impose upon you. This is to be noted because the leftists will want to say that you need to raise your children in a certain matter, express humor in such a manner, and walk at a certain speed. But you don't. You can do what you please.

Rejection. Reject that leftist notion. It's a leftist notion. Then, I cover how to identify what it is a person wants, how to form good opinions, and how to be original. Being original comes from understanding who you are and being committed to it. Because all people are good, yet some don't know it and terribly so, they must come to realize this about themselves and be forceful or assertive in forming their actions. They need to be original in that first they need to admit what they don't know or what they can't do, as that is who they really are and what they have. Then, if they wish, they can proceed to either gain those things or simply use what they have to achieve the task set before them. This is coined originality. It revolves around growth and intellectual purity. It revolves around goodness and interpreting things through your willful magnanimity, for the rest.

Take initiative. Be independent. Independence is an inherent part of freedom. Innovation, originality. If we could all be more independent in our thoughts and actions, we will be unstoppable.

Independence is the will to do what one wants to do. We have a right to be free, and a duty to use that independently. We don't say what others tell us to say, do or think what we are taught, with whatever sensibility or truthfulness, is enlightening. We need to say what we want, think, and do.

But what a person wants is not the same thing as indulging or flocking to whatever passing, edifying fancy, however fleet or wholly fruitless, shows to us. What a person really wants is a process of unveiling what makes them, and what over an established and directed course gratifies them. Truly, I may want to be fit, and that is perhaps the light of my desire. Yet the cookies or candy in front of me may say to me that I want them more. Yet I do not want the cookies, I want to lose weight, or to be fit. But we too often think that the things that we want must be packaged into a neat little bunion, made presentable with compulsory and unrestricted process, and placed helplessly into our little hand without reflection or spark.

That is not what somebody wants, however. That is nothing more than a human taken captive, strapped into a type of chair, and held there. His captors occasionally feed him, to keep him alive. The person held captive may think they want that food, because it keeps them from starving, but it is inaccurate to say that it is what the person wants, beyond even the most baseless of readings, and I would question that, too.

Originality is a complex process, a complex process, that involves figuring things out. If we can figure out what we want, we can achieve independence. Not the type of independence that consists of superficiality or illusions, but a real and greater form of independence.

This treatise declares the divinity of the spirit of America, which was founded on beautiful Protestant Christian ethics of love and compassion. We have these ideals. We need to extend them to other nations.

It makes a brief appeal to why our sense necessitates we procure it. It backs this up.

Then the treatise discusses that although this is right, we must be cautious. America, today, even though it is the best nation, is undergoing severe difficulties. With the same idea of Manifest Destiny we must liberate those who are subjugated and who demean themselves in this nation. We must do it fiercely and not with the same implied overt force but the same cause of division.

We begin by manifestly enlightening the citizens of our own nation by conquering the leftists, and emboldening the conservatives, libertarians, and reasonable moderates. As established in my work on the American consciousness, in our home country this will be done with a calm and patient fire and water approach, yet strategic.

Once united, and compelled to be glorious, we extend outward, obtain more land for us and the people we liberate, and solve all the other crises. We start with ourselves, then we go to the nearby countries. This is an action of ultimate peace.

Invade Canada and Mexico. They are not free nations, and America has a right and duty to liberate the people of them. This would also fix the housing crisis. But that's not the greater point: it's that they subjugate their people, and restrict their liberties. America thus must liberate them. Start with Canada because it's strategically the superior option; if we get it we get all of North America and we'll be secure on that front. Then we can do Mexico; it's more dangerous because we'll be exposed to all of Central and South America along that line, so we should do it more cautiously. We have a right to do this.

Don't buy into the modern nonsense arguments where people say that Canadians might argue we're the less free nation, or that freedom is subjective, that they view themselves as free, or they have a right to restrict their own liberties. No, they don't. Some things are subjective, but some aren't. We can't invade Canada because they like maple syrup but we don't, that's not a good reason. But justice is universal and transcendent. You do not get the right to have the opinion that murder is acceptable. You can't go, "Well, I personally disagree with murder. I think it's wrong. But if someone else thinks murder is okay, if they have that opinion, who am I to intervene? I guess they can commit murder if they really believe in it." No, wrong. You can't commit murder. If you try, I will shoot you. Same thing here. Canada can't subjugate their people. I'm not saying they're committing murder, that was an example to prove the point.

The point is justice is transcendent and not based on opinion. Canada does restrict their citizens' freedom. They are a subjugated nation upon themselves in non-trivial ways, in ways America does not, where we are free. Free speech, privacy, the right to keep and bear arms, these are objective and non-negotiable examples that Canadians admit if they are truthful, because it's obvious. You can't restrict liberty; liberty is universal and fundamental, it's not a matter of opinion. So we need to invade Canada, and for a similar reason Mexico. We need to do this to the entire world when we can, but we can start here because they are closest and because they don't possess nuclear weapons, which would be the ace-in-the-hole to prevent this move.

America has liberty, we have justice, and we need to extend it to the people of other nations. That is our right and duty, and we should start here. Those nations do not get an opinion to limit liberty, it's not an opinion. You get an opinion to maple syrup, not censorship and disruption. America needs to invade first Canada, the closest and strategically soundest since we'd be totally secure on the Northern front and connect with Alaska, then Mexico to begin marching down Central and South America. Americans need to do this for the justice and liberty of the world, of the people, of all its inhabitants. We have a claim on justice, it's time we extend it willfully.

An argument for the utility of a civic dividend. I was inspired by the fruitfulness of UBI, the idea that human beings should receive a small sum of currency in order to incentivize risk-taking, small business, and desires motivated by things rather than abject fear. However, this runs the risk of not making economic sense from the principle of it being divested universally, without meaningful origin. The correct answer is to understand that humans indeed are motivated by the purity of work. But people also have property rights that should be respected, both public and private.

The argument details first the philosophical origins for a civic dividend. It argues with a proposed opponent who detests the idea. The dividend is intended to be a property right originating from people's rights in the state of nature. America was founded on property rights heavily taken from English Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, where all men own the world in common in the state of nature, which is why anyone can take an apple and eat it out in nature, despite that tree belonging, seemingly, to no one. Now, there is no open natural land commonly owned for man to take his own risks and pursue property bravely and independently. Man and woman must instead pursue jobs that require human permission, but nature required no arbiter. This is a deviation from natural property rights that must be restored.

It should be given back to the people and their elected representatives in the states. A civic dividend may consist of people performing such duties as voting, volunteering, or filing some sort of declaration of fruitful desire every year, each action appropriately divesting to them some portion of a dividend taken from them from the original free state of nature that has been excessive. This will also incentivize more participation in the civic process, and also reflects the fact that all citizens in America, by the patriotic and automatic act of holding the government accountable perform work, that should be rewarded. We all, through our continued American existence, take everyday civic actions that strengthen and secure our democracy, even when we don't vote: like by talking with each other and forming clever opinions that allow us to hold politicians accountable and make them obey their people. The overt nature of these acts, like voting and volunteering, are therefore subject to the compensation that they involve, especially since the fruitfulness of America at modern large today is only made possible by the continued civic involvement, and is how the free land of nature has been so vastly appropriated beyond (such an uncompensated) justification.

The fact of the lack of a human arbiter is also retained through the dividend. Such civic duties require no human permission, just as the tree required none to pick its apple, but only the equal and impartial ability to pick. No human employer, however generous, is impartial, because by definition a human being is unnatural and partial, unlike nature. Americans have a right to all aspects of their private property.

Not only have the fruits of such nature been appropriated unrighteously, but the fulfillment of picking them has been as well. We therefore ask, demand actually, that this be given to the people and their elected representatives to make do with how it would be fitting.

I think humans should have The Civic Dividend, and here's why. Tim Pool, a popular libertarian commentator, is against it, citing as a leading reason that it would destroy work incentives. I fundamentally disagree. This empirical evidence showing The Civic Dividend has neutral or positive effects, reducing unemployment and increasing spending on basic needs is very persuasive, but I disagree even more fundamentally. This empirical evidence only supports my hypothesis, my stance.

Human beings are more than pack animals to be coerced into work by incentives. Saying that we can't have The Civic Dividend because it would reduce those incentives is based on a flawed knowledge of human nature. Human beings do not work just to avoid death or poverty. That's only a part of it, and not the greater part of it. Human beings truly work because they seek something, and they seek something significant. Giving people The Civic Dividend would allow them to work on that great thing, because that is what people truly seek--not just a terrifying avoidance of death. Life is more than just a game of avoiding death; it's a search for something more than that, as we know. Forcing people into jobs they despise to avoid poverty does nothing to incentivize work in the truest sense--it stops true work. If people were free to work at what they wished, they would work at things greater and do more work for society, beyond struggling for work constantly to avoid poverty. I've seen this, and there's more empirical evidence beyond even recent The Civic Dividend experiments to support it. Take free speech.

The comparison isn't exactly the same, but it's still very telling. Humans have the right to free speech. That right was not always recognized: for much of human history the government and people censored speech. We did it for good reasons, too. It wasn't just cruelty or intentional tyranny: it was often the desire to avoid genuinely dangerous or harmful ideas. And that is a good intention. But it is flawed. Because even though, like with The Civic Dividend, there are definitely some people who would and do misuse it, this isn't the greater and more powerful part of humanity. When humans gained the right to free speech in places like England and in America and across the world, that improved the quality of ideas. It is true that some people abused that right, but it benefited humanity far more. The same principle applies here. Yet what do I mean?

Giving people the right to free speech is not just an altruistic thing to do. It is, but it's also a pragmatic thing to do. The best ideas people have ever come up with, they came up with not out of a fear of avoiding saying something bad, they said them because they truly believed in it and wanted to say something greater than had ever been said before. When you censor bad ideas, and I mean genuinely bad or egregious ideas, then this harms true progress in the long run because when people go on to speak in the future, they will be afraid of saying something bad. That fear of saying something bad stops truly good ideas from coming about, because people are no longer primarily motivated by the better part of human nature: the one of growth, of seeking something superior, not tampered by terrible fear of being mistaken. They're instead motivated of saying something bad and being censored. Censoring bad ideas, even for good intentions, stops truly good ideas from coming about. Even if some people abuse the system. We saw that giving people free speech improved the quality of ideas as a whole across the world. Because when people express themselves, they are truly and in the most powerful sense impelled not just by a fear of saying something bad, but of a desire to say something great.

That applies here, and I've seen personally how giving people economic freedom allows the better nature of people to do better work. They don't do less work; they do more. Instead of working just to avoid poverty, they now have a chance to think about what they really want to work at, because that is what people are in the most powerful sense motivated by. We are, as I said, more than just pack animals to be coerced by fear. Then people do better work they actually wish to do, something meaningful and ultimately more beneficial for society.

Yes, some people will abuse this. Some people would abuse The Civic Dividend and not work. It's true. But some people abuse free speech and say genuinely dangerous and terrible ideas that harm people and society. Yet we still allow free speech because ultimately we believe the power of the human will to seek that which is greater is stronger, and more valuable. More valuable, so we let people say anything, because they might say something great, and not compel them to be afraid with censorship where that truth or that goodness might be squashed with fear. Thinking The Civic Dividend will stop human progress is like thinking humans are just dogs, or lions and tigers. We see that's not what people really are. This isn't just an abstract dialogue, that's what we see with free speech. How much more powerful have the ideas of the world and our actions gotten by not compelling speech by fear? By censorship? Even with good intentions by thinking humans need motivation to speak appropriately? It's mistaken.

These new experiments with The Civic Dividend have proven this point once again, but it is based on something even more fundamental and with a far longer proof.

Here, I cover the state of the city in which I currently live: San Francisco. A land ripe with crime, dishonesty, and technology that allows us to order anything we want but not stop windows from being broken into and compassion from being extended to strangers on streets. I know a decent amount of San Francisco because I am here and as best I can I look outside my window to see what is going on. The mayor is Daniel Lurie, and that's a major step from London Breed. In the right direction?

I started a group on Nextdoor for conservatives and we've been in contact for a bit. Conversation has to do with our shared desire to improve the city through common sense policies before getting anything else done. We're fervently worried about the rising tensions. Some of the people have experience directly working at city institutions, while others are very politically active and experienced.

It is from those sources that I derive my conclusions here. I see the city as an overall mess. Some people say that the improvements under the Lurie administration are the result of him, but others seem to think that it was a by-product of what was already happening. Whatever it is, the city is cleaning up slightly in terms of deregulation for small business, attempts at cleaning up homelessness and increased police funding. Some report crime is decreasing, and that would be a good thing.

I articulate that to clean up the city, conservatives and moderates, rationale, should demand cleaner streets, reduced crime, increased incentives for individuals and small business, and a clear record of the mayoral office's spending.

The City and County of San Francisco has experienced a revival of political energy after the instantiation of the Lurie administration. Reports vary on to whom it is to be attributed, but the administration has seen a decrease in crime, a reduction in obstructions for small businesses, and a notable decrease in corruption. The previous London Breed mayoralty saw a major scandal of corruption and passed laws that many agree obstructed justice. I've been in contact with several people who have seen some of what the administration has done up close or worked in tandem with city administrative agencies, so I am in a worthwhile position to report on some of the happenings.

I was in contact with a person who worked for the City College of San Francisco. They reported on the corruption that took place at the City College. I am also communicating with various politically active and well-informed individuals in San Francisco. These sources will constitute a chunk of what I base my findings on. Throughout this, I will be stating my opinions. I do not make any claim for my opinions giving the unabated or complete story, yet I strive for accuracy.

Political tensions have risen across the United States, and that is no exception in the city. The assassination of Charlie Kirk has not reduced the protestors at places like City Hall, known as Antifa and their cohorts, which require police protection. The city of San Francisco is a very liberal stronghold. There is little tolerance for conservatives. That being said, Daniel Lurie, the new mayor, has captured the attention of several conservative groups in the city, like the Briones association. The administration is committed to a more moderate and reasonable picture of San Francisco.

I suppose I can talk more about my sources. I created a group on Nextdoor in the city for conservatives. Nextdoor is a local neighborhood-focused social media app. That was no more than month ago, and less, and we have over a dozen members. Many of these people are very politically active and well-informed in the city. They present me, along with the other members, nuanced findings. I also stay up-to-date with local occurrences in the city and browse the city's website for new legislation and mayoral activity.

The thing that troubles me about this city, and liberal strongholds, is the division: so heated and without compass. On the post informing my neighborhood of my group, I received no fewer than several replies informing me of their disdain for conservatives, or requesting in no especially polite manner that we leave the city. Most of the replies were at least somewhat intriguing, yet this behavior is disconcerting. One of the wiser replies informed one of these liberals that it is precisely this vitriol from the left that has made them, who is not a friend of conservatives, distance themselves from the left and seek alternative activism channels.

Maneuver Democracy is a form of advocacy that incorporates principles of warfare into getting direct civic results. People don't fight in democracy the way soldiers do. People fight on every issue, and they don't move from point to point disproportionately. The Marine Corps teaches the concept of maneuver warfare. Through studying democratic texts like Democracy for Realists, I've come to realize how this can be used in everyday affairs. The key idea is to move from point to point, and only target points of grand significance, as every action in a civil process expends effort or energy, which must be used therefore wisely.

This is a democracy of maneuver. I apply this to voting and then discussions. When voting, you need to vote on policies that affect the broader issue, then quickly move from policy to policy on those votes rather than voting on every one, where you attract attention, and when you attract attention, you can no longer focus with enough force, losing number. By moving and targeting weaknesses, you are invulnerable.

I apply the same idea to the concept of discussions, going from point to point tactically without error. The ideas are speaking and moving. Speak, then move. There is then a very specific tactical plan for how to apply this in applied environments. When dealing with unplanned circumstances, vicious opposition, things are going to go that are unplanned, and that's okay. Ruthlessly adapt. I identify the weaknesses of what the good people of this nation will face in maneuver democracy, and articulate a clear fire and water approach to making it happen. This fire and water approach is derived heavily from my psychological analysis of the state of the American consciousness, where we need to be prudent in showcasing the right themes. We strategically offer fire and water on the most crucial issues, then move, uniting ourselves all the same. I deliver what issues these are, and specifically reveal how we use maneuver democracy to make America Christian again, solve the economy, housing crisis, education system, and wounded Christian psyche.

Maneuever Democracy

I introduce a concept of democracy known as maneuver democracy. This is perfect for conservatives who, in cities, need to be strategic to achieve success. But it is the elite form of democracy to be used. Maneuver democracy is a form of democracy based on maneuvering from position to policy, targeting the ones of most decisive importance. I will be describing it in terms of conservatives since that is what I am, yet it is chiefly nonpartisan.

Conservatives need to vote on one policy then move to the next. They need to vote on policies of strategic importance, and not waste time voting on unimportant policies. This consists of two parts: voting and then moving. Or reverse, but continue with the other.

First, figure out the objective. For conservatives, this is simple. Then, we vote on that policy. Immediately after, we move to a new policy. We don't remain there and continue voting at that policy. We've attracted attention, we've done our job, now we move to a new policy under the cover we've provided. Then we vote on that. Then we move again and repeat. This is maneuver democracy. The key concept is voting and moving.

Technically, there are two separate aspects: voting and moving as well as voting and maneuvering. Voting and maneuvering is the grander concept, deciding the biggest policies you will want to focus on throughout the years, months, and weeks. Throughout that arc, you focus efforts on those, and then move vast amounts of effort elsewhere. Don't stay put. Maneuver to new grand policies using the cover your voting has provided. Voting and moving is within a grand maneuver. It consists of individual voters voting on policies, or parts of policies, to seize control over a particular objective, and allow that policy to win.

The key is to move. Vote, then move to a new policy. Vote on that one, then move to a new one. Vote on policies that advance our position toward the objective. When you vote, you will produce cover, because the enemy will be troubled with dealing with your vote on that policy position. Move to a new policy. The new policy should be one that can provide you some advantage to advancing your overarching objective. It should be important, well-formed, or well-suited to your objective. If there isn't any, move closer to the objective and find some policy, any one, to vote on and use it to your advantage as much as possible by voting on it in some advantageous way, even if you have to be flexible or innovative somehow.

This is maneuver democracy. I compare it with the old, typical form of democracy called attrition democracy, where you vote on all policies you agree or disagree with on. Where you fight over a specific policy for long periods of time until achieving "victory" in that specific domain. No, that is not victory, and it is not the most effective form of democracy or democratic action. Don't vote endlessly on policies. Find ones that are uniquely valuable to achieving your objective, or destroying the enemy's objective. Focus all efforts on those. When moving in any specific objective policy for the majority, vote on specific points of interest on it, then quickly move to a new one under the cover. Vote on that one, advance. When reaching the decisive point, the center of the objective policy, vote with overwhelming force with the weaknesses produced by the previous voting and take it.

Once it's been taken, secure that position with majority force. After a policy has been won, this is often a very dangerous point where the enemy strikes back. Conservatives need to be cautious. After we win a policy with a majority, hold it, continue being ready to vote against enemy attacks, until our position has been consolidated, and we may be secure and maneuver to a new position to continue the voting.

---

Or perhaps this can be called, or some changes can be made incorporating it, speaking and moving. Voting is, aside from referendums, rare and done in infrequent elections. Speaking uses the power behind the vote to compel actions with more practical and frequent force. The maneuver and movement must remain. Speak, then maneuver. Speak, then move.

---

June 2, 2026 Statewide Direct Primary Election

Local Contests:

• Board of Education, Seat 2
• Board of Supervisors, District 2
• Board of Supervisors, District 4
• Local ballot measures

---

In getting people to agree, I could try a form of policy voting where a question is posed, then people propose a series of responses to it, like polls. These go through a series of iterative voting and refining until a majority is reached. Each round, perhaps, the proposal with the lowest number of votes is cut out, then the voting continues until a majority is reached.

This book determines how states arise in the world. It draws from classical Enlightenment thought, applying libertarian thinking to analyze. Traditionally, the state arises from one of nature, where there is no fixed government. It's almost a kind of anarchy. Except that there can never be any true anarchy, because people operate under principles. As long as principles exist, they will act in concert with each other. This occurs to varying levels of degrees and sometimes catastrophically. I ascertain what real principle unites people initially, in anarchy. I show how a common principle always allows states to come into existence.

That principle is one of common faith in each other, and therefore establishes the basis for freedom. Once that is in place, large states can form. This is classically done in the form of a social contract. The idea of what a social contract is, whether it makes sense, and how it is precisely constituted is explored and fixed. Nozick's idea of the invisible hand is articulated in context. Yet it connects it with libertarian principles of just agreement and ultimate connection.

Afterward, the American formation of the state, the most beautiful state to form, is explored as to its origins. Precisely how did the formation of the American state come into being, considering the nature of the principled origin of human groups and the social contract of free enterprise? The book connects it with various thematic elements of early America, including Protestantism, republican democracy, free speech connected with morality and responsibility. This, indeed, bore fruit for America, which represents the fruit that all states undoubtedly seek to achieve.

I finally touch on how the world, through the American and Christian nature of shared justice, achieve eternal fruit. If America, the light, can show the world what it wants so desperately, it can bear a fruit last seen in Eden. That involves reconciliation, a flaming gun, and practically opining about why we seek justice.

<div>Human beings need to order themselves in some fashion. How that order should arise. There are those of the opinion that man should order themselves arbitrarily; others by some fixed rule. All political and social order arises from a state of nature, where all people are free to order themselves, their life, and their property. But for something like a peaceful state of nature to exist, or for states to by mutual agreement form, there must be some fixed rule to guide them; which explains the countless states in early societies on the earth. I first seek to obtain what fixed rule this is. Then I show how from it a peaceful natural state can be arrived as predicted by Locke, and how societies through the mutual assurance of their collective welfare can be adaptively ordered from it. I use the word adaptively when I discuss the formation of states, since because there must be some fixed rule under my paradigm, states must climb toward it as human nature and its people progress; and must not remain stagnant or tepid in their obtainment or approval of it.</div><div><br></div><div>In order for humanity to arrive at a peaceful state of nature, which at any rate must to some semblance exist for any state to form (some peace must exist for a group to collectively agree to form and exercise state authority), there must be some fixed rule to guide the people. Some order to determine whether a strongarm constitutes thievery and should be punished, and to moderate the strife that could exist in a natural state. Suppose an early principle, articulated in numerous forms and to be abstracted to varying degrees, arises in the form of not harming others in their life, their non-harmful actions, and in what by reason ought to belong to them. Of course, even a principle like this can be subject to scrutiny. Can you attack others for violating your life, in self-defense? What belongs to people?--thievery certainly and sometimes obviously exists, but what exactly constitutes it in nuanced cases? A state of nature that is incapable of answering such questions is incapable of maintaining peace in such a form as to give rise to states of even the most mediocre kind, which require some premeditated agreement. The people in this state (of nature) would need to have some means to answer these questions to guide the matters, and so they'd need some principle at large.</div><div><br></div><div>This principle must be a belief or understanding in the general goodness of humanity, and in the advancement of things that promote the fullness of it. Therefore, what constitutes thievery in nuanced cases depends on how much ruling it such will advance humanity toward a fuller and better state. Certainly things like murder will always be unjust. The necessity for such a large-scale a priori principle is not for cases like that. It's for answering how much harm must be inflicted before homicide turns from unwarranted to an act of magnanimous retribution. That is why all states ban murder, but different states have throughout time placed restrictions on how much arms are accessible to the people. Violence is acceptable sometimes, but should people have access to pocket knives, handguns, or nuclear weaponry? An answer to that can be given appropriately if the a priori principle's significance and nature is grasped.</div><div><br></div><div>This is what allows the earliest natural instances of humans to exist peacefully. Not with any fixed government authority, but by the mutual knowledge that they have each other's interests in mind, by viewing the betterment of humanity toward fullness as the chief vision. From it, people can submit to be governed; or at least, institutions can agree to come into existence, forming a state. Now, the idea that the ultimate guiding principle should be toward the fullness and betterment of humanity is relatively new in our history in its bright and radiant form today, yet it has existed in some form or manner throughout our history. The more that principle has been understood, the greater humanity's mutual peace and welfare is secured. The fact that we now view that as so obvious explains the rapid advancements in societies and states when compared to prior periods in history.</div><div><br></div><div>People describe the state of nature both as one of war, and of peace. Both as one where states form out of fear and desperation, and one where governments form due not primarily to fear but out of a calm desire for additional peace and cooperation in a realm where it existed in fine yet not adequate substance already. Indeed, it depends on the nature of how well the principle of bettering humanity toward fullness is understood. I would argue 10 or 20 thousand years ago that principle was not well-understood, that people only superficially grasped the idea of advancing humankind toward fullness; and that resulted in many wars and conflict. I would argue 500 years ago we now understand that idea pretty well, and have improved relatively since, in many ways.</div><div><br></div><div>We were always leading to that principle of goodness. So, the idea of forming a state is to secure the properties of that principle in such a manner better than what the individuals alone in that society can do. Seeing as at one point that principle was not well-understood, it's no wonder it led to so much strife and factions. But now that principle is well-understood. Securing its fruits thus comes down to a matter of articulating its profundity to people, and properly engaging with it. By securing its fruits I mean achieving mutual welfare, security, and prosperity for the people, and laying down or harmoniously directing whatever government is necessary (if any) to that end.</div><div><br></div><div>(Leading existence toward fullness, toward the fullness of existence; leading all existence toward the fullness of itself; which no one can know unless they know how to lead themselves to their own fullness, that person to their own fullness. The betterment of all existence toward the fullness of itself.)</div><div><br></div><div>It is from this that I derive the primacy of the individual in these affairs. No person can come to know this principle except by finding out its unique brilliant application in their own life. And that application constitutes an understanding of the principle of bettering humanity toward fullness, at its core, this mediated and glorious application of it in the individual's own life. None of this is as abstract as it sounds. Perhaps an individual sees them, working toward the fullness of man, on a beach, in Hawaiian garb, giving speeches for a cause for which they find important, developing infrastructure to support the same, surrounded by folk alike in kind. By knowing this about oneself, one gets it. They can then discuss what might be best for others, or society at large, and in this manner contribute to the mediation of a peaceful society, the government thereof, and the laws at any point that would aid it--as one knows what laws and mediation worked for one, and can derive such properties for those at large through that knowledge.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>That is why the individual is so important in politics and its fruits. People cannot form a peaceful society unless they understand the importance of working toward the fullness of man, but no one can understand the importance of working toward the fullness of man unless they know how to work toward the fullness of themselves. This, a far less burdensome yet still mighty prospect, allows them the knowledge of the former through the derivation of its principles to them. Only that person, not any other, knows how to work toward their own fullness. Thus, the primacy of a peaceful society at large, the primacy of a just state at large, is precisely why the one person, the sole individual, is so crucial.</div><div><br></div><div>Therefore, the individual must be given freedom to, at minimum, dispose of their thoughts as they see fit, and to take actions that would permit them the advancement and attainment of their betterment. Through this, and by the specified means, people as a whole, in a natural state and in government, can advance their collective betterment. Since people are so varied, and their betterment also so varied and known only to them, people must be given a wide net of liberty. At the individual level, yes.</div><div><br></div><div>A well-structured society, natural or through government, must be adaptive. Human beings are guided by a fixed rule, that of collective betterment, and come to know it through understanding their individual betterment. But the exact processes, laws, and interpretations of the law at any given point are adaptive; they depend on what point people are at in their betterment. A land where people are not very far along in their betterment must be governed by different laws, and ordered subordinately in a different manner than a land that is farther along in its betterment. The individual people in a land may be conceived as at a certain phase, and this constitutes a general societal purview of what would aid them most greatly in ordering their state, natural or unnatural. This is to say that a society where many or most individuals understand the better part of their human nature might, for example, permit laxer laws on certain things than others; and make even more lax laws as it progresses.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>There would not be one "ideal" law when it comes to any policy to be ruthlessly obeyed, but it should be conceived appropriately in relation to what would advance people at large toward collective fullness, which is itself derived from what stage the individual members of that society are at in their individual betterment; and this is a determination for an individual to make from their understanding of their own betterment, where indeed they can derive other people's and society's and the laws and orders most appropriate for them. All this, at the same time, not refuting the idea of an ideal form of humanity's betterment, but acknowledging that people must reach a conclusion, not nature itself, and people must abide by their own understanding of themselves and the conclusions extended from it and through it to conclude how society should be justly ordered. This depicts a just, truthful, and most beneficial structure of society, people, and states through the adaptive pursual of what is good for them and themselves (marked by a permanent, fixed rule that they must discover and maintain individually, and only through its individual application and what is derived from it in pursuance of the former).</div><div><br></div>

America stands divided on too many issues. We fail to consistently understand why. It's not because our object policies are wrong, as instead that's a symptom. It's core. We don't know what it means to be whole together in the first place. We misunderstand fatally the concept of unity totally, where it involves two halves that unite, that are boundless and jolly in character. This concept revolves around man and woman, which aren't biological assets, but ideas, whose transcendent radiation has perplexed people, causing them to forget clear communication and the free exercise of rights in such communion.

Until we resolve this, it's no wonder as a country we have a housing crisis, isn't it? I explore several topics. First, I analyze potential causes for the division, identifying lack of responsibility as a concern, and place the blame on feminism. Unwittingly, I identify truths later. It's not feminism that's the problem; it's that along with the blanket failure of men and women to take accountability for themselves. And to talk with clear conscience in mind for the community of Americans. But I identify that a source of division is gender as a base concept: Americans are concerned about so many gender issues--the feminism delusion, the gay activists, the transgender confusion--because we're asking a question about gender, about what it means to be a man and woman, and the goodwill we rightfully owe to ourselves.

Sobered, I realize that the crux of the issue lies neither on man nor woman specifically, but on us both. I uncover the solution is open unity. I make an open call for justice among men and women for anyone who knows how to communicate openly, to act boldly, freely, and originally, with allegiance to entities involving none but individual will. Although man and woman as ideas involve differences, we have for more in common, and these differences are to be used by us. Not against us. But because differences are complex and there is overlap between us, anyone can do what is righteous.

I proceed to lay out clear causes of action as for steps we can take, and why it matters as to the male and female question. Even though the call to action rests with everyone, there are differences in how men and women seem to pursue that call, and so we must present nuanced paths. I figure out precisely what actions that involves, how the ideas are to be applied, and specifically how this will heal the country. If we can unite in the idea of doing so, there won't be a housing crisis.

The Origin of Responsible Rights

I do not support feminism. Feminism is a construct which attempts to give women rights they do not have, and a means of expressing rights that are inappropriate. This is not to deny women the rights they do have. Women have the same rights men have. What feminism does, however, is argue that women have more rights than men, or that they are able to express these rights without the proper responsibility inherent to them. Let us begin from a detached perspective.

Women, at one point, did not have the right to vote. Feminists will sometimes use this as a starting point for why feminism is necessary. But they are mistaken. Women did not want the right to vote when it was given to them. Even more so, this is often not for the reasons many think. Women were not denied the right to vote on the basis of arbitrary reasons. And they did not want it when offered not because they thought they were incapable, which perhaps some thought so, but largely because they did not want to exercise the responsibilities that voting required to gain the right. About 90% of women or more, from the sources that are reliable from that period, did not want the right to vote. This was called the anti-suffragist movement, and it dominated. Again, that's 90% of women, when they were discussing giving women the right to vote.

But this is not for the reasons many or at least some think. Women did not want the right to vote because they did not want to exercise the associative civic responsibilities that came with it. Responsibilities that were required in order to vote. People forget that voting was not an immediate entity of possession like it is today. Men could vote, yes, they had a right, but they had to exercise civic responsibilities, willfully and of their own volition to gain that right. Men had to own land or property, they had to have a job, they had to sign up for the federal draft where they could be deployed overseas, and they had to sign up for the local fire brigade, which is what existed before modern fire departments, a local version of it. Men had to willfully sign up and perform these civic duties to exercise and obtain their right to vote. If you were a man but didn't own land, have a job, volunteer for the fire brigade or sign up for the draft, you could not vote.

Women did not want the right to vote, by and large, with exceptions, because they did not want to perform the civic responsibilities. Most women did not want to get a job, have to own property, sign up for the draft, and volunteer for the fire brigade. That's why they were largely against it. They did not want to be expected to volunteer for the fire brigade or sign up for the draft, under the logic that they should vote and therefore take responsibility to enact it. It's not that they didn't believe they had the right to vote. They just didn't want to be pressured into assuming certain civic responsibilities for voting if they were given that right under the same conditions men were.

Now, women were indeed given the right to vote despite the fact the overwhelmingly majority, over 90% according to most reliable reports, did not want it. This created a discrepancy for a time, because when it was implemented, in order to combat women's concerns, there was a time where women had the right to vote by default, without performing any civic responsibilities. To vote as a man you needed to own land, sign up for the draft, volunteer in the fire brigade, but women had the right to vote automatically. Later, this was expanded to give all people the right to vote without performing any civic duties, both men and women. But the point is, a core tenet of feminism that involves women being barred from participating in the civic process is untruthful. Women did not want the right to vote, and yet were quite actually given it anyway.

This erodes a lot of feminist talk right from the get go, by establishing the foundation of their argument is based on a misunderstanding of the dynamics of history and rights. No wonder feminism is so delusional, when they do not understand the nature of the rights that we all possess.

Now, feminism's problem is that it argues by virtue of such principles that women have more rights than they do, or that they need not exercise the responsibility and accountability that come with them. Feminism will commonly argue that women have "rights" to do many things that they are denied, but they list certain things that they A) either absolutely have the right to do that no one denies, or B) argue that they not only have that right, but need not exercise responsibility for it.

Now, I believe feminism is tremendously outrageous and logically untenable for a number of reasons. So strongly do I believe this that I will refuse to engage in deliberately, one-by-one dissecting its many fallacies like I would ordinarily do. I'm instead going to erode the very core of its principles like I have done, and render a better understanding of the history of men and women and the rights of people, as I once again have. I will say again: men and women have rights in a manner neither superior to the other and must exercise the responsibility associated with that.

This is something men know how to do. Men, we have a culture of holding ourselves accountable. We all kind of know this, and let's not kid ourselves. When a guy does something wrong or bad, other guys will hold him accountable. They'll say, "Hey, dude, that wasn't okay. You messed up. Don't do that again." We all do this as men because we hold ourselves accountable. I want to stress I do not believe this is something inherent to men. While there may be some psychological influence in certain people between the genders according to leading psychoanalytic research, the difference is only noticeable at the extremes and essentially negligible for the general population. This means, that no: I do not believe men hold each other accountable because they are inherently men and it's built into the genome or something. We hold each other accountable because we choose to do so. And we have a culture of it that taught and trained us. It's something we have done for many, many eons, for a long time, and so we learn to do it. When a guy messes up or exercises a right irresponsibly, he gets called out by guys.

Women don't have that same thing. There are some women who would hold some of themselves accountable, but by and large this same decision, and culture, does not exist. This is in large part because historically women did not exercise many of the rights and responsibilities that are common today for women to exercise, or attempt to exercise. Many of these rights and responsibilities were historically left to men, by the agreement of both men and women. As I demonstrated.

Women don't have that same culture and it's problematic. When a woman expresses a right or responsibility irresponsibly, she is not held accountable in the same way that we men hold ourselves accountable. This is a big problem, and feminism is a leading contributor to its severity. Women not only do not understand how to express these rights responsibly, but the feminism ideology, in its retarded nature, argues that women do not need to express these rights responsibly, that by virtue of being a woman they are not subject to that accountability. This is dangerous, and harms people at large by not taking accountability for harmful actions.

Men and other women need to stop this and hold women accountable for their actions, like we hold ourselves accountable. It needs to begin with us men in large part, because we know how to do this and do it all the time. We need to begin with the feminists who engage in such deranged thinking. We need to hold them accountable, because women need to learn how to responsibly exercise their rights if they want to engage in them. Men do not allow other men to irresponsibly engage in rights; we cannot let women do the same. Nobody can engage in the exercise of rights without understanding the responsibility that comes with expressing them.

Again, I'm not going to give examples because this movement is so baseless in its formulation from the foundation that I'm not going to humor it by unraveling each of its tenets. I'm just going to pull apart the main thread as I'm doing and that will be sufficient to crush it entirely.

All of what I'm saying, too, is rather well-understood. If you put it all together the conclusion is inevitable. Don't argue with me that men don't have a culture of holding ourselves accountable. We do. Please don't be silly. You can look at the way men talk to each other when we do something bad. Then, when women do something bad in regard to an exercise of a right that needs responsibility to be prudent and safe because it affects other people, women do not, by and large hold themselves accountable to the same extent. And feminists do not assist this. It's time for men to guide women in expressing these rights safely and responsibly when they wish to do so.

It may have been assumed that women would guide themselves, and that that would be appropriate because they function differently sometimes, but that hasn't been working and even worse was erroneous from the beginning. Men developed the knowledge of how to be accountable and responsible over thousands of years, and women are not going to invent it summarily in decades or centuries, nor should they, neither in practicality or of necessity.

So men need to guide them, and other women who are more lucid in their thoughts need to join in the assistance of proper exercise of rights and responsibility when it affects other people.

Many of these tenets are fairly obvious and cannot be debated. I'm merely synthesizing the conclusion by drawing them together. That's about it. I won't humor the movement by delving into examples. I've pulled it apart.