Top 5 Favorite Books

I’ve always told people I have a top five list of favorite books. I thought I’d post them here and why I love each of them. 

The Stranger by Albert Camus

It’s the perfect mix of existentialism, absurdism, and detachment, which are three things that resonate with me. Mersault’s indifference and refusal to play along with society’s expectations, and his ultimate acceptance of the absurdity of life align with my own views.

The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus

This book gave me a framework to make peace with the absurd. Instead of drowning in nihilism or clinging to false meaning, Camus handed me a third option: defiance. I don’t have to pretend life has inherent meaning, but I also don’t have to collapse under that realization. I can push the boulder up the hill, knowing it’s pointless, and still find joy in the act.

Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace

It’s a chaotic, sprawling, brilliant mess, just like the world it critiques. It takes on capitalism, addiction, entertainment, and the crushing weight of modern existence, all with a mix of absurd humor and gut-wrenching sincerity.

At it’s core, it’s about resistance. Against addiction, against passive entertainment, against the numbness that capitalism and media try to impose.

Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy

Pure, unfiltered chaos — violence, fate, and the raw, indifferent brutality of the universe laid bare. It doesn’t try to comfort you; it forces you to stare into the abyss and see it staring back. It doesn’t just tell a story. It drags you through hell and leaves you to make sense of it yourself.

The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck

One of the most powerful indictments of capitalism and injustice ever written, and it does so with raw emotion and unflinching truth. It isn’t just about suffering; it’s about resistance, solidarity, and the idea that even in the face of crushing exploitation, people can come together and fight back.

Steinbeck’s anger at the system is palpable, but he doesn’t preach; he shows. He makes you feel the desperation, the hunger, the betrayal by a system designed to grind people down, but at the same time there’s that threat of quiet, unwavering defiance.

Elon Musk: Visionary or Villain?

Elon Musk says he cares about humanity–he talks about saving the species through space colonization, AI safety, and sustainable energy. However, his actions often tell a different story. He union-busts, disregards worker safety, spreads misinformation, and makes decisions that prioritize his ego and wealth over real human well-being.

If he truly cared about humanity, he’d prioritize improving conditions on Earth–like supporting labor rights, addressing inequality, and ensuring ethical AI development–rather than pushing grandiose visions that conveniently make him richer and more powerful. His version of “caring” seems more like a billionaire’s self-serving messiah complex than genuine concern.

He claims he wants to go to Mars to ensure humanity’s survival–his whole “multi-planetary species” pitch. He frames it as a backup plan in case Earth becomes uninhabitable due to climate change, nuclear war, or AI gone wrong.

But realistically? It’s a billionaire’s escape plan. Colonizing Mars is wildly impractical. It’s a barren, radiation-soaked wasteland with no breathable air, toxic soil, and temperatures that make Antarctica look tropical. Instead of using his resources to improve life on Earth, he’s selling a sci-fi fantasy where a select few (i.e., the ultra-rich) get to start over while the rest of us deal with the mess they helped create.

At best, his whole colonization of Mars is an ego project. He wants to be remembered as the guy who got humanity to another planet. At worst, it’s a convenient distraction while he hoards wealth and power here on Earth.

Birth is a Pyramid Scheme

Every good pyramid scheme needs three things: an endless recruitment cycle, a promise of prosperity that mostly benefits those at the top, and a system that collapses if new recruits stop joining. Birth checks every box.

From the moment you’re born, you’re not just a person, you’re a worker-in-training, a future taxpayer, a consumer, and eventually an unpaid caretaker for the previous generation. The system dangles promises of fulfillment, legacy, and meaning, but in reality, you’re just another cog keeping the machine running. Your parents were convinced to recruit you, just as their parents were convinced to recruit them. And now? Society pressures you to do the same, because if people stop having children, the whole thing crumbles.

Governments panic over declining birth rates, not because they care about individual happiness, but because they need fresh labor to keep the economy running, new soldiers to fight wars, and more workers to fund the pensions of the aging elite. It’s all a rigged game where those born first reap the benefits, and those born later inherit all the problems.

And, like any good pyramid scheme, there’s no way to cash out. You didn’t sign up for this, but you’re stuck playing. The only ethical choice? Stop recruiting. Let the scheme collapse.

Apartheid Clyde and Social Security

I’ve been on social security disability for nine years. I worked my ass off until I couldn’t anymore. My physical and mental health both went to shit and I had no other choice but to file for disability. Social security is money that people earn through working. People with disabilities and people who are retired earn that money and we need it to get us through the rest of our lives.

Then someone like Elon Musk (Apartheid Clyde) comes along and says, “I don’t think you deserve it anymore.” Why is that though? What does he have against those of us who are retired or disabled getting the benefits we earned through working our whole lives sometimes under shitty circumstances?

Apartheid Clyde and most billionaires hate social security or the same reason: it represents a system where wealth is redistributed to help people rather than being hoarded by the ultra-rich. Social security is a direct challenge to the capitalist ideal that people should “earn their keep” through endless labor, while billionaires like Apartheid Clyde accumulate wealth passively through exploitation.

Apartheid Clyde has openly criticized Social Security, calling it a “Ponzi scheme,” which is ironic given that his entire empire is built on government subsidies, taxpayer-funded bailouts, and stock market hype. He doesn’t like the idea of government using tax revenue to provide a safety net for regular people, but he’s perfectly fine with it when it benefits him.

At the core, billionaires hate Social Security because it proves society can function when wealth is shared, which threatens their grip on power. If people weren’t forced to work until the day they die, they’d have more freedom to resist the system that makes people like Musk so obscenely rich.

The Last Birthday

Leonard’s 75th birthday was a quiet affair. A single candle flickered in a store-bought cupcake, its wax dripping onto the frosting as he sat alone in his kitchen. There were no calls, no visitors, just hte faint hum of the refrigerator and hte distant sound of traffic outside.

He had spent his life watching generations come and go, the cycle of birth and death spinning endlessly like a wheel no one could step off of. His own parents had long since passed, his siblings too, and his one brief attempt at a family — a marriage that dissolved before his 30th birthday — had left him with no children. He used to wonder if he’d regret that decision, but regret never came. Only relief.

Outside, the world groaned under its own weight. Another record-breaking heatwave, another war in a country no one bothered to understand, another scandal, another disaster. The news had become an endless loop of suffering. Leonard saw no reason to pretend it would ever get better. People were born, they struggled, the suffered, and then they died, only to be replaced by more of the same.

He had spent years trying to articulate this to others, but no one wanted to hear it. “That’s just life,” they’d say, as if that were an answer. As if that justified the whole cruel experiment. He had given up on trying to explain. The breeders had already won. There were billions of human crawling over a dying planet, convinced their existence was a gift rather than a burden.

Leonard leaned back in his chair and let out a long breath. The candle’s flame flickered, then went out on its own. He hadn’t even bothered to make a wish.

Right to Exist

In the year 2047, capitalism had finally achieved its ultimate form. Landlords no longer rented apartments, houses, or even beds. Those were luxuries. Now they owned the very act of existing.

It started innocently enough: a small tax on “public space usage” in overcrowded cities, then someone had the bright idea to monetize the most valuable real estate of all: being alive.

Basic Existence Plans

The government, now fully privatized under the United Corporations of America, partnered with major landlords to introduce Existence Permits. Every citizen was required to pay a Base Rent just to continue occupying space. There are different pricing models.

Basic Model: $999/month – The right to breathe, stand, and move in designated living zones.

Premium Model: $2499/ month – Sitting rights, access to indoor spaces, and limited privacy.

Elite Model: $9999/month – Full movement, private rooms, and the ability to own furniture.

Those who couldn’t even afford the Basic Model had two choices: join the Debt Labor Program (indetured servitude with a 200-year contract) or be sent to the Non-Existence Zone, which was a fenced-off wasteland where the unpaying masses wandered, waiting to starve.

Marcus Caldwell, a former software engineer, had recently been downgraded from “Basic” to “Pre-Expired” Status after missing two payments. A red timer hovered over his citizen ID, counting down the 48 hours until his legal existence would be revoked.

He tried everything: selling his furniture, begged on the Pay-to-Speak app, applied for a breathing subsidy. With ten minutes left, he made a final desperate call to his landlord, Mr. Hendrix, a man who owned over 50 million existence units across the country.

“Please,” Marcus begged. “I just need another week.”

Hendrix sighed. “Look, Mark, I like you, but if I let you slide, what message does that send to my other tenants? Existence isn’t free, my friend.”

“But I’ve lived here for years!”

“Exactly! And every year, your right to live gets more valuable. That’s how markets work.”

The timer hit zero. Marcus felt a strange sensation in his chest. His Existence Lease had been terminated. His biometric ID deactivated. The streetlights dimmed around him. Doors locked automatically. Card refused to recognize him. Even his digital wallet self-destructed, ensuring he could not longer participate in the economy.

Two armored Existence Enforcement Officers appeared, scanning his ID.

“Sir, you are currently occupying space without a valid permit. Please proceed to the Non-Existence Zone immediately.”

Marcus ran, but had nowhere to go. Everywhere had a fee. Sidewalks charged by the step. Air had a metered oxygen tax. His phone flashed its final message before shutting off permanently.

“Your free trial has expired.”

As Marcus disappeared into the wasteland, the landlords met in their executive towers to discuss the next innovation” charging people for memories. After all, why should anyone be allowed to keep experiences they haven’t fully paid for?

The future was bright … for those who could afford it.

Can Freedom and Communism Coexist?

I’ve been delving more and more and reading more and more into systems other than the oppressive one that is Capitalism. Something has to be done to bring down the entire Capitalist system. I think we need some sort of revolution and to make way for Socialism or Communism or at the very least Democratic-Socialism, Libertarian-Socialism, or Anarcho-Communism.

I’m fond of the freedoms we have so far in the United States, but with this new administration I fear that those freedoms are going to be taken away by the Capitalists. But you may be asking, “But isn’t Communism against freedom?” I have always thought that as well after being brainwashed and indoctrinated by the education system and the news, but it’s not the case.

Can freedom exist within a Communist or Socialist society? It depends on how you define “freedom” and “Communism.” If by “freedom” do I mean the ability to live without economic coercion? Have access to basic needs and participate in decision making? If that’s what I mean then the answer is yes. Many leftist theorists argue that true freedom is only possibly when Capitalism is abolished, since it forces people to sell their labor to survive.

Communism is against the right to accumulate wealth and own private property at the expense of others. In that regard, Communism is incompatible with freedom. Communism prioritizes collective well-being over individual accumulation, which can sometimes mean restricting certain freedoms such as the freedom to exploit labor or hoard resources.

Historically, some communist regimes have suppressed political freedom such as the USSR and North Korea, but those two were never truly Communist, but I’ll save that for another day. Many leftists argue that a stateless, decentralized form of Communism, like Anarcho-Communism would maximize both economic and political freedom.

In a truly Communist society — especially in a decentralized, democratic form like Anarcho-Communism — freedom of choice, speech, and the press could still exist, and in some ways, they might even be stronger than under Capitalism.

In a Communist system where resources are collectively owned and distributed based on need, people wouldn’t be forced to take jobs just to survive. Instead they could choose their work based on interests and community needs. However, certain choices like owning private businesses or accumulating excessive wealth wouldn’t exist because the contradict the principle of Communist ownership.

In theory, a Communist society could allow free speech and press, especially if it’s structured democratically. If power is decentralized and decisions are made collectively, suppressing speech would go against the idea of worker control. The press would be worker-run instead of owned by a few wealthy individuals, leading to a more diverse range of perspectives instead of media being controlled by corporate interests.

In short, freedom of speech, the press, and choice could absolutely exist under Communism, it just depends on whether the system is democratic and decentralized or authoritarian and bureaucratic.

Why Do Americans Oppose Socialism/Communism

Socialism and Communism are dirty words in the U.S., but why? A lot of it has to do with a mixture of historical, political, and economic factors.

  1. The Cold War Legacy which involved decades of anti-communist propaganda which painted socialism and communism as existential threats, linking them to authoritarianism and repression such as the USSR and China, but true socialism and communism are not authoritarian at all. The means of production are in the hands of the workers.
  2. Capitalist interests: The U.S. economic system is built on Capitalism and the ruling class such as billionaires, corporations, and politicians … all who have a vested interest in maintaining it. Socialism and communism challenge the private wealth accumulation so there’s a strong incentive to demonize them.
  3. Misinformation: Most Americans don’t actually know what socialism or communism are, thanks to decades of education and media framing them as inherently oppressive rather than economic and political systems with various interpretations.
  4. Republicans and many Democrats use “socialism” as a scare tactic to rally voters. Anything that threatens corporate control or wealth concentration gets labeled as “socialist” to shut down discussion.
  5. The military-industrial complex would be challenged by a socialist-leaning government. It would challenge the defense budget and imperialist interventions, threatening the profits of the defense industry and its political allies.

A lot of the American opposition to Socialism and Communism is rooted in elite interests rather than genuine ideological differences. Capitalism’s defenders know that socialism could work too well for the average person and not for the billionaires.

Revisiting Blood Meridian

I’m currently re-reading Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy, which is one of my top five favorite books of all time. It’s a brutal, hypnotic, and unrelentingly bleak book. McCarthy takes the myth of the American West and rips it apart, exposing it as a landscape of pure, amoral violence. He makes the violence seem surreal and inevitable.

The character of Judge Holden in particular is one of the most haunting literary figures. He’s part philosopher, part warlord, part devil. He embodies a vision of history and human nature that is completely devoid of redemption.

The book doesn’t offer easy conclusions of moral lessons; it just drags you through an endless nightmare and dares you to find meaning in it.

It’s one of those books that leaves you stunned when you finish it. Either you’ll be in awe of it, or you’ll never want to touch it again. Maybe both.

Blood Meridian reshapes how you see literature and maybe even history itself. It’s not just a Western, it’s a cosmic horror novel disguised as a Western. The sheer indifference of the universe in it is chilling, and Judge Holden is the embodiment of that.

Blood Meridian doesn’t just flirt with nihilism, it drags you into the abyss and makes you sit with it. There’s no redemption, no justice, no meaning beyond the endless cycle of violence. Even the protagonist, who seems like he might have a shred of humanity, is ultimately powerless against the chaos of the world. And Judge Holden? He’s basically an immortal force of destruction, dancing through history, laughing at anyone who thinks there’s order or morality. It’s the kind of book that leaves a scar.

There are some lessons in it though:

Violence is inherent to civilization.

McCarthy shows that violence isn’t just a byproduct of civilization but a fundamental part of it. The Glanton Gang’s violence is just business as usual in the American frontier. Human history is driven by war, conquest, and destruction, and making any romanticized view of the past naive.

Manifest Destiny was a Bloodbath.

The novel dismantles the myth of Manifest Destiny as a heroic expansion. The Glanton Gang which were hired to hunt Apaches turns into a lawless death squad, killing indiscriminately for profit. The Westward Expansion wasn’t just about pioneering and opportunity–it was also about genocide, greed, and chaos.

War is God.

Judge Holden represents a kind of cosmic nihilism. He believes that war is the only true human activity, the ultimate law of existence. If he’s right, then morality is just an illusion, and history is nothing but and endless cycle of domination and slaughter.

Fate vs Free Will.

The protagonist seems to have moments where he could choose a different path, but does he really have free will? The Judge suggests that all men are bound to the game of war, whether they admit it or not. The novel leaves open the question of whether the protagonist’s attempts at redemption matter or if he was doomed from the start.

At its core, Blood Meridian is a rejection of comfortable narratives about human nature, history, and morality. It doesn’t tell you what to think; it forces you to look into the abyss and decide for yourself what it means.

Why Republicans Want More Babies

Republicans push for higher birth rates for a few reasons, mostly tied to power, economics, and ideology:

  1. Maintain Political and Cultural Dominance
    • Many conservatives see declining birth rates as a threat to their long-term influence. They want more people raised with “traditional” values, which often align with their political and religious beliefs.
  2. Workforce and Economic Growth
    • Capitalism depends on a steady supply of workers and consumers. More births mean more future workers, taxpayers, and economic growth. Many Republican policies favor business interests, which benefit from a growing labor pool — especially one desperate enough to accept low wages.
  3. Religious Influence
    • The Republican Party has deep ties to Christian fundamentalists, who often see having children as a moral or religious duty. Many believe that birth control, abortion, and even declining birth rates are threats to their faith and society.
  4. Anti-Immigration Fears
    • Some Republicans worry about demographic changes, particularly the declining white birth rate in the U.S. This fuels their push for more births among their base while opposing immigration as a solution to population decline.
  5. Social Control
    • Encouraging childbirth while restricting abortion and contraception keeps people — especially women — economically dependent and less able to challenge the system. More children mean more financial burdens, making it harder for people to organize, resist exploitation, or take risks.

Ultimately, it’s about preserving their power whether through political dominance, economic benefits, or social control. They don’t actually care about “family values” so much as keeping people in a system that benefits them.