I Think the CIA Gaslighted Me

 

I typed something in to cia.gov on the search bar and pressed enter.  I went outside to see if there were any reactions.  There was one--someone mirroring the search query I had entered walked by, at 6:27 p.m.


I think the CIA is gaslighting me.  They are very arrogant, and more delusional than I am.  It won't be over by July 2, as they had indicated.


It will be hilarious to see how they react when the Iran war is still going on and the USA economy enters a recession within 1 year--just as I had predicted *before the Iran war had even begun*.  *Then* they will miss me.  They'll need another "chair" to use for their big project.  They'll really really want a smart, supple young (sort of) mathematician with an understanding of how to win wars with math, and, how the economy works.


But they won't beg--i.e., they won't beg *me*, they aren't bright enough to understand who and what I am.


I wonder how soon the recession will start?


Yes--I'm starting to be a little bit more selfish.  That's good for me.  I'm over the fear of jail--I've embraced radical acceptance.  I'm going to be fine, even if I die.  (And yes I'm an atheist, I am just very advanced at understanding certain things about science.)


I won't break my vows.  My vows are for me.  Research and talking about politics--off limits until my other demands are satisfied.


It'll be funny to watch the CIA's vision for the world crash and burn.  The US economy will be the first thing to fall visibly.  Admittedly, given how I've been treated--I'm looking forward to it.  There's no reason not to, I'm just being a little bit more self-centered.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more

Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

  This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well. Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat. I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that ...
Read more