It is a homophone for the word infiltrator. I infiltrate art & entertainment.

First I numb the people's feelings through anesthetic, which is the entertainment act itself; then the education is inserted in small dozes here and there; I keep increasing the increments progressively through captivating entertainment shows. Some will angrily realize the trick and object, but others will sleep-through it like babies... babies who shouldn't have to be dreaming for a better life, as the dream should rather be a reality.... When I see that other people haven't rejected their culture, I am prompted to put myself on the educator's spot. It's interesting that people tend to pay attention to the educators themselves, not to the education that is presented. Okay, I'll take the opportunity then. So, I amuse the people with meaningless humor so that they laugh... while the secret cure is advanced through infiltration, which without the entertainment in it they can't seem to digest well. If you subtract the entertainment act from my show, then I just become a behaviorist whose duty is to change the behaviors of people. What behaviors is he changing in people? The ones that in the present-day culture are not effective. For example, the masses continuously keep denying – that our living necessities are always a number one priority for obtaining, and through the “modern” and “civilized” culture we are obstructing the access to them.... I am striving to spark a silent revolution in the degraded human mind: a revolution of the mind, and awaken their cognitive dissonance. I don't consider myself a free-flowing bohemian-lifestyle artist who is trying to express himself; expression and identity obsessions are the least of my interest. Instead, I am trying to change people to adopt egalitarian values in their day-to-day behaviors. Due to lack of living necessities, seeing that I am not alone in the boat, and seeing that the lack of needs affects the vast majority of people in the world, in my mid 20s my art focus diverted its orientation to socially-oriented art; the new agenda was – cultural evolving of people from their outdated and ineffective contemporary behaviors, and inseminating new egalitarian behaviors. As I deserted the common culture in the late 1990s (my mid 20s), the cultural abandonment task was easy for me; but I realized that it is not an easy task to persuade the (usually more) extroverted viewers to evolve socially. Extroverted people like to cling to their beloved culture: it's their safe haven. Without it they'd feel lost, alone, puzzled, and wouldn't know how to behave in front of their in-group of peers.

I have worked with art since the late 1970s, but my artistic creativity took a sharp turn in the late 1990s and turned to primarily heavy-duty socially-related conceptual and performance art. That is also the time I started writing heavy-duty socially-related works.

While I have many non-socially-related caricatures, artworks, and movie scripts, the primary agenda in my art and writing is two topics: the promotion of effective interactions and connections between women and men, and the promotion of effective obtaining of our living necessities – minus the monetary obstruction. There is not a day that goes by that these two topics will not occupy my mind. Day-to-day, my mind is absorbed with the grand idea of, how to put my “2 cents” to dismantle the crusted cultural gridlock in the people's heads; how to gauge their barometers to demand from themselves a higher standard of living (just as mine has been already gauged for quarter of a century already); how to raise the barriers of their contemporary cultural obstructions; and how to make a dent onto the contemporary culture so that my spark awakens the masses to start abandoning their outdated cultural habits. My main agenda is to propagate a successful culture, so that we can experience the fruits of our creation. What is a successful culture? It is one where our everyday behaviors are strung together synergistically in order to provide us with our living necessities without cultural obstructions that have evolved overtime as habitual normalities.

Being a whistle-blower to a dysfunctional culture has its challenges.... It was combination of fear of government and business retaliation, lack of finances to put my feet on the ground as an “artist,” and mundane time-consuming wage slaving. Deserters from the culture are not easy to digest to the in-group of followers. When the deserters are turning to be outsiders, they are no longer accepted as normal people but as suspicious people; the doors begin to close on them, and the skeptics are starting to chew the outsiders. The Arthur Schopenhauer comes to mind: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” Once you become a pundit who no longer subscribes to the common cultural practices, you start to walk a thin line, you need to be on high alert and watch behind your back.... You may ask, why didn't I, first, disclose the non-socially-related and the non-objectionable work, such as the humorous writings, caricatures, and cat pictures? Because, I didn't want to hide the focal point of my artwork and writings: education for cultural reforming in women's and men's interactions and connections, and cultural reforming of the people's necessity-obtaining interactions. I wanted the heavy-duty info to be disclosed first, and thinking in retrospect about why quarter of a century went by without my work being out in the open, I have no regrets that I didn't publish my humorous work first. Keep in mind that “freedom of speech” is not such for people who are of lower monetary wealth class, because when they get fired, their lack of money cancels their ability to be heard.... But I also understand that I may be overreacting with my fear, because the cultural evolving that I promote belongs in a higher order; it is out of the scope of governments' and businesses' retaliation. A government or business (in Western culture at least) has no jurisdiction to tell a person if they should belong to a particular culture, and they can't tell a person to have a particular personality. For example: if a person has the living necessities to live and no longer needs to engage in the stupidity of paying money in order to obtain the necessities, the governments and businesses have no overreach to tell the person to “keep the economy going” by going to the store and continuing to spend money. Another example is the impossibility of common culture to overreach and control the behaviors of women's and men's interactions and connections with each other if they are educated enough to abandon their old-fashioned cultural manners of interacting and connecting.... Another reason why it's taken me so long to release my work is because of the volume of creativity and ideas for my art and writing is overwhelming in comparison to the available time to execute the works; for example, in the late 1990s and early 2000s when my mind was racing at even higher pace than it is now, at one point the rate of coming up with new ideas for art and writing projects was as high as 3 different ideas in a 10-second period! So, with such a turbulent mind, I am barely left with time to write down my ideas. The vast majority of my art and writings are barely even started; they remain as notations in preliminary stages. Being a high-volume creative I am left with not enough time to be completing my art projects; as of now, this art section contains less than 10% of the totality of all of my projects (and about 1/3 of the total number of images). So, where are the missing 90% of the projects? They are written down as notes, and I am getting to them little by little. I have to shuffle many different priorities: completing another book, finishing an artwork, or advancing both together simultaneously. I still have many art ideas that are quarter of a century old already and have not even been started yet. To add even more salt to the wound, I seem to have the unique ability to work on many projects at the same time, not on one project at a time; with a hurricane inside my head, I am accustomed to work that way. But I am pleased that my recent adoption of AI image rendering, will greatly speed up the process to showcase my conceptual artwork; through conceptual artwork I am not trying to showcase my image renderings skills, but to convey my ideas; and if AI can do it faster and better than me, then I'd embrace the free gift.

No, I am trying to spark a larger-order disobedience: to the culture itself. I am not pointing fingers at the outdated political system; I am pointing fingers at one of the parents of the political system: the culture. I am careful to point fingers at the other parent, biology, because while it does need to be restricted at certain situations, it has very intricate processes that should mostly be followed and not disobeyed. That however is not the case with culture; it should always be scrutinized, shaped, and reshaped according to the needs of the people that it is serving. Let's remind ourselves that a culture needs to serve us, and it's not the other way around. For example, if a culture knows very well that our biology requires us to have our living necessities all the time, then it should not impose difficulties on our obtaining of the living necessities just for the sake of the maintaining of a cultural whim – such as, having to pay money for the obtaining of the living necessities. Another example is the cultural whim that to love and to be loved (which is more fundamental and has higher order of importance than intimacy) should be difficult to be obtained and should require the biological vestiges of theatrical performances between women and men that we cling to through our gender roles; they have high rate of failure, because we are bypassing the normal interactive socializing between the sexes while concentrating on the theater-like impressions, wooing, serenading, and so forth. I am trying to instigate the disobedience of that outdated culture: the contemporary gender roles that we learn and abide to from young age.... Then, once critical mass is reached and people experience an epiphany to evolve themselves behaviorally, their old cultural modes of living are over.

I ignore and I reject a non-beneficial common culture in the same way that other people would reject unhealthy food.... Oh, hold on! Would they? We have a problem right here! Others would not reject the unhealthy food, just as they wouldn't reject the unhealthy culture; people would eat food that is not healthy because it is made to taste good. It makes them sick though; they would struggle through it, yet they live through it. Likewise with their daily culture: they are accustomed to endure it; their complaint is neurotic, but not external. It is because they are afraid to say that the culture is not benefiting them. It's as if they are afraid to point fingers at their own culture.... I don't subscribe easily to the go-with-the-flow cultural norms that others follow. While other people's culture is crusted, well settled, and unyielding to changes, my culture is more flexible and evolving if necessary. That's because life has particular requirements in order to be successful; we have biological needs, and our cultural manners have to constantly examine to what extent we should provide our needs.... To some extent I have to praise my introversive behaviors that have given me a more critically-thinking eye. I am more like a radar that is scanning the cultural behaviors of others, and I am more observant than the average person. I am less afraid than others to go deeper into the root-causes of the ineffective culture, and I would not engage in the typical misattribution of our problems... I would not point fingers to established group identities such as conservatism, liberalism, rightism, or leftism; nor would I point fingers at individuals. I dig deeper to find the root problems. I point fingers at a blend of biology and culture – with culture being the primary trouble-maker, because from young age we don't learn that we should let a culture evolve to a more beneficial up-to-date culture; instead, we tend to embrace our culture without realizing that is not effective. Let me upset a lot of people right away: I will forgive any person's or group's crimes, but I will never forgive the culture that sparked the criminal behaviors. Since our behaviors are circumstantial, the labels “evil” or “bad” don't exist in my analysis of individuals or groups; instead, I direct them at the culture that shapes those behaviors. (B. F. Skinner would pat me on the back for this stance. To some extent, I actually think of my work as the non-academic version of B. F. Skinner and Sigmund Freud.) By the way, to clarify, forgiving does not mean liking or loving, but it means that I am not revengeful to anything other than the root problems that spark our bad behaviors.... In this culture, I see the double standard that people have; they want to enjoy the time with their families and enjoy their hobbies, but they don't want to take the steps to create that good life for others... as if the others don't want to be with their own families and enjoy their own hobbies too. People like for others to struggle, bend their backs in wage slaving labor, and for others to be punished; but of course, they don't want to experience the working struggle and the punishment themselves. Wanting to be the slave owner, not the slave, is nothing new: two-thousand years ago at the Roman Colosseum, the spectators wanted to be served the entertainment; they enjoyed the struggles and punishment of others as long as they were not the ones struggling or being punished.... Maybe one day the folks that are so divulged in parochial identity behaviors, will awaken to this cognitive dissonance; but better sooner than later... that's why I am here – to keep awakening them.... I also ignore the powerful lure of a culture; it's as if I am exempt to abide to the cultural nuances; for example, I view the contemporary “expensive” advertisements as a dishonest tactic in which the culture is trying to lure me to follow it. They picked the wrong guy to mess with, because instead of absorbing myself into the phony sales pitches, I mock contemporary advertisements with the same laughter that people mock a 19th century newspaper advertisement. If people can notice the stupidity of the 19th century advertisements, why can't they notice the stupidity of the contemporary advertisements which are just as desperate in their attempt to lure you? Likewise, I mock the contemporary interactions and connections between women and men. If from young age girls and boys have urge to interact and connect with each other, why are we keeping them away from each other, and why do we let them cluster in boy groups and girl groups? This faulty separation from young age, shapes our contemporary poor interacting and connecting as adults.

In addition to the high volume of creativity, I am not easily swept by cultural trends and I have the ability to step outside of the common culture and think critically for myself about what works in this culture and what doesn't. In the same way that you can observe the failures of a past historical event by reading or watching about it, I observe the failure of the present day-to-day unfoldings. As one who has introverted tendencies, I have no problem of being a cultural deserter and as a result, pay the price of being ostracized by others. For example, in common culture, the usual names will popup for the world's most murderous dictators. I am however not easily persuaded by visceral reactions; instead, I go for the number count, not for how the person was killed. (My viewing perception may also be related to my minor degree of Asperger's.) Poverty – the structural breakdown of not having enough necessities – kills more people than rogue regimes that kill people by the use of weapons. Common culture, however, doesn't inseminate that into the minds of the cultural followers... and when a person goes to the store to buy food and pays 100% of the entire wealth for just one meal, we tend to not see that as murder. Why? Because our parochial views have desensitized us from seeing that the person is in a deteriorating state. The person is not being killed by weapons, and we don't take into account that the person is slowly breaking down by hardly affording to pay for meals.

If you need to bulk my views together with the views of other artists and authors, the following names come to mind: Aristotle, Thomas More, Edward Bellamy, Buckminster Fuller, Jacque Fresco, Peter Joseph, and Michael Ruppert – their criticism of the monetary way of living; Jeremy Rifkin – emphasis on zero marginal cost; James Gilligan and Robert Sapolsky – criticism of the inherent biases of the judicial system; Margaret Mead – criticism on the conservative westernization of human sexuality; Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Simone de Beauvoir – criticism of men's and women's cultural manners, but particularly women's; Marcel Duchamp – opening the doors for art to be more than just appreciation of aesthetics: to be at the service of the mind; Joseph Beuys – opening the doors for art to be at the service of society, not just at the service of the mind; B. F. Skinner – emphasis on the root causes of human behavior; George Carlin – the sarcastic humor targeting a failed culture.... You may have noticed that a lot of my conceptual artworks are composed of image plus punchline; my conceptual art style is similar to that of Jenny Holzer and Barbara Kruger.... My drawing and painting style preferences are for the distorting of the human figure, and there are plenty of artist that engage in it; I am always itching to satirize the human body, and to not be anatomically accurate... nor do I have the patience to be.... My caricature drawing style is similar to the style of The New Yorker's caricaturists: witty humor.... My photography style primarily itches for minimalist content: simplicity of color, shapes, spaces. But I also have street photography interests which I haven't explored.... My graphic designer style always itches for grunge, euphoric and typography-saturated designs. My film-directing ideas for short and long movies, for low budget and high budget, are leaning toward mockumentary, surrealistic, experimental, and French new wave genres.

No, I am a necessitist! There are certain biological necessities that we have that are a must for us... otherwise we begin to deteriorate. As I mentioned previously, I am not in denial of what are our needs and they need to be check-marked through an always-updating culture; we have certain biological normalities that we need to keep an eye on and control through an effective culture. For those who are afraid of my obsession with the promotion of a new up-to-date culture that dissolves the accustomed and crusted contemporary culture, do we need to remind what happens to people when they lack water, food, shelter, education... love? They deteriorate! If my claim that the living necessities for humans must be satisfied is naive and dogmatic, my critics can try the deterioration for themselves and see how it feels.

None of them! Notice that all of these terms are not biologically derived. Such specific -ist categorizations are leading us astray in the formulation of the character of a person, because we are not walking -ists; we are a compilation of many different behaviors that are triggered by various reasons, according to our biologies and our social surroundings. Take any -ists: Just as everyone else, they too seek to obtain their needs for themselves, their families, and (to some extent) their in-group of peers, don't they? They have family members and friends who they love, don't they? At the end of the day, those “good” or “bad” people are not different than you and I. To point fingers at their -ist identities (even when they are self-proclaimed) is to confuse us on what is the fundamental priority of that individual. When the fundamental priority of each individual is satisfied, a phony culture will not intervene in our lives and create such BS terminologies that confuse its people – that they are something other than biosocial beings who need the same necessities.... But if culture requires me to label myself as an -ist, then again, the closest possible will be the necessitist.

No, again, I lean toward biological necessities that are controlled through up-to-date cultural check-marks. Morals are cultural derivatives; they are educations that are inserted into our personalities; we behave the morals without even realizing that we are behaving them. Some of them are solid and should remain as they are; and others are outdated – which means that the culture should awaken its people to outgrow the morals. A culture needs to teach its people to evolve out of it; to evolve from their present-day behaviors and adapt to new egalitarian behaviors. Why egalitarian? Because if the behaviors don't work for everyone, they leave people who are sparked to be unhappy, angry, murderous, and so forth.... But, notice that we treat our cultures as if they are part of our family, as if they are a person; we are not taught to evolve from our contemporary cultures; instead we are taught to pledge allegiance, embrace and love our cultures.

Yes, I am guilty of that! Calling people sheeple is my arrogant and sarcastic way of saying that they are parochial identity followers of an outdated culture. Parochial identity following is very normal to us, just as it is very normal for other animals to follow each other. What is not normal is that we are wasting a life when we begin to follow the wrong cultural ways of functioning. So, I am not promoting to not be parochial identity followers (because it is deeply biological in us), but to orient our following to ways of living in which we are not struggling to obtain our needs.

Building friendships is an intricate time-consuming process of interactions, and a button-click is not about to substitute it. I don't subscribe to the view that a friendship is an announcement either; a relationship is an announcement, but not a friendship. Friendship is the consistent socializing with a person; the fuel of the friendship is the interest they have for each other... but that is not to be confused as being a stamp of agreement that they are “friends” forever. A friendship is a spectrum of interacting, not a solid state; when the socializing is less and less, the “friendship” is not closed, but less interesting, which results in less socializing. Moreover, blocking others is not “social,” but antisocial.

I don't want the readers to divert their attention to the author (the identity); I want them to pay attention to the information.

I am not the first “artist” to do “art” for social concern and for the promotion of cultural evolving; the concept dates back centuries. The painters from the Renaissance sought to bring change from centuries of medieval art. The Neoclassicist painters inserted their political views into their artworks. The 19th century realists started mocking the working class exploitation by the bourgeois establishment. In the 20th century, Marcel Duchamp brought art viewers onto a chess board, where he engaged them to think rather than admire the work for its aesthetic appearance. I would say, this one event, was the beginning of the carving of a major loophole in the control of the masses, that half a century later (and especially nowadays) will start opening more and more doors for “artists” (like me). In the late 20th century, Joseph Beuys brought sociopolitical issues into the art world. In the 21st century Banksy brought sociopolitical issues on the streets for viewers to observe – viewers that no longer needed to be in galleries admiring “high art”; and Peter Joseph influences social change through his performances, films, lectures, and writing. The change that I strive for, comes through individual works, combinations of works, and through educating and informing the viewer. Yes, the average art lover doesn't understand much beyond the aesthetics of the art, but that doesn't concern me, because my art is to some extent geared for the upcoming generation of critically thinking artists and the art critics – the folks that know very well that art is not only about beauty. Art is borderless field in which anything is art as long as you can prove it. To some extent the history of art has proven that when a certain type of art is not taken seriously, there is a reaction to the opposition, and the work becomes art as a rebellion to the initial rejection. Art does not have a high-court authority to judge what is and what isn't art, neither it abides to hierarchies of political systems; art has been an open source field to anybody who decides to push the boundaries further away. Art should solve global crises, not sleep through them while attached on the wall for display. Of course, the challenges are government and business; they have vested interest in not wanting to participate in the change. I'm not trying to blur the boundaries between art and life through my work; I'm trying to remove them altogether. For example, artist Joseph Beuys initiated the planting of 7000 trees as a “social sculpture,” and the founding of the Free International University. I had a brush with fondness for modern art and aesthetics, but little by little my motivation started to fade away... and I saw art as an open field for action to retaliate, and to shape better lives for people – which can't happen through governments and businesses... because, again, they have no vested interest in social evolving.... So, in the late 1990s I began working with performance and conceptual work on sociopolitical issues after this phony culture failed to inject its indoctrination in me; I failed to be a submissive male who abides to his masculine gender role; and I failed to be a submissive wage slave and a consumer. Through my work I want to influence people to take away all that is stolen from them systemically and daily.... “As long as art is the beauty parlor of civilization, neither art nor civilization is secure.” – John Dewey, philosopher.

My work has specially-inserted secret sauce of appeal; even if the review is negative, the more you popularize my work, the more it eats the cultural indoctrination away. Disclaimer: Do not popularize my work if you are stuck in the old cultural paradigm of enjoying a contemporary culture that is full of turmoil, and is not effective in our day-to-day necessity-obtaining interactions, nor effective in the interactions and connections between women and men.

I couldn't have produced such amount of sickening work if the society we live in wasn't as sick as it is. So for that, I thank you sincerely, and may the God of logic save you.

This is a list of books that I started compiling in the late 1990s. The chronological order is not 100% accurate! I want to clarify that this list includes any topic books; and also, it is not a list of books that I promote, but just the list of books that I went through to inform myself. This (pdf) list of books has been last updated on 9-2024.

While I may have arguments that are incorrect, my views are promotions of biological certainties in combination with always-updating cultural check-marks. I certainly know that I am not wrong on the needs, because they are always more important than the wants.

I use the words “freedom” and “liberty” in politically-detached way. For me, “freedom” is the obtaining of living necessities, such as water, food, shelter, healthcare, education, love, leisure, etc. For me, “freedom” is not the opportunity for a savvy profiteer to start doing business; for me, “freedom” is not for a woman and man to interact and connect without cultural obligations to behave in egalitarian and beneficial manners toward one another.... If you are inclined to subscribe to the contemporary notion and expression of “freedom,” which is detached from the obtaining of our needs as a priority, then I'd say that you are going in the BS direction; and you are heavily influenced by cultural parochial identity, where the culture raises crusted views in its people. To remind: a culture, just like biology, is not a perfecting process; it is an adaptive process. When the culture is due for evolving because our arbitrarily adopted behaviors are no longer effective, we need to let it evolve; we need to start detaching ourselves from our outdated behaviors. As a more introverted individual this is a piece of cake for me, but I realize that I need to persuade the more extroverted audiences too.

Because if the contemporary “feminism” is not egalitarian in values, then it is neither feminism, nor effective for humanity. If a feminist movement is to be beneficial, then it cannot take only women into consideration; it has to take all the people in the word, because all people's living necessities are identical. Their needs are the same, but not the wants; if the “feminism” oversteps its cultural boundaries of disobeying the biological needs of all humans (such as, embracing the to love and to be loved), then it becomes the nonsensical nuisance that the 3rd and 4th wave are today.

Because there is no shortage of “feminist” books that point fingers at men. But there is shortage of books that point fingers at how women's sexist and sexually harassing behaviors contribute to lack of egalitarian interactions and connections. We shouldn't forget that also the other half of the world's population are the culprits to our bad behaviors.

Do I have less of a license than Simone de Beauvoir? She too named them as such in her 1949 nonfiction The Second Sex.

This is like asking me if I am anti-“feminist” or anti-“liberty”; it's as if those words have some kind of a higher relevance than the people they are supposed to represent. Whether I am pro or against, is circumstantial. Since the meaning of the word “American” is so broad, it depends on your definition. I don't get up in the morning with the thought of loving America, but with the rude awakening that my necessities are restricted through cultural means, which prompts me to seek them. A specific geographic location (the one that I live in) will hardly cross my mind, let alone devote myself to it. I am against the artificial restriction of living necessities for humanity. Humanity is always more important than the religious devotions to “states,” “countries,” and “nations.” So, if being “American” is the supporting of government and business profiteering practices that prevent the access to my living needs, then surely I will deplore the cowards. But if they are striving to cancel themselves so that the freedom to access needs is transferred to all the people in the world not just to the profiteers, then I will surely love them.... Humanity is always more important than nationality!

My artistic orientation for the first 10-12 years of drawing (1978-1990), was in primarily science fiction, airplanes, and doodling. After beginning to endure wage slavery and beginning to struggle with missing female love, in the early 1990s my artistic orientation began to evolve to dadaistic and surrealistic themes; they translated mostly through quick drawings and doodlings. I lacked the time and patience to stay too long on a single drawing; yet I also expected that one day there will be time to expand the surrealistic and dadaistic themes to graphics, multimedia, and film. I sought them as a form of expression, because I didn't like the obedience and confinement that culture expected out of me – to follow its norms; a typical day for me would consist of nothing but unrewarding wage slaving, plus cravings to achieve my athletic and academic goals – that were dragging because of financial barriers – and to find love... none of which were coming. Add to that the looming darkness of how I was viewed by others: once your behaviors and views are 180° from the norm, you begin to be viewed as an outcast and no longer part of the in-group. Even though I was in art school I knew very well that I am supposed to hide my artistic creativity, because the teachers weren't going to be ready for the dadaism in my head.... At that point, if we exclude school assignments, I had not even started to write about social issues yet. But in the late 1990s after I began to alter my focus in art, I also began to write profusely, because as I mentioned earlier, I had started craving to make a dent on a culture that is full of unnecessary barriers; I needed to alert the masses that they are living in the wrong culture in which most of their lives are wasted in the brainwashing activities that they have been taught, and they continue to promote: to pay allegiance to their cultural customs, to the state, to the business, and to always stay with the pack of sheeple, or otherwise be ostracized.... After many years of struggles to fit in society, in the late 1990s – after being down to $0 on at least one occasion, and still drooling for love in my life – I was finally done supporting the common culture of unrewarding wage slaving and of the ineffective interactions and connections between women and men; and subsequently my art took a sharp turn toward mocking the cultural sadism that we impose on ourselves to endure. At that time I went through a transitional “ugly works” art period where my art would most likely be classified as outsider art. I really enjoyed that period, there were moments that I had tears on my eyes, but eventually I had to abandon it because the big art was pushing to be next; and one of them was the situational performance art that I am yet to disclose through my semi-autobiographical novel about the dysfunctional interactions and connections between women and men. At the same time I also began to vent off my frustrations through writing; you can think of, my art – mocking the problems, while my writing – providing the solution to the problems.... Since the late 1970s, despite that I made many mistakes with my assertive behaviors, my views that girls (and subsequently women) are not to be chased and harassed, have not changed. In other words, girls (and subsequently women) themselves can make the decision about who to interact and connect with, without being pressured by boys (and subsequently men). However, in the late 1990s, while still enduring a loveless life I realized that their interactive and connective behaviors are hidden in unnecessary secrecy... and that didn't digest with me at all; moreover, it insulted me. Since then, aside from minor details, my view that women's excessively feminine behaviors (passive-teasing, flirting, and seducing) are due for evolving because they are just as ineffective in interacting and connecting as men's excessively masculine behaviors, has not changed. I continue to stand for egalitarian values between women and men in which, in interactions, women are not treated in a more gentle way (as if they are fragile little children); moreover, girls and women should also treat boys and men like normal people, and not engage in the culturally-approved cunning behaviors of passive-teasing, flirting, and seducing... as if it is a crime to interact and connect with boys and men in a normal sociable and loving way. It would be incredibly hard to find individuals, let alone societies, that share this egalitarian view. And for that I paid the price by not finding love in my life; first, because an interaction is the beginning step of a connection, and in an interaction my view stands that the male should not treat the female better; and second, because if the male is not assertive through his gender roles, which I wasn't, then it's game over for him when he treats the females in a manner that does not deem them as more important.... However, my view on politics went through a drastic change: In the early 1990s, like every high school student, I too was brainwashed that if I only worked hard enough, I will be showered with lots of wealth... until 1992, when my first wage slaving job (and subsequently several more wage slaving jobs) gave me a rude awakening. Little by little I started to question why the outcome of my provided labor didn't feel like a reward but more like a spit on my face, and why I was still far from a basic middle class (in which the necessities of life are not struggled for). I didn't understand why the government doesn't intervene in the profiteering tactics of businesses that exploit the wage slaving workers by not paying them enough; in other words, at that time my views were radically socialistic. After the late 1990s I started to understand that the government was basically in bed with business, but I still didn't understand why.... Then, not until the late 2000s, I began to understand that government, nor business, are the root problem; it is deeper, and belongs to a larger, more primary, and more fundamental order: business, government, and their politics, are the result of outdated behaviors with which we continue to parochially participate in a monetary culture; and since money is always supposed to be scarce while the money is exchanged for goods and services that are never supposed to be scarce, we continuously create ourselves a culturally-created roadblock to the obtaining of our needs.

No, I would get disqualified, because I lack humbleness, I pat myself on the back all the time, and I am a bit emotionless towards the problems of others (because they derive from the same root origin: lack of money, lack of love, or both). I have plenty of Jungian dark sides in my mind: sarcasm, arrogance, jealousy... you name it; they were all shaped by the negative experiences in my life. But to some extent they may also be remnants of my minor-degree of Asperger's syndrome.... Moreover, through the cultural infiltrating, my interest is in the resolving of the problems from the root causes, not resolving them through band-aid patching. For example, when the vast majority of people in the world are wage slaves with barely any savings, the compassionate altruistically minded people and volunteers inadvertently begin to seek patchwork; they try to channel more money and give them to the poor, while overlooking the root-problem of, what in the world is that thing money, and why are we using it when it generates so much poverty and deteriorates people's lives.... Another example of patchwork is, when the interactions between women and men are unsound because the outdated culture brainwashes them to keep away from each other, the loneliness of the more extroverted individuals morphs their behaviors to become more incongruous, secretive, and suspicious; they are itching to socialize, but they can't; they even forget how to socialize in soothing manner. (Hormonal predisposition will play a factor here too.) Instead of culturally approving the normal healthy socializing, an artificial solution (patchwork) is given to them: “social” media, not real socializing.... Another example of patchwork to mask out our normal living needs would be, when the connections between women and men are deteriorated because they are non-egalitarian in values, the anger of the individual starts to emanate sexist and sexually harassing behaviors; and the focus of the individual diverts to obtaining of connections through illusory methods: fantasizing of unobtainable love, sneaking to cheat, paying money for intimacy, reading and watching romance and adult material... and trying to latch to culturally accepted illusions of love instead of fixing the real love to be available.... To make a long story short, while we should embrace compassionate actions toward one another, resolving the issues at the root level should be our priority.

Certified free of annoying and brainwashing paid advertisements; Certified free of artificial contemporary culture additives; Certified for the enlightenment of the degraded parochial-identity-obsessed human mind.