All of these forms of media share the same fundamental problem: they harbor disbelief and encourage hiding from the unpleasantries of the physical world.

I do not deny that works of fiction have accomplished great things over the course of history, but more often than not these groundbreaking novels and stories are firmly rooted in reality.  Sinclair’s Jungle and Kesey’s Nest both completely changed their respective industries because, despite their classification as fiction, they gave accurate depictions of the meat-packing industry and of life behind the walls of a mental hospital.

Books, however, leave much to the mind of the reader.  They give their readers the illusion of control, the freedom to view each character in a different light and affix their own faces to the protagonist (or antagonist) as they choose.  I view such actions as unpleasant but necessary; without creativity and free will, our society would be even worse off.

Films have no such hidden subtleties.  Everything is presented on the screen in vibrant color, forever destroying any individual mental images the viewers may have had of the character.  Where books can be interpreted and discussed and debated over endlessly, films do not have the complexity to undergo such strenuous argument.

Of course, neither do most books.  I doubt that Shakespeare agonized over every word in every play or implanted hidden meanings into each line, as most scholars seem to believe.  He was in the business to make money, not to inspire people in future generations.

Irrelevance.  But, then again, this whole post is nothing but speculation and unverified claims, so an irrelevant tangent is the least of my problems.

In warfare, there is no prize for fighting honorably.  Soldiers who are struggling to survive on the battlefield have no use for morals or ethics, those relics from the days of mounted knights and trebuchets.  If an opportunity presents itself, it must be taken, no matter how immoral or dishonorably it may seem.  Your conscience may punish you, but better that than being dead.

In business, honor will lead to your downfall.  As long as you can stay within the legal limits, you must use every tool at your disposal to ensure your success, even if it means driving all your competitors out of business.  There is no prize for second place, and when a false move or missed opportunity can destroy you utterly, there is no room for doubt.  Take what you are able and do not trouble yourself with the consequences for others – your survival is the number one priority.

In the social world, if you are the type of person who wastes time on frivolous activities, honor is nothing more than a way of showing weakness.  If you are a righteous and just person who strives to do good, you will be mercilessly taken advantage of by your so-called “friends.”

Be resolute in this, as in all things.  Honor is dead.  Let it fade away into obscurity as you rise to power.

I wonder what this says about my personality.  I wonder if it says anything at all, or if I am simply applying obsolete psychological techniques to a harmless dislike for communication.

In terms of who I communicate with, I hold no particular animosity towards anyone based on their gender or race or any other superficial characteristics.  Each person deserves a clean slate to begin with, and only after a suitable amount of conversing can I even begin to make judgments about their worth as a human being.

Egotistical, yes, but also sadly true.  But I digress.

I have never had a romantic or sexual relationship, but I do not have (nor should I need) a good reason why.  The “I have too much to worry about to get involved” excuse is just that, an excuse, and does not pass even in my mind.  I suppose the best I can come up with, setting aside my own feelings about romantic love and love in general, is that I simply have no interest in that particular branch of the tree of social interaction.

Which is not to say that I have never desired companionship of some kind.  I do confess my occasional jealousy, mixed with a touch of disgust, when seeing a happy couple, each comfortable with the other and able to speak frankly and honestly, possessing an emotional openness that I could never have…

No.  Never say never.  Perhaps someday I will set aside my armor and share something of myself with a trusted friend, but not now.

The appeal that this idea has is not limited or hindered by gender.  It is more about finding someone with whom I can share and foster trust than it is about any sort of physical relationship, and it certainly has nothing to do with society’s notions of the “acceptable partnership” (which, despite the steps forward we’ve taken, is usually still one of similar race, similar socioeconomic status, and opposite gender).

I appreciate the beauty of both genders, and can just as easily picture myself with a woman as I can with a man.  Does this make me bisexual?  Yes, I suppose so, although it still has nothing to do with sexual attraction – perhaps I am a bisexual asexual, if that makes any sense at all.

If I make a mistake, I take note of my error and resolve not to make the same mistake again, but I do not feel guilt or waste time wishing I had done something differently.  “Should have” and “could have” are phrases that I refuse to say.

It is the same with positive events.  I appreciate and enjoy things as they happen, but I do not turn back to those happier occasions in times of trouble or hardship.  Living in the past has never solved any problems or accomplished anything in the world, and I am not one to waste time on practices that have no value.

Other people may treasure their possessions because of “sentimental value” or other emotional attachments.  I value the things I own for their practical purposes, not because they are the focus of happy memories or were passed down from another person.  Material possessions have three, and only three, purposes: they can be used as intended, sold for a profit, or discarded.

Always move forward, never back.  The future is a lump of clay, waiting to be manipulated and shaped by those who reach it first.  And races are never won by those who focus all their attention on the past.

I do not suffer from the so-called “hipster syndrome” – I simply do not enjoy all of the overproduced and strikingly similar R&B that plagues the airwaves at the time of writing this, nor can I sum up any enthusiasm for whichever young female rock-pop singer is currently in the spotlight.

Even among the bands I listen to, there are huge amounts of variation and very few that sound genuinely alike.  Even groups that fall within the same branch of a specific genre are unique enough that they do not blend into each other, which is something I absolutely despise.

This dislike for sameness and uniformity is not limited to the musical world.  All my life, I have felt as if I were skating along the outskirts of popular culture, moving away from the trends and sticking to the things I know I like rather than the things people tell me I should enjoy.

No.  Off-topic.  A poorly focused mind can be more dangerous than an armed psychopath.

In general, rap and its kindred forms of music do not appeal to me.  Perhaps it is an inborn dislike of tuneless poetic lyrics, and yet many bands use a monotonous and unchanging voice style; perhaps it stems from my distaste for abuse and violence, and yet large amounts of metal and hard rock deal with violent themes; perhaps it is something else that I have yet to discover about myself, and perhaps someday I shall.

Speculation.  Wishful thinking.  Dreamers may have built the world, but realists are the ones who run it.

Take, for instance, the myriad psychological tests used to determine a person’s “evil” qualities.  Usually these involve the deliberate sacrifice of one unwilling person to save the lives of several others.

There is no confusion or doubt in my mind in these hypothetical situations.  The life of one man is a more than fair trade for the lives of several.  “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” and so on.

It is interesting to note that when this sacrificial lamb is characterized in more detail, such as “a very fat man” instead of merely “a man,” the average person hesitates and becomes more reluctant to sacrifice one for the benefit of many.  This is not being “good;” it is being emotionally unstable and mentally weak.  To ponder the physical and societal characteristics of any of the possible victims is a mistake, because any of their deaths would be a terrible tragedy in its own way.

Those who choose to “keep their hands clean” and stand idly by as a multitude of men are killed are the ones deserving of punishment, not the ones who choose to pull the lever or flip the switch.  Inaction and neutrality are worse than useless in this sort of situation.

Does this make me “evil?”  Does my desire to save a greater number of lives make me less of a person?  Does my lack of guilt over such an action act against my character?

I cannot say.  Some have labeled me such, but in the end it is history that judges our actions, not our contemporary counterparts.

Irrelevance.  Pointless reminiscing.  I must keep my mind on the topic at hand.

My skepticism, which has been an integral part of my life as far back as I can remember, makes it utterly impossible for me to accept the Abrahamic god, or the many deities of Greek paganism, Hinduism, or Wicca, or indeed any higher power or mythical being at all.

Actually, that is not necessarily true.  The concept of absolute nothingness is a difficult one to grasp, and the creation of the universe is slightly easier to fathom from a Deist perspective… but it still does not explain where that grand clockmaker came from, nor how it came into being itself, and I find myself back at square one again.

Whether religion was a human invention or it was passed down to mortals from the hands of an ancient deity, I cannot say.  But my tolerance with the faiths of others is sorely tested by those who, in my mind, refuse to listen to reason and defend themselves with quotations from their holy book – and this is not something I am proud of.  As much as I try to be fair and balanced to everyone, with the possible exception of aggressive proselytisers, I still consider myself superior to those who have not seen the truth of science… and therefore I am no better than they are.

I am not pleased with this, and I am working towards changing it.  Tolerance should be practiced by everyone.

I am mentally and emotionally unable to give anything less than my full effort on a project, no matter its importance, and I do not expect more than my fair share in return.  A society of people like me, each with their own special field of excellence and an equally reliable work ethic, would flourish and thrive under the regime of a benevolent ruler.

Wishful thinking.  There are not enough people like me in the world, nor is any great leader truly benevolent.  Communism is a grand theory but impractical in the real world.

But my decision to join the regime of Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama came from three simple facts: no single party matches my political beliefs (although the Democrats come closest); independents cannot vote in primary elections; and members of third parties tend to carry the stigmata of political frivolity and radical, unpopular ideas.  I have a tendency to see several sides of an issue at once, which makes it very difficult for me to decide on something without further qualifying it except in certain cases, most notably equality for all races/genders/sexual orientations/cultures and creeds.

To clarify the above: I support capital punishment in cases where rehabilitation is proven to be impossible and the criminal would otherwise be a drain on the ever-dwindling resources of society… but the court system and number of appeals usually make the death penalty far from cost-effective.  A lifetime in prison, in my opinion, is far worse than a quick sentencing and summary execution.  If I ever commit a truly terrible crime (not that I have any intention whatsoever to do so, but hypothetically speaking) and am caught, I would not fight the system or plead for a life sentence instead of execution – no, I would be a model prisoner and go quietly, if a tad bit hesitantly, to my death.  We can ill-afford the time and money it would take for me to fight my way out of the punishment I deserve, and the long months spent in a jail cell during the appeal processes would surely drive me mad.

I support the right of every person to believe or disbelieve whatever they choose when it comes to religion (or lack thereof)… but not if their system of beliefs involves cruelty or oppression of others.  In some sense, this includes the most radical members of almost all religions, but I specifically mean those groups who practice human sacrifice (unless the sacrificial humans are willing and voluntary) or torture/oppress/otherwise harm those who are not members of the same faith.  It is very flexible, and must be adjusted on a case-to-case basis… which is not something that popular politicians ever do, so perhaps the field of politics is not the ideal place for me to seek a career.

Irrelevance.  The point is that I am a convoluted mix of philosophies and beliefs, and unless I create my own party I will never completely agree with those who share the most general of my many political viewpoints.

I do not expect you to enjoy or comment on what you read.  It is for my benefit that I write the things I do, not for the enjoyment of anyone else.  I hope to learn more about myself in the course of these experiments, and that is all I hope to accomplish.

I am not one to waste time on introductions or pleasantries, so I shall leave you with this: honesty is the most valued of all currencies, and the only one that has any worth here.