From here on out, most posts will be muses of the state of the world and current events.  I’ve said everything there is to say about psychopathy, so consider this the natural evolution of the blog.  My eyes see things differently than the eyes of a neurotypical.  More accurately?  Maybe.  Differently?  Certainly.

Twitter is a cesspool of deluded liberals that think that good karma can change the path our world is on.  Be kind to all, show the other cheek, et cetera, and the world will respond favorably and humbly.  In a world in which Islamic extremism, geopolitical rivalries, and other forces vie for deathsong, such liberal beliefs are solely misguided.  However, I don’t want to make this a post about conservatism, as anyone can write a generic post about being right-wing and … yawn.  Speaking of Twitter, come follow me and reach out – I’ve updated the contact page to reflect that I am no longer taking email (thanks to Yahoo and their incompetency with user data).   Anyhoo, there is a difference between my conservatism and that of others.  I have no heart in the fight except to guarantee my own self-preservation.  I care not for God, whites, blacks, homosexuals, no one except me and those in my inner circle.  When one only cares about themselves, then conservatism is the easier and more acceptable choice.

I mentioned Twitter above as an image that I see over and over again is that of someone holding a sign that more or less states: “If you can separate Christians from the KKK, then you can separate muslims from ISIS.”  Maybe.  I think the premise is flawed, however.  If all religious people are equally deluded, then does it really matter which groupings we create?  That is, should we be separating by religious figures and deities, or by the probability of someone crashing a bus into a helpless gathering of people?  I would think the latter is more logical.

There is also the liberal weeping and gnashing of teeth over North Korea.  I’d like to think that these people are acting out of self-preservation, but they seem more or less opposed to attacking North Korea simply over the principle of war.  If war is going to save my life as a bumpkin somewhere in the United States, then why wouldn’t I support it?  Of course, the Chinese entering on the wrong side of the hypothetical war would be devastating, but I’d like to think that eliminating a regime unhinged and wanting to rain nuclear hellfire down on us is more than worth the soldiers and civilians unlucky enough to be caught in the crosshairs.

Taxes?  Who needs them?  The poor?  I am happy to pay taxes for my own salvation, but I am unwilling to happily pay for the salvation of others.  I am pro-opportunity, nothing more.  If I can be guaranteed to pay the minimum amount of money that will bolster the government such that my life is fine, I care not if others are sacrificed as a result.  Why would I?  Why would any true antisocial?

I have no dog in these quarrels except that of my own self-preservation.  If eliminating extremism will guarantee my life and happiness, then go for it.  If millions dead that aren’t me or (mostly) my countrymen, then go for it.  I don’t care.  We all live to die.  I’m not wasting my life on others that I’ll never know or care about.  As such, the punchline has always been the same: care not for those you’ll never know and take care of those you do by any means necessary.  This must be the song of the 21st century and the anthem for the psychopathic conservative.