The alarm went off at 10:00 a.m., but Alex had already been awake for twenty minutes. Fully rested, his mind began racing the moment he opened his eyes.

Though the calm, focused, mathematical mindset he'd experienced the night before was gone, he still felt pretty good. He wasn't nearly as flustered as usual, and he wasn't nervous about the meeting with Howard. Going over his notes, he settled on three points that he felt were irrefutable and would make Howard squirm:

1. Everything the dominant class was planning, and had already carried out, was a massive violation of basic human rights.
2. The so-called moral justifications put forward in the book were laughable.
3. Nobody, regardless of how rich and powerful they were, had the right to treat human beings like lab animals.

After making these points, he fully expected Howard to stumble through some type of self-righteous rationalization. Alex looked forward to making him uncomfortable. He was certain he had the upper hand and wanted nothing more than to put Howard in his proper place—BENEATH the decent people in the world. After doing so, he planned on telling him to go to hell.

Alex opened the laptop, and another life-changing day began.

"Did you finish the book?" Howard asked.

"Yes, plus another book's worth of research online."

"Excellent. What are your thoughts? Are you starting to understand our vision?"

"Your vision?" Alex asked. "Sorry, Howard, but this topic didn't affect me the way you predicted. All I see is something that is so immoral and downright wrong that I hardly know where to begin."

"This is good," Howard replied. "I will need your honest feedback to properly help you."

"Help me what?" Alex asked.

"Overcome the effects of the illusion. I realize there will be some difficult moments. It's not your fault, Alex. You were raised in a psychologically destructive environment. There are still many core beliefs and assumptions that are affecting your ability to reason properly. It might take longer than I thought, but you'll eventually see the truth."

Already, Alex felt himself slipping a little into a state of disorientation. Howard always had a response that Alex hadn't prepared for and didn't know how to react to. He certainly didn't expect Howard to say it was "good" that he was challenging him. Nor was he ready for the sympathetic and condescending sentiment that it was Alex who needed help. He shook off the slight loss of confidence, gathered his thoughts, and shot back.

"No. I don't think you understand, Howard. This has nothing to do with any so-called illusion. I'm talking about basic right and wrong here. This is about you and your kind doing something that totally violates basic human rights. Human rights—that's what this is about. You're violating them and acting like there's nothing wrong with it. It's immoral. It's wrong, period!"

It was then that, for the first and only time, Alex heard Howard laugh. It wasn't a sinister laugh. That would have been OK. Even through the voice-morphing software, the laugh was calm and almost endearing. It was self-assured and conveyed even more sympathy than the statement he'd made a moment earlier. True to form, Howard effortlessly destabilized Alex's thought process.

"OK, Alex. Please tell me about these so-called rights."

Without giving him a chance to respond, Howard continued.

"Better yet, I will teach you one of the most important lessons you will ever learn right now. Are you ready? The rights that you speak of are an illusion. They do not exist."

Controlling his voice and emotions the best he could, Alex replied, "Why? Because you say so? You think you're so powerful that you can just erase people's rights by saying they don't exist? That's ridiculous. Everyone knows we have rights. You can't just wipe them away by saying they're not there."

"Well, Alex, you are right about one thing: everyone knows that they have rights. But just because a delusion is widely accepted does not make it real. There was a time when everyone knew the earth was flat. There was a time when everyone knew that the earth was at the center of the universe. If you plan on separating yourself from the herd, you must learn to differentiate between what you believe is true and what actually is true. Or, as in this case, you must differentiate between what you wish were true and what actually is true."

"Fine. I heard what you said, but I don't understand how you can make such a claim or what you're basing it on. Seriously, how can you say that human beings have no rights? Animals have rights, for God's sake. You still haven't answered the question. Are you suggesting that by simply saying they don't exist you can make them disappear?"

"No. I'm saying they do not exist because they simply do not exist. You have the argument backwards. If you were thinking clearly, you would say, 'Claiming that human rights are real does not magically bring them into existence, and repeating that they are real over and over again will not alter this reality.' I fully understand the claim that you are making, but the claim is baseless. Correct me if I'm wrong, the typical argument goes something like this: 'Human beings have inalienable rights. These rights do not come from government; therefore, nobody has the right to deny or violate them.' Is that your position?"

"Yes, basically; it sounds right to me. That is the main purpose of every civilized government, isn't it? To protect human rights?"

"You are drifting away from the point, Alex, so let me try again. Pretend for a moment that you can choose between having a right to do something or having the might to do something. Which would you choose?"

"If I don't have the right to do something, then I shouldn't do it, even if I have the might."

"It is a simple question, Alex. Which would you rather have? The right or the might to do something?"

"I'd rather have the right. If I don't have the right, then I wouldn't do it."

"Are you sure?"

"Yes."

"OK, I want to challenge that position. You are familiar with what Hitler did to the Jews during World War II, correct? You are familiar with the horrible suffering inflicted on them."

"Yes, but—"

"And you would certainly argue that they had the right not to be rounded up, tortured, and incinerated."

"Yes—"

"And the Nazis, you would argue, had no right to do what they did to the Jews, correct?"

"Of course they didn't have the right! Are you saying they had a right to do it? Are you trying to tell me that what the Nazis did to the Jews was OK?" Alex demanded.

"No. That's a moral argument, and I'm not interested in a moral argument. We're trying to determine if human rights, as you believe them to be, actually exist. So, continuing, if the Jews had the inalienable right to not be rounded up, tortured, and incinerated, how come that right did nothing to protect them? And if the Nazis had no right to do what they did, how come they were able to do so? Let me rephrase that: Assuming human rights actually do exist, what good are they if they can do nothing to protect you from aggression?"

Alex was again dumbstruck. His mind frantically searched for an answer, but Howard continued before he could muster a single word.

"Now, if you were to ask the Jews which they would rather have—the right to stop the Nazis or the might to stop the Nazis—which do you think they'd choose?"

Alex's heart sank as he considered the harsh reality that he'd just been forced into. Still, he wasn't ready to surrender. He was certain that something about Howard's argument was wrong, he just couldn't put his finger on it. He did his best to undermine Howard's position.

"That's not right. It's not. I see what you're doing. You're saying that power or might is the most important thing. You're saying rights are meaningless. OK, you need to have both; I'll give you that. You need to have both the right and the might, but if you're saying it's just about having the might, then that's just wrong. It's criminal. You're saying, 'Screw morals and justice; all that matters is power.' I won't accept that!"

"Alex, you are becoming emotional again, and it's causing you to miss the point. I know this makes you uncomfortable, but slow down and think about what I am telling you. Rights do not exist. Or, if they do exist, they are meaningless. In the real world, there are only two things that can protect you from aggression: the mercy of your attacker or the ability to resist. When the first one fails, only the second can save you. Even if you believe in things like morality and justice, you must acknowledge the necessity of power."

"I did. I just said that! I said that you need to have both power and the right to use it! And what do you mean by if I believe in things like morality and justice? Now you're going to claim they're not real either? That they're just part of the illusion too?" Alex was nearly hysterical as he stared at the laptop in disbelief.

"Again, Alex, we are not going to make any progress until you gain control of your emotions. You are much weaker in this regard than I would have imagined. Do you want to learn, or do you want to protest? I cannot continue like this."

Howard's condescending statements were beginning to wear on Alex's nerves. They irritated him, but that wasn't so bad. He preferred irritation to feeling helpless.

"I want to protest! I don't agree with what you're saying! I have a right . . .Excuse me . . .I have a desire to dispute what you're saying. Do you expect me to just accept everything that comes out of your mouth? Isn't that a perfect example of 'argument from authority'? Isn't my refusal to blindly accept what you're telling me part of what separates me from the herd?"

This was the first comeback Alex was actually satisfied with. He sat a little taller as he waited for Howard's answer.

"Very clever, Alex. I do not have a problem with some formal debating, but you are not debating. And yes, your ability to question is a good quality, but it is completely neutralized by your emotional instability. I am attempting to—"

"What do you expect?" Alex wailed. "Do you actually expect me to not be emotional when you're saying that—"

"SHUT UP, Alex, and listen to what I am saying! You do not have to accept my statements without question, but if you expect to challenge me effectively, you do have to be able to think rationally. Emotions, especially fear and anger, impede rational thought. This is an irrefutable, scientifically established fact that we use to our advantage every single day. We intentionally immerse the inferior class in these emotions because it impairs their ability to think. So, I will say it one more time: Whether you want to learn from me or prove me wrong, your hysterical state of mind only impedes your ability to do either. Continuing like this is a waste of our time."

Alex hated the flustered and frantic feeling in his gut, the racing and disorganized thoughts in his mind. It was a far cry from the methodical, clear, focused thinking that he'd experienced just the day before. He hated to admit it, but Howard was right. He needed to regain his composure. After a moment, he blurted out:

"OK, you're right. I am being too emotional. But don't you agree that most people would get very emotional over this?"

"What difference does it make how most people would respond? If you want me to say it is normal for a person to become hysterical when they learn a disagreeable fact, fine, it is normal. But you are just trying to soothe your ego now. That won't help you either."

"OK, I get it. I will try. Let's just move on, OK?" Alex replied.

"I hope you understand that I am trying to help you here, Alex. I'm trying to walk you into a deeper understanding of the illusion. As I said a moment ago, it is critical that you learn to differentiate between reality and what you believe is reality. We are in our position of power because we know the difference. Every deception that you believe puts you at a disadvantage. Every truth that we understand increases ours. Does this make sense to you?"

"Yes," Alex replied sincerely.

"I also want you to understand that there are often multiple layers of deception involved in maintaining or increasing our advantage. To prevent the accumulation of power among the inferior class, we employ many different tactics. I hope you realize this. Do you realize that I have only covered a small number of the techniques that we use to secure and expand our power?"

"I haven't really thought about it," Alex replied.

"Keep that in mind as we continue. There are many specifics that you will learn in the months and years to come. In the meantime, just remain focused on the basic framework I've provided you: power is the only valid goal, we use deception to gain it, and anything that increases our advantage is open for consideration. If you allow yourself to think within those parameters, unemotionally and rationally, your mind will begin to see the world as it is. You will also understand why we have been so effective.

"On the other hand, if you cling to emotionalism and myths about how the world should be, you will waste your life fighting for things that cannot be had. You will squander all of your power in the pursuit of powerlessness."

Alex was losing faith in his ability to compete with Howard's intellect. He simply didn't know enough to stand toe-to-toe with the man on the other side of the computer. He decided the only way he could fix that problem was to keep his mouth shut and listen. More importantly, if he was honest, he had to admit that he was truly intrigued by the insights and advice Howard was sharing. Learning about the tactics used against the masses, learning the importance of controlling his emotions, viewing human rights in a way he'd never considered—all of these things were interesting, and, if nothing else, they added to his knowledge base. He didn't have to agree with Howard's opinions in order to benefit from what he had to teach.

"Are you ready to continue?" Howard asked.

"Actually, I think I am," Alex replied. "And I just want to say, now that I'm a little calmer, I can see your point about rights. I don't like what you're saying, but it's obviously true. My right not to be attacked won't protect me from an attacker, and the fact that an attacker has no right to attack me won't stop them from doing so. What I'm trying to say is, to answer your earlier question, if I was a Jew during the Holocaust, I would have rather had the might to resist."

"That is a very rational position, Alex. Can you tell the difference between your initial response and this one?"

"It's just obvious; that's all," Alex said. "The Nazis had no right, and that didn't stop them; the Jews had every right but couldn't do anything. Justice failed; immorality won."

"Yes, Alex, but if you apply the same careful consideration to the concepts of justice and morality, you will see that they are no more real than rights. They, too, are dubious at best."

"OK, I'm listening," Alex replied.

"Justice is nothing more than an arbitrary label given to denote punishment, and punishment is nothing but a euphemism for the application of power. There is no such thing as justice in the larger sense of the word. It's an entirely subjective concept, and, just like rights, justice is helpless against a superior force.

"There is also a fundamental flaw with the concept itself, the idea that justice can somehow undo injustice is easily falsified. When I was very young, my father explained it to me this way: If a man kills another human being and then is put to death for his act, the masses imagine that their beloved justice has been served. But the victim is still dead, his family and loved ones still grieve, and nothing that was lost can ever be restored.

"Taking it a step further, when a 'crazed leader' kills a thousand human beings, or ten thousand or a million, how absurd does the concept of justice become? Even if the leader is eventually punished or put to death, which is far from guaranteed, hasn't he still cheated justice? Or, consider the subjective angle of the argument: If the leader believes that justice requires him to kill as many of his enemies as possible—men, women, and children—and he manages to kill millions in exchange for his one life, is he disappointed? Or does he go to his grave knowing that justice was served?"

"I already know that I'm going to regret this reply, but here goes," Alex said. "The mass murderer might think he secured justice by killing millions of men, women, and children, but I don't think anyone else would see it that way."

"That depends on who is controlling the propaganda, Alex. But even if I accept your statement, it doesn't resolve any of the main issues with the concept itself."

"OK, so what is the answer? People shouldn't believe in or seek justice because it is only a matter of opinion and can't really be secured?"

"That depends on the people you are referring to. The dominant class does not believe in or seek justice for the reasons we've just gone over. The inferior class, on the other hand, is encouraged to do both. Do you know why?"

"I assume it increases your advantage, but I'm not sure how," Alex said.

"We view justice rationally, Alex. When we watch a man being dragged into court and punished, we see it for what it is: the application of power, nothing more. We do not assign any imagined/emotional higher purpose or greater good to the process.

"The masses hold a very different view. To them, justice represents some sort of divine principle that must be defended at all costs. The concept throws them into an emotional state that's so powerful, it destroys their ability to think rationally. They are willing to pay any price to have it, and we are happy to accept their terms. 'Give us power,' we say, 'and we will give you justice.' It works every time. In fact, anything that creates an emotional state that leads to uncritical cooperation increases our advantage. A desire to help others or a 'good cause' is every bit as powerful. In short, whether they want to help or harm others, we can use the herd's emotionalism as a pretext to expand our power over them."

Without thinking, Alex repeated the phrase Howard had used a week earlier: "Pretexts for policies. . ."

"Correct, every policy must have an effective pretext before implementation. The masses believe the purpose of education is to empower their children; it is not. The purpose of war is to protect their rights; it is not. The purpose of income tax is to help government implement the will of the people; it is not. Each deception is merely a pretext. Each serves our one overarching policy, which is to increase our advantage and expand our power. Are you beginning to see?"

"It seems pretty straightforward," Alex said.

"Please explain it in your own words," Howard replied.

"Well, nobody would go to war just to increase your power, so there needs to be a pretext. Nobody would allow you to tax them so you could further your interests at their expense, so there needs to be a pretext. Nobody would let you educate their children to your advantage, so there needs to be a pretext. Pretty simple, right?" Alex asked.

"You are correct. Now, let's go a little further into the concept of expanding power. There are three primary ways for us to increase our advantage over others. Do you think you can name them?"

"I don't know," Alex replied. "I'm not sure I understand."

"There are really only three ways to increase your advantage over another person or group. What do you think they are? Keep in mind, of the three approaches, one of them is far superior to the other two."

"I can deceive them?" Alex asked.

"Deception is more of a tactic. Think in terms of the result after you have implemented your plan. Assume that the goal was to increase your advantage, and you have managed to do so in one of three ways. What is measurably different when you are done?" Howard asked.

"I really don't know," Alex replied.

"Well, think about it, Alex. What would be measurably different?"

"I'm stronger?" Alex replied with uncertainty.

"Of course," Howard replied. "That's what it means to increase your advantage. You become stronger than your adversary. So, name an area in which you might become stronger. Consider your current position. What could change that would make you stronger?"

"Well, I'd be in a lot better shape if I had more money."

"OK, that is correct. If, at the end of a particular effort, you have added to your supply of an asset—your base supply of money, your base of weapons, your base of knowledge, political power, etc.—and, assuming your adversary has not increased their supply beyond what you have gained, then you have advanced your position. That's the easy one. How else can you increase your advantage?"

A few seconds passed before the light bulb went on in Alex's head. "The other people have less!" he blurted out.

"Very good," Howard replied. "If you take actions that lead to a decrease in your adversary's supply of an asset, you advance your position just the same. You have named the two most obvious ways to increase your advantage. Now, what is the most powerful way of all?"

Alex sat silent for some time, but he could not think of another way to increase the gap between himself and a potential adversary. He could add to what he had or subtract from what they had. "What else is there?" he thought. Just as the silence became awkward, Howard spoke.

"It's not intuitive, Alex, so I will spare you the uncomfortable silence. The most powerful way to increase your advantage is to increase your supply by extracting it from your adversary."

Alex still looked confused, so Howard continued.

"Let's go over all three approaches again. For ease of explanation, I will provide examples that use money as the asset:

"If you have $2 and your adversary has $2, you have no economic advantage. However, if you increase your supply to $3, while your adversary remains at $2, you have advanced your position."

"OK, I got that," Alex replied.

"If you both start with $2, but you create a situation where your adversary has to spend $1, you have also advanced your position. He is down to $1, while you still have $2."

"Got it," Alex said.

"However, the most powerful way to advance your position is to confiscate $1 from your adversary. Now, you have $3, and he only has $1. Do you see how much more powerful this approach is? One move triples your advantage."

Alex shook his head, half in disbelief and half in admiration. "I hate to admit it, but that's something I don't think I would have ever thought of."

"Nearly everything we do is structured in this way. The goal is always to drain power and resources away from the inferior class. We make them build the system that empowers us and weakens them. It increases our leverage dramatically."

"I suppose that objecting to all of this on moral grounds would be meaningless?" Alex asked.

"The concept of morality is even more subjective than justice," Howard replied.

Alex felt an unexpected twinge of irritation creep back into his body. He remained reasonably calm, but his tone leaned toward contempt.

"Howard, do you really believe that morality is unimportant? Wouldn't you at least admit that what Hitler did was immoral?"

"You are probably not ready for this conversation. I feel like we've made some progress, and I am reluctant to push you too hard. If it helps you, I can admit that I understand why you feel Hitler's actions were immoral."

"You don't think his actions were immoral?" Alex prodded.

"They were neither moral nor immoral because morality, like the concept of human rights, does not actually exist. Morality is a subjective and emotional contrivance. Hitler believed he was making the world a better place. Those who fought him believed they were making the world a better place. Both believed that their actions were moral."

"But how does that mean morality isn't real? Just because one person or group is wrong, how does that make morality disappear?" Alex asked.

"It can't disappear because it never existed. Let me try a different approach. Please answer honestly: Is gravity moral or immoral? Is fire moral or immoral? Is a tsunami moral or immoral?"

Howard succeeded, yet again, in turning Alex on his head. Rather than wait for an answer, Howard continued.

"When gravity pulls a small child off a cliff to its death, has it acted immorally? When fire burns through a house and kills everyone inside, has it acted immorally? When a tsunami indiscriminately wipes out a hundred thousand lives in an instant, has it acted immorally?"

"These are just a part of nature," Alex protested. "So no, they're not immoral. They can't think about what they're doing. It's not the same."

"Are you suggesting that we are not a part of nature?"

"No, but we are alive, and there is a—"

"Are lions alive?" Howard interrupted. "Is it immoral when a lion preys on a powerless baby gazelle that has no chance of escape and no chance of defending itself? Or consider the issue of infanticide. Have you ever seen video of a male lion coming into an established pride, chasing off the weaker males, and then killing all of the cubs? If you haven't, it is very instructive. The frightened cubs huddle together and helplessly wait their turn as the new leader comes for them, one by one, and tears their stomachs open. Does that sound immoral? Is it immoral when, after all her cubs have been torn apart, the female lion seeks out sex with the same lion who committed the act?

"Do you know why she seeks out sex with that specific male, Alex? Because he has proven his superiority—that's why. He possesses the power to protect her and his offspring from the same fate. Wouldn't it be immoral for her not to want to protect her offspring?"

"You're right, Howard. I'm not ready for this conversation," Alex said.

"The law of power is ubiquitous in nature, Alex. This is the point I'm trying to make. You can label an action moral or immoral if you like, but the label is subjective and irrelevant. It pulls you back into an emotional mindset and impairs your ability to see the simple truth. Answer this question for me: What purpose, aside from emotional gratification, does the label 'morality' serve?"

"No, let me ask you a question, Howard," Alex demanded. "Is it OK, since lions do it, for a human to break into somebody's house and eat their children? It sounds to me like that is what you're saying. Some crazy person who kills and eats children is nothing more than a lion doing what nature intended."

"What if I say to you, 'no, it is not OK'?" Howard asked.

"Then at least I'd feel like I'm talking to a human being and not a complete psychopath," Alex replied.

"And I assume this satisfies you emotionally, more so than if I said the opposite?"

"Yes, it does," Alex replied.

"You do understand what the word 'subjective' means, correct?"

"Yes."

"Tell me what it means," Howard said.

"It's basically a person's point of view, their individual opinion."

"Close enough. Will you concede that some people might hold the opinion that cannibalism is OK and that children are particularly tasty?"

"Ha ha, very funny," Alex replied.

"It wasn't meant to be funny. It is a yes or no question."

"OK, fine. Yes. Now what?" Alex replied with an impatient tone.

"Now, we are back to where we began with human rights. In fact, we could argue this entire hypothetical situation from a human-rights perspective. That is: a child has a right not to be eaten, but neither rights nor morality possess the power to prevent it from happening.

"Alex, this is all relatively simple if you remove the emotional element. Regardless of the labels you use to justify your actions—morality, human rights, justice, etc.—they are nothing more than that: labels and justifications. Power is not a justification. Power is real and measurable. Unlike rights and morality, it is an absolute force that must be obeyed. It enables you to act according to your wishes, and, by any rational means of determination, that is the only thing that matters."

"Well, what if I think morality matters? I hear what you're saying, that morality is subjective and not a force that must be obeyed. Fine, I guess I can accept that. People support all sorts of things that I think are totally immoral, and they act as if they're the good guys, so I do understand that argument. But what if I use morality to guide my own behavior? What if my view of morality prevents me from doing things that I shouldn't do?"

"Things you shouldn't do? Who do you think is making that decision, Alex?"

"I am," Alex replied.

"Exactly. We are still dealing with your subjective view of morality."

"Yeah, but—" Alex began but was immediately cut off.

"Alex, we really need to move on. I am trying to teach you how to think rationally. Since you are not ready to give up your emotional attachments, look at it this way for now: If you believe something is moral, you need power, not morality, to perpetuate it. If you believe something is immoral, you need power, not morality, to stop it. I had really hoped that we could skip this step, but apparently, we cannot. It's OK. If you can accept the premise that, regardless of whether an aim is moral or immoral, only power determines the capacity to act, you will eventually see the uselessness of these labels. Can you accept the premise?"

Alex's thoughts returned to the issue of Hitler and the Jews. If he wanted to do the morally correct thing and protect the Jews—or anyone else being slaughtered, for that matter—he needed the power to do so. And if he was a genocidal psychopath who wanted to slaughter them, he needed the power to do so. Howard had boiled it down to its simplest form: whether moral or immoral, only power determines the capacity to act. There was no way to undermine his argument.

"I have no choice but accept it," Alex replied. "But I still think that morality is—"

"You have answered the question, Alex. Let the rest of it go for now. We have too much ground to cover. If you understand the need for power, you will eventually understand the futility of subjective abstractions that hinder its acquisition and application.

"I am going to be mostly unavailable until the twenty-first of next month. That gives you approximately six weeks to continue your reading and research. Of the four books remaining, I want you to read Tragedy and Hope next. It is a long and extremely fact-dense book, so you will need to take your time. When the author references geographic locations that you are unfamiliar with, I want you to look at a map. In fact, it would be best if you go online and print some maps for easy reference. Find a map for North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. Print more specific maps too, the Middle East, for instance. This will help you begin to learn the different positions on the global chessboard.

"There will also be many references to historical events that you are unfamiliar with. If it's presented as historically significant, look it up and gain at least a cursory understanding. As with the other books, write notes and be sure to include the page number that the note is associated with. Don't rush. If you complete forty to fifty pages per day, you will be doing well.

"When you complete Tragedy and Hope, I want you to read Diplomacy. Approach the book knowing that it was written by one of the most rational minds on the planet. Dr. Kissinger demonstrates the genius and unemotional honesty required to function at the apex of power. He will greatly expand your understanding of the real world because he, in large part, has helped shape it.

"I've provided the final two books to demonstrate hopeless irrationality. The authors are clearly intelligent; they see the real world as it is, but they refuse to accept it. Like thousands of other authors before them, they dig up and present facts in an attempt to 'warn' the inferior class. Their emotionalism and belief in subjective abstractions makes them blind to the nature of the herd. They appeal to reason where none exists."

"Just to clarify," Alex interrupted, "when you say they believe in subjective abstractions, you mean things like human rights, justice, and morality, correct? And, because they believe in things like this, that's why they want to 'warn the herd'?"

"Yes, and it is an inexcusable waste of their time," Howard replied.

"Why is that, again?" Alex asked.

"Because they are trying to reach an audience that is only interested in mindless entertainment, consumption, and social status. They are trying to reach an audience that is not only incapable of sustained thought, it has no desire to attempt it. The overwhelming majority will never even look at the material. As for the extremely small percentage of the population who will take the time to read, think about, and comprehend the facts presented, they have no power. The information is therefore useless. The authors squander their lives in the service of nothing."

Alex sat back and listened to Howard as he went on about the futility of trying to help the inferior class understand the real world. "You might as well walk into a field of cows and strike up a conversation. Carefully explain what the nice man who gives them food, water, shelter, and medical care ultimately plans to do with them. It would be equally as fruitful. Hand them a book while you're at it."

When Alex began the day, he was nearly certain it would end with him telling Howard to go to hell. Somehow, the opposite happened. He was now back to accepting reading assignments and wondering where it was all going to lead.