#neutralg

Today I want to talk about the very first phase of schizophrenia, which I've deduced to be: auditory hallucinations that scare you.

Some schizophrenics are fortunate in that, the voices do not scare them. These schizophrenics inadvertently get patched to PHASE TWO immediately, and even come to know PHASE THREE and etc. quicker than their fearful peers, in my opinion. But that's neither here nor there.

But MOST schizophrenics (and i'm talking without looking at any stats) are afraid. At least, for a little while. At least, in the beginning. Something scares them. That something is the voices.

They're afraid the voices are a cop. An alien. God or Jesus himself or Allah. and etc. They're afraid that the voices are an Angel or a Demon - well, you get the point. What these schizophrenics basically fear, is a fear of the unknown. And what happens after death, unbeknownst to all of us, is the great fear that binds schizophrenics to phase one.

Are the cops going to come beat me up and kill me? Are there terrorists in my mind using voice to skull technology? Will I be absolved somehow; relieved from this earth and removed? Is a Criminal syndicate in my mind? Are the russians communicating with me with malicious intent? Are aliens going to probe me and my family? But above all: Will the voices come to harm me? Will I die?

This, my friend, coupled with the "programmers" relentless assault on anything you hold dear, and attacks during the times when your mind thinks it is safe, is the jist phase one: Fear and approbation. Fear of the unknown, and fear of the hereafter and fear of death.

The voices are never polite. They tell you to kill yourself or your loved ones. They threaten to beat, harm or maim you. Some people have reported trauma so real from hearing voices, that they have forced orgasms to disguising pictures in their mind. This is a relentless assault, and you WILL be traumatized. Or you're very lucky. In which case, you're already in a subsequent phase.

I myself remember a time when my penis became erect and had an orgasm, without me touching it. Just from the use of my mind. This has happened to me several times. I suppose I was in a dream like state, having what might be considered a wet dream while awake.

Despite all this. Sometimes, there is approbation, or a certain fondness. This is a sort of 'stockholm syndrome' - a certain sympathy for those voices which oppress you. This comes naturally. And even as the voices reject all kind gestures and words, and remind you that they're there to kill you, harm you and your loved ones, or family, and etc. There comes a time (only for some schizophrenics, though; many don't make it out of phase one: and live afraid for life!), there comes a time that the voices become endearing, like chatting with a friend who wants to kill you, and despite their malicious attacks on your psyche, this relentless assault and abuse, in phase two: you put that all behind you. The threats don't seem real. You toughen up. Or you get angry. You won't take no more. Sometimes, you forgive and forget, maybe you're old now and over it. Or you actually sympathize with the "perpetrator" in your mind. Maybe you find their destructive threats somehow endearing. Welcome to phase two.

Stephen M. Miniotis "NeutralG" or "Neut", is a part-time undergraduate studying English Literature at the prestigious University Of Toronto. He is a diagnosed Paranoid Schizophrenic who hears voices chatting with him all day long ,for which he recieves a 3-month injection cycle of medication. He has heard voices for decades. He hears voices to this day. According to him, he is no longer afraid of the voices, and has proceeded to a subsequent phase of introspection.

If you hold a standard 401(k), an RRSP, or any passive index fund tracking the tech sector, your hard-earned retirement savings are about to be conscripted into the biggest valuation gamble in financial history.

On June 12, 2026, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) is scheduled to make its public debut on the Nasdaq under the ticker SPCX. Management has locked in an IPO price of $135 per share, aiming to raise a record-breaking $75 billion. This structures the company’s initial market capitalization at a staggering $1.8 trillion, instantly catapulting a historically private rocket company into the top ranks of the most valuable corporations on Earth.

But beneath the awe-inspiring engineering of Starship and the global ubiquity of Starlink lies a financial reality that should make every retail investor deeply uncomfortable.

The x95 Revenue Reality Check

A valuation of $1.8 trillion requires astronomical assumptions. According to SpaceX’s SEC filings, the company generated $18.67 billion in revenue last year. This means SpaceX is entering the public markets trading at roughly 95 times its trailing revenue.

To put a "95x multiple" into perspective, consider the broader market:

Healthy, highly profitable mega-cap tech giants typically trade at price-to-sales ratios between 5x and 12x.

Even during peak speculative bubbles, a multiple approaching 100x revenue is generally viewed by financial analysts as completely disconnected from underlying fundamentals.

Furthermore, SpaceX is currently unprofitable. While the Starlink satellite internet business generates operating profits, those gains are being heavily diluted. Earlier this year, Elon Musk integrated xAI (the artificial intelligence venture that owns X and Grok) directly into SpaceX. In the first quarter alone, this new AI division posted massive losses of billions of dollars, completely wiping out Starlink’s positive cash flow.

Essentially, public investors are being asked to pay a premium reserved for a hyper-profitable software monopoly, but for a business carrying the massive capital expenditures of aerospace engineering and the steep infrastructure costs of speculative AI data centers.

How the Rules Were Changed to Target Passive Wealth

You might assume that if a stock is overvalued, you can simply choose not to buy it. Unfortunately, modern market mechanics mean you may not have a choice.

Historically, major stock indexes enforced strict "seasoning periods." A newly public company typically had to trade for three to twelve months to allow for natural price discovery, stabilization, and to prove it possessed a sufficient "free float"—the percentage of shares actually available to the public.

To secure the SpaceX listing over the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq dramatically altered its benchmark rules. Effective mid-2026, Nasdaq introduced "Fast Entry" provisions:

SpaceX is only floating a tiny fraction of its total equity—less than 5%—allowing Musk to retain an absolute 82% voting control. Yet, because of Nasdaq's rule adjustment, passive index funds, mutual funds, and pension managers that legally replicate the Nasdaq-100 will be systematically forced to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars worth of SpaceX stock within three weeks of the debut to accurately track the index.

Your retirement account is being utilized as guaranteed liquidity to support a historic valuation, shielding insiders and early venture capital backers while shifting the long-term valuation risk onto everyday savers.

Designing the First Trillionaire

The ultimate beneficiary of this engineering is, predictably, Elon Musk. Forbes estimates Musk's net worth hovering near $826 billion ahead of the float, driven largely by his massive private equity stake in SpaceX.

By taking the company public at a rigid $1.8 trillion valuation, backed by a rule structure that guarantees immediate, massive buying pressure from institutional index funds, the IPO is mathematically designed to solidify Musk as the world's very first official trillionaire.

While the retail trading community is being offered an unusually high 30% allocation of the IPO shares—a move critics argue intentionally taps into "meme-stock" enthusiasm—the underlying mechanics rely on the steady, quiet capital of index fund investors.

Before celebrating the historic nature of the world’s largest IPO, take a close look at your portfolio's index exposure. You might find that your retirement timeline is suddenly bound to the financial trajectory of Mars.

Just days before its long-awaited grand opening this Friday, the Gordie Howe International Bridge — the shiny new cable-stayed crossing meant to revolutionize trade between Canada and the United States — has been abruptly delayed yet again. The culprit? President Donald Trump, who has decided the bridge Canada mostly paid for needs to become another bargaining chip in his never-ending quest to “win” at trade. Or is that the real reason why? Read on.

Sources close to the project say everything was on track: cables taut, pavement smooth, ribbon practically pre-cut. Trucks were gearing up to roll across, auto parts were ready to flow more efficiently, and both Windsor and Detroit were preparing to pop the champagne. Then Trump fired off a Truth Social post, and poof — Friday’s opening vanished faster than a moderate Republican at a MAGA rally.

The timing is almost comically suspicious. According to reports, Trump’s sudden outrage over the bridge only materialized shortly after he met with Matthew Moroun, the billionaire owner of the competing Ambassador Bridge. You know, the existing cash cow that’s been raking in tolls for decades and now faces actual competition from this shiny new publicly-funded alternative. Coincidence? Sure, and golf scores are always honest.

“Canada is taking advantage of us!” Trump declared, though nobody believes his rediculous statements except his most diehard loyalists. Trump was demanding everything from bigger U.S. ownership stakes to vague “fairness” concessions on dairy, booze, and whatever else was on his mind that day. Never mind that Canada footed the lion’s share of the multi-billion-dollar project with minimal U.S. taxpayer money. In Trump’s worldview, if America isn’t getting half the bridge plus interest plus a gold-plated nameplate, then nobody gets to use it.

The backlash from his own side of the border has been swift and brutal. Michiganders — Trump’s own countrymen — are losing their minds over the mounting costs of yet another delay. Auto workers, small business owners, logistics companies, and even some local Republicans are in open uproar. Supply chains that were counting on smoother crossings are now facing more gridlock, lost productivity, and higher costs that will inevitably get passed on to American consumers.

“This is insane,” said one Detroit-area manufacturer who asked not to be named out of fear of a late-night presidential tweet. “We’re not talking about some foreign handout. This is infrastructure that helps us. And now it’s being held hostage after a meeting with the guy whose bridge profits the most from the status quo?”

Even Michigan Democrats and business chambers, usually quick to criticize Trump, have found themselves with plenty of bipartisan company in their frustration. The economic hit from prolonged delays is real: millions in weekly losses, stalled jobs, and frustrated commuters who just want to get across the Detroit River without it becoming an international game of chicken.

Meanwhile, Canadian officials are reportedly shaking their heads in disbelief. The bridge named after hockey legend Gordie Howe — a symbol of cross-border grit and cooperation — has been reduced to a pawn in Trump’s trade theater. One Windsor official joked that at this rate, the bridge might open the same day Canada finally wins the Stanley Cup again.

Critics say this episode perfectly captures the backwards logic at play: use leverage on a project that benefits everyone to extract concessions that may or may not exist. While Trump’s supporters cheer the hardball tactics, those actually living near the border and working in the integrated North American economy are left idling in traffic, wondering why a bridge that was nearly finished now sits there like a

$5-billion

monument to political point-scoring.

As of now, no new opening date has been announced. Friday’s ribbon-cutting has been replaced by more “negotiations.” The trucks are still waiting. The businesses are still bleeding. And somewhere, the owner of the Ambassador Bridge is probably smiling.

In the end, the Gordie Howe Bridge delay isn’t just about infrastructure — it’s about priorities. Perhaps electing an unempathetic, out of touch, rich billionaire to office, was a mistake.

Windsor-Detroit Border – June 2026

Stephen Miniotis writes for his very own

Libtard.gg

He's a persons of a degree, pending graduation, and lives with a disability: Paranoid Schizophrenia.

---

#RiseUp

Blog:

Libtard.gg

contact:

SteveMini.com

Help a broda out with a 3$ meal every month. Patreon: Follow For Free:

DonateAMeal.ca

PayPal Donos:

Stan Kroenke, the billionaire sports owner and America’s largest private landowner, controls roughly 2.7 million acres — an astonishing empire equivalent to more than four Rhode Islands, or about 2.16 Delawares. To put that in perspective, Rhode Island is just 1,034 square miles, Delaware around 1,955. Kroenke’s holdings dwarf these entire states and come close to swallowing Connecticut whole.

Thank God he’s a conservationist. His vast ranches in Texas, Wyoming, New Mexico, and elsewhere are largely kept as working agricultural land and open spaces rather than being turned into subdivisions or strip mines. In an age of runaway development, that private stewardship helps preserve grasslands, wildlife corridors, and rural economies that might otherwise be lost to fragmentation.

But let’s be honest: this level of concentrated private power should make every working American deeply uncomfortable.

When a single individual owns land the size of multiple sovereign states, we have to ask harder questions. How did we reach a point where one man’s portfolio rivals the territory of entire states while millions of families struggle to afford a modest home or a few acres? The billionaire class has consolidated wealth and real assets at a scale that would have shocked previous generations. Kroenke is not the villain in a cartoon — many of these holdings are productively managed — but the broader pattern of extreme land and capital concentration is unsustainable in a democracy.

The conservationist framing is real, yet it also conveniently distracts from the deeper issue: extreme inequality in land ownership. When the richest landowners control territories larger than small states, ordinary citizens are priced out of ever achieving similar independence or security. This isn’t just about one man — it’s about a system that increasingly funnels productive assets upward.

AI offers a genuine opportunity to reset the working class. As artificial intelligence displaces large segments of human labor across industries, we face a historic choice. Instead of letting the gains flow almost exclusively to capital owners and tech billionaires, society can demand a fairer distribution. Stipends funded by the massive productivity surplus AI will generate — essentially dividends from the replaced labor and automated production — could make housing, healthcare, and basic necessities affordable again for everyone.

Universal AI-derived stipends wouldn’t just be charity; they would be a rightful share of the technological bounty that the working class helped create over generations. With land barons like Kroenke sitting on state-sized holdings, and AI poised to create unprecedented abundance, the question becomes urgent:

When will the people finally rise up against the billionaire class and demand more?

Demand more public accountability on extreme land concentration. Demand policies that prevent further feudal-style accumulation. Demand that the windfall from AI and automation actually flows back to workers and families in the form of economic security, not just further enriching those who already own multiple states worth of America.

Conservation is good. Private stewardship can have value. But neither excuses an economic order where a handful of individuals own more land than many states combined while everyday Americans fight for scraps. The conservationist billionaire is preferable to the exploitative one — but we should not stop there. The real conversation must be about structural change, wealth redistribution through smart policy, and using the coming AI abundance to restore dignity and opportunity to the working majority.

Thank God Kroenke is a conservationist. Now let’s build a system where no one needs to be a billionaire to protect — or access — meaningful pieces of their shared country.

--- contact:

SteveMini.com

Blog:

Libtard.gg

Help a broda out with a 3$ meal every month. Patreon: Follow For Free:

In an era of rapid technological upheaval, artificial intelligence is often cast as a villain—stealing jobs, widening inequality, and rendering human labour obsolete. Yet for millions living with disabilities and chronic economic precarity, AI may represent not a threat, but a profound liberator. Far from fearing the machine, society should embrace it as a partner in reimagining human dignity, productivity, and support.

This perspective finds particular resonance in the work of advocates like the creator behind

donateameal.ca

. On their Patreon page, they offer a stark assessment of the current social contract: poor people living with a disability can, in effect, be considered "an enemy of the state," because in a system built around labour market participation, nobody truly wants the ongoing fiscal and administrative burden of supporting them. It is a provocative claim, rooted in the lived reality of inadequate disability benefits, bureaucratic gatekeeping, and societal attitudes that view non-working individuals as drains rather than contributors. Traditional welfare systems often trap recipients in poverty, with clawbacks and eligibility rules that discourage ambition or additional income.

Enter AI. What if the same technologies disrupting industries could instead underwrite a new social compact—one where machines generate wealth that flows back to humans, particularly those sidelined by physical or cognitive limitations?

From Burden to Beneficiary

Historically, societies have grappled with how to support those unable to engage in traditional work. Disability support programs exist, but they are frequently means-tested, stigmatized, and insufficient. In Canada, for instance, provincial disability benefits like the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) provide modest stipends that struggle to cover rising costs of living, especially in cities like Toronto. Many recipients report feeling like second-class citizens, their potential untapped while they navigate a system designed more for compliance than empowerment.

AI changes the equation fundamentally. Advanced systems can now perform complex cognitive and even physical tasks—analysing data, writing reports, coding software, driving vehicles, and providing round-the-clock care or companionship. As AI productivity surges, the economic pie expands dramatically. The logical extension, as proponents of universal basic income (UBI) or AI dividends argue, is to distribute a portion of that new wealth unconditionally.

Imagine a future where AI agents labour on behalf of individuals. A person with mobility challenges or chronic illness could "own" or direct AI systems that contribute to the economy—perhaps through content creation, research assistance, virtual consulting, or automated manufacturing oversight. In return, they receive a stipend: enough to live with dignity, pursue studies, creative endeavours, or simply rest and recover. Crucially, they would also claim a share of the value produced by the AI labour that replaces or augments human work.

This is not charity; it is ownership in the productivity gains of the 21st century. Tech leaders like Elon Musk have floated similar ideas, suggesting mechanisms like "universal high income" funded by AI-driven abundance. Experiments with UBI, such as those supported by OpenAI's Sam Altman, hint at the potential: reduced stress, improved health outcomes, and even increased entrepreneurial activity among recipients.

Addressing the Critics

Sceptics will counter that such a system breeds dependency or fiscal irresponsibility. Why pay people to "stay home and study" when resources are finite? Yet this objection ignores how AI alters scarcity itself. When machines handle drudgery and high-volume production, human value shifts toward creativity, oversight, ethics, and care—domains where people with disabilities often excel precisely because of their unique perspectives.

Moreover, the alternative—clinging to outdated employment mandates—risks deepening division. Without mechanisms to share AI prosperity, we face mass technological unemployment alongside concentrated wealth in the hands of a few tech giants. Disability advocates have long noted that UBI could be transformative for their communities, removing punitive work requirements and allowing genuine participation on their own terms.

The

donateameal.ca

perspective cuts through the noise: current systems implicitly treat certain vulnerable groups as liabilities. AI offers a path to flip that script—transforming potential "enemies of the state" into invested stakeholders in a machine-augmented economy.

A Call to Optimism

Fearing the machine is understandable in a world of hype cycles and job displacement headlines. But fear blinds us to opportunity. Properly governed—with safeguards against monopoly, robust retraining, and ethical AI development—intelligent systems can elevate humanity rather than diminish it.

For the disabled and economically marginalized, AI could mean stipends that honour their humanity, tools that amplify their capabilities, and a share in the wealth their societal context helped create. It is time to move beyond viewing technology as an existential threat. Instead, we should pilot it thoughtfully, regulate it wisely, and harness it to build a more inclusive prosperity.

Don't fear the machine. Design it to serve us all. Rise up my brethren, rise up!

This article reflects ideas explored on platforms like my patreon:

donateameal.ca

. Help a broda out with a 3$ meal every month.

"I was able to implement a drag-and-drop and have test cards line up in a hand. With how quick I'm making progress maybe I'll have a semi functional product within 1 or 2 years instead of the initial 3 I proposed. Anyway It's just a hobby to me and I'm going slow and learning quick."

#ManPostingHisDubs