7-30-26. Loser Talk, Part 3. I am quickly bored with boasting, chatter and trivia. They are for me minor adjunctives to sincere opening up. Have at it without my participation. I don’t want, nor will I acquiesce to it as the sole basis for inclusion. One is then left honorably with “letting go,” intransigent exclusion, in lieu of openness. When your terms are mutual respect, and you’re truly ready to “let go,” that has to be OK.
I despise being assumed “moved on” from gross impropriety, prior rudeness which may go up to including violence. The lies, the debasements, the abject, snide remarks of disrespect, the slanders, the calumny, may themselves become sources of filthy fucking lies* when raised. Inclusion here demands accepting “moving on” without reconciliation. To be not thus subjugated you are adversarial, threatening the shallow, superficial, boasting fool’s projection of dominance and superiority. Total lack of depth. Zero ambiguity. No sensitivity. Not my style. I don’t care.
I make no claims to perfection. I consider acknowledgement, accountability and remorse the high marks of virtue, including for imperfect me. If that’s “loser talk,” I don’t need you in my periphery. If a lying punk scoundrel must be in my periphery, and attempts at raising reconciliation are clearly exhausted, and I have “let go,” its “mute diplomatic” mode without offering to me full open past conduct reconciliation to talk it out.
* It doesn’t matter what the truth is, it’s who discredits whom.
—
7-29-26. One-liner Therapy, Part 2. I’m a one-liner therapist. Why not? For me, it enables contemplation, while retaining dignity, being open and acknowledging imperfection. “You are the victim of my jealous envy!” HaHaHa. My current favorite one-liner. It works in any context where your wish to seek remediation is rejected. Who are you to request remediation of me? HaHaHaHa. The lies! The evasions! HaHaHaHa.
Next favorite one-liner is “You’re a hotshot and I’m nobody.” HaHaHa. Why should a hotshot show you mutual respect? You must acquiesce to their superiority! Then, you will be found acceptable in their glorious, superior, shallow, superficial, boasting fool presence! HaHaHaHa.
I admit to being fascinated by those who stake their credibility against yours and lie in your face. Hysterical. Cracks me up. I think it may be part of my “I want to die naive” world view epiphanied while in the nascent stage of one-liner therapy development, many years ago. I may have been taking a dump at the time. It’s possible I was wiping my ass with ripped pages from
—
7-28-26. Lying Punk Scoundrels, Part 4. My terms are mutual respect. Ever known someone who could look you in the eye and lie? It’s reasonably common, from weak, superficially inclined individuals who assume their credibility will remain greater than yours. Damage is always done, often irreparably without reconciliation. Setting aside the issue of public officials lying, on a personal level, after requesting redress for a while, knowing beyond a doubt it will not succeed, it’s best at times to “let go.” It can be, in the final analysis, the most honorable approach.
To “let go” is different from “move on,” which implies acceptance of no reconciliation for past conduct as a condition for continuation of the relationship. Letting go implies the end of outreach, even remarks intended to prompt considering acknowledgement, accountability and remorse, because all outreach has done is antagonize, and produce lies. What’s left is to not respond to incoming communication, if any, without their initiating reconciliation. The onus is on them. They may never figure it out. They may blame you. That has to be OK.
—
7-26-26. Santa Cruz investigative journalism exposes Big Soda!* Why don’t local investigative journalists investigate why sugar in Santa Cruz soda is taxed and sugar in Santa Cruz ice cream is not taxed? So, sugar in soda is bad, but sugar in ice cream is good. Santa Cruz politician Don Lane’s recent Ice Cream Tour puff piece double standard is worthy of investigation, except it would mean challenging an obvious double standard in local politics.
I’d be shocked, shocked to find local journalism investigating obvious double standards in Santa Cruz politics! Then, maybe local investigative journalists would investigate Fred Keeley, the current Mayor of Santa Cruz, aggressively promoting Superior Court Judge Ariadne Symons who fixed her own red light ticket for re-election in 2019/20. No story there! On to the next puff piece. Here comes Don Lane’s Ice Cream Tour!
* It doesn’t affect any local hack “leadership” complicit cover-up fraud. It’s a safe, false front field day for authorized local investigative journalism!
—
7-25-26. The Bible says, “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10, KJV.) This is bandied about as having “Biblical principle” significance. When pointed out inheritors don’t have to work, as in “the idle rich,” and certainly not for survival, out comes the SOCIALIST allegation. (Religion is Politics beyond reproach. “God says,” is political.)
The phrase, “Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor” has been around for a while. Case in point, Amazon workers on food stamps and other subsidies, right now, 2026. We enable, we do not disturb Jeff Bezos cash flow. How clever of Amazon’s Board of Directors, to the benefit of stockholders! Antagonistic government intervention to the contrary would be Socialism, so some say, and we don’t want that! Who are we to question entrepreneurial exploitation and plunder? Jeff Bezos is the victim of jealous envy! He has instructed his paid goon myrmidons to CRUSH LOSER OPPOSITION to his success!
Redistribution of wealth is Socialism. Examples abound, like infrastructure projects and public education. An unapproachable example is government subsdizing low-level employess of the Capitalist ownership/inheritor class. Can’t do that. You don’t want to be labeled a SOCIALIST.
—
7-24-26. One-liner Therapy, Part 1. I work for Goldstein. Life lives on death. HaHaHa. Life is fatal. HaHaHa.
And then I said, “Come for the one-liners, stay for the politics.” And then I said, “Normal is what you get away with.” And then I said, “You are the victim of my jealous envy.” Deception and treachery are hysterical. So are personal attacks, dismissive tones of voice, condescension, debasing and lying. Same with those for whom the only possible relationship is one of submission to their shallow, superficial, boasting fool superiority. They crack me up the most.
“One-liner therapy” is self-induced. It’s self-administered amusement. It’s a way to achieve balance, while still exhibiting courage, principle and honor. If everything isn’t a joke, I don’t know what is. Start from there. Keep going until you smile.
—
7-19-26. Lying Punk Scoundrels, Part 3. People love Donald Trump. He has legions of followers. Lucky for planet Earth not everybody is enticed by shallow superficial boasting fools.
Being a lying punk scoundrel doesn’t mean you won’t be “successful.” Often it’s the opposite. Many consider Donald Trump to be “successful” with his ostentatious display of wealth and bravado. That’s why they support him. He can look you in the eye and lie. He can be insulting. It’s his privilege. He’s a hotshot and you’re nobody. Mutual respect is not in his vocabulary. Loyal, sycophantic submission is demanded for inclusion. He is the victim of his adversaries jealous envy!
“Credere, Obbedire, Combattere.”
“Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.”
“I alone can fix this.”
—
7-18-26. Lying Punk Scoundrels, Part 2. Mutual respect requires seeing your own flaws and recognizing others are not your replicates. I am far from perfect. Chief among sinners. What I am is open. I certainly try to be. Criticism? Have at it as long as I can respond. For a lying punk scoundrel, criticism is one-way. Their perceived superiority does not allow for criticism from a perceived inferior.
If you chastise me for not acquiescing to your authority, or if you lie, I will challenge you. If you raise your voice, cut me off and motor-mouth that means to me you demand acquiescence, and that ain’t gonna happen. I don’t need or want that kind of relationship, on any level, with anyone.
—
7-16-26. Lying Punk Scoundrels, Part 1. A lying punk scoundrel never apologizes. They perceive it’s not in their interest, that there’s no benefit. They are certain their credibility will remain greater than yours. Acknowledgement, accountability and remorse are seen as weaknesses. So they lie. It’s their priviledge to lie. It’s all your fault, whatever the situation that you do not acquiesce to their superior authority to do, be or say.
I require mutual respect for a beyond one encounter relationship. After extended outreach with sufficient proof there will be no change, I stop trying. I let go. The bridge is burned. Henceforth, reconciliation must be requested for interaction, or even to come into my periphery. If not, I don’t care. What for? “La commedia e finita!”
—
7-15-26. It doesn’t matter what the truth is, it’s who discredits whom. I remain shocked by those who can look you in the eye and lie. And they “gaslight,” as if it’s an acceptable, expected procedure to avoid accountability for condescension, debasing, deception and lying. I’m not into “moving on.” Moving on is not justice. Reconciliation puts everything up for review. My mute diplomatic mode is brief and temporary, to accommodate necessity. No exceptions.
—
7-11-26. I have a low tolerance for boasting and chatter. Triviality bores me. Initial encounters, OK. Beyond that if you are fearful of provocative, open up ambiguity politics and religion balanced participation sharing, avoid me. If you invite me, expect me to be myself. (With a mute diplomacy formal mode to accommodate absolutely required prior insulters, this is my “social policy” for over 40 years now. No exceptions.)
—
7-10-26. “Fourfold Aphorisms” of practical political analysis principles:
Birds of a feather flock together.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
—
7-7-26. I can be mutely diplomatic to achieve a brief visitation formal cordiality social peace when necessary, provided there are long enough intervals between encounters. For saying, “If you raise your voice, cut people off and motor-mouth, you’re a winner” I was punitively denounced as disrespectful. For saying, “I despise Political Parties” I was severely chastised as rude.
Jesus, Socrates and Joan of Arc are revered historically for being provocative, onto death. In their times, their presence threatened contemporary insipid, fear-ridden, double standard hypocrites. They had a few pals as well. Provocative folks always do. There are those who appreciate being provoked, and I’m not referring to racial or sexual slurs, as long as they can respond. All local analogies do not trivialize.
—
7-6-26. “If you are indigent and can’t do it stealth, round them up.” Do you agree? How? Immediate 24/7 monitored containments with “navigation” to next steps as funds arise.
—
7-5-26. Interaction is action. Thus, we affect everybody around us and justify ourselves. Discourse is crucial if we are to grow and it can unquestionably be by polite display of mutual respect. Can you express your unique individuality on issues? Is being asked your opinion on politics and religion a personal attack? Can you handle disagreement? Aren’t long-winded lecture-speeches, motor-mouthing and out-agressing behavior inappropriate, in fact rude? Can you listen 30 to 90 seconds and not cut someone off?
—