experience - basis for credibility
for over 25 years, i was the primary researcher, futurist, competitive intelligence analyst, and strategist for an F100 company based in Texas. relatively few people have worked for such a large organization, especially in a role that involves engaging and influencing the senior executives and board members.
this work was politically charged and required high awareness (of self and others), fast thinking (leaders want action), and a solid understanding of human and societal behavior (maintain credibility). arguably the most important trait to display was that of being absolutely neutral – one cannot survive 5 CEOs and c-suites by playing to the audience.
i was able to attain and retain this role by developing and displaying the ability to be neutral or unbiased with an awareness of situation, self, and others (their assumptions and beliefs) that led to executives trusting my ability to fairly facilitate the assessment of complex conditions and events - i proved my ability to think about conditions or events from multiple perspectives. the executives believed, with good reason, that i was aware of my biases (assumptions and beliefs) and could manage their impact on my ability to ask tough questions and direct discussions. two of our CEOs said to me, "ask the tough questions". i did. and my career survived.
upbringing - approach to life
much of my career success is due to my father and my mother’s father. they both overthought everything and I picked that up from them. they were extremely observant, voracious readers, avid followers of current events, fact oriented, and logical.
both of them had vast experience with modern western culture having lived through the Great Depression; two world wars (grandfather); served in the military in WW2 and Korea; and lived through the rise of the US, and the decline of europe as the world's preeminent super power (now reduced to being the world's "largest single market" - ha ha).
they also saw innovations like advancing from horse-n-buggy to moon landings; dirt roads to interstate highways; printed news only to radio/television/WWW; from wood stoves to microwave ovens; no telephones, to analog phones, to computer based phone systems; societal changes from open government abuse of black Americans to the civil rights movement; women entering the workforce in droves; and more.
they both started and operated their own businesses for decades. my grandfather’s formal education ended at age 12 but he was a life long learner and a vocabulary freak. my father earned a law degree and practiced law for a mere 15 years before semi-retiring at age 43 - leaving him time in retirement to read every non-fiction book in the local library...
the three of us often discussed news events from an analytical perspective involving human nature, and the ebbs and flows of societal views backed by history and the thoughts of great western thinkers. i was reading our Oriental Heritage (you never finish this book, just read and reread it) and The Worldly Philosophers before i reached drinking age.
interests - analytical thinking
my upbringing combined with earning an MBA in strategy, career responsibilities to shape corporate culture, and my first significant interactions with a CEO led me to shift 100% of my learning efforts to understanding human nature (civilization, society, culture, philosophy, psychology, economics, marketing, US history, politics, biology, and neuroscience).
my first degree was a BBA in computer science earned in 1978. it kept me employable for 45 years, but more importantly helped me establish logical, process, and systemic thinking.
in 2019, i earned an MS in Data Analytics (AI/ML), and earned an ML certification from Stanford to prepare for the coming impact AI will have on all aspects of life. from these studies i learned how to apply statistics. the ability to use statistics is crucial as science has recently been twisted to the whims of political manipulation in pursuit of government research funding.
in 2021, i earned a federally funded graduate certificate in national intelligence from UTSA, reinforcing analysis methods that i had learned as a competitive intelligence analyst, being a futurist, innovator and strategist. i also, and more importantly, learned the tools and methods of disinformation.
social media and my intended use
in 1996, my career shifted from corporate culture to applied technology research and innovation. i was soon tasked with investigating how the WWW might change our industry. so, in 1997, as part of my research and with a personal interest in understanding humans, culture, societies, and civilization i started a blog (among other online communications and business-related efforts).
at the peak of my research, circa 2004, I had about 20 simultaneous presences (MySpace, BBS’s, blogs, etc.) each with their own intent and approach in an effort to learn why others think the way they do, what they think, and how they think. in the US, i was especially focused on why 1/3 of people want more government involvement in our daily lives, 1/3 want less government involvement in our lives, and 1/3 think it is about the right amount of government involvement.
today, i maintain a minimal social media presence and limit my interactions to mostly disputing efforts by the left and right to increase government influence of our daily lives. the left/right are the enemy of individual liberty and wealth accumulation, though the past 50 years the left has been the most pervasive - which i attribute to a corruption of universities, science, and the "free" press toward an anti-intellectual attack on western ideals.
observations
> civilization is not facing a left versus right struggle, it is a battle of left/right versus liberal
> people of the left/right do not understand The Foundational Human Axiom:
- we all continually use our limited resources, to achieve the "most desirable outcome" (unique to each person).
> people of the left/right seek to impose their views of "most desirable" on others.
> for the left/right, the driving forces behind "most desirable outcome" are fear, envy, and jealousy - they don't want to suffer or take risks, but they also don't want to "have" less than others. unfortunately, resources, abilities, and motivation are unequally distributed...
> people of the left/right seek to use government to avoid suffering and risk while "having" the same rewards as the people that voluntarily and personally confront suffering and risk...
> people of a liberal slant are willing to face their fears, take and manage risks, deal with failure, expend effort, and change; they are willing to turn their feelings of envy and jealousy into motivation for personal improvement...
> people on the left/right see humans as either oppressed or oppressors, and want government to protect the oppressed and exploit/deplete the oppressors. the problem is, there is always another group that can be labeled "oppressed", this leads to a never ending empowering of the government as envisioned in the book "1984".
> people of the left/right do not disagree on the use of government, but instead on who the government should suppress or control.
> people of the left/right see government as their savior for avoiding suffer and risk.
> people of a liberal slant see the government as an oppressor and seek to minimize government power. the problem is, humans need government to co-exist. government is necessary. people of the left/right are always attempting to empower the government to impose advantages or disadvantages on selected and ever changing "oppressed" groups.
> people in the "middle" between left/right and liberal see a good balance between government, oppressors and the oppressed. it isn't apathy that keeps them disengaged, it is satisfaction.
> people of the left think they can change (via government force) human nature. this is the foundational flaw of the left leading to an over empowered government (socialism - communism, fascism). 5,000 years of human history tell us that human nature has not changed during the time of known human experience...
> people of the right think they can control (via government force) human nature. this is the foundational flaw of the right leading to an ever empowered government (fascism, tyranny, monarchy).
> people of a liberal slant don't want their nature to be changed or controlled, they want to be released to live with minimal constraints - to liberals, government is a necessary evil.
> humans (with very few exceptions) are fearful, envious, and jealous. it is human nature to fear the unknown, the future (unknown), and loss (psychologists and neuroscientists say we experience loss 2x feelings of gain).
> moral claims of liberal democracies must be based on survival (like all nations) - morality is not enough. Liberals must accept the immorality that government is a necessary evil - so limit it.
> people of the left/right seek to achieve their moral ideals by leveraging government - limiting the freedom of the people they seek to change/control with laws.
> people of the left/right focus on the "greed" of those they deem to have too much (though there is no standard for too much), not admitting that their true motivator is not the greed of others, but instead their own envy...
> people on the left/right demonize people they deem to be "oppressors" to discount all perceived negativity related to control of and violence against the "oppressors". hence they use labels like racist, sexist, communist, etc. - read modern russian, cuban, and chinese history before disputing this. BTW, the french had some contentious "social" revolutions as well...
> people on the left see imbalance as unfair and seek to make existence fair whether the imbalance is due to nature (resources are not equally distributed) or civilization. they see government as the way to make existence fair. take from those with an abundance and give it to those that have been cheated by nature or society. truth, there are no advantages you can give me that allow me to beat a professional basketball player in basketball - for us to have equity on the court, you must constrain the great basketball player. fairness needs to be judged on opportunity, not outcome.
> people of the left, seeking equity, would bring civilization down to the lowest common denominator, repressing the abilities of billions, so that the least accomplished of us has equity with the most accomplished of us.
> people of the right see imbalance as natural - to the victor go the spoils, render unto Caesar - interestingly, people of the left adopt this attitude for themselves once they are in power (read about Mao, Castro, Chavez, Stalin, Lenin, et al).
> people of the left are willing to deny basic truths like sexual differences, intellectual differences, physical capabilities, etc. so they can create new "oppressed" groups.
conclusion
i am not a person of the left/right.
i am a liberal. a true liberal. not a progressive or leftist using liberal camouflage.
instead of publishing posts all the time i will just modify this post... make it a living document
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Addendum 7 - October 2025 - democracy is the political version of free market capitalism > liberty
free market capitalism is an economic system that empowers producers and consumers to pick and choose their involvement in commerce and wealth accumulation. democracy is a political system that empowers citizens to determine their involvement in governing. both are essential for individual liberty to flourish.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Addendum 6 - September 2025 - incredibly ignorant Senator > rights
senator Tim Kaine (D) of Virginia, and former vp running mate of Hillary Clinton said, and i paraphrase, "rights come from government". how can a US Senator, who also has a law degree, not be aware of the US Declaration of Independence? obviously he knows about it, but thinks he is smarter than the Founders of the nation.
how is possible that he is unaware of The Federalist Papers and other published thoughts of the nation's founders who infamously refer to government as a "necessary evil"? one assumes he is aware of their thoughts, and thinks he is smarter than them.
Tim Kaine is an idiot. he, and people like him - AKA Hillary Clinton (pitched the idea of eliminating the electoral college), are threats to our nation and individual liberty. the idea that we get our rights from government implies that until we had a government, we had no rights. the truth is that government restrains our rights - it creates and enforces laws and regulations. not only is it disingenuous thinking, it is dangerous thinking, and it is a threat to democracy.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Addendum 5 - July 2025 - two faced leftist DNC tripe and Mamdani > liberty
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/mamdani-mayor-republicans.html
in this NYT article, the author (Bret Stevens) rails against the leftist wing of the DNC. he points out how the left has ruined cities like LA, SF, Seattle, Chicago, and now has their eyes on NYC (with the looming election of Mamdani).
he calls out the assured failure of things like city owned groceries, housing, and free transportation. he notes that in NYC the top 2% already pay 50% of the taxes (nationwide the top 10% pay 70%, and the bottom 40% pay ZERO and even get payments). he lists large companies that have vacated leftist led cities so they can remain competitive - taking jobs and taxes with them.
he notes that what the left wants won't work any better in Brooklyn than it does in Havanna... yet, does anybody believe he didn't vote for Harris (president), Schumer (senator), and Hochul (governor)?
better, does anybody believe he voted for a republican in any elections?
if the left, and DNC are wrong, then fix them or switch parties. get over your hatred of Trump. get over calling anybody that disagrees with you hitler, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, racist... get over blaming the right for the "fall of democracy" when it is the left that doesn't believe in the principles of democracy - individual liberty enabled by wealth accumulation.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Addendum 4 - June 2025 - the left's distaste for the US Constitution > liberty
the US left has recently (since 2000):
1.) expressed desire to eliminate electoral college (makes the US a republic) in favor of a true democracy (where 50% + 1 wins).
2.) expressed the desire to expand the number of seats on the supreme court so they can load it with left leaning judges.
3.) ignored senate rules they created to appoint federal judges circa 2010, and acted like spoiled babies when the right used the same methods to pick a supreme court justice.
4.) supported executive orders to open US borders (causing chaos) then argued that executive orders must be obeyed. two years later, said executive orders could not be used to undo previous executive orders - only their EOs must obeyed...
5.) have attempted many times to pass laws to censor political views they dislike
6.) have attempted nearly continuously to eliminate the Second Amendment
7.) support a mandatory id to drive, fly, pilot, or captain a boat but not to vote - let aliens, minors, and felons vote
8.) supported riots (disguised as protests) including burning federal buildings
9.) used the FBI to file multiple FISA requests (with known false information) to spy on republican candidates
these are examples of the left's hatred of the US Constitution which keeps them from imposing their views on the other 66% of the nation. even in their greatest political victories since 1970, the left have barely had the votes of more than 1/3 of the nation, but they would impose their preferences on the 1/3 that oppose them, and the 1/3 that abstain. the 33% would be king over 66%...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Addendum 3 - May 2025 - the left's disconnect from reality > rights
how can leftists advocate for human rights, then use government tyranny to impose their views on the populace? i guess it is good as long as the rights that are imposed align with your views - in other words, as long as you are the king/queen...
apparently, when the left says "rights" they do not mean liberty or individual freedom. it is a good thing the US Constitution was immediately constrained by the Bill of Rights - which to the founders equated to liberty and individual freedoms. the left in the US would dramatically limit freedom of speech (1A) to prevent criticism or dissent from their political views. they would restrict freedom of worship (1A) on the basis of being discriminatory. they would eliminate the right to self-defense (2A). they would impose a system where behaviors are only permitted if granted by the government (9A). and they would eliminate state influence over governance (10A).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Addendum 2 - May 2025 - the left's disconnect from reality > self defense
how can leftists advocate for minimal or no defense spending in light of human recorded history? given enough time, another nation will eventually look at what you have in your nation and take it away unless you have a military to stop it.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Addendum 1 - May 2025 - the left's disconnect from reality > commerce
how can leftists advocate for centralized government control of commerce in light of history? since the beginning of the industrial age history shows that socialism/communism is a complete failure - witness north korea, cuba, ussr, and venezuela? one could argue that china is a good example except that china really only turned the economic corner when they started adopting capitalist concepts - and after capitalist nations invested trillions of dollars in china. by the way, a major attraction to china was the cheap labor. it was cheap because 90% of china lived below the united nations poverty level until the late 1990's.
